are left; this is single edged and slightly curved, but the silver mounts of the grip and the short quillons are of precisely the same character as the Vienna Imperial Treasury sword. Next like is the sword of Demkóhegy (Stuhlweissenburg) save that the mounts of the hilt are of yellow metal, and the blade is straight and single edged, otherwise it has all the features of the sword in question. Next is a very fragmentary weapon taken from the tomb of Gomba (Comitat Alsó Fejér); the quillons are well preserved, but only a very small portion of the grip is left, sufficient, however, to show that it was originally placed at an angle to the blade. The fourth sword is that of Nemes Ócsa (Comitat Komorn). This again is so perished that it is difficult to say whether or no the blade was curved, but the bronze mountings to the hilt show that it was set anglewise to the blade, as with the swords under discussion. Added to these, as they certainly belong to the same group of weapons, if not actually the same family, are four other swords in the Zeughaus, Berlin, two bought at Tiflis by Dr. Grempler, a sword excavated at Czechovitz, and a sword which M. Yastróboff found in a tomb at Liada (Middle Russia). So much for the actual swords that belong to this same group. From the fact that the four more important have been found in Hungary, and in association with Xth-XIth century coinage, we may reasonably surmise that they one and all emanated from north-eastern Europe, and that they were there the prevailing fashion of weapon of that period. But we hazard the suggestion that the Vienna Charlemagne sword is of later date than any we have referred to, not only on account of the far more intricate ornamentation of its hilt and scabbard mounts, but, and this is important, because its blade, though slightly curved as with most of the other swords of this same group, is double edged, and has that most curious shoulder, if the term may be used, a little less than half-way down its length. This is a feature only seen on Hungarian blades after the XIIth century. There is a possibility that a XIIth century blade was added to an earlier hilt, but even this seems unlikely, for the decoration of the former seems in accord with that of the latter, whilst the whole weapon, hilt, blade, and scabbard appear to have grown together, though it is apparent they have many times been subject to reparations. Therefore, with this evidence before us, we are inclined to think that the Charlemagne sword, though in the fashion of weapons common to north-eastern Europe in the Xth and XIth centuries, must have been produced nearly four centuries after the death of the great monarch to whom it is supposed to have belonged.
The Treasury of Vienna also supplies two other splendidly enriched
