Origins And Cultural Contacts 341
Carpathian Basin. Instead they seem to be imported weapons from a period
when these weapon burial rites were no longer exercised in the western ter-
ritories, and they had not yet appeared in Moravia and old Croatia (Dalmatia).
This type is therefore regarded as a transitional type.
3.2.2 Edged Weapons
3.2.2.1 Spathae
Similarly intensive relations can be observed in the case of edged weapons of
the 8th century. From the beginning of the 8th century the long seaxes became
a widely spread and common single-edged weapons. Double-edged spathae
were used but in much smaller numbers (E.I.A/2.a). These swords differ from
the early spathae, since these examples from the 8th century always have iron
crossguard and pommel.
The classification of the 8th-century spathae focused mainly on the cross-
guard and pommel (‘Gefäß’ in German) of the sword, its blade only seldom
being examined. The basic classification was created by Elis Behmer,263 and
later Frauke Stein studied the double-edged swords from the 8th century264
who also described examples from the Carpathian Basin.265 Double-edged
swords from Viking-period Scandinavia were studied by Jan Petersen, how-
ever, most of these swords date to later periods (9th–10th centuries).266 His
classification was based on the fittings of the hilt, mainly the pommel, and it
has proved the most used division of these double-edged swords.267 Research
on double-edged swords was readdressed by Alfred Geibig who emphasised
a combined classification of pommel, crossguard and blade, the latter hith-
erto a neglected field. Based on his classifications of the pommel, crossguard
and blade, Geibig created 19 combination types for hilt-fittings (‘Gefäß’) and
14 types of blade, meaning these weapons were addressed more completely,
being comprised of several different parts.268
The identification of a narrower type of this sword is difficult to establish,
since only top-view or plan and cross section drawings are available and which
focus on the pommel. It seems likely that it belongs to the Petersen B type, thus
263 Behmer 1939.
264 Stein 1967, 9–12.
265 Stein 1968, 239.
266 Petersen 1919, 50–180.
267 This classification was followed by Kirpichnikov (1966), Kovács (1990, 39–4; Kovács 1993,
45–60; Kovács 1994–95, 153–189) and Ewart Oakshott (1964).
268 Geibig 1991, 20–21.