-
-
Well share! that looks like a late 9th/early 10th century sword but the inscription is in roman alphabet not runic
-
possibly from the Danelaw?
-
nah the ulfbert. the Viking sword 800 years ahead of its time.
-
why would it be ahead of its time if it was made in its time? My understanding is the crucible and damascus methods were abandoned in Europe in favor of the Toledo one, simply put.
-
because the Damascus/crucible steel was from the middle east. and at the time had a lot of carbon in it. whereas this steel had next to none. and the methods for doing this weren't replicable for the next 800 years.https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-technology/step-closer-mysterious-origin-viking-sword-ulfberht-002455 …
-
what do you mean they weren't replicable though. You mean from the *aleatory* european mainstream POV?To my knowledge it went merrily on in the ME/India till the 1800sI find the distinction nonsensical,just like claiming the, idk, Antikythera OOPART to be "2k y ahead of its time"
-
like, no other swords from the era have next to no carbon in them. the method to get no carbon in them (heating the metal to 3000+ degrees) wouldn't be really possible till 800 years later. it's still unknown how they were even made
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.