Introduction
Kaupang lay beside Viksfjord in Tjølling, Vestfold, on Norway’s southeastern coast. The Viking Age settlement occupied a sheltered coastal setting with access to maritime routes, while burial grounds extended across the surrounding farms and islands. These graves form an essential part of the evidence for Kaupang: they document the people associated with the settlement and provide material for examining burial practice, chronology and connections beyond the region (Tollnes 1981, 17–32; Heyerdahl-Larsen 1981, 47–48; Stylegar 2007, 67–68). The burial landscape was composed of several cemeteries and smaller grave clusters. Its principal components were the extensive barrow cemeteries at Nordre Kaupang and Lamøya and the flat graves at Bikjholberget; further burials are known from Søndre Kaupang, Bjønnes and other nearby locations. Cremation and inhumation were both practised, and some of the dead were buried in boats. The graves were therefore neither confined to one cemetery nor characterised by a single burial rite (Heyerdahl-Larsen 1981, 47–48; Stylegar 2007, 65–69).
The surviving record is uneven. Finds entered museum collections from 1842, and Nicolay Nicolaysen carried out the first excavations in 1867. Later investigations added substantially to the material, particularly at Bikjholberget. At the same time, cultivation, construction and earlier digging destroyed many graves or separated objects from their original contexts. Stylegar records 204 known grave finds and estimates that the burial grounds once contained substantially more graves than can now be documented. The cemeteries appear to have been used from around AD 800 until approximately the middle of the tenth century, although individual grave dates require careful assessment (Heyerdahl-Larsen 1981, 47, 51; Stylegar 2007, 65, 68–69, 73–74).
Swords are prominent among the weapons recovered from Kaupang. The 1981 publication identifies six Type H swords among the 25 swords it discusses, although their archaeological contexts and associated finds vary, and some assemblages may have been mixed before reaching the museum. Of particular interest among the Type H swords is the example from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang, which forms the focus of the present study. This article examines the sword and its burial context in detail and presents a reconstruction of the weapon based on the surviving archaeological evidence.
Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang
Fig. 1. Selected grave goods from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang, Vestfold. Photograph: Eirik Irgens Johnsen, Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO. UniMus catalogue, CC BY-SA 4.0.
Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang was excavated by Nicolay Nicolaysen in 1867. Its surviving assemblage is catalogued as C 4293–4315. The burial lay beneath a mound measuring more than 20 m in diameter, the largest investigated by Nicolaysen at Søndre Kaupang. It appears to have occupied a position within a larger cemetery, much of which was subsequently lost through cultivation. The mound’s size corresponded to the exceptional richness of its contents, a relationship that was not consistently observed elsewhere in the Kaupang cemeteries. However, the mound showed signs of earlier digging, and the recovered assemblage may therefore represent only part of its original contents (Blindheim et al. 1981, 75, 117–118, 210). The burial was a cremation, classified as a male equestrian burial on the basis of its grave goods. Several objects show substantial fire damage, and the museum’s main catalogue, as cited in the published description of the sword, records rust and burnt bone surrounding its upper guard (Blindheim et al. 1981, 207). Nicolaysen described the mounds at Søndre Kaupang collectively as containing layers of charcoal of varying thickness, within which the objects were found. For Grave 6, however, the surviving account provides neither a measurement of the cremation deposit nor a sufficiently detailed record of the distribution of the finds. Consequently, the arrangement of the body and equipment cannot be reconstructed securely, and it remains uncertain whether the surviving deposit represents the site of the pyre or material collected after cremation elsewhere (Blindheim et al. 1981, 112, 207).
The identification of Grave 6 as a boat burial rests principally on the surviving iron rivets. The catalogue records at least twelve, including four ship rivets with anchor-shaped heads, two of which are complete. Nicolaysen had already distinguished rivets of different sizes, but did not provide an exact count of those recovered. Blindheim (1981, 112) regarded the anchor-shaped rivets as diagnostic of boat construction and therefore identified Grave 6 as a secure boat burial. The large dimensions of the mound, together with the pronounced fire damage to some of the objects, prompted the suggestion that the boat might have been burnt on the spot. Nevertheless, the absence of detailed observations on the cremation layer prevents this possibility from being demonstrated (Blindheim et al. 1981, 111–112, 209).
The surviving evidence thus establishes a cremation burial beneath an unusually large mound, with boat remains and an extensive assemblage of grave goods. Earlier disturbance and the limited excavation record constrain any closer reconstruction of the funerary sequence. These limitations are particularly relevant to the interpretation of the sword: although its association with Grave 6 is documented, its original position within the burial and its spatial relationship to the other objects are unknown (Blindheim et al. 1981, 112, 117–118, 207–210).
The accompanying grave goods, described in the catalogue by Blindheim et al. (1981, 207–210), included a large spearhead of Petersen’s Type E, measuring 70.5 cm in length, with a slightly bent, pattern-welded blade; a Type D axe; and a now-lost shield boss, described as hemispherical with a narrow flange and tentatively assigned to Rygh 564. Two arrowheads survive: a slender tanged example and a socketed head with a tapering blade of square section. Equestrian and driving equipment included a fragmentary bronze bit, a large iron rattle with its accompanying hook, and a pair of iron objects accepted as stirrups despite reservations about their form and suspension. The bit was considered a western European import, probably Irish, with close parallels from Navan and Balladoole. Other bronze objects comprised a cylindrical swivel, possibly from a dog leash (Hrodberhtsson 2026); a small fitting interpreted as part of a bell or a gaming piece; and a looped stud that may have belonged to harness. A bear-like animal head, probably a chest fitting, apparently formed from a lead core covered with bronze, retained traces of fine iron chain and three broken rods.
The tools included a fragmentary sickle, two knife blades, a rasp, a spoon auger, a long slate whetstone and an unidentified iron implement with a twisted shaft and flattened triangular ends. A possible scythe fragment and two incomplete hooks, tentatively identified as fishing hooks, were also recorded. Two twisted iron hasps and associated fittings indicate a chest with a curved lid. Lock components, a possible key shaft, hinges and a probable handle attachment were identified among the remaining ironwork; the different hinge forms suggest that parts of a second chest may also be present. Numerous fragments were attributed to a large iron cauldron, probably made from a single sheet, with evidence of a possible repair at the rim. Further rim fragments and a possible handle attachment may also derive from a cauldron. A decorated, figure-of-eight object of whale bone, worn around its two perforations, was interpreted as a possible cord tensioner for a boat or tent. Two elongated iron fittings, decorated with copper-alloy strips and retaining traces of wood, were tentatively identified as scabbard mounts. The remaining finds included a possible spearhead socket, a possible shield-grip fragment, chain fragments, an iron rod bearing fused red glass, and miscellaneous fittings and unidentified iron fragments (Blindheim et al. 1981, 117–118, 207–210).
On the basis of the grave goods, Blindheim et al. (1981, 152) dated the burial to the first half of the ninth century.
The Sword
The H-Type Hilt
Type H represents one of the most numerous and geographically widespread forms within Petersen’s classification of Viking Age swords. Its use extended over a substantial part of the Viking Age, beginning in the early ninth century or possibly somewhat earlier and continuing into the tenth century. The type is particularly well represented in Scandinavia, but examples are also known from other parts of Europe. Within Norway, swords belonging to the broader H/I group occur in considerable numbers in several regions, including Vestfold (Jones 2002, 17; Androshchuk 2014, 56–63, 181–182). The hilt is characterised by substantial guards of oval or elliptical section and a broad, usually triangular pommel. Earlier examples tend to be more massive in appearance, and the sides of the guards may carry a distinct ridge. Decoration with copper and silver inlays is a recurrent feature, commonly forming contrasting bands or simple geometric patterns. The pommel was attached separately to the upper guard, although the method of attachment varies between surviving examples (Jones 2002, 17; Androshchuk 2014, 56–60). The traditional distinction between Petersen’s Types H and I is not straightforward. Petersen separated them largely on differences in proportions and chronology, whereas Androshchuk’s examination of hilt construction showed considerable overlap between the two groups. He consequently proposed combining Types H and I, together with Petersen’s special Type 20, within a single H/I group. In the following discussion, however, the Kaupang sword is referred to as Type H, in accordance with its original classification.
Fig. 2. Hilt of the sword from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang, shown from both faces and in side view. Photograph: Vegard Vike, Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO. UniMus catalogue, CC BY-SA 4.0.
As noted above, the Type H sword from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang shows clear signs of exposure to fire and is poorly preserved. All the metal components of the hilt survive, together with much of the blade, which is heavily corroded and broken into two pieces but appears to retain almost its full length. The hilt components have the characteristic forms of Type H, with the pommel cap secured to the upper guard by two rivets. Fragments of twisted metal wire were preserved between these two components (Blindheim et al. 1981, 207). Small areas of silver and copper inlay remain on the guards and pommel cap (Fig. 3). The decoration consists of alternating vertical bands of silver and copper, a pattern found on many Type H hilts. Each band comprises four adjacent wires of the same metal. This decoration probably originally covered the pommel cap and both guards, except for the underside of the upper guard and the upper and lower surfaces of the lower guard. This interpretation rests both on the absence of surviving inlay on these surfaces and on comparable Type H hilts, where the same areas are left free of inlay. Such surfaces are often covered with thin copper-alloy sheet, as on another Type H sword C57018/1 from Grave VII at Bikjholberget in Kaupang (Fig. 6). On the sword from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang, fragments of thin copper-alloy sheet are visible around the peened heads of the rivets securing the pommel cap to the upper guard. These probably represent the remains of a covering that extended across the entire underside of the upper guard, consistent with other examples of the type. The pommel cap and upper guard remain attached to the tang, and the distance between the guards indicates an original grip length of approximately 9.5 cm.
Fig. 3. Detail of the surviving inlay on the hilt. Photograph: Vegard Vike, Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO. UniMus catalogue, CC BY-SA 4.0.
The VLFBERHT Blade
The blade is now heavily corroded and broken into two pieces. Together with the hilt, the two fragments measure 90.5 cm in total length. The blade has a maximum surviving width of 4.7 cm, while the width of the fuller cannot be determined with confidence owing to its poor state of preservation. The blade bears an VLFBERHT (or ULFBERHT) inscription, although the inlay is incompletely preserved and not all of the letters survive in their entirety. The inscription is flanked by crosses, with a single cross at one end and a pair at the other. On the opposite face of the blade, the inlaid decoration consists of two saltire crosses with a group of approximately eight parallel strokes above them. A further small, indistinct cross is recorded immediately below the lower guard, while additional traces of inlay survive within the fuller. The museum catalogue further notes that X-radiography was used during the recataloguing of the Kaupang material to reveal obscured inscriptions on sword blades, although it does not explicitly state that the reading of the ++VLFBERHT+ inscription on the sword from Grave 6 depended on radiography (Blindheim et al. 1981, 199, 207).
Fig. 4. Details of both faces of the sword blade showing traces of the inlays: (A) the ++VLFBERHT+ inscription; (B) the reverse marks. Photograph: Vegard Vike, Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO. UniMus catalogue, CC BY-SA 4.0.
The ++VLFBERHT+ inscription on the Kaupang blade belongs to one of the two principal forms of the Vlfberht (Ulfberht) name, distinguished by the position of the last cross: after the final T, as here, or between H and T in +VLFBERH+T. The Frankish personal name and the letter forms favour an origin for the inscriptional tradition in the Frankish world, although neither identifies a particular workshop. Its pronounced Scandinavian distribution must also be considered against differences in burial practice, since furnished graves preserved numerous swords in regions where burial with weapons remained customary (Petri 2019, 2–4). The continued use of the name has been interpreted as a workshop designation transmitted across generations rather than the signature of a single smith (Androshchuk 2014, 179). For the Kaupang sword, however, the relationship between inscription and manufacture is more consequential than the identity originally attached to the name. In Williams’s metallographic study, +VLFBERHT+ defines Group B, comprising swords whose examined material differed from the predominantly high-carbon steels used to manufacture blades bearing the +VLFBERH+T inscription. Three of five examined swords had fully hardened edges; Williams inferred that the group generally combined steel cutting edges with iron bodies, interpreting these swords as imitations of high-carbon VLFBERHT blades (Williams 2009, 130–131, 139). This provides a relevant technological comparison for the sword from Grave 6 at Kaupang, but the interpretation of the inscription as evidence of imitation is disputed.
Petri observes that the chronological tendency identified by Stalsberg places +VLFBERHT+ slightly earlier than +VLFBERH+T, reversing the sequence implied by Williams’s argument. He also questions the assumed superiority of the high-carbon blades and proposes that the two principal inscriptional forms could distinguish workshops or manufacturing methods rather than originals and inferior copies (Petri 2019, 4, 6–9). Methodological reservations are equally important: Martens and Astrup stress that a small sample cannot be assumed to represent an entire blade, particularly where sampling positions and internal construction are insufficiently documented (Martens and Astrup 2021, 56–57). Consequently, the Kaupang inscription supports comparison with blades bearing hardened steel edges, but cannot establish that construction without examination of the blade itself. Nor does the name require the blade, inscription and hilt to have been produced together. Moilanen’s experiments demonstrate that ferrous inlays could be incorporated at different stages before final heat treatment and finishing, making the inscription of an imported blank technically possible; they do not establish where any particular blade was inscribed (Moilanen 2009, 33–36). Furthermore, imported blades were often fitted with locally made hilts in Scandinavia (Androshchuk 2014, 179–181). The possibility of separate production stages also means that the Type H hilt cannot by itself locate the manufacture of the blade. A blade of continental manufacture subsequently mounted in Scandinavia is therefore a plausible interpretation of the Kaupang sword, while manufacture or inscription outside the Frankish sphere remains possible. Its ++VLFBERHT+ inscription places it within a widely recognised tradition of named blades, but attribution to a specific workshop, identification of its steel, and classification as an imitation require evidence beyond the disposition of the crosses.
Reconstruction of the Sword
To explore how the sword from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang may originally have appeared, a digital reconstruction was prepared using the surviving evidence and the published description as its starting point. Vegard Vike’s drawing (Fig. 5), documenting the geometry of the hilt components and reconstructing the blade inscriptions, was central to this work. Corrosion leaves some details open to interpretation, particularly the precise profile of the blade, the width of its fuller and the original contours of the hilt components. These features were reconstructed through comparison with better-preserved examples, while the surviving traces of inlay provided a basis for restoring the decoration.
Fig. 5. Drawing of the sword from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang, with reconstructions of the ++VLFBERHT+ inscription and reverse marks. Drawing: Vegard Vike, Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO. UniMus catalogue, CC BY-SA 4.0.
The silver and copper inlay on the hilt was reconstructed from the surviving fragments and comparisons with similarly decorated hilts. In the proposed reconstruction, the decoration extends across both faces of the guards and pommel, restoring the surviving portions as parts of a continuous decorative scheme. Its full extent necessarily remains an interpretation, since the preserved inlay alone does not allow every detail of the original arrangement to be recovered. Thin copper-alloy sheet was also included on the underside of the upper guard and on both the upper and lower surfaces of the lower guard. Together with the inlaid faces, these surfaces form an important part of the reconstructed appearance of the hilt. The grip was reconstructed with a wooden core covered in leather, widening slightly towards the lower guard. This shape follows examples in which enough of the grip survives to indicate its profile. A useful parallel is the Type H sword from Grave VII at Bikjholberget, Kaupang (Fig. 6), which provides a local comparison for the form adopted here.
Fig. 6. Both faces of the sword C57018/1 from Grave VII at Bikjholberget in Kaupang, with thin copper-alloy plates visible on the undersides of the upper and lower guards. Photograph: Kirsten Helgeland, Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO. UniMus catalogue, CC BY-SA 4.0.
The blade profile and fuller were likewise reconstructed with reference to suitable parallels among Type H swords. The arrangement of the inscriptions follows that recorded on the original, with the incomplete letters restored using Vike’s drawing. As noted above, the poor preservation of the blade prevents the inlays from being recovered in their entirety. The reverse marks require particular caution: the surviving elements may represent only part of a more extensive composition. Their appearance in the reconstruction therefore follows the recorded evidence. The resulting digital reconstruction is presented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Reconstruction of the sword from Grave 6 at Søndre Kaupang, showing both faces of the blade and a detail of the hilt. Drawing by the author.
Discussion and Conclusion
The sword from Grave 6 is particularly important because it brings together two different traditions: a Type H hilt, firmly rooted in the Scandinavian material record, and an VLFBERHT-inscribed blade belonging to a much wider European tradition. This combination is fully compatible with the practice of mounting imported blades with locally produced hilts in Scandinavia, documented by Androshchuk (2014, 179–181). The Kaupang sword may therefore represent a Continental blade that was subsequently furnished with a Scandinavian hilt, although this cannot be demonstrated conclusively. The inscription itself does not allow the precise place of manufacture, metallurgical quality or workshop affiliation of the blade to be established. The dating of the burial to the first half of the ninth century proposed by Blindheim et al. (1981, 152) would place the sword’s deposition within that period. This provides a chronological context for the weapon, although it does not establish how long the sword had been in use before burial.
The burial context provides firmer grounds for discussing the social standing of the sword’s owner. Grave 6 stands apart from most other burials at Kaupang in the size of its mound and the richness of its surviving assemblage. Blindheim regarded it as the strongest candidate among the Kaupang cremation burials for identification as a chieftain’s grave (Blindheim et al. 1981, 123). The combination of weapons, riding equipment and boat remains supports an interpretation of the deceased as a person of high standing, whose position may have involved political or military authority. Blindheim also noted the absence of scales and weights, distinguishing the assemblage from burials more readily associated with merchants. However, earlier disturbance and the possible loss of grave goods limit the weight that can be placed on this absence. The surviving equipment gives the burial a pronounced martial and equestrian character, but reflects how the deceased was presented in death rather than establishing his precise role in life.
Within this context, the sword should be understood as more than a functional weapon. Swords could circulate as gifts between lords and retainers, between social equals, or as heirlooms, and could therefore carry political and personal meanings extending well beyond their material value (Androshchuk 2014, 194). The VLFBERHT blade, mounted in an elaborately decorated Type H hilt and ultimately deposited in one of the most prominent graves at Kaupang, was likely part of the material expression of the owner’s position. Whether acquired through trade, gift exchange, warfare or personal networks cannot be determined, but its presence is fully consistent with the exceptional status reflected by the burial as a whole.
The reconstruction brings together the surviving features of the sword while making explicit the gaps in the evidence. The preserved hilt components and inlay provide the strongest basis for restoring its appearance, although the full extent of the decoration remains uncertain. The original blade profile, fuller width and grip covering are less securely established and depend more heavily on comparison with other swords. The result is therefore a proposed appearance of the weapon, with some features closely supported by the surviving remains and others open to revision.
Literature
Androshchuk, F. 2014. Viking Swords: Swords and Social Aspects of Weaponry in Viking Age Societies. The Swedish History Museum, Studies 23. Stockholm: The Swedish History Museum.
Blindheim, C., and B. Heyerdahl-Larsen. 1995. Kaupang-funnene. Bind II. Gravplassene i Bikjholbergene/Lamøya: undersøkelsene 1950–1957. Del A: Gravskikk. Norske Oldfunn XVI. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling.
Blindheim, C., B. Heyerdahl-Larsen, and R. L. Tollnes. 1981. Kaupang-funnene. Bind I. Norske Oldfunn XI. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling.
Geibig, A. 1991. Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter: Eine Analyse des Fundmaterials vom ausgehenden 8. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert aus Sammlungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Offa-Bücher 71. Neumünster: Wachholtz.
Heyerdahl-Larsen, B. 1981. “Gravfeltene i Kaupangområdet.” In Kaupang-funnene. Bind I, by C. Blindheim, B. Heyerdahl-Larsen, and R. L. Tollnes, 47–69. Norske Oldfunn XI. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling.
Hrodberhtsson, H. 2026. “Dog Collars and Leashes in the Viking Age: Form, Function, and Interpretation.” Academia.edu.
Jones, L. A. 2002. “Overview of Hilt & Blade Classifications.” In Swords of the Viking Age, by I. G. Peirce, 15–24. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Martens, I., and E. E. Astrup. 2021. Viking Age Swords from Telemark, Norway: An Integrated Technical and Archaeological Investigation. Norske Oldfunn XXXIII. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Moilanen, M. 2009. “On the Manufacture of Iron Inlays in Sword Blades: An Experimental Study.” Fennoscandia Archaeologica 26: 23–38.
Moilanen, M. 2015. Marks of Fire, Value and Faith: Swords with Ferrous Inlays in Finland during the Late Iron Age (ca. 700–1200 AD). Archaeologia Medii Aevi Finlandiae XXI. Turku: Society for Medieval Archaeology in Finland.
Myhre, B. 2015. Før Viken ble Norge: Borregravfeltet som religiøs og politisk arena. Norske Oldfunn XXXI. Tønsberg: Vestfold fylkeskommune.
Peirce, I. G. 2002. Swords of the Viking Age. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Petersen, J. 1919. De norske vikingesverd: en typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikingetidens vaaben. Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad.
Petersen, J. 1951. Vikingetidens redskaper. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.
Petri, I. 2019. “VLFBERHT Swords: Origin, Material, and Manufacture.” History Compass 17 (4): e12529.
Stalsberg, A. 2008. “Herstellung und Verbreitung der Vlfberht-Schwertklingen: Eine Neubewertung.” Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 36: 89–118.
Stylegar, F.-A. 2007. “The Kaupang Cemeteries Revisited.” In Kaupang in Skiringssal, edited by D. Skre, 65–101. Kaupang Excavation Project Publication Series 1. Norske Oldfunn XXII. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Tollnes, R. L. 1981. “Den lokale topografi og kommunikasjonsveiene.” In Kaupang-funnene. Bind I, by C. Blindheim, B. Heyerdahl-Larsen, and R. L. Tollnes, 17–37. Norske Oldfunn XI. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling.
Williams, A. 2009. “A Metallurgical Study of Some Viking Swords.” Gladius 29: 121–184.
Harald Hrodberhtsson 2026