I Will Be Writing an Article about Fake Hercules Swords for "Ancient American" Magazine

6/22/2016

At the end of yesterday's blog post about Ancient American and the non-sword article in the latest issue, I wondered aloud if the magazine would publish a piece by me about the swords. This morning I emailed Wayne May (publisher) to ask him that very question and got a speedy response:

"Yes, definitely, submit your article, we will publish it."

With some quick correspondence, I established that it should be no longer than about 2000-3000 words and that I would be allowed to publish my article on my own website 30 days after the issue is released. The deadline to make the September issue is August 1. I'm hoping to make that deadline even given everything that's going on -- I've already written who-in-the-hell-knows-how-many words about the swords, so it shouldn't be that tough. I'll keep you posted.

Will the real "Roman sword" please stand up?

Jennifer link

6/22/2016 07:41:40 am

Nice! I was reading AA earlier this year and wondering if it was at all worth writing something about haplogroup X. I decided, on balance, it wasn't. Will be very interested to see how this goes for you.

Gina Torresso

6/22/2016 07:56:18 am

Andy, I look forward to your write up.

Killbuck

6/22/2016 08:37:42 am

"..... what could POSSIBLY go wrong?"

Andy White

6/22/2016 08:40:03 am

I may be asking you for permission to use one of your cartoons.

Brad Lepper

6/22/2016 09:07:55 am

Is it wise to make any contribution that appears to add to the credibility of this magazine? Now they truthfully will be able to say their forum includes contributions by "certified experts" -- never mind that the contribution undermined one of the ridiculous claims presented therein. I fear it may leave the unwary with the misleading impression that their contributors regularly include other certified experts.

Andy White

6/22/2016 09:25:07 am

It's a fair question, and one I will certainly have in mind as I prepare my article. One important factor is that I will be in control of message, unlike a situation (like television) where someone with different motivations will be editing what I say. I think my message will come through loud and clear.

Brad Lepper

6/22/2016 10:04:23 am

My concern isn't at all about the content of the message or its clarity, it is about the venue. My point is that regardless of what you say, your mere presence in the magazine will raise its level of credibility. That has to be weighed against the possibility that people who would not otherwise be aware of your concerns with the data and arguments will be exposed to them, but what are the chances that readers of this magazine will be persuaded by your response? I am concerned we (professional archaeologists) potentially have more to lose by engaging on this turf than we have to gain.

Bob Jase

6/22/2016 10:56:50 am

I hope your message will be allowed to come through loud & clear. Somehow I see it being chopped uo into pieces throughout the magazine interspersed with ads for dowsing rods, treasure maps and psychic history advisors.

hal

6/22/2016 10:31:29 am

And here is the best example I have ever seen explaining why the so- called fringe doesn't trust archaeology. Way to go Bradley.

Brad Lepper

6/22/2016 02:17:34 pm

hal, I am not suggesting that professional archaeologists refuse to engage with "fringe archaeologists." I have done so throughout my career -- often, or at least sometimes, on cordial terms. I have learned from hard experience, however, that engagement is problematic when an unbiased or uninformed observer could interpret that engagement as endorsement. When the medium can be the message you need to be as particular about the medium as you are about the message. And frankly I don't understand why you think prudent reluctance to play in their sandbox should elicit distrust from fringe archaeologists. Annoyance and irritation maybe, but why distrust?

Jennifer link

6/22/2016 10:54:34 am

Brad, that's one of the reasons I ultimately decided against writing there. I'm still trying to find other ways of engaging with people on the research. It's a challenge.

Matt Boulanger

6/23/2016 08:15:35 pm

Brad raises a good point. Although your intentions for writing an article about this---and the article might be completely on point---that in no way prevents the editors or publishers of the magazine from later saying that their magazine "includes contributions from prestigious archaeologists..." (or whatever). I'd like to think that most people would, upon reading this, seek out those articles and read them; however, confirmation bias is more than likely to affect their choices in what to and what not to read.

Idealistically, I'd like to agree that engaging directly is the best way to deal with this stuff----it's our moral and ethical obligation as scientists to do so. But, I also see how tiring and disenfranchising it can be to try to speak truth to nonsense, and how doing so can actually empower the fringe to continue.

Richard Feynman has a great segment in his Cornell lectures discussing how he reads every letter sent to him about theoretical physics, just to make sure they're not right. BUT -- He follows it up with a plea to not send letters about it, and then he explains how and why such letters are not helpful. Which is the approach I try to take on such issues.

In any case, if you want any help/advice/data concerning the XRF analysis, or even just a second set of eyes to proofread, I'm happy to help.

hal

6/22/2016 03:36:41 pm

Gee, thanks for the simple explanation. So if Andy publishes an article that exposes Hutton's sword it gives it and other nonsense credibility. How logical and ethical. Great stuff here.

Doug Weller link

6/23/2016 05:59:37 am

I'm with Brad Lepper on this.
As for having control of what you write, don't count on it. Issue 41 had an article entitled "Chinese Statue in Oklahoma Mound" by Cyclone Covey, a report of what was said to be an ancient Chinese statue found in eastern Oklahoma. Of course the whole thing is nonsense, but AA rewrote Covey's article without his permission. See http://web.archive.org/web/20020802055324/http://www2.privatei.com/~bartjean/covey.htm (I used to belong to a mailing list where this was discussed, and luckily I still have that archived). AA is not just fringe, it's also racist.

Andy White

6/23/2016 06:32:25 am

I understand the argument that this could "do more harm then good," and I'll certainly give that some thought moving forward. I also think, however, that there is a large potential upside: I would putting a clear argument in front of an audience that would otherwise not see it (or might see it but not digest it). Is it naive to think this could be a worthwhile "teachable moment"? Maybe. I'll continue to weigh the pros and cons.

Brad, can I ask why you appeared on "Ancient Aliens" in its third season? By your logic, did not your appearance "add to the credibility" of the program? If you had the opportunity to appear on the program again and clearly communicate an unedited message about "ancient aliens" would you take it, or would you pass?

Brad Lepper

6/23/2016 07:35:08 am

That was one of those hard lessons I alluded to in my second comment. I didn't want to be involved, but I was overruled. We were assured by the producer that I would be permitted to be a dissenting voice and I was interviewed over the course of several hours during which I explained the utter lack of any evidence for ancient astronauts. Of course none of that critical commentary was used in the episode and I ended up as window dressing giving the show the appearance of legitimacy.

Brad Lepper

6/23/2016 07:41:18 am

To your second question -- would I do it again if I could be sure that my message would have appeared unedited? Truthfully, I am not sure. I don't think so for all the reasons I've already mentioned. But "Ancient Aliens" has a much bigger audience than "Ancient American" some of whom may well be open to a skeptical perspective if it was presented, so it would be tempting.

Jonathan

6/23/2016 09:06:19 am

I think some of the issues raised in the comments tie in with Jason's recent post about the Skeptical Inquirer survey and how it isn't really reaching anyone new--it is only preaching to the choir. Writing an article for AA would certainly be an attempt to reach a new audience.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/skeptical-inquirer-shares-depressing-new-survey-about-who-really-reads-skeptical-inquirer

Peter Geuzen

6/23/2016 01:56:39 pm

What's the rush? Why not wait to see what JHP writes about the sword to decide if it's even worth it. Ask to be in the issue following his sword antics, not the same issue or the issue before (since we don't really know what issue the sword will be in, or do we?). JHP knows how to trip himself up splendidly, based on his 'sword report' failure, and since he has no credible evidence what the heck can he even say about the sword anymore? Don't fall for a trap where he can try to rebut your article - do the reverse.

Scott Hamilton

6/24/2016 06:05:40 pm

I'll eat a CueCat if your article ever runs as intended, Andy. As soon as Pulitzer finds out there will be dissenting voice, he'll make sure it doesn't happen.

6/27/2016 06:58:16 am

Hey Andy, as one of your subscribers that sits on the fence regarding some of the subjects you've been blogging about, I think you are doing the right thing. You have 100% convinced me that JHP's claims about that sword are bogus. If AA has been endorsing this guy's wild claims and you have an opportunity to present better information, then it should be done. From a regular guy's perspective, you are breaking down barriers not building walls. I know it's common practice for professionals in the field of archaeology to ignore the fringe, but that very practice is actually what seems to drive a lot of wild theories home to a lot of people. I don't know how many times I've heard regular folks say: "...and archaeologists won't even touch it" or "...archaeologists refuse to talk about it" and it's true in a lot of cases because they refuse to engage and that can give any argument weight and also make the professional come off as being pretentious and that's a lose lose when it comes to gaining the trust of regular folks. I'm sure ignoring alternative theory and ignoring the fringe worked much better pre-internet, today not so much.

Jonathan Feinstein

6/27/2016 12:49:18 pm

Just adding a late comment;

My Design Toscano FHS (ordered on sale back in January or February) arrived today. As someone who has handled a fair assortment of real swords I have to say that this is the most uncomfortable hilt I have ever had in my hand. It is mildly less clumsy in my right hand than my left, although I tried several sorts of grips (there really is more than one way to hold a sword) and this just does not work.

We still might not know where this Hercules hilt design comes from, but my guess is that it was not a hilt in the ancient world and probably not any time when swords might have been used as personal arms. I seriously cannot imagine anyone who actually used a sword would want such a poorly designed piece. It could come from the 19th Century or else as we discussed months ago the hilt might have been something else that someone attached to a sword blade to make the original FHS as tourist souvenirs. (or I can be wrong... I'm good at being wrong)

The balance is horrendously hilt heavy, but since the blade length is only 10 inches - probably Design Toscano's attempt at cost-cutting it is not surprising that the balance point would be north of where the hilt joins the blade instead of an inch or more down the blade.

Otoh, it looks good on the office wall.

Abraxas

2/12/2017 11:00:34 am

Hey Andy, did this ever happen? I'm not sure if you have an alert system set up to notify you of comments like this, posted in old blog entries... If not, I suppose I'll email you to ask in a little while.

I didn't know if I missed an update about this, or if it just never materialized.

Andy White

2/13/2017 06:08:42 am

I decided against it a while ago. It was on my list of things to write about, but I never got around to it. I also declined interviews with Ancient Origins and one other publication that helped pump the sword claim -- in the midst of teaching "Forbidden Archaeology" last semester I felt myself being ground down by over-engagement with all the lying. Advocates of the sword have done a swell job of making themselves irrelevant at this point, so it's probably better just to let them continue to do that.

Luis Martinez

4/23/2019 03:20:50 pm

It’s probably not important by now but I just want to mention to you I have a metal detector and I found a sword identical to the ones in the publication in and old hacienda in Coahuila, Mexico. I had never heard about these swords before, I was actually referenced by someone who saw a photo I published on Facebook, so I am only learning about this. I saw a video that says it’s not a Roman piece but it is rather from late 1800’s. To me, that’s old enough to consider it a relic. Can anyone share any comments that can bring some light on the matter? Thank you,

Peter de Geus

4/23/2019 05:43:20 pm

Luis - This blog post is almost three years old. To catch up with everything that has happened since, the blog category is here (you will have to copy-paste the link): https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/category/fake-hercules-swords. You could also let us know where on Facebook you posted. You could also send pictures to the blog host, Andy White, at [email protected]. You could also join and post pictures in the Fake Hercules Sword group on Facebook. Advance warning, it's a wacky group. Just some quick info, none of the 20 plus examples found so far are older than the 1970s. These are souvenirs made in Italy for the tourist market.

Comments are closed.

I Will Be Writing an Article about Fake Hercules Swords for "Ancient American" Magazine

Archives

Categories