THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF MEDIEVAL swords are largely based on the morphology of hilt components. Among these, the pommel is considered the part most susceptible to changes in “fashion”, and thus crucial for proving their dating. A pictorial source, the relevance of which for studies in early medieval arms and armour might have been overlooked, is MS 32 (Utrecht Psalter, c.820–35) in the Utrecht University Library. Provided that the Utrecht Psalter has been dated accurately, a re-evaluation of the chronological aspects of medieval sword pommel typo-chronologies appears inevitable. This is illustrated by the occurrence of the so-called brazil-nut, mushroom/teacosy, wheel/spherical, and two crescent-shaped pommels, which are clearly depicted among more readily accepted early medieval pommel types in the manuscript. Swords in the Utrecht Psalter thus do not only represent a contemporaneity between apparent “pre-Christian” and “Christian design” but must also be viewed in the wider context of the Carolingian Renaissance and some of its most significant roots in Anglo-Saxon England.

To establish a typology is a challenge in itself, but it is inevitable that scientific progress will constantly challenge even the most venerable typologies in archaeology. The cornerstones for typological and chronological categorisations of medieval swords have been laid by authorities like L’Orange, Petersen, Wheeler, Behmer, Bruhn Hoffmeyer, Oakeshott, Menghin, and Geibig. A visual summary of existing typologies, including their chronological attributions, was published by Jones. Problems related to the typological, geographical, and especially chronological attributions of medieval swords have been outlined by the aforementioned scholars, among others. Important factors necessary for obtaining a better understanding of the most prestigious weapon of the Middle Ages are analyses of its construction, production stages, use, and cultural significance; the last of these obviously encompasses a religious or spiritual component, but this has been mostly overlooked in mainstream studies which are archaeologically or technically orientated.

In 1908 the Swiss scholar E. A. Gessler chose to dismiss the relevance of the swords illustrated in the Utrecht Psalter as follows: “no matter how important the Utrecht Psalter from the end of the ninth century may be for the lance, the swords are vaguely drawn”. His exemplary approach, however, which incorporated archaeological finds alongside pictorial and written evidence as part of a study of Carolingian arms has lost none of its importance.