+VLFBERHT: name? Brand? Invocation?

[Reventlov]

Hi Jim!

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The bishops and abbots of the abbeys were of course the quartermasters for weapons, and just as they typically affixed the CROSS to their names on signed documents, this convention applied to markings on sword blades.
Rather than religious connotation, it was more of a symbol of ecclesiastical or monastic authority.

The suggestion that the crosses on Ulfberht swords refer to ecclesiastical rank I think originally comes from Anne Stalsberg. Her work on the Ulfberht group is excellent, but I think this little detail is not well founded. It is quite typical on medieval documents for everyone to sign their name with a cross. Of course, early medieval documents were written by scribes and the concept of a "personal signature" is a modern one. Many people, even of high rank, might be illiterate or semi-literate – able to read but not write. On some documents you can guess from the penmanship that parties drew the sign of the cross themselves – they "made their mark" – and then scribes filled in the text of their name. In other cases, scribes might simply list all the names of witnesses, for example, each preceded with a cross. I attach an example showing at upper right the "signature" of William the Conqueror and his wife and son, as well as the earl of Warenne and other secular notables.



To confirm that "Ulfberht" is indeed a personal name, Stalsberg searched the confraternity books of several Swabian monasteries, which provide a database of many thousands of names. The closest spelling appearing there is "Uuolfberht" (Wolfberht). Spelling in this time was highly variable and inconsistent. Perhaps the precise spelling "Ulf-" was customary in some other region. The confraternity books can be used to compare other names found on early medieval swords. For example, CEROLT which appears on a single example from Russia. This is a documented spelling of a Germanic name which is modernized as "Gerold" (Cerolt/Kerolt/Kerold/etc). On this sword, the name appears unadorned, without any crosses, and like Ulfberht without the phrase me fecit. Nevertheless, it seems most natural to interpret these blade-names as referring to a maker or master responsible for producing the sword.



I think comparing sword inscriptions with epigraphs on other objects is likely the most fruitful approach. I have found Elisabeth Okasha's work on Anglo-Saxon inscriptions useful. Some similar trends can be observed here. Many inscriptions begin with a single cross, particularly but not universally, makers' inscriptions with me fecit. Some swords do follow this template. The identity of the "maker" is always somewhat ambiguous, but scholarly consensus is that it most often refers to the artisan himself. There are cases where it conclusively refers to the commisioner, e.g. an abbot who "made" a new facade for his church. Some artisans, like bellfounders, were typically monks themselves, but maker's inscriptions appear on a wide variety of artifacts whose production was not inherently linked to church authority.



It is interesting that beginning early with VLFBERHT, sword inscriptions mostly follow a standard of two crosses, at beginning and end, which is relatively rare on other kinds of objects (but not unknown, as shown by ring above). I think symmetry may have had a strong appeal in this setting, as evidenced by the number of palindromes that later appear on sword blades, the best-known being SOS and OSO. The standard geometric design on the reverse of VLFBERHT blades is also a symmetric one, as are many other early inscriptions composed of bars, circles, crosses, and other signs. Symmetry can be recognized by all, literate or otherwise, and could enhance the visual impression of the inscription, which might translate to greater mystical or magical power.

[Jim McDougall]

Reventlov, I am so glad to have you in on this!! and you make many resounding points, especially noting the matter of scribes!!! I had not thought of that, and that is most important about their application of the crosses on documents.
The question of these names/wordings applied to blades by illiterate workmen copying these scribed documents would definitely account for the often seen variation in spellings, wording etc.
Also the well made point about symmetry makes perfect sense. Even in native cultures applying certain symbolism to material culture items, the intent is of course often magic imbuement, so aesthetics having to do with the kinds of balance key to such ethereal values would be important.

At this point, I really am compelled to agree that ULFBERHT was likely a name and as mentioned, wonder if by the character of the meaning of the name etymologically became attractive in the sense of a 'brand' in the manner centuries later with ANDREA FERARA.

While Andrea Ferara was indeed a living individual, his name in literal terms meant good steel effectively, so was readily adapted as a trademark. While obviously there were many master blademakers, their names did not carry that instant impact of direct meaning.

With ULFBERHT, the key word element 'wolf' represented the fierce and legendary 'berserk' warriors, and Vikings were attracted to such totemic similes and wordings as many named their own weapons. I personally have always felt that the ubiquitous 'running wolf of Passau' was a slightly later graphic imbuement carrying similar concept toward warriors.

If you are choosing a powerful sword to wield in battle, what better choice than such magic imbuement in the blade?

Naturally other kinds of imbuement became well known with religious invocations, phrases and mottos, in many cases abbreviated , DIC, NED etc. as you note on palindromes. including many curious acrostics which appear as mysterious jumbled letters, while the warrior ethos remained present in degree though such symbols as the wolf.

[urbanspaceman]

This is a foreign territory for me except in one instance: having been in photographic sales (cameras, lenses etc) and also in Hi-Fi sales back in the seventies and 'eighties when performing wasn't keeping a roof over my head.
What I think we must remember is that traders have never changed, in that they get out of bed in the mornings to make as much money as possible (seems perfectly reasonable). "CAVEAT EMPTOR" is the example of our response to those tricky dealers who think nothing of adding anything to a product's description in the hope it will stimulate sales.
It prevails right across history and, naturally, still exists everywhere today. "DIGITAL" was appended to all and sundry back in the 'nineties as a way to imply state-of-the-art technology - even if it was a washing machine that they were selling!
Traders being well aware of the ultra-high standard of the ULFBERHT blades (that were probably in very short supply) would be quite content to add the moniker to anything in their stock. I don't know enough about this issue to apply this to those blades in question but consider today's system of making subtle modifications to the moniker in order not to contravene trademarks etc; or to suggest "even better!" of the product.
Just thought I might remind everyone of the realities of retail.

[Jim McDougall]

Well noted Keith! and this area is totally a learning curve for me as well, and more fascinating as we move onward.

These practices of imitation and commerce are absolutely nothing new, despite obviously changes in technology etc. human nature prevails;

"...the more things change, the more they are the same"
Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
in "Les Guepes" 1849
French journalist, novelist

[urbanspaceman]

Hey Jim, this is just one area that you have opened up for exploration on the forum but, ironically enough, it is probably the most important.
I have asked a few questions myself over my time spent getting to the source of the Shotley Bridge story and I am still exploring the perimeters of that tale and finding that answers are not readily available.
I keep thinking that - being such a newcomer - others, far more experienced, must have already tread these paths but... one thing I am almost absolutely convinced of is, if it was ever written down, you will have a copy in your boundless library. So when it stumps you too I realise this is yet another area remaining unexplored over the centuries.
I can see why so many collectors constrain their efforts to 1800 onwards. Personally, I prefer the challenge. Glutton for punishment.

[Jim McDougall]

Very true, most of this history and study of these ancient arms entails some of the most arcane material imaginable, and gets very scientific and technical , very much my weakest areas. But recently I have become determined to finally dig deeper into this material, all the more perplexing due to the conflicting ideas and perspectives of the scholarly material which is at hand.

Thanks for the note on my library, which is indeed formidable as it is more of an archaeological dig than simple pulling a book off a shelf.
Quite honestly I am virtually always stumped on something, which is wht I write here. I pour out compiled data from my research (why my missives are so loquacious) hoping for corrections and elucidation.

It is not gluttony for punishment, but an obsessive quest for resolution.

Ive learned more than can be imagined tracking with you on the mysteries of Shotley! and hope to keep following those methods and tenacity into this most formidable area. This is the place to do it, as those already active on this thread are among the 'heavy hitters' already well into this material.

[Lee]

Reventlov - most interesting, illuminating and compelling arguments that make good sense to me. Thank you!

Entirely peripheral to this discussion, I especially enjoyed the small beast on the ring at the start of the name as it so reminds me of similar figures on Scottish annular brooches so many centuries later. I wonder what these were intended to represent.

Urban.. and Jim - I guess it makes sense that inscriptions and markings that could also carry additional meaning or attributes would have been preferred and the use and copying of these marks in time and place is most interesting. Thank you.