As the number of Fake Hercules Swords (FHS's) continues to grow, it allows us to better identify and understand their variability.  They're all united into a single group based on the cast Hercules figure that comprises the hilt, but there is variation in the materials used, the "quality" of the casting, and the characteristics of the blades. As I mentioned briefly yesterday, those differences allow us to start to divide our FHS assemblage into some fairly clear "types." I think those types probably have chronological significance. 

We've got 10 swords now (see the latest #Swordgate poster created by Peter Geuzen) and that's past the number where it becomes useful to start tracking data in a more organized way.  I've created a database (here's an Excel file of the 1/23/2016 version) to start keeping track of the swords. This will be a "living" document to which we can add information as it becomes available (I'll be able to get metrics directly from the Design Toscano sword, the California sword, and soon the Italian eBay sword).  I'll also be able to derive some metrics from photos. I'll maintain the original in Microsoft Access and post updated copies in Excel.

It's now possible to justify at least three provisional "types" based on non-overlapping characteristics of design and raw material.

• Type F: This type includes copper alloy swords (n = 2) with a small section of double fullered blade near the hilt. This type includes the California sword (Sword 3) and the Sonja Sword (Sword 8).  

• Type J: These are copper alloy swords (n = 4) with the distinctive set of ridges/grooves and other anomalies on the blade. This group includes the Nova Scotia sword (Sword 1) that was at the center of the whole Swordgate debacle as well as the Florida sword (Sword 2), the Italian eBay sword (Sword 4), and the France sword (Sword 6).

• Type I: These are the modern cast iron (the "I" is for iron) swords produced by the likes of Design Toscano. I don't yet know if there is any significant variability in the iron swords that are currently being sold under various different names. There could be, I suppose, and it might be somewhat interesting. But I think it's more likely that these modern iron swords are probably all produced from a copy of a single "parent" that is somewhere farther back in the Fake Hercules Sword lineage.

I think there may be modern copper alloy reproduction swords being produced somewhere (if not currently, then in the recent past). These swords appear to have relatively "clean" blades (i.e, unlike the Type J swords). I think the Spain sword (Sword 7) and the sword currently for sale on eBay from Florida (Sword 10).  If the raw material of those swords could be confirmed as copper alloy and the measurements could be shown to match, I think we'd be justified in created a "type" for them.

Understanding and organizing variability is one of the first things archaeologists have to do when confronted with an assemblage of things. It's impossible to do with a single example, of course, because there's nothing with which to compare that single example. As the number of Fake Hercules Swords has grown, we've been able to start to get at variability and develop some ideas about that variability means.

The Mother Of All Fake Hercules Swords (MOAFHS) may still be out there to be found, and that's still a question of interest. As we discussed in this blog post (and many insightful comments), there are a number of plausible ideas about what the MOAFHS might have been. The possibility that the MOAFHS was a real ancient Roman sword in the Naples Museum (as maintained by sword advocates) now seems pretty remote. The possibility that the MOAFHS was originally created as a tourist souvenir seems much more likely (it has also been suggested that the MOFHS could have perhaps been a hunting sword, some kind of figural dagger, or even a movie prop).

As far as chronological significance, my money is still on Type F as the earliest. It seems to have the greatest detail in the figure and blade details (fullers) that are absent in the other types. As Jonathan Feinstein pointed out, the fullers on the Sonja sword appear to be possibly longer than those on the California sword, suggesting it may be earlier in the copy chain. We have direct evidence from the Sonja sword that Type F dates to at least as early as 1970. 

Finally, I have started a Facebook group "Fake Hercules Swords" for those interested in this. Several good sword leads came via Facebook, so I think it's good to keep that channel as open as possible.

I wrote a post yesterday about the claim that three Roman crossbow bolts were found embedded in a thousand-year-old tree on Oak Island.  Putting aside the known puffery and dishonesty of the source, there are basically two questions we can address:  

• Is the "discovery" story plausible?

• Are these items Roman crossbow bolts?

The answer to the first question is almost certainly "no." Think about it and read through some of the comments on yesterday's blog post - there's not a lot that makes sense about the "found in the middle of a tree" story. I think we can throw that out as nonsense.

The second question can be addressed in two ways. One, you can ask if these items appear to be similar to documented Roman crossbow bolts.  Two, you can ask what else the item could be.  

I chose to focus on the second approach, speculating that maybe the items were cast iron "spear" finials for a fence or perhaps some kind of rotary tool bit.  Finding a modern item that matched the "crossbow bolt" better than an actual crossbow bolt would allow us to pretty much dispense with this one. In my search I found an item for sale on Etsy (for about twenty bucks, to be shipped from the Ukraine) that was billed as Roman crossbow bolt. That "discovery" of mine has since been Huttoned, and is now being posted around the internet as evidence that the Nova Scotia items are the real deal.  That kind of grasping is a prime indicator, I think, that Boltgate isn't going to last very long. Enjoy it while you can.

The best explanation for the "crossbow bolts" so far has come from the Oak Island Compendium blog. Last night, they published this post showing how similar the "crossbow bolts" are to the metal spikes used in a logging tool called a Peavey.  The spikes are replaceable in case they get damaged. They expanded on that today, offering a side-by-side comparison of the Oak Island "crossbow bolt" and the spike from a Peavey:

All things considered, I'm comfortable calling this one a swing-and-a-miss for the Lost Legion of Roman Scotia.  

Got anything else?

Our friend and #Swordgate participant Sonja has emailed me some good photos of what I originally called the "Sonja Rome sword" (first discussed in this post). I'm just going to call it the Sonja sword from now on.

I don't have time to write anything detailed this morning, but I wanted to pass on this information from her. The new photos show the Sonja sword has a partially fullered blade, just like the California sword. That means we now have a sample of two of those along with a data point for when it was originally sold. This is going to be extremely helpful for producing both a typology and chronology of Fake Hercules Swords. It's clear we've got at least a copper alloy "Type F" (F for the fullered blades of the California and Sonja swords), a copper alloy "Type J" (J for the "J" mark visible on the blades the Nova Scotia, Florida, France, and Italian eBay swords), and at least a couple of forms with short blades like the Design Toscano swords (some made in cast iron and some possibly made with copper alloy). My guess is still that the Type F probably is older than the Type J.  There's much more fun work to be done sorting these out.

One more thing to point out: check out the blade shape of the sword in the newspaper clipping - yet another variant.

That's about all I have time for now. I'm just going to post the text from Sonja's email along with the photos she sent me.  Have fun everybody! And say thanks to Sonja!

Here's a pro tip for you: adding more weak coffee to a pot of already-weak coffee does not make strong coffee. You're welcome.

At the beginning of #Swordgate, we were told that the Nova Scotia sword -- now shown by metallurgical analysis to have been made after 1880 -- was a "100 percent confirmed" Roman artifact that would force history to be written. The sword was put forward as the strongest component of J. Hutton Pulitzer's "Roman" pitch.  Now that we've had a chance to drink that cup of "coffee" we were handed, it's obvious that it doesn't even qualify as coffee, let alone strong coffee. It was water. If that's the best you've got, you might as well just dump a bunch of ice cubes into the coffee pot. None of it's worth drinking.

But that doesn't mean he's not going to keep trying. At this point it's probably just math. If he says "I was wrong about the sword" he acknowledges that whatever credibility he once had is gone.  If he doubles down, however, he might still retain some credibility within whatever group of people is still willing to believe his evidence-free assertions. So I guess that's the audience now. It makes me less interested in investigating the rest of the diluted coffee. I don't believe any of it is going to be as much fun as the sword.

The sword story isn't over. Pulitzer has implied or stated that the tests performed by Christa Brosseau at Saint Mary's Universitywere flawed because they were the wrong tests and/or they were performed by students. He has has also implied or stated that maybe the "real" sword was swapped with another one, or maybe there was a Catholic conspiracy to suppress history by faking the tests. I'm not sure what the Pope would have against fake Hercules swords, but whatever. You'll hear more about this nonsense soon. Brosseau is a professional. If you look at her her publications you'll see that.  As a chemist, I'm sure she'll back me up on the reality of the "weak coffee" metaphor. And I'm sure she'll have something to say about her methods and results once she is able to talk about them (after the episode airs in Canada). Pulitzer still hasn't given us his promised results or methods, but is anyone really surprised by that?

So there will be more coming on the sword.  What I wanted to talk about quickly today is Pulitzer's new claim that the evidence for a Roman visit to Nova Scotia includes three Roman crossbow bolts. Here is what the story in The Epoch Times says: 

"At the turn of the century, a treasure hunter unearthed a thick beam of wood. When the beam was cut up, three crossbow bolts were found inside. This means the bolts were fired from a crossbow into the tree, and the tree grew around them.

The tree is estimated to have been some 1,000 years old when it was cut down. The bolts are stuck about 3 quarters of the way in, suggesting they hit the tree hundreds of years before it was cut down, though it’s not known how long ago the tree was cut to make the wooden beam. 

More precise dating of the bolts was done when they were analyzed by a U.S. military weapons testing lab, said Pulitzer. Rick and Marty Lagina, the stars of “The Curse of Oak Island,” showed Pulitzer the results of the testing. 
The lab stated that the bolts came from Iberia, and that they date from the same time period as the various incursions of the Roman Empire and possibly the sword.

To support a claim that Romans made it to the New World could be considered professional suicide.
​
Epoch Times could not verify the lab results. Pulitzer said he asked for a copy of the results, and was promised a copy, but did not receive it. The documentation is in possession of Oak Island Tours (of which the Lagina Brothers own a controlling interest) and its partners."

The article includes a small image of one of the "crossbow bolts."  I reproduce (with permission of the owner) a larger image of that same item:

So, internet sleuths, we're off again!

Given what happened with the swords (and because Pulitzer has shown that he is comfortable lying if he thinks it will help his case), I'm going to say it's worthwhile to try to figure out what this thing really is.  It's justifiable to give zero weight to his account of the provenience (inside a thousand-year-old tree) and whatever mysterious "lab results" are out there. I don't believe a word of that until you show me. We're just left with the artifact to look at.

Here are two ideas I have based on modern objects I have found in a quick bit of online searching:

Antique iron spike finial for a wooden fence: Iron "spear" or "spike" finials have been used to top metal gates and fences for a long time in this part of the world.  The ones for metal posts or bars often have a threaded or open end for attachment (I found the one in the picture on eBay). I'm wondering if the long shank of this thing (labeled "arrow shaft fitting" in the drawing) is designed for sticking it in a wooden post? Any experts on colonial architecture out there? 

Bit for some kind of old reamer. A reamer is a rotary tool used to enlarge the size of a hole. Reamers are also used to smooth out the insides of pipes.  The bits often have a shank that is inserted a tool that produces the rotation. The image shown (source) is described as an "old pipe burring reamer."

I found what appears to be a very similar object for sale on Etsy (shipping from the Ukraine) for $20.68.  I'm pasting a screenshot showing the item with a scale for reference.  It is indeed billed as a "Roman tips crossbow arrow," but I won't put too much stock in that until I see some pictures of actual Roman crossbow bolts.

So here we go again: a story about provenience with nothing to back it; an empty assertion that "tests" have been done to prove it's authentic; hints of a cover-up; blah blah blah. It's just more weak coffee.

Maybe a Roman did wade ashore in Nova Scotia and shoot his crossbow at a sapling. Given what we've just been through, however, don't you think it's wise to look a little deeper before accepting that interpretation?  Is this what Roman crossbow bolts look like? Can we hold off on throwing away our old history books until we can rule out a fence post finial and a pipe burring reamer?

I need to get back to drinking real coffee again.

Update (1/22/2016): Yesterday evening, Oak Island Compendium published this blog post arguing that the supposed "crossbow bolts" are more likely the replaceable spikes from a logging tool called a Peavey.  More information is expected soon. In the meantime, please enjoy the "Log Driver's Waltz," brought to my attention by Kel Hancock.

Myles McCallum sent me an email this morning with a list of the observations he made about the Nova Scotia sword while filming last night's episode of The Curse of Oak Island. He has given me permission to publish them here. Mcallum writes the following:

Well that was fun!

The observations and analysis of the "Roman sword" from Nova Scotia shown on The Curse of Oak Island last night confirmed what most of us here suspected: the sword was made in the recent past (not during the Roman empire).  

Dr. Myles McCallum pointed out that the evidence of heavy mold lines (and their inexact reduction through quick grinding/filing) were much more consistent with an item produced for the modern tourist trade than as an ancient Imperial gift.

And Dr. Christa Brosseau gave us an analysis of the composition of the metal used to make the sword: brass produced sometime after 1880. The key is the high percentage of zinc. While the Romans made some brass, the methods they used to do so resulted in levels of zinc less than 28%. The 35% zinc in the Nova Scotia sword is consistent with manufacture in the late 1800's, not ancient Rome. 

McCallum's and Brosseau's observations are in-line with everything else we now know about these swords (these many, many, many more swords than were known to exist when they got to look at the Nova Scotia sword).  As I wrote yesterday prior to the show, that kind of concordance among independent analyses should give you confidence that this myth of the "Roman sword from Nova Scotia" is busted. It's been busted two different ways now, by two different groups, using two different lines of inquiry. It's history.

But, as I also wrote last night, the main proponent of the sword isn't going to give up. Immediately after the conclusion of the program last night, J. Hutton Pulitzer  posted a short video clip expressing dismay that Brosseau's results did not match his. He more-or-less implied that there was something sinister going on -- "Why would they even do that?  Why would they try to date it to an 1880 item?" He doubled down on his dismissal of Brosseau's results in another video later that night and on Facebook, declaring

"their stats are nowhere near the actual set test. At all and she was bright red delivering the test results. Somethings a miss."

I'll tell you what's really "a miss:" any hope that Pulitzer can regain his credibility after this debacle.

Given that he's clearly shown that he's willing to lie about evidence related to the sword and has yet to provide us with an accounting of his own results or the methods he used to obtain them, there's no reason to believe any of Pulitzer's assertions about the Nova Scotia sword or the data he claims to have obtained from it. He has given us no reason to believe he understands the methods, theory, and practice of metals testing technology. Had he released and explained his information when he made his original claim about the "100 percent confirmed" Roman sword instead of just making grandiose assertions and doing a lot of arm waving and threatening, he wouldn't be in this position now.

Although there's no reason to take seriously his plea that all the "authentic" swords should be bought together and evaluated simultaneously, I'm glad he made it. He has called his own bluff on the existence of the elusive "sword in the Naples Museum." Where is it? Have you already seen it or not? I thought you said you already examined it?

The funny thing is that even if it were possible to line up and test all these "authentic" swords (some of which may not even exist), there's no reason to think ANY of them is authentic to begin with.  What happens if you get matching metallic composition data from four swords?  On what basis are you calling any of them "authentic" at this point? Where's your control?  What about all these other "ancient Roman artifacts" you claim to have compared your results to?  The lack of systematic thinking is ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong: I would love to have data from all of these swords because it will help solve the interesting historical mystery of when and where they were made. I plan on getting my own data from the California sword and the Italian eBay sword. And I look forward to seeing Pulitzer's data on the Nova Scotia sword, which he promised to release today. Hopefully he will provide enough detail so that we'll know exactly what he did and why there might be a discrepancy between his results and Brosseau's (hint: simply saying "trust me - I know what I'm doing and she doesn't" isn't going to cut it).

Oh, and if he tries to attribute the discrepancy in the results to the fact that Brosseau's sample came from the blade while he "tested" the hilt, you can flush that one down the Commodus before you even get started. The comparison of blade anomalies shows that many of these swords have the same set of casting defects in the blades - those blades are all original and the swords were made in one piece.

I've invited McCallum to use my blog if he wants to tell us anything additional about the sword and/or his experience on the show. I extend the same invitation to Brosseau. I hope it's possible to get a more complete breakdown of the methods and results of her analysis than was presented in summary form on the program last night.

Rather than #Swordgate winding down, it looks like we may just be starting the third act.

Update (1/20/2016): Myles McCallum has given me permission to publish a list of his observations about the sword.

Update (1/25/2016): Here is Christa Brosseau's summary of the analyses she performed on the Nova Scotia sword.

If you're reading this on Tuesday night, it's probably because you're going to watch The Curse of Oak Island this evening. And you're probably going to tune in not because you find the watching-white-paint-dry-on-a-white-wall pacing engaging, but because you've been following the fantastical claims centered on the "Roman sword" from Nova Scotia and have become invested in what's going to happen next.  Don't worry - I'm not going to criticize you. I'm right there with you. You're among friends.

We may have some different reasons for why #Swordgate is fascinating, but we all care about the sword.  It's okay to care about the sword.

I've written a little bit before about why I think #Swordgate is important. I'll have more to say about that at some point in the future, after it has all run its course.​ I'm sure, in fact, that there are probably at least two publishable papers in this whole experience. There are several seriously interesting dimensions to how this has played out so far -- it's unprecedented, really, I feel lucky to have been a part of it.

As far as what's going to happen on the program tonight, I've already said what I think:

"I'm willing to bet that [Dr. Myles] McCallum comes to the same conclusion: not Roman, probably a souvenir produced in the last couple of centuries."

Assuming that I'm correct (that McCallum says it's not Roman), I think that a lot of people will be willing to stop paying attention to the sword.  A negative evaluation of the sword by an archaeologist who works in the Roman period, together with all the independent information and analysis we've generated here, will probably be enough to convince the vast majority of people who are paying attention that it's time to stick a fork in the "Roman sword."  The safe money says it's not Roman, and it actually barely even qualifies as a sword. It's probably a piece of tourist kitsch, probably purchased by someone in Italy sometime during the last century. It was probably not found during scalloping. It was probably never actually underwater. Somewhere along the line, someone got confused or made up a story about it, and the people who looked at it on the hood of a car in a Nova Scotia parking lot bought it hook, line, and sinker.

I think that's the most likely scenario, and I think that's the scenario that most reasonable people will embrace if the The Curse of Oak Island goes down how I think it will tonight.

There are some people, however, who will probably never give up on the sword. Chief among those is J. Hutton Pulitzer, who has staked all of his credibility on his interpretation that this crappy brass Hercules sword is a "smoking gun" that's going to "rewrite history." There's no backing down from that, and he hasn't. No matter what you think of Pulitzer, you have to admit that he has stuck to his guns on this one. Refusing to adjust your interpretation in the face of almost overwhelming evidence that you're wrong is not typically the best way to do science, but . . . what can I say? He has flat out lied about the evidence that suggests his interpretation is wrong, he has threatened legal action against me, and he has urged his "warriors for truth" to embark on a complaint campaign against the government of Nova Scotia, the newspapers that write critical stories about him, and anyone who will listen at The History Channel. It's been a bizarre display, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. I've always wondered how far Pulitzer could push his fact-free agenda. I don't think we've seen the end of the pushing yet.

It actually makes me a little bit sad to say it, but unless there's a big surprise, I think Swordgate will probably start to ramp down after tonight's discussion of the sword. It makes me a little sad because I'm still interested in solving the mystery of the origin and history of these fake Hercules swords, and I think that many of the people who have been regularly contributing to the discussions on this blog probably are also. Uncovering the real story of these things has become a more interesting pursuit than answering the "is it Roman?" question, which I think has been pretty well addressed.  I hope the discussions and information sharing related to the swords will persist, but I worry that they won't once the drama is gone.  I think the drama and urgency that made Swordgate fun was important to the emergence of the critical mass that made it possible to generate the leads and data to address the issue. With no "smoking gun" to evaluate, interest will fade. I'll pack up my Roman sword, get on my unicorn, and ride off into the sunset to do archaeology, teach my classes, and write more about things that I think are cool but few other people care about (like dragonflies, my work in South Carolina, "giants," etc.).

Swordgate has been a blast. I'd do it all over again.

​Cue the denouement music, pop the popcorn, and let's see what goes down. I'm going to have a drink and enjoy the show. I've got some paint drying on the wall just in case I need something more exciting to distract myself with while they're standing around an empty hole in the ground.

Update (1/19/2016): Here's the elemental composition of the sword. It's modern brass (high zinc content).

Update (1/20/2016): Myles McCallum has given me permission to publish a list of his observations about the sword.

Update (1/20/2016): This blog post was featured in today's Investigating History Daily, Pulitzer's own (apparently self-generated) daily newspaper. Thanks for the exposure!

Update (1/25/2016): Here is Christa Brosseau's summary of the analyses she performed on the Nova Scotia sword.

Several people have asked me over the last few days to post some full length images of the California sword and a picture of the blade. Here you go. Nothing fancy - I just set it down on my desk and took a couple of shots.

I also used the 3D model of the sword to generate a cross section of the fullered section of the blade. I'm still learning how to use the software (as well as the scanner), but you can orient the model in a box and then have it generate splines that section the object wherever you want.  I'm working with raw data, so the model still has "holes" in it (hence the incomplete blade edges on the extracted splines.  But I think you can still get a pretty good sense of the contours of the fullers.

You might want to get a fork ready before you read this. I've got mine on standby. I'm about ready to stick it in the myth of the "Roman sword from Nova Scotia:" it's more or less done.

There's a lot of credit to spread around for this one. Pablo Raw pointed out the key "J" similarity in the blades in a comment on this post from earlier today.  I only know Pablo from interactions online, but I will buy him a beer (or whatever he wants to drink unless it's on this page) if we ever meet. (Update 1/19/2016: it turns out Cleo pointed the similarities between the blades of the Nova Scotia and Italian eBay swords a couple of days earlier in the comments in this post). Peter Guezen's sword comparison showing the blades made it much easier to spot the similarities. Killbuck pointed out similarities in addition to the "J" and made the illustrations for this post. None of this would have been possible without all the people who found these swords and made them known to us. Good job, internet. That's a win for the good guys.

Now on to the observations.

The blades of the Nova Scotia (Oak Island), Italian eBay, Florida, and France swords have several distinctive anomalies in common. These anomalies include a linear, J-shaped groove or ridge on the distal portion of the blade (all four swords), a bump or depression near the tip (Nova Scotia and Italian eBay swords), two bumps/depressions along one edge (Nova Scotia and Italian eBay swords), and a linear ridge/groove in the proximal portion of the blade (visible on the Nova Scotia, Italian eBay, and France swords). 

The animated gif flips back and forth between the blades of the Nova Scotia and the the Italian eBay swords. As you can see, the locations of many ridges/grooves and bumps/depressions seem to correspond. This suggests that these anomalies are not simply variation in patina: they reflect characteristics of the metal underlying the patina. The overall shapes of the blades are very similar as well. In fact, I bet they would match almost perfectly in a direct comparison (i.e., with the originals or photographs that were taken in true plan view rather than from an oblique angle).  Trevor Furlotte is going to ship the Italian eBay sword to me at the end of the week, so I'll be able to look at this anomalies for myself (in the meantime, maybe he'll tell us if we're looking at ridges or grooves, bumps or depressions). Too bad no-one is apparently allowed to see the actual purported "Roman sword" from Nova Scotia.

The simplest explanation for the similarities in the blades is that these swords all had the same "mother:" they were all cast from the same original or the same mold. If the Nova Scotia sword is supposed to be an authentic Roman artifact but the Italian eBay sword is not, why do they have the same production defects in the blade? Are we really supposed to believe that "incredible Roman artifacts" that were gifts from the Emperor are going to have these beat-ass looking blades with all the same manufacturing defects as cheap tourist souvenirs? 

And the similarities in the blades amplifies another problem for the "Roman" interpretation of the Nova Scotia sword. What about the California sword?  I argued on Saturday that, logically, the California sword is probably the closest to the original Mother Of All Fake Hercules Swords (MOAFHS). It is the most detailed and has functional blade characteristics (fullers) that are absent from all the other swords. If the California sword is closer to the MOAFHS than the "class" of swords united by these blade anomalies, there is zero chance that the Nova Scotia sword could date to ancient Rome.

The most likely explanation, I think, is that the Nova Scotia, Florida, Italian eBay, and France swords are members of a generation of replicas that post-date the California sword but predate the Design Toscano swords that are currently being produced.

​If you want to take heroic measures and continue to perform CPR on the "Roman sword" interpretation even after the patient has stopped breathing, you could still attempt to make the argument, I think, that all of these swords were copies of some "original" authentic Roman artifact and that I have incorrectly interpreted the California sword. One could argue that some of the copies (i.e, the Nova Scotia and Florida swords) were made in ancient Roman times while the others (i.e., the Italian eBay and France swords) were copies produced much later from one of those "original" swords.  But . . . logically?  Really? To say it's an incredible stretch is being kind. The similarities among this group of blades (some of known replicas) reduce the probability that ANY of them is of ancient Roman origin to one that is vanishingly small.

I'm ready to stick my fork in this "Roman sword." I'll be curious to see whatever metallurgical data are out there, if they ever materialize, but I'm almost certain they won't point clearly to a Roman origin. It just doesn't make any sense.

If you decide to join me and stick your fork in the myth of the "Roman sword from Nova Scotia" and declare it done also, you can also stick your fork in the credibility of J. Hutton Pulitzer.  In the original article in the Boston Standard (and numerous times since) Pulitzer declared that the sword was a "100 percent confirmed" Roman artifact. No wiggle room. All the marbles. Confirmed. A done deal. If the sword goes down, so does any claim he has to being a person that can competently interpret a piece of evidence in terms of relevance to the human past. Sayonara.

Pulitzer has already said goodbye to his credibility as an honest person, flagrantly lying about key pieces of evidence (for example) related to evaluating his claim that the Nova Scotia sword is a "smoking gun" that proves Romans visited the Americas.

It will be interesting to see what Dr. Myles McCallum has to say about the sword on tomorrow's episode of The Curse of Oak Island. We've been chewing away at this issue for a month now without having the benefit of examining the actual sword firsthand, and this will be our first look at an archaeologist directly handling and evaluating the thing. Even without the benefit of examining the actual sword, we've come up with substantial information and analysis that bears directly on the key question of whether or not it's Roman.  Based on what I've seen, I'd say it's almost certainly not. I'm willing to bet that McCallum comes to the same conclusion: not Roman, probably a souvenir produced in the last couple of centuries. I'm really impressed (and proud, honestly) of the how the inquiry has progressed here, and I think it's going to end up being a classic example of how there are multiple ways to get to the same (correct) conclusion. It's something that archaeologists have to be good at. We are never left with material remains that tell the whole story, so we have to figure out ways to ask questions of the evidence that allow us to discriminate between possible explanations. That's science. If science works (and it does), there are multiple ways to arrive at a correct answer. It's comforting when you arrive at the same answer through different means of inquiry. That means it's probably not an accident.

I think the myth of the "Roman sword from Nova Scotia" is more-or-less busted. We were handed the claim without the accompanying analysis that would supposedly prove the claim and were told to accept the interpretations on the word of someone who has demonstrated himself to be less than trustworthy.  Even without any access to the original evidence or data that supposedly underlies the claim of a "100 percent confirmed" Roman artifact, we were able to develop our own lines of inquiry that suggest an evidence-based conclusion of "99 percent baloney."  I want to dump a cooler of Gatorade over all your heads right now.

I've got a lot of work to do today, so I won't be able to write anything substantive related to #Swordgate until later on, if at all. There's been a lot going on that's worth talking about, and we've apparently got a sword-based episode of The Curse of Oak Island to look forward to tomorrow. I've been getting emails and messages and there were all kinds of great comments in my blog posts from yesterday and the day before, and I wish I had the time to try to distill it all immediately, but I don't.

If you just can't get enough Swordgate, the ArchyFantasies podcast I did with Ken Feder and Serra Head is now live. I had fun talking with Ken and Serra. This was recorded a while ago, however, and I honestly don't remember where we were in terms of the number of swords that had popped up a that point and what I said about them. I'm not a big fan of listening to myself talk, so I probably won't go back and listen to it. If you do, let me know if I said anything completely stupid. (Note: there's an error in the description of the podcast, which calls it the "recently discovered Roman sword in Michigan." I'm not sure why that's garbled, but my PhD is from Michigan and the sword, of course, was allegedly found in Nova Scotia.)

I'd also like to post a link to Peter Geuzen's latest sword compilation.  We'll be able to arm our own legion soon. Maybe we can make a blacklight version of the poster. Maybe one with dogs playing billiards. Or a unicorn and the moon. Or a Led Zeppelin logo.