Swordgate is just about a perfect example of "woo."  According to RationalWiki

"Woo is understood specifically as pseudoscience, uses a science-like formula, and attempts to place itself as scientifically, or at least reasonably, supported."

Truth is the best weapon for fighting the woo, but sometimes it costs some money to get and disseminate that truth.  There are many things I'd like to be able to do to continue working on Swordgate -- some of those things are going to take a little cash. I've already put in a lot of time and energy (which aren't free by any stretch of the imagination) into this endeavor, and I'm hesitant to start laying out money directly.

What would I use the Woo War One money for?  First, there are some materials I'd like to purchase that I think will help me understand what's going on with the swords.  Second, I'm hatching a plan to do some of my own tests. That will require paying for some shipping and some charges associated with laboratory work.  I don't have a budget yet because I've only just started to think about it.  

I'm sure other things will come up as well as this story keeps developing. I won't just go and spend the money on peach soda and moon pies, I promise! And you can bet that whatever I come up with I'll share it here, first and free.

Anyway, if you've enjoyed Swordgate so far and would like to help out with a few dollars, please visit the Woo War One GoFundMe campaign and chip in. Thank you if you do!

Update (1/7/2016):  As of today, the Woo War On campaign has raised $230 and spent about $143, leaving us with a war chest of eighty-seven bucks.  I spent $28 on one of the cast iron Design Toscano swords for analysis, and another $115 to purchase the Experiencing Rome lecture series to check out information about the Florida sword. Thanks for your donations so far. I'll keep you posted.

Update (1/31/2016):  Thank you to all who have contributed to Woo War One so far. As of today, we've raised $570 and spent about $143, leaving $427 in the Woo War Chest. I'm going to make a concerted effort to find the time to meet with the SEM people on campus as soon as possible to see what it's going to take to get some metal composition data from the California sword that we can compare to Christa Brosseau's data from the Nova Scotia sword.

Update (4/1/2016):  Today I spent $63 shipping the California and Italian eBay swords back to their owners.  That leaves $365 in the Woo War Chest.

Update (2/20/2017): There have been a few minor expenditures here and there, probably totaling around $20. I got a recent donation of $100 (thanks, Gina!), bringing the current balance in the Woo War Chest to about $445. I'll hopefully be spending a good chunk of that soon, as there are swords to purchase and/or ship!

Update (3/13/2017): We've got two new Fake Hercules swords (new as in "we haven't seen them" and they're currently being produced for sale) currently en route from Europe. Purchase and shipping cost a total of $187.41, bringing the balance left in the Woo War Chest down to about $258.

Update (4/30/2019): After two years of inactivity, I've decided to tap the war chest to purchase a copy of Graham Hancock's new book America Before ($19.43). That brings the balance down to $239.

Update (9/12/2019): I spent $14 on Josh Reeves' movie The Lost Secrets of Ancient America so that I could demonstrate graphically the extent of his plagiarism regarding Moundville. That leaves $225.

Update (10/29/2019): I tapped the rest of the Woo War One chest to fund Jim Vieira's visit to my class. Jim paid for his airfare and I put him in up a hotel for three nights, which cost well over what was left of this money. Given that the sword stuff is basicially dead at this point, it was a legitimate use of what was left. Thank you for all your support!

"Fringe" history is big business these days. I won't pretend to have command of the facts and figures about book sales, television revenues, and clickbait internet sites, but it's obvious that there's a lot of money at stake. The profit motive forces to the background any concern with getting the facts right or telling a story that is plausible and consistent with the evidence we have. That's annoying to those of us who actually want to answer the "who," "what," and "why" questions about the past.

Over the course of about a year of engaging with various elements of the "fringe" online, I've been impressed by how the purveyors of "fringe" ideas (who run the gamut from the honestly curious to the outright fraudulent) have adapted to the internet. My sense is that, overall, they have been doing a much better job than professional archaeologists and historians of understanding and using the capabilities of the web to rapidly communicate ideas.  Yes, the celebrated American Antiquity pseudo-archaeology book review section from the past summer was a step in the right direction, but as far as influencing public opinion it was a spitwad aimed at a Sherman tank. We're spending too much energy repeatedly debunking the Top Ten Bogus Artifacts from the last century and far too little energy building the capacity to address new silliness in real time as it emerges.

I've gotten some criticism for how much I've focused on Swordgate (the recent claim that a "Roman sword" was found in the waters of Nova Scotia).  While a few of my readers may be getting bored, I don't think that any of the time or energy I've spent on the issue has been wasted.  Swordgate is important, I think, because it provides an ideal example of how these kinds of battles unfold and what we can actually do to contribute to the story as it develops.  If our response is to wait a year (or five years, or ten years) to note that there are many reasons to doubt the claims about the "Roman sword," we lose.  Sitting back and chuckling in disbelief as various news outlets report that "historians" have found a "Roman sword" that will "rewrite history" is not a helpful strategy of engagement.

I began writing about the "Roman sword" on the very afternoon (December 16) that I saw the original story in the Boston Standard.  I found out about the Boston Standard story not because I pay a lot of attention to the Boston Standard, but because I keep myself tuned into various Facebook groups where these kinds of topics are discussed.  I was able to quickly produce a blog post on the topic because I was familiar with J. Hutton Pulitzer (the main claimant in Swordgate) and knew something about the background of his various claims related to Oak Island.

People interested in the sword story from the beginning (before it was republished by many other online media outlets) were able to find my original post easily: it provided a different perspective for those who were most interested in the story and, consequently, searching for additional information.  As the comments started coming, it was evident that I wasn't the only one who thought something was fishy. One person commented on the post with a link to a site that showed images of a very similar sword in a Florida collection. That led to this post.  Soon after, someone contacted me by email to tell me he also had a similar sword that he had purchased in California (in terms of the number of Facebook likes/shares, the California sword post is the most popular thing I have ever written). By that time, it was clear that a crowd-sourced effort at understanding the meaning of the alleged "Roman sword" was underway. The crowd rooted out another similar sword on Italian Ebay, and it was discovered that modern reproductions of this same Hercules-hilt sword design were available at Walmart and other home/garden stores (the Design Toscano swords).

The interest in Swordgate shows up in the numbers for my web traffic. This website typically gets about 200-400 unique visitors and about 2000 page views per day.  You can see what happened when Swordgate ramped up: over 4000 unique visitors (and over 8000 page views) on December 18. That doesn't mean that what I wrote was fantastic or special.  It means that people were finding this site to get answers to questions they had about the "Roman sword" claim.  As far as I know, this website was the only place to get an alternative view in the first hours of the story. And it was because this blog ended up being "the place" where an audience could find an alternative perspective on the sword that people began using it to share opinions and information, some of which contributed to the story and helped it develop. That's a fascinating thing, and something that would never be possible through traditional print media.

It's also a phenomenon, I think, that casts the "journalism" I've seen on this topic in a pretty poor light. The stories that have been published about the "Roman sword" are mostly just edited from parts of previous stories. They make me wonder what it means to actually call yourself a journalist these days. Do the "journalists" at these media outlets feel no compulsion or responsibility to ask any critical questions before reprinting this stuff (and slapping their names on it)? I went to journalism school, and I have a journalism degree. I understand what is supposed to be involved in getting a story right. That's not happening out there. Readers of this blog have dug up more interesting information relevant to Swordgate than all the "journalists" put together. While several stories (like this one in The Inquisitr and this one in The Examiner) have appended "updates" pointing to this blog, no journalist has ever contacted me for a different opinion prior to publishing his/her story. Overall, the journalism has been pretty lazy, if you ask me. It's not that I have all the answers, but I can surely help a journalist understand some questions they should consider before endorsing this "re-writing of history" that they've been spoonfed.

It matters to me when people tell lies about the past.  I don't like it, and I think it's problematic for several reasons other than the simple fact that what's wrong is wrong. If you don't agree, you probably stopped reading this a long time ago.  If you agree with me, however, there are several things you can do to help the situation we now find ourselves in (losing the information war).  First, try to understand the information landscape: join Facebook groups that take you outside your peers and into the worlds where claims about the past matter for all kinds of non-academic reasons.  Second, engage: identify nonsense when you see it, and prepare to back up your argument.  Third, create resources: create a presence on the web that will be there for people seeking information. Fourth, keep your finger on the pulse: be prepared to identify and evaluate new claims as they emerge.

This post turned out to be nothing like what I sat down to write. That happens sometimes. Happy New Year!

I have reposted a blog post from September. As explained in a note appended to the beginning of that post (and in this post), I took the post down at the request of J. Hutton Pulitzer as Swordgate was beginning to unfold. He claimed that some of the comments were libelous and that I was responsible for them. While I disagree on both counts, I have removed the comments pending consultation with a lawyer.  I have also changed the title of the post to reflect his legal name (apparently getting called by his old name makes him mad).  Anyway . . . if the comments get out-of-hand I'll shut them down, so please keep it civil.

I've stepped back a bit from Swordgate over Christmas. We've got family in town and there really are much better things to put energy into this time of year.  The story isn't going away, however, and I'm not either.  I've got more to say about the "100% percent confirmed" artifact that J. Hutton Pulitzer and the Ancient Artifact Preservation Society  say will "rewrite history."  While most of that will have to wait until after I'm done with the chaos that emerges in a household stocked with three kids and three grandparents, I wanted to jot down a few things for the record.

Anyone who has been threatened with legal action by Pulitzer (which may or may not be a significant portion of the readership of this blog) will immediately understand the title of this post. My mom reads and comments on my blog sometimes. I hope she will not soon start getting cease and desist notices.

Anyway, I had a bizarre email exchange with Pulitzer (who CC's his correspondence to his lawyer, Steve) after the post I wrote pointing out that a British Museum image of a Roman shield boss was tagged with a copyright mark for InvestigatingHistory.org in the Daily Mail story about the "Roman sword." I started by telling Pulitzer that, since he clearly was claiming copyright over an image he did not own, I no longer trusted his assertion that he actually owned the photos of the sword that he forbid me to use. He first assured me that his copyright mark was not on the photo:

"Please be clear, InvestigatingHistory.org supplied a sample educational photo of a shield boss for illustrative purposes and it is not marked or filed copyright by InvestigationHistory.org and your reporting of such is incorrect and should be corrected. . . .  Your reporting that we assert copyright and such is wrong . . ." 

I told him that he should check the photo, as there really was a copyright mark there.

"Andy, there is no copyright mark, it is an attribution of who provided."

I told him that the little "c" with the circle around it means "copyright," and he should look at the image.

He then told me that I was not a lawyer (which I knew) and instructed Steve to send me a "notice to cease and desist that we are asserting such claims when WE DID NOT put the mark there." Eventually, apparently, he finally looked at the image and did verify to his own satisfaction that it contained a copyright mark of InvestigatingHistory.org. How that somehow became my fault, I do not know. He asserted that the Daily Mail had put the same mark on all the images in the story, which was not true (there are copyright marks on all the photos, but they are of several different organizations). Eventually he ended the conversation by thanking me and saying

"we have requested the attribution be changed on several points:
1. This is a representative photo
2. This is not THE shield boss found
3. I am not the finder of the boss."

That's all well and good, but as of this writing the image and the caption in the Daily Mail story is exactly the same (i.e., with InvestigatingHistory.org's copyright mark) as it was on December 21 (five days ago). This tells us two things, I think: (1) the Daily Mail's procedure for fact-checking stories that they publish is either non-existent or very poor; and (2) Pulitzer's pull with the media is not even of sufficient weight to compel an edit to fix an error in a published story. It's really pretty sad.

And that brings us to the next "development:" a Christmas day rant, the main thrust of which seemed to be "if you don't believe in the Roman sword, the terrorists win." I confess that I have not read the whole thing in detail (it was obvious that Pulitzer wrote it himself, which, while more admirable than some of his blog posts that are copied-and-pasted directly from Wikipedia, makes it difficult to follow). He seems to be crying conspiracy and saying that you should trust him more than someone who actually knows something about the subject matter he claims to be "rewriting."

"Give the sword to a local College and University Archaeology, Anthropology or History Department and ask them to evaluate it and they say “Most likely a trinket or copy bought in the 18th century and brought back on a ship and accidentally dropped overboard”."

This is oddly specific, and it makes me think that he already knows that it is going to happen.  I don't think he has a crystal ball, however. My guess is that he knows that someone already looked at the sword (probably in connection with The Curse of Oak Island) and probably said that very thing.  And that's probably what will end up on television.  There's another falsifiable hypothesis for you - we'll see if I'm right or not.

Pulitzer then continues on his quest to beat up straw men and dodge the real questions, arguing that no-one would drop such a valuable sword in shallow water without retrieving it.  This is ridiculous and moot, since (1) we really have no proof the sword was actually found in the water and (2) it probably wasn't that valuable at the time it was purchased anyway (my guess is the 1800's). He has provided no independent evidence that there's a Roman shipwreck out there, and the only provenience information we've been given so far is "someone said their relative pulled it out of the water a while ago." That's not enough, and I'm going to need to see much more before I accept that this sword came from an underwater context that means anything.

It's possible he says something else new in the post, but I wouldn't know since I haven't read it that carefully. Maybe he attributes some new magical powers to the sword in addition to its capacity to point north. Maybe once he finds all ten swords he can put them all together and gain control over Castle Grayskull.

Finally, today Pulitzer wrote this strange post claiming that people who are skeptical of him are banding together to attack him:

"When investigating the connection, one can see the orchestrated attack by by an archaeologist and a blogger who both attack ALL FINDS and all individuals which write, recover or rediscover lost history which does not fall in line with the “approved party line”."

It does not surprise me that Pulitzer's definition of "investigating" entails clicking to see who follows who on Twitter. The archaeologist he's referring to is me.  Jason Colavito and I correspond occasionally (and I read his blog daily). I don't know who "Maleficent" is (just like many of the people I follow on Twitter), and I don't know any of the other whopping nine (9) followers of this person.  I'm not orchestrating anything with them.

What Pulitzer doesn't seem to understand is that it's evidence that matters. During our email exchange about the Roman shield boss image, he asked me why I was so skeptical of the sword. I didn't bother to respond. I think I've been very clear about the reasons for my skepticism.  I just don't believe there's any compelling reason to think the thing is a genuine Roman artifact. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter what I believe: it's what I (or anyone else) can demonstrate. I have laid out some very clear expectations for my sword hypothesis, any one of which Pulitzer could prove wrong if he had the evidence to do so. He has chosen not to engage on those points, but instead write diatribes about being a warrior and blah blah blah, libel blah blah blah, copyright blah blah blah, etc.

People who have evidence and an understanding of what it means use it. Those who don't . . . blah blah blah.
​

If you thought the alleged Roman sword allegedly from an alleged Roman shipwreck in Nova Scotia was already incredible (in the sense of definition number two), you'll be interested to learn that it is even more special than you already thought. In a recebt blog post, J. Hutton Pulitzer reported that his "100 percent confirmed" Roman sword from Nova Scotia also has a "magical quality:"

"What is this special quality? The sword has an ancient ocean navigational device built into it which causes the sword to point true north. Such magnetic qualities are only found in authentic items of antiquity, not cast iron or manufactured stone replicas."

I'm not even sure what to say about that. Magnetic properties are something about the sword that is testable, I suppose, so that's another claim to add to the pile. Maybe Pulitzer's special TreasureForce XRF has a magic-detecto-meter in it. Right beside the decoder ring. Who knows. I'm just going to leave it alone.

I will note, however, that the association of the Hercules figure on the sword with magnetism is also discussed by the owner of the Florida sword.  Pulitzer calls the Florida sword "a perfect litmus test for the Oak Island Roman sword," saying it is one of four that have now been "verified." 

Pulitzer says a few other things about the sword that are of note, but doesn't add much to the narrative that we didn't already know. 

He repeats the assertion that up to ten of these swords were made, though still providing no information about where that assertion comes come (previously he has cited both "history" and "legend"). He seems to be saying that some emperor (he doesn't say which, but presumably he is referring to Commodus) made ten Hercules gladiator ceremonial swords to hand out as year-end bonuses at the Imperial office party. 

In addition to the Florida sword and the Nova Scotia sword, Pulitzer includes in his "authentic group" a "famous attraction in Naples that the museum commissioned a foundry cast iron replica to be made."  This lines up with my speculation that the "source" of the swords would be the Naples/Pompeii/Herculaneum region.

One of the expectations of my hypothesis that the brass/bronze swords are all of recent manufacture is that there is no authentic, original Roman sword of this design.  Pulitzer could attempt to prove me wrong by identifying his supposed "famous attraction" sword (it's so famous, apparently, that no-one has yet been able to find an image of it online or by inquiries made to the Naples Museum).  Can you provide an image? Can you give us a museum number? Can you point us to a brochure, book, or other publication? Can you provide any clue as to where we can learn something about this "famous" sword from some source other than your blog posts?

Pulitzer once again ducks the important issue of the California sword and the Italian Ebay sword, focusing on pointing out (again) that the Design Toscano swords are not "real."  We know that. Those swords (currently being produced) aren't really the problem for Pulitzer's thesis that the the brass/bronze swords are authentic. The California and Ebay swords are, however, because they appear to be examples of brass/bronze swords made from the mold as Pulitzer's "authentic" sword. As far as I know, he has never tried to explain the California or Ebay swords, preferring to try to confuse the issue by attacking the Design Toscano swords as a straw man. 

Nothing that Pulitzer said in his post changes my gut feeling that my hypothesis is essentially correct: these brass/bronze swords are recent creations with no ancient Roman "model." Pulitzer has asserted that the location of the "original" sword is Naples, but has not provided any evidence to back up that assertion.  He has asserted that the sword has been "verified," but he has provided no additional information that leads me to believe that any credible expert has looked at the sword firsthand and concluded that it is genuine. My guess is that he pointed his XRF at it (oh my! it's brass!) and solicited an opinion of "it looks it could be Roman to me" from someone somewhere. Is that all there is?  If not, then prove me wrong.

If that's all there is, that's an incredibly weak foundation for the argument that you're going to change history.

Note: The image of the sword used in this blog post is from this page. I think it's a good stand-in: it's just as much a functional sword as the Nova Scotia sword; it's just as Roman as the Nova Scotia sword; and it's just as magical as the Nova Scotia sword. Pulitzer insists that he owns the image of the "Roman magical sword" (although he has yet to provide me with any evidence to that effect) and has denied me permission to use it. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em!

Among other misrepresentations in the various articles claiming that ancient Romans invaded the New World, there's the one about the Roman shield boss that was reportedly found in Nova Scotia.  The original Boston Standard article shows a photo of a Roman shield boss with a caption that reads "The Roman shield 'boss' which the report claims was found in Nova Scotia."​

It has already been pointed many times online that the shield boss shown is not from Nova Scotia. It's from Kirkham, Lancashire, England. It was discovered in 1792 and now resides in the British Museum (clicking on the link will take you to a page with the same image used in the story). 

The mistake/misrepresentation (whether it was intentional or not I do not know) has been repeated in subsequent stories trumpeting the Nova Scotia "discoveries."  Do any of these reporters who put their names on stories bother to check anything? My computer has this feature where I right-click on an image and it lets me search for the image on Google. I bet yours does, too. Try it!

The story in the Daily Mail (Ellie Zolfagharifard, 12/17/2015) uses the same British Museum image of the Kirkham shield boss (calling it "the Roman shield 'boss' found in Nova Scotia"), but this time the image carries a notice of copyright by Investigatinghistory.org.  That's Pulitzer's outfit. So he's claiming ownership of an image of a shield boss presumably owned by the British Museum? That's ironic, since he threatened to sue me for re-using a portion of his sword photo, claiming that my use of the photo would deprive him of money:

". . . you are dealing with a rare museum artifact which a significant portion of the revenues of such artifact will come from the very photos you are using as they are added to text books, table books, research materials and other intellectual property."

Huh. 

​Whether there's a real "shield boss" or not I have no idea. If the "shield boss" is as convincing as the "Roman sword," it doesn't surprise me that Pulitzer substituted an image of a real one.  Maybe the "shield boss" is really an old hubcap.  Or a WWI helmet. Or a dog food bowl. Who really knows anymore.

​Journalists could be helpful here. So far, they have really not been.

One of the most important things that distinguishes science from pseudo-science is the presence of a mechanism for testing ideas to determine if they are false. As the hubbub over the alleged "Roman sword" from Nova Scotia drags into Day 4, we haven't been provided with enough details from the claimant (J. Hutton Pulitzer) to really evaluate his repeated assertions that the item is a "100 percent confirmed" ancient Roman artifact.  

​While we don't have all the answers yet, we do know enough to construct several basic alternative hypotheses about the sword. Based on what I've seen, I think the most likely explanation is what I called "Possibilty 3:"

"Possibility 3. All of the brass/bronze swords are modern (i.e., manufactured sometime during the last few hundred years).  This is certainly possible. I think, in fact, this is probably the simplest explanation. It's possible, for example, that the swords were all produced as decorative souvenir swords for the Victorian tourist trade in the Mediterranean (i.e., to be sold to wealthy travelers doing a Grand Tour of Roman Italy). Can I prove it yet? No. But I think it's a real possibility."

In other words, I think there are two "generations" of swords floating around out there, neither of which dates to ancient Rome.  I think that the "first generation" brass/bronze swords are 19th century pieces that were created to satisfy the souvenir appetites of wealthy northern Europeans visiting the Naples/Pompeii/Herculaneum region during the 1800's. I think the "second generation," mass-produced, modern reproductions made by Design Toscano (currently available at garden centers and home decor shops for $20-$30) were created by copying one of those "first generation" 19th century swords. 

If this explanation is correct, it means that the "Roman sword" from Nova Scotia has nothing to do with actual ancient Romans. It's fairly simple to take my explanation, break it down into components, and phrase it as three simple, falsifiable expectations. If any one of these expectations can be shown to be false, then my explanation is not correct. If you can't falsify my explanation, however, it stands as just as plausible (much more plausible, really, if you want to be honest and factor in parsimony) as any explanation involving ancient Romans wrecking their boat in the waters off Nova Scotia.  If anyone can falsify my explanation, I'll be happy to go back to the drawing board and re-work it. That's what scientists do!

Here we go.

Expectation 1: There is no authentic Roman sword that matches the design of the Nova Scotia sword. 

• Rationale: Based on what I've gleaned online, all signs point to the Naples/Pompeii/Herculaneum region of Italy as being the original source of the "design" of the Hercules-hilted swords that are popping up everywhere.  The Design Toscano website, for example, describes their reproduction as an "exclusive museum replica . . . like those found in Pompeii."  Pulitzer stated on Facebook that there was a "REAL" sword in a "Famous Italy Museum." I've searched online in just about way I can think of (museum websites, antique dealer websites, image searches, historic books about the Naples Museum, etc.) and I have found nothing but dead ends. I know there are other people out there searching also.  I have found no evidence that an original, authentic Roman sword of this design exists in any museum. If these swords are so special, valuable, and highly-prized, why is it so difficult (impossible?) to find an image of the "real" one?
• Can be falsified by: Producing an authentic Roman sword that matches the design of the Nova Scotia sword. Easy-peezy!

Expectation 2: The bronze/brass swords do not pre-date the 1700's.

• Rationale:  The Pompeii/Herculaneum region was a popular destination for wealthy Europeans (mostly young men) undertaking a customary educational trip known as the Grand Tour. The figure on the hilt of the sword is Hercules (his beard, lion skin, and club are plainly discernible on the California sword, which is the best preserved example I've seen so far). I think these swords were produced as souvenirs of the region for wealthy travelers. As suggested by someone commenting on my blog, it may be that the figure hilts were all cast from the same mold but the blades were hammered out by hand. This would explain why the hilts match exactly but the blades differ somewhat in size and shape.  At least one of the swords (the California sword again) has fullers visible on the portion of the blade nearest the hilt. This may indicate that the swords originally came with scabbards (only the small portion of the blade that was visible was made to look more authentic).
• Can be falsified by: Producing any information that demonstrates any one of these swords pre-dates the 1700's.  That could include an archaeological provenience or a depiction of such a sword design in any piece of Roman art. Easy-peezy again, right?

Expectation 3: The bronze/brass swords will have similar metallurgical properties.

• Rationale:  If these bronze/brass swords were souvenirs produced in a single region (Pompeii/Herculaneum) during a relatively limited time period (probably the 1800's), it is logical to expect that they will share some common metallurgical properties. I think they were, literally, all cast from the same mold. Pulitzer's claim that he has authenticated the Nova Scotia sword by comparing it to "another one like it"  means nothing if neither sword dates to ancient Rome.  I have asked David Kenney if his sword (the Florida sword) was the one that Pulitzer tested for comparison, but have not yet received a response. [Update 12/20/2015: Kenney told me he has never had his sword tested for its metallurgical properties.]  So what if all the brass/bronze swords of this design have the same metallurgical properties? Does that mean they are all from ancient Rome?  Does that mean they are all of 19th century manufacture? The meaning of that result depends on whether any of them can be proven to have originated at any specific time period (which brings us back to Expectations 1 and 2). My hunch is that all the brass/bronze swords out there (I know of four now) will be of similar composition.
• Can be falsified by: Producing the test results that show that an authentic Roman sword has different metallurgical characteristics than a 19th century souvenir sword. You need to test more than two swords! You need to test the ones you claim are authentic as well as the ones you claim are not (and I'm not talking about the Design Toscano swords, I'm talking about the California sword and the Italian Ebay sword).

Pulitzer seems to be dealing with the proliferation of swords by a combination of misdirection and rationalization. In the misdirection department, he seems to be spending a lot of time arguing against the modern Design Toscano swords (which no-one who is really paying attention, I think, has said is what the Nova Scotia sword is). In the rationalization department, he has now said at least twice that "history" and "legend" state that ten of these ancient Roman Hercules swords were made (making room for the new swords turning up, I guess). I have no idea where the number ten comes from. It would be easy for him to provide a source for that "history," but as far as I know he has not.

I'll include a short lesson for "fringe" theorists out there who don't seem to get what science is and how it actually works.  I have phrased my explanation of the "Roman swords" in terms of three expectations that are clearly falsifiable (i.e., evidence can show them to be incorrect).  I've constructed my explanation using induction: I've gathered up the facts that I'm aware of and crafted a general explanation that accounts for those facts.  I've used that general explanation to derive a series of expectations that will be true if my explanation is correct (this is the deductive side of the inductive-deductive loop that is called "science").  If I can prove my expectations to be false (and I am trying to do that), I can show that my explanation is wrong. Then I can refine my explanation to incorporate the new facts that falsified my hypothesis.  Then I can figure out a way to test that new, refined explanation.  See how that works? It's not that tough. Instead of "working to verify authenticity" (and threatening legal action and trying as hard as you can to confuse the issues), you might try actually working to test an idea.

Try it sometime! It's fun!

Update (12/26/2015): I have removed a comment at the request of the person who posted it.

J. Hutton Pulitzer has finally said something accurate:  he is, indeed, "rewriting history." And by "rewriting history" I mean backpedaling on his statements that a sword allegedly found in Nova Scotia was a "100 per cent confirmed" Roman artifact.  

Following the announcement (on December 16) via a story in the Boston Standard written by Gemma Gadd, several bronze/brass swords that appear to be nearly identical to Pulitzer's claimed Roman sword have come to light (one in a collection in Florida, one recently purchased in California, and one for sale on Italian Ebay). It also turns out that you can buy a currently-produced iron (or stone?) version of the sword from well-known edged-weapon retailers such as Walmart and Linens-N-Things.

If you weren't already suspicious of Pulitzer's sword just by looking at it, the existence of multiple brass/bronze swords that appear to have been cast from the exact same mold as Puliter's sword should give you pause.  If not, you've probably already stopped reading.

There are several basic possibilities of what's going on here.

Possibility 1. All the brass/bronze swords are authentic Roman swords.  That's really completely implausible for many obvious reasons that I don't have the energy to write out. 

Possibility 2. Some of the swords are authentic and the rest are copies. It's possible, but, I think, pretty unlikely. The problem for Pulitzer, however, is that copies are generally worse than the original.  The "best" of the swords I've seen so far is the one purchased for $25 in California - there is no way that is a copy of Pulitzer's sword because it preserves details that are worn off of Pulitzer's sword.

Possibility 3. All of the brass/bronze swords are modern (i.e., manufactured sometime during the last few hundred years).  This is certainly possible. I think, in fact, this is probably the simplest explanation. It's possible, for example, that the swords were all produced as decorative souvenir swords for the Victorian tourist trade in the Mediterranean (i.e., to be sold to wealthy travelers doing a Grand Tour of Roman Italy). Can I prove it yet? No. But I think it's a real possibility.

Possibility 4. There is an authentic Roman or Greek sword somewhere that was the model for all of these reproduction swords.  This is also possible. I'm not aware that such an ancient "model" sword has been identified yet. It may or may not exist. But I'm quite certain that if such an original exists it wasn't submerged off of Oak Island (how would copies have been made?).

In the original Boston Standard story, Pulitzer proclaimed that Nova Scotia sword to be "100 per cent confirmed." That's an unequivocal statement that he has done all of his work and there is not a single iota of doubt left that this could be anything other than an authentic, ancient Roman sword. 

Apparently, however, that has changed. In a post this afternoon, Pulitzer wrote the following:

"Logically anyone should question the find of a single sword out of place, and you can bet we have been working hard to verify it's authenticity."

Wait - still working to verify its authenticity? I thought it was already 100 percent confirmed. Did I somehow misunderstand the meanings of "100 percent" and "confirmed"? 

I guess Pulitzer didn't know about all those other swords out there. That's too bad for him. The more swords there are, the less likely it is that Possibility 1 is plausible. With four brass/bronze swords floating around, in my opinion, Possibility 1 is out the door. Possibility 3, however, looks better and better as more of these brass/bronze swords surface.  But if Possibility 3 is correct, the whole idea of the sword being Roman goes down the tubes.

The existence of any "reproduction" swords really complicates things for Pulitzer as well. It seems he has "tested" his sword (and 100% confirmed its authenticity) by comparing the composition of the metal to that of another sword that he thinks is authentic (I would guess the Florida sword, but I don't know that for a fact). But if that reference sword is also not authentic, then a test tells you nothing (two decorative swords cast in the same foundry in Milan in 1850 would test as the "same" even though neither is from ancient Rome).

This is a significant problem for Pulitzer's story. So he's trying to figure out how to explain the existence of multiple other swords that look just like his. In one silly post earlier today, he even floated the idea that the "new" swords popping up since his announcement were a result of people trying to capitalize from his earth shattering news by quickly making swords to sell. He even suggested that some of the swords didn't exist:

"Take the hottest news story going, clone the photos, see if you can sell tons and make a mint! That's opportunistic capitalism!"

It's also a complete bullshit thing to say. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that the California sword is a different sword than Pulitzer's, as it preserves much more detail (I would do a side-by-side comparison, but Pulitzer would probably threaten to sue me).  The Ebay sword is real also. I'm aware of who purchased it, and (as a reader of my blog identified as Peter Geuzen informed me through a comment) you can see that it has been for sale since September. 

If those posts weren't enough of an indication that there's some panic in the air over at Pulitzer's secret treasure fort headquarters, the text of the original Boston Standard story was edited today.  Here is the original section that I have quoted several times:

   "Now lead researcher and historic investigator J. Hutton Pulitzer, who also stars in the show [Curse of Oak Island], has put a large white paper together with a group of academics from the AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society).
    The main discoveries include a Roman sword found submerged just off Oak Island - and what is believed to be a Roman shipwreck.

Here is how that passage reads now:

    "Now historic investigator J. Hutton Pulitzer, who previously featured on the show, has put a large white paper together with a group of academics from the AAPS (Ancient Artifact Preservation Society).
    He claims to have evidence of a Roman sword found submerged just off Oak Island - and what is believed to be a Roman shipwreck."

There a several differences worth noting. First, Pulitzer is no longer identified as a "lead researcher" and "star" of The Curse of Oak Island (I haven't watched the show this season, but my understanding is that he's no longer on it).  Second, the announcement of the Roman sword is now nestled in the phrase "claims to have evidence of" rather than proclaimed as a discovery (at last check, Pulitzer is still quoted as saying that the sword is "100 per cent confirmed").  

I'm not sure who is doing the rewrites to the Boston Standard article and on what basis the story is being edited. If I was the author of the article, I would be embarrassed to have participated in this nonsense.

Pulitzer loves attention, and he's certainly getting it. That attention has come with some scrutiny, however, and my sense is that right now it's really not breaking his way. He went for all the marbles with his Roman sword claim, and it's going to be pretty difficult to back off of that claim with so many eyes watching. Do you want to be right about the sword or do you want people to think you mean what you say? I'm not sure you can have it both ways at this point.

Sit back and enjoy the continuing saga of Swordgate. I'm sure it's not over.

Update (12/26/2015): A comment has been deleted at the request of the person who posted it.

I really need to take a break from Swordgate this morning and finish installing a medicine cabinet in the bathroom. But I wanted to pass on this link (posted by someone on the Canadian Archaeological Association Facebook page) to more modern reproduction swords available on Ebay. 

These swords are iron and are available in quantity. Here is the description:

"Paying homage to the craftsmanship and technique of metalsmiths in the Roman Empire, our exclusive museum replica is a rough iron foundry casting like those found in Pompeii. This remarkably heavyweight replica boasts characteristic details, and makes a handsome gift for yourself or anyone who enjoys Roman history or artifacts."

The design of the hilt is obviously very similar (if not identical) to the bronze/brass swords from Florida, California, Italy (Ebay), and Nova Scotia. What's potentially significant is that the description identifies the sword as a "museum replica . . . like those found in Pompeii."  

Does this get us closer to determining whence this sword design comes? The statement certainly implies that the design is based on a real Roman artifact, and it gives a geographic origin. Or perhaps these copies are based on one of the brass/bronze swords that may have been produced (perhaps from a Roman or Greek original and perhaps not) sometime in the recent past (i.e., within the last three hundred years or so).