Oakeshott typology in the light of modern research - part I

RESEARCH: Oakeshott typology in the light of modern research 
(the image is a digital reconstruction of the well known Ewart Oakeshott's typology that I made exactly from the author's drawings)
...........................

Part I: Introduction

For many years I have been working on studying and completing the typological structure of medieval swords. 
I tried to keep the Oakeshott Typology in its original form, because I realize that the implementation of the new typology will not be possible. It has been accepted by the scientific community and has been used as a scientific tool for many years.
Nevertheless, it still requires many additions, clarifications and development, that could support the identification and dating of the swords. 
This now requires some subtlety and caution.
When Oakeshott created his typology, he was not exposed to criticism and undermining his authority. Today is different. Any attempt at changes or additions requires verification and approval, supported by a strictly scientific methodology, and this was not the case with Oakeshott's work back then. If he created this typology today, the scientific community would simply reject it. Currently, when it is already accepted, due to the lack of another functional typology of swords, its position in the scientific world is established.

The current status quo does not allow changes to the Oakeshott typology itself, and any additions or changes are viewed with reluctance and skepticism.
However, Science must move forward and develop as a result of new discoveries, finds and scientific research methods.

Therefore, I decided to slightly change the concept of work on the classification of swords and create a several of additional, auxiliary tools, helpful in identification and dating, somehow referring to and cooperating with Oakeshott's Typology.
The tools I created can be a separate, autonomous classification system, but they are also compatible with the Oakeshott Typology. This will be the main theme of my scientific study, which I have been working on for years, the first part of it.

......................

Please consider that Oakeshott`s Typology was created in the 1960s and supplemented in the 1990s by the author, it was created on the basis of material from Western and Central Europe, mainly from England, France, Italy and Germany (apart from other regions, of course, in a small number). 
About 250 swords are briefly described in Oakeshott's publications (many of them have been lost, changed hands, known only from one old photograph or drawing, some turned out to be much later or even 19th-century replicas, and some are not representative of the era due to their ceremonial form).

Oakeshott did not define a strict typological framework, he simply classified the swords he had access to. Therefore, it covers a very wide period (approx. 900-1600), which includes several different stylistic periods, goes beyond the Middle Ages, and does not clearly define the framework defining the cataloged material.
Finally, the research material the author had access is only a small part of what we can study today.

Today, in publications with precisely cataloged medieval (not renaissance) swords, ONLY in the countries of the former Soviet bloc (the fall of the USSR is the years 1988-1991, but the changes in the public sphere actually take place later), we currently have around 1400 swords documented (these are only those published and shared). Many of them are completely not included in Oakeshott's classification (blades, pommels, crossguards) because he simply did not have access to them, or they have not yet been found. I'm only talking about the period 950-1400. Many of them form specific typological and stylistic groups, defining unclassified swords as popular and common in this period.
I'm not even counting the earlier and later swords.

If we add to this, now much better documented and cataloged, swords from Western Europe, Scandinavian peninsula and southern countries, new finds and private collections, it turns out that we may have research material of around 8.000 swords from all over Europe today!
This is wonderful, more complete and extensive research material that has never been subject to a comprehensive typological study.

In that case, it seems a very risky and rash statement that what Oakeshott had access to, could be fully representative research material for the whole of medieval Europe and complete Typology of Medieval Swords. 
And yet, on the basis of this material, a typology was created that everyone uses to this day.

We have become accustomed to this, due to the lack of a full study, of which the author himself was fully aware. Typology has become a scientific tool which today constitutes a hermetic comparative scope.
This, of course, gives rise to many understatements, mistakes and imprecision in relation to a large number of swords, which often leads to wrong conclusions even in the field of scientific studies.

This shows the comparative scale of the material and allows the classification as we know it to be based on just a small part of the research material. Thus, it cannot constitute a fully authoritative classification system, both in the geographical, stylistic and source context.

So, are we still to think that supplementing or rebuilding this typology is unnecessary?
In the light of new finds, studies and access to data, minor additions are not enough.
The concept of this typology is very good, the author's commitment is admirable. Ewart Oakeshott deserves deepest respect and memory for his priceless work, full commitment and passion.
But this does not change the fact of the need for continuing this work.

To be continued.