3D Model of the Hilt of the Italian eBay Sword

2/11/2016

I've uploaded a processed and simplified 3D model of the hilt of the Italian eBay sword (Sword 4 in the Fake Hercules Sword database) to Sketchfab. Like I did for the California sword model, I cut the model off where the blade meets the guard so I could calculate the volume and surface area of just the hilt.

Italian E Bay Sword Hilt by aawhite on Sketchfab

Both of the 3D models are downloaded, so they can now be directly compared by anyone in the world who has access to a computer and software. I'm still new to the 3D modeling game, so I'm still exploring what software options are out there. It turns out there are many free 3D mesh processing and analysis packages available emphasizing different aspects of what 3D models can be used for (e.g. creative sculpting, computer-aided design, inspection of parts, etc.).

Because the various types of swords seem to form a time sequence that gets progressively smaller (probably due to a natural generation-to-generation reductions in size that is a result of a cast being smaller than the mold it was made in), I wanted to compare the volume and surface area of the models. Both of those are easy analytical steps. It turns out that the California sword model actually has a smaller volume (105,824 cubic mm) than the Italian eBay sword model (110,657 cubic mm), despite having a greater surface area (27,588 square mm for California vs. 26,850 square mm for Italian eBay). The Italian eBay sword hilt is clearly smaller than the Italian California sword hilt in terms of linear metrics (about 2.0 percent) and surface area (the 738 square mm difference is about 2.7 percent).

Perhaps the greater volume per unit of surface area of the Italian eBay sword is related to the "smoothing out" of details and fissures as a Type F parent was used to produce a mold for the Type J generation of swords. The thing to do to investigate, I think, would be to find some software that can "subtract" one model from another and see where the differences are if they're scaled to the same size. I'm sure there is software out there that can do that, but I don't know what it is yet or how to do it. Suggestions welcome!

Jonathan Feinstein

2/11/2016 10:38:40 am

I still think I see a slight difference at the figure's waist in the shape of how the lion skin comes together (is it being belted by the tail?) however, seeing these two 3D models, I am willing to be convinced that the difference is due to a loss of detail in copy generations.

It does beg the question of why did the casters make copies of copies and not go back to an original model, although the original might have been a wax model and that the first FHS (not currently known) was made via lost wax and that all other copies started with that first sword. Also while a bunch of these are known to have been sold to tourists in souvenir stands and flea markets, I suspect that no end-seller had more than one at a time (which might have led to someone deciding to copy a piece they bought and using that since it was the only one they had to work with.

Why copy it? For the same reasons people bought it, I think. It is an interesting-looking design that looks sort of Roman-ish. Just who came up with the original design and when? Well I'd still like to know that

Eric

2/11/2016 02:23:40 pm

I would think the later copies are from when other people wanted to cash in on the FHS and it spread, virus like, among the street stalls. My pet theory is the figure is re-purposed from some preexisting element (candlestick, cast iron fire tongs, plaster interior molds) rather than being created by a lost wax cast-its just too crude, in my eyes.

Jonathan Feinstein

2/12/2016 02:12:23 am

I too hypothesized that the figure is from something else. I certainly spent enough time looking for other objects and ornamentation that might use a vertical figure like this.

That does not preclude that the original figure might not have been created by lost wax, depending on what it was. That would mean that even the MOAFHS started out as a copy, which I am not in opposition too. It could have, but unless we find it, we will not know for sure. I would not be surprised if the CA sword turns out to be the closest to original we can find, at least as a sword.

As for the origin of the Hercules figure itself, whether a 19th or 20th Century fantasy piece (um fantasy might be the wrong word here. I mean that it might be something someone just came up with that looked like old Roman or Renaissance to them) or from an older source, it has a definite front and back which suggests it came to whomever chose to first use it as a sword hilt in that form. Not that someone might not have made a backside based on only seeing a front, but the simpler hypothesis is that they found the figure (either as a sword hilt or repurposed it as it was).

All that speculation aside, though, I cannot help but think that if we show these things tot he right person they'll recognize it instantly and say, "Oh that! The figure comes from (fill in the blank). It was a popular motif for (related filled in blank). How could you not know that?" or something to the effect.

It would hardly be the first time this has happened in archaeology. My thesis advisor once told me about a large number of alabaster objects that have been found in Israel and Syria dating to the bronze age. They looked like door knobs but with a hole through them and for a couple decades or so the archaeologists couldn't figure out what they were until one day an Egyptologist looked at them and said, 'Oh yeah, that's a knob from a 19th Dynasty chariot. You can see them in paintings and carvings from Ramses II. These may be related to his war with the Hittites."
Sometimes it takes just the right person to solve the puzzle.

Comments are closed.

3D Model of the Hilt of the Italian eBay Sword

Archives

Categories