Danish Pallask

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by E Farrell

There are several reasons for that.

It is aided slightly by manipulation of the contrast and colour balance of that particular photo.


There is also a healthy dose of luck involved. I have attached a picture of the mark on the other side of the blade to this post. It is, from what I can tell, the same mark, but more poorly preserved.


It is also partly due to the methods used in the original conservation. At the time when this was conserved, it was still standard practice to remove overlying corrosion with a pneumatic/dental abrasive wheel. It's a bit violent, and it removes slightly too much. I would posit a guess - though I don't know; the records are pretty terrible - that some overlying material was left in place around the marks. This would also account for the colour difference and slightly higher surface in those areas. In all honesty, this is probably the biggest contributory factor; the original conservator was a bit less harsh in those areas. Worth noting, that's also the reason everybody has pretty much switched to air-abrasive systems instead of abrasive wheels; you're far more able to retain the original surface with modern treatments.

Also, there is some visual benefit from the surface treatment. Archaeological iron used to (and in may places still does) get a final coat of microcrystalline wax with carbon black pigment in it. The recessed areas of the mark have collected a thicker coat, and it adds to the contrast.

We apparently crossed posts Mr. Farrell, and I wanted to thank you for this excellent analysis of some of the probable reasons for this remarkably visible mark. It is most interesting to hear these kinds of details from archaeological perspective, an area I find fascinating but admit that I am notably deficient in. Thank you for adding this here.
Meanwhile, as noted in my other post, I am still trying to locate some reasonable match in pattern from the military swords of the period in these countries in resources I have. While I have a plausible idea, I still hope to find more definitive answer

Very best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Just to add, further search through the Swedish Arms & Armour Society annuals, in Vol. XIX (2004, p.10, in "Marken Pa Gamla Klingor" by Olof P.Berg) there is a walloon bilobate type cavalry sword captioned as from the 'low countries' c. 1650.
This is with straight blade and does not have the complex guard, but does have the knuckleguard etc.
Most interesting are the blade markings:
The triple X town marking for Amsterdam; the crowned shield with capital P; the name SAHAGOM (spurious Spanish marking typically found on Solingen blades to Netherlands ) and most important ...a stylized running wolf which is nearly identical to the one seen on the Nyborg sword.

I think these details again add to the likelihood of this being a Dutch sword, made in Solingen in years around 1650. I was surprised to find such a similar 'wolf' but even more with context associated with the Dutch swords.

[E Farrell]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Just to add, further search through the Swedish Arms & Armour Society annuals, in Vol. XIX (2004, p.10, in "Marken Pa Gamla Klingor" by Olof P.Berg) there is a walloon bilobate type cavalry sword captioned as from the 'low countries' c. 1650.
This is with straight blade and does not have the complex guard, but does have the knuckleguard etc.
Most interesting are the blade markings:
The triple X town marking for Amsterdam; the crowned shield with capital P; the name SAHAGOM (spurious Spanish marking typically found on Solingen blades to Netherlands ) and most important ...a stylized running wolf which is nearly identical to the one seen on the Nyborg sword.

I'm always amazed how much information comes out of this forum from a few meager photos.

Would you be willing to scan in that image and either post it in thread or email it to me directly? Or, if not, do you know where I might be able to obtain a copy of that issue?


At Cornelis: Excellent images; thank you. I was uncertain where one of the broken sections of the guard would have ended; those seem to clear that issue up nicely.

yes it is a backsword for a footsoldier and made in Solingen between 1675and 1725. the running wolf mark originally a Passau mark however frequently used by Solingen swordsmiths in the 17thC.

How firm is that 1675-1725 date range? I would really like this to be 1659 or earlier given where it was found, but because of the lack of good records I am not confident in that date for the sword based on context alone.

We apparently crossed posts Mr. Farrell,

Heh. I appear to have made a horrible mistake in choosing my username here; the 'first initial, last name' format brings on formal titles. I've got no objection to being 'E' or 'Farrell' or 'Hey, you over there'. I'd like to think I'm still too young to warrant a 'Mr.', but then that sentiment might itself be a sign of aging...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by E Farrell

I'm always amazed how much information comes out of this forum from a few meager photos.

Would you be willing to scan in that image and either post it in thread or email it to me directly? Or, if not, do you know where I might be able to obtain a copy of that issue?


At Cornelis: Excellent images; thank you. I was uncertain where one of the broken sections of the guard would have ended; those seem to clear that issue up nicely.



How firm is that 1675-1725 date range? I would really like this to be 1659 or earlier given where it was found, but because of the lack of good records I am not confident in that date for the sword based on context alone.






Heh. I appear to have made a horrible mistake in choosing my username here; the 'first initial, last name' format brings on formal titles. I've got no objection to being 'E' or 'Farrell' or 'Hey, you over there'. I'd like to think I'm still too young to warrant a 'Mr.', but then that sentiment might itself be a sign of aging...

Hello E,
Actually I customarily address people by first name, but used the title to ensure proper respect until otherwise informed. Personally I'm far into the age where Mr is expected by most, but I prefer Jim as that title does seem 'old'
The question re: the Swedish arms journals I will get back to you on.
As Jens has noted, the Royal Armouries are an excellent source of information, but here Jasper I think pretty much has the best information.

All the best,
Jim

[Martin Lubojacky]

Hello Jasper,
I think the first sword from the top which you show in #18 is not pallasch, but long thrusting sword. Such swords were especially used by (heavy) cavalry to penetrate chainmail (e.g. in wars with Turks). It has special name, which I do not remember in English (končíř in Czech or koncer in Polish)
Regards,
Martin

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Martin Lubojacky

Hello Jasper,
I think the first sword from the top which you show in #18 is not pallasch, but long thrusting sword. Such swords were especially used by (heavy) cavalry to penetrate chainmail (e.g. in wars with Turks). It has special name, which I do not remember in English (končíř in Czech or koncer in Polish)
Regards,
Martin

Hi martin,

yes that's right, it is not posted as an example of a pallash but as an example of early embossed hilt plates.

this one has been primarely used for stabbing, but is not an estoc.

best,
Jasper

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
These may be of interest. www.sabels.net/ (Dutch) www.arma-dania.dk/ (Danish) www.norskevaapen.no (Norwegian) http://www.sfhm.se/templates/pages/A...epslanguage=SV (Swedish)
Regards,
Norman.

[cornelistromp]

hi All,

@Jim
yes it is a backsword for a footsoldier and made in Solingen between 1675and 1725. the running wolf mark originally a Passau mark however frequently used by Solingen swordsmiths in the 17thC.


@all
swords of this type are originally from Eastern Europe and were used by "the catholic army", later exported to western european countries.

Most have a single punch plate, but some have a double like this one.
all have a blackened iron hilt with knuckleguards screwed or fixed in holes to the pommel and almost all have a thumbring. it is seen as the successor of the famous walloon sword.
it is a very effective sword but not a rare weapon, there are still many left to find in good condition.

best,
jasper

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for coming in on this Jasper, I was hoping you would!
Interesting examples you have illustrated (what source if I may ask), and as you note these were associated with the well known 'walloons' (the term they became called by after their prolific use in the Low Countries).

It would seem our example most corresponds to #47 in the plates you show, with single punch plate, similar quillon and what seems to be close to the guard configuration. It is a bit too distorted to be sure. The pommel is of course different and I cannot tell if there was a thumb ring.

In my research as I noted earlier, I kept finding later hits of similar system but they seemed typically of later period, as you note here. Also, I had always regarded these as cavalry swords but I am thinking of the bilobate shells and typical Walloons.

As I mentioned, the most difficult aspects of identifying this sword and its form are that Solingen was such a prolific producer of these and their variations over a long period and for many countries. I think the best thing going in this case is the apparent provenance from being excavated in this battlefield context, however the long lapse from its excavation and the reliability of records and its custody must be considered. It could be a weapon from later period and lost in the battlefield context long after the actual battle and therefore collateral rather than associated, but these things are left to speculation.

All very best regards,
Jim

[E Farrell]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It would seem our example most corresponds to #47 in the plates you show, with single punch plate, similar quillon and what seems to be close to the guard configuration. It is a bit too distorted to be sure. The pommel is of course different and I cannot tell if there was a thumb ring.

In my research as I noted earlier, I kept finding later hits of similar system but they seemed typically of later period, as you note here. Also, I had always regarded these as cavalry swords but I am thinking of the bilobate shells and typical Walloons.

As I mentioned, the most difficult aspects of identifying this sword and its form are that Solingen was such a prolific producer of these and their variations over a long period and for many countries. I think the best thing going in this case is the apparent provenance from being excavated in this battlefield context, however the long lapse from its excavation and the reliability of records and its custody must be considered. It could be a weapon from later period and lost in the battlefield context long after the actual battle and therefore collateral rather than associated, but these things are left to speculation.

Just missed your post. I would not particularly trust the 1659 date. All I have from the record is that it was found in the area of the Battle of Nyborg; I do not have a good, dated archaeological context. Obviously I would like for it to be from the battle, but it isn't even close to a certainty. Because I am working off a single line from a poor record from 1939, I have no idea if 'area of the Battle of Nyborg' means it was found on the actual battlefield, or found down a well shaft a couple kilometers away. Looking purely at the records, either could be true, so if comparable examples to this sword are only really found later, it would not be unreasonable to assume the sword post-dates the battle.


There is a thumb ring in the guard. I've attached a couple more photos to this post. If there are additional areas/angles of which a photo would be helpful, please let me know.

[cornelistromp]

a few small side notes;

at the excavated hilt were two side rings with plates! now 1 pierced plate is missing So No 49 corresponds better than No 47.

date between 1675 and 1725 is quite firm and given by JP Puype in his publication Mauritz to Munster. earlier than in 1659 does not seem likely.

actually the site of a weapon never gives such information, not on the date of a weapon, not where it is made, or by whom it is used, besides it is (almost Always) impossible to link to a certain battle.

it only says that it is lost there.


best,
Jasper

[VANDERNOTTE]

bonjour to everybody
question?
is this sword a pallask
is 40 inch long and it carrie no mark and no proof
regards
jacques