New Insights into the Origin and History of the Hercules-Hilted Swords

1/16/2016

The California sword is the gift that keeps on giving. It was the second Hercules-hilted sword to surface after the "Roman sword from Nova Scotia" was announced to much fanfare on December 16. The owner of the sword emailed me with photos on December 17 and shipped the sword to me soon after. It is now vacationing in my office.

I've had the opportunity to show it to a few of my colleagues at SCIAA and create a 3D model with a laser scanner. I also plan to get metallic composition data, probably using a scanning electron microscope. It's fun to carry the sword up and down the hall. I may not send it back. (Don't worry, that's a joke: I'm going to send it back. Eventually. Some day.)

Anyway, as I said earlier today, I'm finding the challenge of understanding the mystery of the origin and history of these swords becoming more interesting than the "is it or is it not Roman" question. I've seen no credible evidence so far that suggests to me there is much more than a snowball's chance in hell that the Nova Scotia sword is an authentic ancient Roman artifact. Nothing about the story makes much sense, and we haven't yet been given the promised details that will demonstrate to us that this is a "100 percent confirmed" Roman artifact. The hypothesis that the Hercules-hilted brass/bronze swords (perhaps 7-8 known now) were produced as souvenirs within the last few centuries accounts for all the information about these swords that we currently have. It's the strongest hypothesis going at this point. I wanted to take some time today to flesh it out with a few more insights related to the California sword.

A lot of people contributed to my thinking for this post. Many people have commented on my blog and sent me emails with observations and tidbits of information, and I want to acknowledge all of those contributions. Please let me know if I used your idea or information but didn't give you credit for it. There has been a lot going on on this blog and in this story for the last week, and it's hard to keep up with it all. I also want to thank Jim Legg and Chester DePratter, two of my colleagues at SCIAA, for taking the time to look at the California sword, share their insights, and help me think my way through some issues this week. I told them that I was going to mention their names but retain for myself the full responsibility and ownership of any dumb ideas. These guys have a lot more relevant expertise than I do, and I'm happy that they found this to be an interesting problem.

Bear with me here -- this could be long. Also, if you have any expertise in swords or metal casting and you'd like to tell me if I've got something wrong, I'd love to hear it. Please leave a comment.

They Are All "Copies"

It's clear that we've got a lot of swords now that were made from the same mold or are copies of swords made from the same mold. Here's a comparison of six brass/bronze swords plus the iron Design Toscano sword. (As an aside, I don't think the proponents of the "Roman sword from Nova Scotia" claim were at all prepared for how many of these things would surface once people were looking for them. If they had known that there were were a lot of copies floating around, they presumably would have been prepared for that information and not had to scramble to make up a sequence of baloney stories about Photoshop, plastic swords, the Emperor of Rome issuing a set of ten, etc.).

All the swords are "copies" in that they were all cast - the similarities in the figures make that obvious. Molten bronze, brass, or iron was poured into a mold that was created using some object. Even the very first sword, then, was a copy of some original object.

Which Copies Are Earliest?

Determining which swords are the earliest would be of immense help in unraveling this story and finding the original object.

Proponents of the "Roman sword" claim propose that there was some "original" ancient Roman mold that was used to produce several of these swords. Because they claim the Nova Scotia sword is an authentic Roman sword (and not some cheap copy), we can presume that that sword is exactly how it's supposed to be: it is supposed to be a high quality item that was made by Commodus and dispensed to his special legion commanders while supplies lasted.

Do the data we have support that? I don't think so.

Because of the error that accumulates as copies are made of copies, one would expect that swords from later generations (i.e., Hercules-hilt swords that were not produced in ancient Rome) would be missing some of the details present on the authentic Roman swords. This leads to a key expectation: other things being equal, the earlier the sword, the more it should look like the original. In reality, of course, one can't really make all other things equal (such as wear during the life of sword, natural variation in quality, etc.), but, as I will discuss briefly below, I don't think that issue matters much to my argument. Note: if some later copies are made from going back to the "original," that would compromise the negative relationship between time and "faithfulness" that is created by accumulations of copy error.

To find the earliest sword, then, we look for the one that has design details and features that were not preserved in subsequent generations. And, lo and behold, that's the California sword. And, interestingly, those design details and features are in the blade, not in the figure of Hercules. The blade is the key. I think it all but eliminates the possibility that the Nova Scotia sword is an authentic Roman artifact.

Why? Because it's not the same as the Nova Scotia sword blade, but it's the exact opposite of what one would expect if it was a copy. The California sword has a blade that appears to be unique among the swords. Assuming all of these swords are somehow related, which I think is pretty clear at this point, the most plausible explanation for the presence of features on the California sword blade that are absent on all the swords is that it is earlier in the copy chain than those swords. The overall high level of detail on the California sword (high enough to clearly show that interpretations of design elements in the Nova Scotia sword are nonsense) is consistent with that idea.

The Blade of the California Sword

As far as I can tell, the blade of the California sword is the only one we know about that has grooves in the blade called fullers (apparently the term "fuller" is used to refer to both the tool that the makes the grooves and the grooves themselves). Fullers are used to lighten the blade while preserving strength. They are a common feature of real, functional swords. The California sword has a double fuller cross-section: two fullers on each side.

The guard and proximal blade of the California sword.

The fullers on the California sword end abruptly about 4.1 cm from the guard. The remainder of the blade is thinner and has a more irregular surface than is present on the hilt and the portion of the blade with fullers. The un-fullered portion of the blade has a roughly lenticular cross section.

When I first saw this sword, I thought maybe it had been broken and repaired by replacing the missing portion of the double fuller blade with a lenticular blade. It struck me as notable when they mentioned on television that the Nova Scotia sword also appeared to have been broken and repaired.

When Jim Legg looked at the sword, however, he told me he thought it was cast as a single piece. His opinion was that the Hercules figure and the fullered part of the blade may have been cast from a mold of the original object while the un-fullered part of the blade was produced using a separate piece in a sand mold. There are some small cracks where the fullered and un-fullered portions of the blade meet, and there seems to be a gray putty-like substance under the patina as if the maker tried to blend the interface of the two sections.

If the "original" was a sword with a fullered blade and the Nova Scotia sword doesn't have fullers . . . it's game over for the "Roman sword" claim. I think it's completely implausible to say a later, farther-down-the line copy is going to have a detail like fullers that the original "Roman swords" do not. Explain to me how that could have happened. It's not a small detail that could just come and go. And why would you add a detail like that to a portion of of the blade of a non-functional reproduction? I think the fullers were on the original. And because there are no fullers on the Nova Scotia sword, it ain't one of the "originals."

Legg suggested to me that the figure and fullered blade portion may represent the "original" artifact. Maybe if there is an original sitting in a museum or collection somewhere, it's just the hilt and a bit of the blade rather than a complete sword.

Should We Assume the Original Was Copper Alloy?

Short answer: no.

Since this debacle began about a month ago, I've been operating under the assumption that I was probably looking for a one-piece bronze or brass "original" sword. But after thinking about the California sword as maybe the closest to the original we've seen so far, I think it's wise to discard that assumption.

Why could the original not have been made from multiple parts? A steel-blade, perhaps, and a hilt that was either cast separately or carved from ivory, maybe. After all, if all the brass/bronze swords are copies, there's no reason to assume that they're copies of an original brass/bronze object.

It's possible that the three raised circles on the guard represent the rivets on the original sword that were used to attach the blade to the hilt assembly. They're present on both sides (as you can see on the 3D model). The central ones are the largest, measuring about 6.1 mm in diameter and raised about 1.8 mm above the guard. The outside circles are about 5 mm in diameter.

If the blade and the hilt were separate components on the original, there would have to be a tang of some length that would allow the parts to be connected. The side view of the 3D model of the California sword shows that there is probably sufficient volume inside the Hercules to have had a full or partial tang. The hilt is solid in a line all the way from the guard to the club above Hercules' head. The need to have a solid mass for a tang might explain, in fact, why there's a palmette between his legs (instead of empty space) and why the tail of Hercules' lion skin is where it is. A tang could have extended all the way through Hercules' head up into and through the club. (I'd like to be able to measure the front-to-back thickness of the palmette, but I don't have the calipers to do that in my office right now.)

I don't know enough about sword construction to know if three rivets on the guard would be the only direct signs of composite construction.

So If the Original Wasn't Roman, What Was It?

That's the question I'd really like to answer. There's no solution yet, but there are some tantalizing leads.

Everyone agrees, I think, that there's no way this was a normal military sword. The "Roman sword" people say it's a ceremonial sword, either given away to those very special legion commanders so they can use its magical powers to navigate to Oak Island, or perhaps used in some kind of gladiator-related ceremony. Neither of those sound very likely to me, and I have yet to hear a Roman antiquities expert endorse either interpretation as plausible.

I'd like to introduce the possibility that the original was a hunting sword. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about hunting swords:

"A hunting sword is a type of single-handed short sword that dates to the 12th Century but was used during hunting parties among Europeans from the 17th to the 19th centuries. A hunting sword usually has a straight, single-edged, pointed blade typically no more than 25 inches long. This sword was used for finishing off game in lieu of using and wasting further shot. Adopted by many Europeans, and in past centuries sometimes worn by military officers as a badge of rank, hunting swords display amazing variety in design."

The "amazing variety in design" is important. Do a Google image search on "hunting sword" and browse through the results. You'll see some pretty plain swords, but you'll also see swords with very ornately carved grips, including some with human figures. Here's one with a carved ivory lion as a grip. Here's another ivory grip with a bunch of different animals on it. Here's one with Hercules cast in silver. These swords are functional, but their restricted use means they can be a lot fancier than their workaday military grade counterparts.

My friend Jeff Plunkett introduced me to the idea of a hunting sword when he emailed me with this description of of a hunting sword taken from page 242 of the National Exhibition of Works of Art at Leeds 1868:

"SHORT HUNTING SWORD, the grip and cross guard in chiselled steel, the grip representing a figure of Hercules clad in the lion's skin, the cross guard of two dragons. Italian--17th century."

There's no image of the sword. Someone want to try to track one down or figure out where this sword currently resides?

That particular Italian hunting sword may end up looking nothing like our guy, of course, but it would be interesting to see nonetheless. It's proof that people were, in fact, producing Hercules-themed hunting swords in during the last several centuries. It's possible that one of those was the "original" for the Hercules-hilted swords we're so fond of discussing today. In other words, just because it has Hercules on it doesn't mean it's Roman.

What Next?

We know that Hercules had good symbolic cred in many parts of Europe and the Mediterranean, and I think it's likely that the "original" sword is from somewhere in that vicinity. I know of no positive evidence that the original resides in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli as asserted repeatedly by "Roman sword" proponents. In fact, I've now seen several statements to the contrary by people who are familiar with Roman antiquities and that museum. It's put up or shut up time for the claim that an original lurks in a museum in Naples. I call BS: what say you?

But I think it's possible that the original may have been in that museum in the past. This is all speculation on my part, but I wonder if it's possible that a later hunting sword kept in the Naples Museum was, at one time, mistaken for a more ancient artifact? I'm not just pulling this idea out of thin air, but seeing it as a possibility based on this incredibly interesting article (supplied by Chester DePratter) about sleuthing out real/replica bronze swords from Scotland. There are a number of similarities between the case discussed in that paper and the one we have on our hands, and there are also some interesting differences. The point I'd like to make now, though, is that the article shows that museum curators, even in the mid-1800's, could not always recognize what was and was not Roman! It's possible that some later weapon was cataloged as "Roman" in a museum (perhaps simply because it had Hercules on it) for some time, and perhaps even displayed as such. Maybe replicas were made of the "Roman" weapon for a while before the item was reclassified or retired within the museum. Outside the museum, however, production of souvenir swords made with the label "Gladiator sword of Pompeii" could have continued well after the museum corrected its error. And could still be continuing today. Again -- pure speculation, but, I think, plausible.

To sum up, I think you can make a good case that the California sword is the earliest one we've got, or at least the most faithful copy of the original. The lack of fullers on all the other swords suggest there were manufactured farther down the copy chain, after that functional detail disappeared somewhere along the way. The creation of the blades using a sand mold explains why they differ in length, and why some may appear to have a break or join line in the portion of the blade nearer the hilt. I don't fully understand how the molding process could have worked to simultaneously produce the blades using a sand mold and the hilt using a different kind of mold, but I'm hoping someone will tell me. (Update: see comments below).

So maybe we're looking for a composite weapon with a steel, double fuller blade and cast or carved hilt. Perhaps it will be a fragment of a hunting sword.

The $50 reward for information leading to the arrest of the original Hercules-hilted sword still stands.

This was very long. I need to eat dinner now.

ECOMAN

1/16/2016 04:40:19 pm

The only way to settle this debacle is to have a face to face debate on the authenticity of the sword supported by facts. The only problem with that is, I only see one side that has any facts!!!

Pablo

1/16/2016 05:52:33 pm

If the Calif. one is the oldest, makes sense that it has the fullers since it may be a copy of a functional sword that needed the strength; later models don't need them because they may be souvenirs. IMHO

ECOMAN

1/16/2016 05:55:15 pm

BTW this is where I get my facts

Mike Morgan

1/16/2016 08:24:52 pm

HEY! I don't know why I or someone else hadn't thought about this before.This "Roman Sword" needs to get into the hands of the stars of another History Channel reality show, "Pawn Stars", they and the experts they often call upon will surely be able to ferret out the truth.

Bobby B.

1/16/2016 08:44:34 pm

And Pawn Stars needs to have American Restorations restore the sword.

American Restorations then needs to give it to Counting Cars so they can paint it on an Italian made car.

The American Pickers need to take their Antique Archaeology operation to Oak Island to pick on and around the island.

The Search for the Lost Giants guys need to be brought into Curse of Oak Island, because why not, right?

The Bigfoot show guys need to come to COOI, again because why not?

Ax Men need to come lumberjack on the Island, and the Ice Road Truckers need to ship it dramatically.

The Swamp People should try to find alligators around Oak Island.

The Ancient Alien show needs to crossover with COOI.

History Channel is wasting the opportunity to create a channel taking place all in the same reality show universe. Think of it like the Marvel movies and shows, except with all of History Channels shows.

Andy White

1/17/2016 05:27:45 am

Don't forget A&E. Going for the big umbrella would let you bring in a magical mixture of Duck Dynasty, Hoarders, and variations on wars involving shipping and storing things.

Pablo

1/17/2016 03:51:38 pm

If the Histery Channel deploys the Kardashians in OI, it's over folks. A couple of selfies with the sword and we lose this battle.

Peter Geuzen

1/16/2016 08:35:01 pm

Well done.

Don’t rule out one of the previous options that’s been stated, being that the design is simply pure fantasy. There might be no authentic original or no later variation confused for an original. Some creative guy at the souvenir factory simply sculpted up his idea of a good seller and made the mold and it has persisted in some form or other since that day.

The faux rivets seem very telling and now that you’ve noted them they seem very obvious as a fake representation of a handle separate from the blade with a tang. A flourish the creative guy at the souvenir factory added – the more bells and whistles the better. Somebody mentioned somewhere in the comments in the last while that they couldn’t find any representation of Hercules holding his club over his head in the two handed fashion seen on the hilt. Again, maybe just the creative juices of the souvenir designer trying to make it somewhat symmetrical but also symbolic. The palmette, the lions/dragons/gryphons/whatever all part of cramming in as much authentic souvenir detail as possible.

Andy White

1/17/2016 05:31:02 am

I agree that's still a possibility - there is no "authentic" original to be found. It may turn out that the "original" was created from whole cloth to be produced and marketed as a souvenir. Even if that's the case, though, the California sword suggests to me that the earlier generations were probably of a better "quality" (i.e., more like a real weapon) than what came later. Finding an original would answer this question, of course.

Hecata Hexenkettle link

1/16/2016 09:49:17 pm

Excellent!! On the link to the French silver hunting sword, did you notice the blade was a combination of smooth and then fuller? Although in different order. I am experienced in lost wax casting, which the fine detail in the silver sword is an example. This takes a lot of steps and time.
I t is generally too expensive for fast cheap tourist fare.. Sand casting is done with fine moist sand and the original is pressed into it and removed. Then the hot metal is poured directly into the sand. The sand is reusable each time and for both sides.Our Herc is designed for this type of casting .as it has no under-cuts. You might loose some details like the penis due to collapsed sand or an air bubble. To produce these copies you must keep your "original" to make your sand mold each time.I think the hunting sword idea is getting warm.

Andy White

1/17/2016 06:08:23 am

Hi Hecata,

Thanks for the comment. I was hoping someone experienced in casting would chime in.

Under-cuts: something possible to cast using a sand mold would have to have no under-cuts, right? But the lost wax method could handle undercuts. So if there is a "fine" original that was produced using the lost wax method, it may have recessed areas that would have disappeared when copies were produced using a sand mold. Right?

How would you go about casting these things as a single piece in a sand mold? You'd make an impression of one half (say, putting Hercules face down), but then how do you make the second half so that the two halves line up, and how do you physically put the halves together so that you can pour in the metal? Would it be lying horizontally?

Ryan

1/17/2016 03:09:57 pm

There are a ton of YouTube videos on sand casting, especially in regards to cast iron cookware. Running through a bunch of them might help.

I'm working from memory here, and I'm not directly experienced with sand casting. But it seems the molds are pressed in a rigid frame, the sand is very fine we and compressible. And pressed with quite a lot of pressure. All of which makes the wet sand mold stable enough to separate and move around.

The original object may not neccisarily look much like the finished results. Asside from a channel for poured metal which is often sculpted directly on the form, I've seen brackets intended to seat the object propperly in the mold, or that both halves line up when the mold is completed. Though I've also seen those features added to an original by lining up pieces of pvc pipe or wire, or added to molds after an original is impressed. It seems like the mold can be formed in one go and separated to remove the form, or pressed as two steps (front and back) then assembled. And the original form can even be a two piece appatus for front and back. So the two molds are pressed separately but everything always lines up due to the way the frames and forms all fit together.

It looks like there's a lot of variability. Down to scale, quality/cost, materials being cast. And whether your manufacturing something new or copying something extent.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 02:22:51 am

The California Sword might not be the oldest, but its additional details, both on the blade and hilt do indicate it is likely a more accurate copy of the original, whatever it was and therefore may well be older than the others by dint of being closer to the original.

Until I read of the fullers, though, I was willing to bet the hilt itself came from another, non-weaponry source (it still may have, of course) and had been investigating anthropomorphic pillars, such as those from the Pompeiian public baths in which figures hold their arms in a similar pose, although so far as I know, none of them are Hercules.

The Hunting Sword lead looks promising, and whatever the catalog was describing certainly does sound like our Herc-hilted sword., although it is possible that too might be a misidentification. Archaeologists and curators of exhibits are no less fallible than anyone else. Even if it is misidentified, I suspect it is only the date(and less likely the usage) that is off, not the design itself. I think that safely pushes the design back to the 17th or 18th Century.

I had already come to the conclusion these swords were not copies of an ancient piece, though. The design is so unusual compared to other hilts of the Roman period, that it would have been a very famous piece, likely published in every book covering both the Roman Empire and the weapons used then, and not the obscure and barely known artifact we are all looking into.

Andy White

1/17/2016 06:17:48 am

You're right that "more faithful copy" doesn't necessarily equate to "older." For there to be a good negative relationship between age and similarity to an original, there would have to be a copy "chain" where copies are made from copies. If some later copies are made from going back to the original, that would screw up that relationship. In this case, I would bet that the probability is low that a single "original" was available for copying over and over again through time (especially if there is only one actual original somewhere in a museum). But it's possible. Finding the original (if one exists) really would help answer that question.

I think the chances that this is a Roman design is shrinking daily. I know of no Roman experts that say "oh yeah, we know about that!" The silence speaks volumes.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 02:44:49 am

Andy,

Here's what may or may not be an important question; How does that sword feel when you hold it by the hilt? Does it fit comfortably in your hand? or is it a bit clumsy? The hilt does not look very practical for any usage, other than show, but that is not always something you can tell by looking at it.

Now I will admit that this is not something that depends on your hand and your personal aesthetics. What feels good to you might be all wrong to me, but something that just does not fit well might indicate the weapon was never meant to be used.

I have been looking at many hunting sword hilts this evening and while some are very ornate, most seem to still be vaguely "handle-shaped." Still, there is something about this design that continues to nag at me...

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 06:20:39 am

Oops. In the second paragraph, I meant to say that is something that IS dependent on how it feels to you, not just the opposite...

NB: I am an Olympic-class typo-ist

Andy White

1/17/2016 06:20:59 am

I feel your pain. I don't have any comparative experience that lets me evaluate the "feel" of the sword. I would say that it doesn't feel as horrible as it looks like it would feel, maybe. You could definitely use it to dispatch an immobile, dying animal (such as in the hunting sword hypothesis). That presumes the original would have had a real blade, which the California sword suggests may be true. You could also hold it easy enough as a stage prop (see comments below).

Pablo

1/17/2016 11:45:30 am

IF IF IF it is indeed based on an authentic original sword, that original sword might have been a decorative one used for parades; as I think I read on the Spain sword description. So it doesn't have to be ergonomic.
What this tells you, is that the Romans were clearly thinking about organizing show off parades in front of the native americans of Nova Scotia in order to show them who the new boss is.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/18/2016 07:48:03 am

Okay, I have to admit it, I want a souvenir knock-off of this sword and wouldn't you know? Design Toscano has a sale on today. The piece won't be available until May and for the picture it may only be the hilt and part of a flat blade, but it will be something to remember all this with. It might even look nice in the office.

Eric

1/17/2016 04:22:59 am

Couple of thoughts here. The "hunting sword" angle is probably not going to pan out-those were functional weapons, with steel blades, and functional grips. That Hercules is so ergonomically unsuitable for a weapon grip (the proper nomenclature, not "handle") I can feel confident it is not a derivative of a 18th century European hunting sword, its just not a practical design for that weapon nor have I ever come across such a design in my study of hunting swords used in a military context ( I specialize in military history and many officers used hunting swords in a field context, so they appear in collections and art of the time, the most famous here in America being George Washington's hunting sword which he purchased in 1777)

That being said, what possible reason would (other than the tourist trade) exist for some fantasy looking "Roman" sword, all bright and flashy and visually striking? The answer hit me thinking about a photo of John Wilkes Booth and his brothers in the costumes of a production of "Julius Caesar" in 1863, which I link here-

https://boothiebarn.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/john-wilkes-edwin-and-junius-brutus-booth-jr.jpg?w=660

It is highly possible and likely that the original sword is a stage prop, just like the one being held in the Booth photo (since they obviously were not swinging around original Roman weapons) for the following reasons-
1. It "looks Roman" to someone with a cursory knowledge of what a real gladius looks like
2. It has "stage presence"- a bright glittering bronze object to flourish
3. It isn't a practical, functional weapon-it looks and feels like a prop, created by a designer to evoke Roman themes, to be seen, not used.

I think the stage prop origin of this "artifact" might be the most likely-how many productions of Shakespeare have needed Roman weapons for Caesar and Brutus and also stand in for the Greeks in Troilus and Cressida? How many repertory companies have crisscrossed Europe and America with "Roman" swords in the prop department?

Ryan

1/17/2016 06:19:31 pm

I feel useful today! I've done a bit of work for stage production, and plenty for video and tv.

While it's worth considering I don't think any original is nearly as likely to be a stage prop as it is Andy's original hypothesis.

The swords we have now simple don't fit with the practical concerns of a proper. And features of a prop weapon would make it unlikely to be misidentified or presented as a legitimate artifact.

The first thing to understand is that in stage work is that much of what is done is intended to compensate for a human audience sitting at a distance. The audience cannot make out facial expressions. So make up and performances became exaggerated. The audience cannot see fine detail so objects and costumes become simplified, and sometimes oversized if the audience needs to detail.

Now the Hercules swords have some issues in this regard. First the level of detail on the California sword would be totally unnecessary. It's invisible to the viewer 10+ feet away. More importantly from a distance that handle does not instantly read as "sword" it more likely reads as "why does that man have an amorphous blob strapped to his waist". The bright shiny brass object posited sounds impressive but it creates an problem. Reflective objects can be distracting to downright uncomfortable for viewers, and are generally avoided. This is less of an issue before the advent of modern artificial lighting, which dates back to 19th century open flame foot lights and spots.

Now it could still be a movie prop. Film brings the "eye" of the audience in much closer to the action. So more detailed props and makeup and subtler performances become practical.

But the early history of film there was no such thing as fictional or narrative cinema. Simple short (several minutes) recordings of everyday events. People milling around the Atlantic city boardwalk, trains arriving, 2 people kissing. Early experiments existed, like Lumiere who were making surprisingly complex narrative film pretty much from the start. I also vaguely remember an Edison (or similar) film of Romans on the march, featuring costumed actors.

Really narrative fiction in film making didn't become the rule until into the 20the century. Late aughts to teens. But film of The silent era usually followed the conventions of theater. Simplified, representative props and exaggerated performances. Things changed rapidly after the advent of sound, in the 30s. So I'd really say if it's a movie prop it'd have to be from the late 20s or after. Which seems pretty late for copies to start spreading around the world, and less likely the original would be confused as authenticly roman. Especially given the claims of the oak island sword being found in the 40s.

In terms of usage as a sword. Stage weapons do not have the same practical concerns as a genuine weapon. But they do have their own concerns. For stage combat (a distinct, semi formalised performance art with surprisingly long history) a sword needs to be light (mostly for safety), comfortable to handle for extended periods and while striking, easily recognized by the audience, and make a good sound when struck against objects. Among other things. The Hercules swords likely fail on all fronts, as would any cast object with a heavy blade. If not intended for stage combat the swords wouldn't need a metal blade of any kind. Wood or a scabbard on a handle would be enough. But the California has part of a blade. Detail that would be invisible if the sword never left a scabbard. But a sword (say for film rather than theater) that needed to look like a real sword would need to be a full blade to visually work. Kind of a wash since we don't know what the full sword looks like.

But this hints a bit at a something else. For the most part props are found, not made. Certain high visibility props that can't be bought (or bought more cheaply than made) for cinema will be build (and more rarely for theater). But in general most props are common objects that are simple bought at market and altered. The most common prop swords in theater are foils, epees and other practice or sporting swords. These are light, blunt, durable, look identifiable sword-like from a distance. And perfect for stage combat. Fake wooden swords also have a long history in the theater. And currently fiberglass or foam swords intended for LARPing or cosplay are becoming more available. In cinema most prop swords are off the shelf reproductions or collectibles. Custom items (in film) certainly will be fabricated (often en masse) for expensive productions with a heavy focus on that sort of thing, where there's a large focus on the thing in question. As far as I know all of the swords for Lord of The Rings were custom made by Weta, as an example. But that's atypical in terms of the history of cinema. Props tend to linger and be reused in multiple films or stage productions. Sometimes residing in prop rooms or a particular prop master's collection for decades o

Ryan

1/17/2016 07:22:29 pm

It seems my comment got cut off, maybe it was too long. Let me see if I can remember where I was going with this.

SO props can linger in prop rooms or working collections for decades or longer. Being used in multiple productions over their life span. The BBC are purportedly still using the swords and wool armor used in the production of Monty Python and The Holy Grail 40 years ago. And those costumes and props were old even then. It kind of a fun thing, playing spot the prop. The BBC tends to reuse props endlessly.

So even finding a production or film that utilized a Hercules sword doesn't tell you anything about the swords origins. Sans documented proof of its creation for a particular work you don't have any information about where it came from. It could even potentially been A Real 100% Confirmed Roman Artifact (tm) that some yutz opted to use.

So while its possible the sword originated as a prop at some point in the past. I think its quite a bit less likely than it being a garden variety collector/souvenir market reproduction or fake. There was a well known market in such things at the time. With Victorian makers either copying older objects (sometime mis-dated or misidentified objects) or crafting completely new ones that looked reasonably vintage. There's an established trend of these items being misidentified as the real thing even today. And a healthy collectors market in these objects as valuable antiques in their own right. So the sword origin there fits an really well establish story line.

If there's any connection to the performing arts I don't expect it would be as a film or stage prop. It just doesn't fit whats needed or expected for that use. A usable prop is unlikely to be confused for a genuine artifact. And an origin in film likely pushes it to too recent of a time frame for copies to proliferate world wide, and particularly given the claim that the Oak Island sword was found in the 40's. It would be more likely to be a decorative object from a venue of some sort. Theater, cabaret, casino. Roman themes were somewhat common as a decorative theme throughout the assorted gilded ages of the late 19th to early 20th century. Even down to things like staff dressed as gladiators and Roman soldiers.

So while its possible, nearly everything that you can imagine has been used as a prop at some point. I doubt its a very fruitful avenue for seeking out the source of these things.

Eric

1/18/2016 03:31:10 am

Check below-I found two resin prop swords from "Spartacus-Blood and Sand" that have exactly the same truncated "blade" as the MOAFHS. That similarity could be indicative of both swords having been used as props In addition, the MOAFHS surfaced in California, with no provenance. It might have made it's way out of a studio prop department.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the fabricated provenance of the OI sword-just because they claim it was found in the 40's doesn't make it so.

As for details and quality of construction I refer to the hi res images of the Booth brothers in costume-Edwin's sandals are much more detailed and ornate-as well as the gladius Junius is holding. I have done my share of historical documentaries, so I know exactly how prop and wardrobe departments work too-generally it's re purposed junk that keeps getting recycled-but with a caveat. In the 19th century (which Andy posits as the time the MOAFHS was created) costumes and props on high end productions were fully detailed, with careful craftsmanship. Just image search Edwin Booth in his costumes and props from any of the Shakespeare productions he starred in in the mid 19th century.

Ryan

1/18/2016 11:51:09 am

Yes I did see that. But Prop swords created for use in modern television use (in combination with modern special effects) do not tell us much about the history of prop use in theater or early film. Nor do they generally fit with the conventions of performance arts from any time before now.

More importantly look at HOW the booth brother's props are fully detailed. They still instantly look like swords and sandals. Your not looking at something that not generally shaped like a sword handle, and is intricately carved with minute details. Quality of construction isn't the issue. The issue is in type of construction. Props tend to be heavily stylized. To look instantly recognizable as what they are. And often times stylized to the era and particular kind of performance they were meant for. For theater this has to work at a distance. The Hercules sword doesn't strike me as having any of the features you'd expect for something with origins as a theater prop.

The bigger problem I have with the idea is that since the idea of a prop is so vague. Anything is a prop, and everything has been a prop. There's no real way to disprove that anything was at one point a prop. Meanwhile given that vagueness, and the lack of records usually kept with regards to this kind of thing. Identifying it as a prop doesn't tell you anything about the sword's origins. Was it a copy or an original that was used as a prop? If it was the original who made it, for what purpose, when, and how? None of those are likely to be answered by finding it used as a prop.

Its possible, and it may be worth looking at. But Andy's original hypothesis, an origin in the Victorian era tourist/collector market, stands as far more likely. Because that's a thing that happens consistently. Victorian fakes or copies, mistaken for or misrepresented as much older artifacts, being copied into recent times.

Eric

1/17/2016 04:35:18 am

Addendum-I found a high res image of the Booth brothers (l to r, John Wilkes, Edwin, and Junius)-you can enlarge it to the hilt of the gladius, but unfortunately, it is not a Hercules hilt-although if it was,the fringe loonies would claim that JWB was part of some bloody Illuminati/Templar/Freemason conspiracy to off Abe.

https://boothiebarn.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/37-2.jpg

Andy White

1/17/2016 06:29:17 am

No! Not John Wilkes Booth!

I think the prop angle is worth exploring for sure. Someone at some point (I think it was George Johnston, who used to work for OIT) said the sword was shipped from Canada to the U.S. as a "movie prop." Maybe they've already identified it as such.

One thing that bothers me a little about that explanation is all the fake patina. You wouldn't want a sword for the stage or a movie that looked like an ancient artifact. Maybe if the "original" was created as a stage prop it looked different than the "aged" specimens we're seeing now. Maybe the brass was highly polished (pretty golden looking in a bright light all by itself) or maybe some actually were decorated to appear golden, etc. I wonder about the size and some of the details of the Hercules figure, also - would those details have been worthwhile to craft for a sword that could only be seen from a distance (i.e., on the stage)?

Eric

1/17/2016 08:36:11 am

A bit of clarification- I posit the original sword, from which all others are copies, was a shiny brass imitation of a "Roman" gladius for stage or movie use. The later copies were intended for the tourist market from the outset and "aged" with patina.

As for the details, my thoughts are the original creator of the sword simply re-purposed some already existing Victorian pseudo-Roman decorative item, possibly cast iron, bronze, or plaster, and used it to build his sword from, not creating it from scratch. This fits with your mid-19th century hypothesis. Another detail that i noticed that could support my theater prop origin is the nub of the fullered blade in the California sword. A prop sword wielded by Brutus, as just one example, would need to be non-lethal and retractable so he can kill Caesar and later fall upon it himself, so the MOAFHS (Mother Of All Fake Hercules Swords) would have only had the nub of a metal blade to attach the fake blade to so you don't stab your actors. This accounts for the wildly varying blade types and sizes in the copies-there was no full, real, metal blade on the MOAFHS to copy.

As for the construction details of actual, real, excavated Roman weapons, I found a very nice little collection of photos of original Roman weapons and components in museums, with attributions. I'll link that so everyone can see that no museum, anywhere, has anything that even resembles the MOAFHS. A real Roman gladius does not have a fullered blade, nor do they have a cast hilt integral to the blade, nor of course are any cast from bronze- (I wonder if the fringe people actually know that bronze weapons were long obsolete by the time they claim the OI sword dates from? I can place the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age in correct chronological order, something the OI fringe people apparently cannot.) In fact, the British Museum has a presentation gladius (which is what the OI sword claims to be) from the Imperial period-nothing on it resembles any of the fake Hercules swords-no gold scabbard fittings (and where are the scabbard fittings on the OI sword? Swords come with scabbards, and they were as highly decorated at the sword itself on high end presentation models) Look at the original artifacts, and the OI and all the other copies stand out for what they actually are-painfully amateurish efforts to resemble real Roman artifacts to sell to gullible tourists or fringe history aficionados who don't have the knowledge to differentiate real and fake (I was accosted with hundreds of "genuine Roman coins" for sale in Petra, Jordan.)

Another few respectful criticisms on the hunting sword hypothesis, so you don't waste time going down a blind alley looking there. I have studied and handled actual 18th century swords, and have reconstructed my own 18th century dragoon saber using original techniques and construction methods with modern materials, so I can say with certainty that the Hercules sword cannot be a 17th or 18th century hunting sword. As with their first century Roman ancestors, a iron, later steel blade was forged, not cast, with a tang. The hilt was created separately, consisting of a guard, a grip, a pommel and a pommel cap. These components were then attached to the tang and affixed by the pommel cap, not by rivets at the base of the blade. Succinctly, nothing in any of the Hercules swords reflects 18th century European sword construction techniques or materials. It is, I believe, originally a prop, which then became a trinket for the tourist trade, and finally a ridiculous attempt of by a huckster and a charlatan to make some cash.

Eric

1/17/2016 08:43:19 am

And of course, I forgot to link the photo gallery of actual Roman weapons-my mistake. Here it is-

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Attack.html

Andy White

1/17/2016 08:57:54 am

Awesome Eric, thank you. Your insights and observations will be very useful in developing a "prop" origin hypothesis where the MOFHS was actually a FHS to begin with rather than some "real" HS.

Question: how does the pommel cap physically serve to affix the hilt components to the blade? Are pommel caps and rivets mutually exclusive?

Another question: suppose for a moment that the MOFHS actually was a real sword. Would a cross section of the fullered blade be able to tell you anything about the time of manufacture? Is there anything in the width or arrangement of fullers that changes regularly through time so you might be able to say "oh, those kind of grooves were most common in 17th century swords but totally absent from Bronze Age swords," etc.?

Andy White

1/17/2016 09:18:33 am

I'm going to appropriate the MOAFHS (I left out the "A" in my comment) next time I write about this. It's much better than putting "original" in quote marks over and over again.

Eric

1/17/2016 11:42:52 am

To answer your questions- and I'll repeat them so everyone else can follow as well.
1."Question: how does the pommel cap physically serve to affix the hilt components to the blade? Are pommel caps and rivets mutually exclusive?"

Answer- The pommel cap can affix the hilt components in two ways, but only one of them is of ancient vintage. I wish I could directly insert pics in comments so forgive me for the clunky explanation. I will use the link I gave to Roman weapons earlier. Scroll to the set of side by side photos captioned "Sword Handles, Aalen Museum"-these are excavated gladii housed in the Roman Limes Museum, Aalen, Germany. Note the soft iron tang of the blade shown has been hammered into a mushroom shape, known as "peening"-the guard, then the grip, then the pommel are slotted into place, and the tang is peened over the pommel using a small rounded hammer, locking all the components into place, then a decorative cap which also protects the whole thing from damage is installed over that. Two popular styles of pommel are shown, spherical and semicircular. Most extant blades are missing the peened over portion as a result of oxidation-its very thin and just disappears after 2,000 years.The Aalen blade is exceptionally well preserved to still retain that construction detail. This is exactly the same method I used in recreating my 1780 stirrup hilted dragoon saber. Riveting, however, is rarely used in swords and much more commonly seen in knives. Riveting would be done by drilling matching holes in the tang and grip longitudinally- not in the guard under the animal feet, as that would be worse than useless-again, I have reconstructed 18th and 19th century knives with this method, so I have done this. Normally, it is a technique to attach a two piece grip to a tang, negating the necessity for a pommel or pommel cap. No real Roman swords use two piece grips, as seen repeatedly in the other photos on the linked site I provided. Again, riveting is not a common swordmaking construction technique, in any century. No extant Roman swords are riveted in any way.

2. "Another question: suppose for a moment that the MOFHS actually was a real sword. Would a cross section of the fullered blade be able to tell you anything about the time of manufacture? Is there anything in the width or arrangement of fullers that changes regularly through time so you might be able to say "oh, those kind of grooves were most common in 17th century swords but totally absent from Bronze Age swords," etc.?"

Answer-Absolutely! Fullers are diagnostic-and the maker of the MOAFHS had no idea what fullers are for. Roman swords are unfullered, for one simple reason-they didn't need to be. Fullers reduce weight in long swords meant for slashing. They are totally unnecessary in short swords which are designed primarily as stabbing weapons, as the gladius is (note every Hollywood portrayal of Roman combat has them hacking away completely unlike the actual training the Roman soldier did as seen and recorded in Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius) The cross section of a real Roman blade would be an unfullered flattened diamond shape, the best cross section for a weapon designed to inflict puncture wounds. You can especially see this indication of shape and method in the reliefs shown at the top of the link-the distinct ridge along the longitudinal center of the gladius on the right and the fighting stance of the legionary on the left, carrying the weapon low and ready to thrust. As far as I can tell, none of the blades on the OI sword or any other have any shape at all. Fullered and unfullered blades, single, double, half fullered, stopped and unstopped, all have existed and overlapped over the centuries, but the closest style in time, place, and culture that had any influence whatsoever on Roman blades was centuries after the claimed era of the OI sword, namely Germanic iron longswords from the Late Imperial era, which had a single, wide, central fuller. Double fullered weapons did not appear until the late 17th century among German swordmakers in Solingen and spread to Toledo, Spain as well, but never achieved as much popularity as single fuller blades. In addition, most double fullered blades were for cavalry or dragoon sabers, cutting weapons, so the fullers were placed above the centerline of the single edged blade.

Ike

1/17/2016 04:31:25 pm

I make no claims to have knowledge of how bronze era swords were produced, but I have never seen any (real) iron age era swords (of which this is claimed to be) which were cast with the blade, grip, and hilt in one piece. I suppose it is in theory possible, but unlikely. Cast grips attached to a steel/iron blade on the other hand, do exist. Note this example from the 1830's which was designed to evoke the appearance of a Roman gladius.

http://relicman.com/weapons/zArchiveWeaponSwordArtilleryModel1832Ames.htm

This, I believe, addresses the rivet issue as well. Rivets would serve no purpose across the hilt, especially if the "original" sword were cast as one piece. If it were cast in one piece, why have any kind of rivets? Instead, they would go along the length of the grip as clearly seen on this example. Also note the fullering along the blade. Not saying this design was the pattern for the sword in question, but certainly shows a design concept (fullering) much later than the Roman era as another poster here pointed out.

A few other things strike me on this...the blade of the OI sword (or the original it was derived from) appears to be no more than a piece of flat stock, perhaps around 1/8", shaped to a point. In other words, it has no real three dimensional depth such as a real sword blade would. I would think even a presentation sword would have some detail to it. Speaking of points...why is the end so perfectly rounded, as you would expect a modern knockoff to be? Looks like it was designed so that the kiddies don't hurt themselves.

Next, in one of his Soundcloud broadcasts, JHP states that the OI sword weighs 8lbs. Does anyone have any idea how impractical it would be to have an 8lb. ceremonial ornament to carry around in a hand, on a belt or baldric? It goes completely against logic.

Finally, I would think that any limited edition "presentation sword" given by the Emperor of Rome would be crafted far more carefully than this "blobby" hilt. Certainly Roman artisans were capable of far more skill than this, it just doesn't jive with me.

Ryan

1/17/2016 06:58:21 pm

Eric,

I thought about including this above, but I think its better to toss it here.

"A prop sword wielded by Brutus, as just one example, would need to be non-lethal and retractable so he can kill Caesar and later fall upon it himself"

Maybe. But retractile blade prop blades are far less common than you'd assume. They exist and are used, but they are hardly standard, and are more frequently used in modern film than they were in past theater use (as far as I know).

Theatrical blades are made safe by blunting them (if they weren't blunt to start). In most theatrical productions a retractile blade would be unnecessary, as would one with a visible section of detailed fixed blade such as we see on the California sword. For the same reason, due to the distance the audience can't make out that level of detail. Particularly when people are moving quickly. Instead this is usually handled with blocking. The (blunted) blade is thrust BEHIND, the actor. Or otherwise buried in his robes/costume, pressed between body parts. Forced perspective makes it look as if the blade is stabbing. Its so convincing that the same technique is still used today in film making.

The retractile blades I've seen tend to be visibly less detailed than other prop blades. Part of this is a result of how their made. But a lot of is it because the audience will never get a good look at them. They're only used for that single stabbing moment, and they will be moving at the time, with the audience's attention directed elsewhere. Most have a hollow handle, and the blade is pushed into that empty space. With a spring to hold it in place until you get stabby.

I've seen a few where the blade recesses into a hollow section of blade as well as the handle (including some quite old ones). But on the whole those have been even less detailed than the ones with just a hollow handle. There are apparently a bit a bottle neck in terms of the sort of detail you can cheaply impress into a sheet of metal. So the detail on both the handle and blade portion of the California don't really wash (again for an item the audience may never see in detail).

They also tend to be a bit dangerous. I cut myself pretty badly on plastic one once. And I've heard stories of the things becoming accidental projectiles or switch blades and taking out people's eyes.

And one last thing. IIRC the theatrical convention until modernist times wasn't to use costumes an props that were appropriate for the time period being depicted (for theater anyway). So if I'm remembering my college Shakespeare classes right: when Shakespeare preformed Julius Ceasar they would have performed with 16th century, English weapons and clothing. And so to moving forward, each century performing the play with whatever was in common use at the time. The style of using props and costumes accurate to the time period portrayed didn't really come in until popular understanding of history later expanded. Even today its not uncommon for Shakepeare productions to use 16th century props, costumes and settings, rather than those for whatever period Billy was depicting. A more accurate to Shakespeare production in exchange for a less accurate depiction of history. So depending on when and where you posit this prop sword occuring. It may not have even been a thing to depict Romans with actual Roman swords.

So retractable knives. Not really a thing. They exist, and existed in the past, but their use is limited and specialized. And they're far less common that other, cheaper, easier and safer methods of producing the same effect (in theater, certain shots in modern film wouldn't work without some sort of special effect).

They aren't necessary by any means. And frankly the Hercules swords do not look anything like what a retractile knife tends to look like.

So prop sword, possible but less so than faked/reproduction collectible/souvenir. I'd call retractable prop sword unlikely at best.

Clint Knapp

1/18/2016 05:11:13 am

Just a small thought while reading through the prop sword discussion: What if the "original" is a prop from an archaeologically-themed adventure, rather than a period piece?

At whatever level of reproduction you want pick one of the swords from, that would cover both the aforementioned movie prop mailing designation and the fake patina appearance.

Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the state of pre-Raiders archeology-fantasy films to give much in the way of suggestions there.

Ryan

1/18/2016 03:53:26 pm

Clint.

I'm pretty familiar with the history of cinema (my degree is in film and media studies). Im not familiar with any specific genre of cinema built around archeological adventure. Early horror/scifi sometimes used such themes. As did adventure serials. But all of that is post sound, so basically 30s onward. Earlier silent pieces were frequently period pieces, so props would likely look new. Prior to that there were recreation of historical scenes, depiction of significant events, and news reels. The later of which were often re-enacted or otherwise fabricated.

The bigger problem I see is with the patina. Cameras do not work the way most supposed. Particularly black and white and early film cameras. They had difficulties picking up certain detail, issues with contrast etc. So in black and white cinema certain techniques were developed to compensate. Chocolate syrup, viscous and shiny was used for prop blood. Costumes were often made with surprising fabrics and colors, shiny or iridescent fabrics. Early screen make up was largely black white and brown. Applied thickly with sharp edges and little blending. Both intended to ensure that proper saturation of gray, and important details are visible in the finished grayscale image. These techniques are more common the earlier you go.

So the issue being that a realist patina would be unlikely to show up properly in black and white. The earlier you go the more present these trend are.

So if you posit an original that was intended as a proper. And also assume a prop that has a patina. A realistic, appropriately colored patina becomes more likely after the advent of color cinema in the late 40s and 50s. Which pushes our original even later. An early prop would likely have a false pastina that made it less likely to plausibly confuse for or misrepresent as a genuine artifact. At the very least not needing accurate color. The earlier the prop the less like I think it would be to pass.

If there's a prop connection I think an unpatinaed prop is more likely.

David Stembel

1/17/2016 05:31:42 am

Fascinating blog entry. Great food for thought. It just occurred to me that we should be looking to Herculaneum for a possible source image for the hilt, rather than Pompeii.

Andy White

1/17/2016 06:33:11 am

The whole Campagnia region (Naples, Pompeii, Herculaneum) makes good sense for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that's where we know people have bought some of these swords and that's where the modern producers say the "original' sword comes from. I wouldn't rule out other parts of the Mediterranean and Europe, however, especially if you factor in the potential for some historical confusion/misidentification. And I wonder when production shifted to China.

Boomer

1/18/2016 01:01:13 pm

Hey Andy, I've been following this for a while. I grew up in Naples back in the 80's and remember there being tons of replica weapons. I had a crossbow, mace and a flail, though none quite looked like this. Anyway, it wouldn't suprise me at all though if these were made to fool tourists. Naples is known for forging items and selling them, or at least it was when I lived there. I'm half tempted to have one of my friends that still live over there go check out the museum and look for this sword...

Andy White

1/18/2016 01:22:28 pm

Do it! And see if copper alloy (i.e., brass) swords are still available for sale (on the street or in the museum). If your friend finds someone selling them, have him/her ask the vendors where they get them. That would be potentially very useful information.

Killbuck

1/17/2016 08:29:09 am

The recent photo posted on the official History Channel FB page showing the sword displays the end of the hilt rather clearly. I learned some basic sand casting many years ago and did a couple small projects but never pursued it as a hobby or avocation. When sand casting is done, a gap between the two halves results in a seam and some resulting molten metal leaks into this seam. When cooled and removed, results in what some call flags, which are to be expected and easily removed, then ground down. Filing and polishing can make the seam essentially disappear.

The OI shows rather crude work in removing that seam. This might be expected for a souvenir piece, but at least to me, something too sloppy for an alleged special order presentation piece from a Roman Emperor.

What is more interesting to me is the patina. It seems too even and superficially colored, which would suggest advanced oxidation. Very convincing faux oxidation can be created. Indeed "artifakers" can do this chemically and rather quickly. But it should leave a chemical signature that natural bronze oxidation would not? I ask that not being any sort of expert on how to analyze this. Advanced oxidation should result in tiny surface pitting and other details of natural oxidation?

Sadly, we can only speculate, as all we have are photos of the OI sword to ruminate upon.

The following link may be of interest. It's a technical sheet regarding details on bronze oxidation, its process and characteristics for those in the historic preservation field. It's rather a dry read, but has good info on the process by which bronze oxidizes under different conditions.

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111994

Killbuck

1/17/2016 08:55:27 am

Additionals:

Andy notes that the claim to the OI sword or it's hilt being gold, or plated gold, is a spurious claim for many valid reasons. Brass is a better possibility showing from those shiny Herculean knees. Brass, being an alloy similar to bronze (zinc being used as an additive rather than tin). Oxidation, mostly driven by the copper in the alloy, will give visually similar oxidation appearance. From what I have learned, brass was made in ancient times, but was hard to make, owing to the difficulty of access to zinc and the process to purify it until much more recent times.

I have attached a nice brief history of brass from the following link.

http://www.copper.org/publications/newsletters/innovations/2000/01/history_brass.html

Trevor Kenchington

1/17/2016 09:06:44 am

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/111994 deals with oxidation in terrestrial settings. Prolonged immersion in seawater (as claimed for the Oak Island object) involves different chemistry and hence different corrosion. I won't try guessing, based on a few bad photographs, whether an object made of an unknown copper alloy has undergone marine, terrestrial or artificially enhanced corrosion but I rather doubt that the object in question has lain on the seabed for more time than needed to take a few photographs, if that.

The other point raised in the document is that modern usage confuses brass and bronze. I expect that the distinction was much better understood in early-Imperial Rome and probably even into the 18th Century -- when bronze still had important non-decorative uses. Unless the sword-like objects turn out to be made of a copper/tin alloy, I'd question whether any of them are pre-20th Century (though that would be a question, not a definitive statement).

Killbuck

1/17/2016 09:29:17 am

Yes, I'd think (but only a supposition on my part) that the whole process of oxidation in a marine environment- purporting 1500 years, would be significantly different. I've not found anything so far in a short search that describes the differences. Perhaps you or others might have something I can read- it's an interesting subject. To me, the OI sword resembles terrestrial oxidation, as seen with bronze objects exposed to the atmosphere, etc. Thoughts?

Killbuck

1/17/2016 10:23:30 am

I did come across a number of articles about the Discovery of the HMS Victory, a famed British warship that sank off the coast of England some 270 or so years ago. The marine conditions have some similarity to the OI area, being colder sea waters (I've no idea if depths would result in different oxidation results). The Cannons recovered after less than 300 years of marine exposure display heavy encrustation, not a thin, uniformed oxidation like that of terrestrial oxidation.

Would it be correct to assume that an object of bronze or brass, exposed to 1500 years of cold salt water would have oxidation that appears terrestrial? I ask, as I do not have expertise here.

Cleo

1/17/2016 11:45:54 am

There's no doubt the oxidation environment leaves a tell tale sign. Metal objects that are subject to sea water will assimilate Cl into the object surface layer. They tend to be much more pitted after millennia when cleaned. I would suggest one looks at the brass sword hilts that have been recovered from wrecks at nearby Louisbourg to see that pocking effect (after 250+ years). I've seen those come out of the ground; the result is not the same. Cl will migrate inward starting bronze disease in pockets. Stabilizing these artifacts requires removing chlorine ions with baths and electrolytic methods. Objects removed from the ground will normally not produce high concentrations of Cl in solution when the objects are treated. The difference is pretty stark.
Not that it matters because the OI piece has clearly, to me, been artificially patinated to begin with.

Interestingly, the blade of the OI sword has the identical tip asymmetry (slope and length of both top and bottom) and mold lines (running length wise) as one of the recent Ebay swords. They are very closely related in my estimation.

The origin of the piece has to be tourist ware. The sculptural (aesthetic) quality is actually quite low. Some have questioned the palmette decoration. The Romans did use this and it is called anthemion.

The piece's prudishness actually hints that it is not early, but of a time when showing a butt crack or more than a bump for a penis wasn't acceptable. Victorian era Tourist ware is what I would guess. A larger, more expensive, form of a letter opener or a tourist spoon, which are often decorated with whimsy and classical figures.

Killbuck

1/17/2016 02:46:56 pm

Thank you that is what I was wanting to know.

Andy White

1/17/2016 09:12:36 am

As I understand sand casting, the mold has to be created each time (around some "original") in two halves. So you'd expect the mold lines to be in about the same area, but, since it's a different mold each time, there would be some slight differences in exactly where those mold lines are. As long as the finished piece is not finely polished, you should be able to detect differences in where the exact mold line was through differences in the grinding/filing marks left by removing the mold line.

Heavy grinding is present on the California sword and on the Design Toscano sword. I think it may be possible to differentiate grinding/filing done by hand (i.e., with a file) vs. grinding done with a wheel, perhaps by looking at the variation in the angles of the striae left by the tool.

Regardless, I agree that evidence of heavy/quick grinding seems pretty inconsistent with an Imperial gift. Maybe McCallum will discuss that when he looks at the sword.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 10:56:21 am

You are correct about sand-casting. For my own thesis I produced several replicas of bronze blades, spear points and an axe from the Middle Bronze Age in the region in and around Israel. Markings from the ceramic originals I used were faithfully copied, but the actual mold lines varied slightly from piece to piece.

Mike Morgan

1/17/2016 01:27:16 pm

I had been wondering about the effects of seawater on brass/bronze also.

This shows/discusses the effects of a salt spray test: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=191279

This second link is more telling, specifically mentioning a sword: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/50639/

I also wondered about why no signs of encrustation. In my search the other day on the effects of seawater on brass/bronze, I ran across an article about cleaning/restoring salvaged brass/bronze items. There was a picture of a before and after of a sword or dagger that showed extremely heavy encrustation, so much so, that it was a very distorted somewhat "cross" shaped item. I have not been able so far to re-find that article, but will post the link if I do. My point is that the article pointed out that it is not a quick and easy process to remove all the encrustation and end up with a somewhat restored item. Would the finder or later family members have even recognized a "lump" of something as possibly being what turned out to be this "roman sword" and to have had the expertise and/or patience to clean it without damaging it and to have it show so much detail? Or will the story be that the "roman sword" was buried in the silt and dredged up in almost pristine condition?

I imagine the story would be that the finder or later family members

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 09:05:18 am

Using the Exhibition catalog (Leeds, 1868) that was listed above, I managed to track down the donor, Robert Leeds, Esq., and found the "Catalogue of the Works of Art Forming the Collection of Robert Napier " (https://books.google.com/books?id=Hf1YAAAAYAAJ). For one exciting moment I thought that maybe I was on a path to the listed sword. Unfortunately not only was his extensive art collection sold on his death, but his catalog's description of the sword was word-for-word identical to the one from the Leeds exhibition, indicating Napier himself must have supplied the description.

I suppose it would be amusing to learn that Napier, too, had purchased a knock-off copy of this same weapon and either ascribed it to Italian origin or was told that was where it had come from (at least he did not think it was a gladiatorial weapon from Pompeii), but I could only really laugh once we find the original (if it exists.

In any case, Napier (a very successful shipbuilder) was reputed to have a genuine interest in art, hence the extensive collection, but I cannot say just how knowledgeable he was about every item he owned.

Trevor Kenchington

1/17/2016 09:18:38 am

"SHORT HUNTING SWORD, the grip and cross guard in chiselled steel, the grip representing a figure of Hercules clad in the lion's skin, the cross guard of two dragons. Italian--17th century" doesn't sound much like the objects being discussed here. 17th Century swords tended to have very elaborate quillons ("cross guards"), when they didn't have basket hilts or other elaborations. Unless there was a recognized pattern of hunting swords which show the feature (and I can't say there wasn't), it would seem a bit odd for a collector who found a blade with almost no quillons at all (similar to a Roman gladius) to date it as 17th Century.

Andy White

1/17/2016 09:21:03 am

I agree - I think it's unlikely it's "our" sword. It gives lie to the idea that the use of the Hercules theme is associated exclusively with the Classical world, however. And I'd still like to get a look at it.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 10:34:25 am

It might not be the same weapon, but many representations of dragons in the Middle Ages did not have wings so someone could well mistake the lions for dragons. As Andy said, I'd love to get a look at it and know for certain.

David L Ulrich

1/17/2016 11:20:53 am

Why I have an issue with your attitude regarding history....This was invented in about 100BC and its not the prototype. Its the real McCoy. It was on a Greek Ship from the Roman Era. To do this, their scientists had to have an incredible understanding of the earth, moon, sun and the principles of astronomy, mathematics and geometry. And it was found on a common trader ship. Not a warship, not an aggressive fact finding political ship, etc., it was on a common freighter, not much different then today. Your understanding of ancient technology is coming up short. Your spending your time running around the world looking for cheap "knockoffs".

"The Antikythera Mechanism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fjjNkNs72U&feature=share

https://www.facebook.com/epliroforia/videos/351731785014140/?fref=nf

Andy White

1/17/2016 11:51:50 am

Hi David,

Thanks for the comment. And thanks for saying you hope I get fired -what a great endorsement of the process of critical inquiry.

The antikythera mechanism is a real ancient artifact. No-one disputes that.

Because a Roman ship COULD have gotten across the Atlantic does not mean that one DID. To make that claim, one would have to put forth evidence. The centerpiece of the "evidence" that's been put forth so far has been the sword. Do you think we should accept Pulitzer's story and interpretation of that evidence without asking any questions? If you do, you're not in the right place.

Once you start asking questions about this "evidence," you realize pretty quickly that there are many things that suggest strongly that this is not an authentic Roman artifact. If Pulitzer and the AAPS had done some homework before announcing this was "100 percent confirmed," they wouldn't be in the spot they're in right now.

If you want to continue to believe that Pulitzer's got it all figured out and anyone who asks questions should be fired, that's up to you. I'm going to continue to ask questions and try to figure out what's really going on. That's my job as a scientist. This is a bold claim about the past that's associated with physical evidence. If the "Roman sword" idea is correct, it will ultimately hold up to scrutiny. You'll never know if it passes muster, however, unless you apply the scrutiny.

Pablo

1/17/2016 11:55:45 am

Apples and Oranges. The Antikythera mechanism proves that they had the skills and knowledge to build this kind of "computer" based on movement of the stars, etc. The machine exists, it has been studied, recreated, tested, etc.

The supposed Roman ship and the supposed Roman swords, have no evidence of being so. Sometime in the spring, there's supposed to be a White Paper demonstrating the authenticity of the Sword. In the mean time, the fact that sooo many of them are appearing in Europe and the US, is telling us that the one supposedly found in Nova Scotia is just another one of them.

David L Ulrich

1/17/2016 11:32:56 am

as a 2nd posting, something to think about. With the device..they had to have knowledge of longitude and I could predict, with the proper settings, eclipses in China. Really, China, and the boat sunk in the Med...Now why would a common freighter have a device like this if all it did was "float" around the Med. which had been known for millinia....the Egyptians, etc and older...Below is a study that was "peer reviewed".......

"The ancient Greek astronomical calculating machine, known as the Antikythera Mechanism, predicted eclipses, based on the 223-lunar month Saros cycle."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103275

Pablo

1/17/2016 12:00:14 pm

Roman engineering was incredible. They were moving 400 ton obelisks from Egypt to Rome over the Mediterranean. We know that, because the obelisks can be seen in Rome, and touched.

It's different in the case of the supposed Roman ship sunken near Nova Scotia and the sword. Where's the evidence? Let's see if that idea can stand the power of the Scientific Method.

Cleo

1/17/2016 12:24:21 pm

The Antikythera mechanism is certainly quite unique. It has a planetary gear, which is an engineering innovation that wasn't thought to have occurred so far back. It is limited only in its output by gears that are precision cut by hand. However, you need to carve the previously collected inputs into the device for it to give you the proper result. It doesn't produce new information. That means there would need to be a body of observable understanding on paper first (we know that existed well before the Romans). The device doesn't yield anything new as a precision time piece; it merely gives a faithful 3d calendar representation of what painstaking effort was put into it (a true novelty). As a clock it would be no more useful than looking at the moon and counting sunsets, which just doesn't give you enough precision to navigate with when you try and figure out just how fast you are going to figure out where you are East-West. The proof? It had to be actuated or turned by hand. Unless you have a very dependable human being sitting and turning such a clockwork mechanism continuously you are not going to be able to derive much from this geared technology as a time piece. The best clocks of the day were driven by running water and steam. It took a long time before stable sea worthy clocks could help with navigation. What the Romans/Greeks lacked was a reliable periodic driving mechanism.

Not sure what that has to do with this sword, though.

Mike Jones

1/17/2016 12:41:08 pm

Nothing

Mark

1/17/2016 01:51:35 pm

Love your work. Been following swordgate for a while. I'm not as learned as some of your followers, however I found this regarding the DNA marker claim for the Mi'kmaq community. I think this has already been debunked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

Also interesting that Mikmaq right initiative wrote an article back in March 2014 about blood lines and heritage.

http://mikmaqrights.com/whats-in-our-blood/

Keep up the good work. When some one is pushing so hard to bulldoze there point, they should be prepared to have answers to perfectly reasonable question.

If there is so much "evidence" for a truely ground breaking, earth shattering, mind blowing realisation of history being wrong. You would surely release your findings as you go. Apparently the sword is 100% Roman. And this has been proven by accepted analysis methods. Just release the findings! This would stop the supposed witch hunt and constant critism.

I have however given up listening to his sound cloud bits. It's really rather sad, I hear a man broken and backed in to a corner. He is awakening to the fact that he will be ousted as a fraud or at best deluded.

David L Ulrich

1/17/2016 02:35:43 pm

I think your being a little dismissive of the device. I also think it was more than possible that your underestimating the sailing abilities of the ancients which is part for the course here. And as usual, no mention is made of the sunken boat or the other objects in the study.

Andy White

1/17/2016 02:51:20 pm

This is not a discussion about "sailing abilities," it's a discussion about an artifact that is claimed to be Roman. That claim has to stand on its own merits. Just because David Bowie COULD have visited my house last week does not mean my copy of "Let's Dance" proves that it happened.

John

1/17/2016 03:04:55 pm

What boat?

Pablo

1/17/2016 03:41:13 pm

Supposedly, there is a shipwreck in the area that supposedly is Roman. Supposedly they cannot study it because it's out of reach and supposedly the laws don't allow them to touch it. But supposedly, even though there are all those obstacles, it is supposedly 100% confirmed, and the supposed Roman sword it's supposed to have come out of that supposed Shipwreck. Supposedly.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 03:05:13 pm

What sunken boat is that? To date the location of a boat/ship if it exists has not been disclosed. No photos or any other form of evidence have been presented. All we have is a story that about 870 years ago a scalloper dredged a sword up near Oak Island, but that the sword was kept hidden until a few months ago.

Just because someone says there is a sunken Roman vessel off the coast of Oak Island that does not make it so. We are dealing with actual evidence here, not anyone's say-so on the matter, regardless of whether we believe him or not. Sow us the ship and we'll discuss it fairly and scientifically, but until we see it, it's just a story.

Trevor Kenchington

1/17/2016 03:31:55 pm

David: The Antikythera mechanism is an amazing thing and a reminder to us all that the past was a whole lot more complicated than a quick look at the evidence might suggest. However, I think you are wrong to suppose that the mechanism was on a ship in order to be used on that ship. perhaps in navigation. A very considerable number of ancient wrecks have now been examined in the Mediterranean. I think the total runs into the hundreds, counting from Bronze Age sites to those of Imperial Rome. Nothing else remotely like the Antikythera mechanism has been found. Hence, it is far more likely to have been an exceptional object that was being transported by sea at the time of its loss than a piece of ship's equipment.

Maybe it is time to add something else to this discussion: The Romans would have had no difficulty whatsoever in sailing one of their larger merchant ships across the Atlantic. Their really big grain ships were larger than any later European merchantmen until the big East Indiamen of the late 18th Century. Probably not as seaworthy but still well capable of the downwind voyage from Gibraltar to, say, the Bahamas or Barbados. Much better for that voyage than the sad, fat little "Santa Maria", which sufficed for Columbus.

The question is not "could they have done it?" because they certainly could. Indeed, with a bit of a tougher time for the guys on board, other men could have made the crossing a thousand years before Rome emerged as a bunch of mud huts beside a river crossing.

The question seems to be, not "could they?" but "_did_ they do it?" or, more precisely, "does Pulitzer have any evidence that they did?". Pointing to the excellence Greek nautical technology just doesn't address such questions.

Mark

1/17/2016 03:04:33 pm

I have a idea for JHP, Maybe the Romans real reason for conquest was to round up the last of the Giants in Europe and North Africa and then systematically remove as best they could any evidence of them.

You see the constant suppression of truth by governments and academia was prevelant then too.

They then enslaved them to power there might sea vessels to cross the Atlantic. By my calculations they could probably achive this in a day or two. This would also account for how giants got to the new world.

But this is the game changer and the bit that will be in the white paper. The swords that were given out to a select few, Not only have load stones theat can point north, they also have a crystal embedded in the handle that can control Giants. It works like the Jedi mind trick. One wave of it and they will do as you wish.

I'm sorry to say it JHP
"This is not the sword you are looking for"

Andy White

1/17/2016 03:08:32 pm

And by the way, David, your "truth warrior" friend Pulitzer spent part of his afternoon flat-out lying about the sword that was spotted on Italian eBay days after Swordgate started. He said in audio response to someone in that Facebook group (link below) that the seller on eBay used an image of the original in the Naples Museum but sent a small iron or stone replica. That's bullshit - Trevor Furlotte bought the sword and sent me many images of it after it arrived. It is a copper alloy sword that is more-or-less identical to the Nova Scotia sword in design and size. Pulitzer surely knows this but chooses to keep lying about it anyway because he can't figure out a good way to explain it. He says he has attempted to contact the seller and figure out who they sold the sword to, etc. That's all smoke and mirrors. Trevor Furlotte bought the sword. It's in New Brunswick now. There are dated photos of it on my blog. See for yourself!

Pulitzer audio from today: https://huttonpulitzervoiceresponds.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/audio-post-15/

Post about Italian eBay sword: http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/the-italian-ebay-sword

Killbuck

1/18/2016 08:27:10 am

In case David should visit the Naples Museum website, you can search the catalog of artifacts in the collection. No sword cataloged I could see.

Trevor Kenchington

1/17/2016 03:48:11 pm

Killbuck, Cleo: Cleo has given a far better account of copper-alloy corrosion in seawater than I could have done. I'll only add that the processes are very, very dependent on the local environment in which an artefact lies.

**If** the sword-that-isn't had really been taken in a scallop dredge, it must have been lying on the surface of the seabed at the time. (Our scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, need to be scooped off the bottom. The European equivalent, Pecten maximus, needs to be pulled up from out of the sediment. Hence, European scallop dredges dig the seabed. Atlantic Canadian ones don't.) But if the sword-that-isn't had been on the seabed for any length of time, it's corrosion would certainly be very different from what we see in photographs. Ergo: **if** there was any validity to the tales at all, the sword-that-isn't would have spent most of the last 2,000 years buried in sediment. Around Oak Island, that would translate into: buried in anoxic sediment. Even then, matters are not simple. If a bronze artefact of early-Imperial age were really buried in anoxic marine sediment, it might well be buried in a heap of iron artefacts that had been lost in the same shipwreck event. Then you might find that the iron had acted as a sacrificial anode, protecting the bronze from corrosion.

Taking that lot altogether is why I strongly doubt that the sword-that-isn't has been in seawater for any great length of time but also why I won't say that it _wasn't_ -- not until someone can get it into a lab, make some proper studies of its metallurgy and pronounce one way or another. And that would seem like a gross waste of resources, considering that the claim of "Roman" age is now so tenuous.

Killbuck

1/17/2016 05:33:20 pm

Thank you Sir, I appreciate your time. And Cleo too, thanks. These aspects have been very interesting and I've learned some new things.

Ryan

1/17/2016 08:37:31 pm

As far as I know the scallops commonly fished for food are all free swimming and spend their time on the surface of the sea bed. Even the European ones don't need to be dug out from the sediment. However all dredges scrape along, and there by dig below the surface of the sea bed. Regardless of use. That's a big part of what defines a dredge. Any scallop dredge may or may not have teeth intended to dig deeper into the sea bed. But that has more to do with local traditions and conditions than anything else. Dredges used for clams will need teeth to dig deeper, as clams do indeed live in the sediment. Rough ground may snag a dredge, meaning you want shorter or no teeth. Anything that may prevent the front edge of dredge from biting into the ground would require you to use teeth to keep in contact with the ground. But all dredges are going to scrap just below the surface of the sea bed.

So all scallop dredges are going to dig a certain amount below the surface of the sea bed. But not really any more than a few inches. As their intended purpose is scraping up scallops that are on, or swimming just above the surface.

So yes the sword would have had to have been VERY close to the surface. Regardless of where the dredging took place or what kind of dredge was used. Even a dredge made for clamming doesn't dig too deep, because clams don't really dig much deeper than a few feat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scallop#Locomotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_dredge

Dredges also tend to, frankly, chew up non shellfish objects they collect.

Though its frequently banned now, bay scallops were often collected using tongs (I'm at a loss to find a decent picture) in the past. I'm not sure why they're often banned these days, but they're a lot more targeted and disturb the bottom less than dredges. Though they still breach the surface of the sea bed. Wouldn't have damaged a sword it dragged up, but a lot less likely to pull one up in the first place.

Trevor Kenchington

1/18/2016 03:18:25 pm

Hi Ryan: I don't want to burn up Andy's bandwidth with a new "dredge-gate", embedded within "sword-gate", but your post touches on themes underlying discussion of the non-Roman non-sword -- like the nature of truth and the presentation of evidence, so I'll make some reply.

Unlike trawl nets, the gears used to harvest shellfish have to be adapted to the target species and the local environment. Wikipedia (for all that it is a great starting point) can't cope with that complexity and I'd not be surprised if it misleads its readers. Fortunately (or perhaps not!), the natural sciences are better funded than archaeology and hence there is a larger body of published literature. If you need to check anything which follows in this post, you won't have much trouble. On the other hand, I don't want to spend a few hours compiling bibliography for you, so I haven't dug out any citations. I guess that makes me no better than Pulitzer!

I can tell you (shades of Pultizer again) that I worked on the science side of the management of the U.S. sea scallop fishery for several years. One of my close colleagues was an engineer working on ways to improve dredges so that they would harvest the scallops with less impact on everything else. One of the big issues that a whole bunch of us were struggling with was protection of seabed habitats from scallop dragging and other fishing gears, so I have been involved in much sifting of evidence of just what the dredges do. (You'll find more documentation of all that than you will want to read on the website of the New England Fishery Management Council.) Also, a bit before my time on those tasks, my wife was the Canadian government's scientist assigned to the Bay of Fundy scallop fishery. We have collaborated on a study of the long-term effects of scalloping on the seabed fauna of the Bay, among other studies of gear impacts. (If you want to read the papers, search Scholar Google using my initial and name. You'll find links to downloadable copies -- which is more than Pulitzer can say of his "white paper"!) I'll not ask you or anyone else to accept what I say just because I say it but, with the above introduction, perhaps you will let me forgo the preparation of a multi-page essay, complete with masses of citations.

Bay scallops are a different beast from the sea scallop (Placopecten) and I'm not as familiar as I might be with the gears used (which is why I didn't mention them before).

Most of the landed tonnage of sea scallops is harvested with "New Bedford dredges", which are known in Canada as "offshore rakes". Nowhere to fit teeth to those and they actually get much of their catch through suction: the dredge has a sloping pressure plate which acts like an inverted wing, holding the dredge on the bottom. The turbulent water behind the plate flips the scallops up. The seabed does get scraped but that's by the chain bag full of catch (including any randomly collected swords), after the catching has been done, while the dredge frame has shoes which furrow sand but don't have much to do with what gets picked up or not. Its very much a lifting-off-the-surface, not digging-the-surface, process.

If anyone tried for scallops around Oak Island, however, they likely used some variant of a "Digby drag" -- a stout pole or steel pipe towed astern, behind which are pulled a series of "buckets", though each is actually a chain bag attached to a rectangular steel frame which holds the mouth of the bag open. Sometimes the frames are notched a bit but that as far as any "teeth" go.

In contrast, some of the dredges used for harvesting Pecten maximus in the waters around Britain have such long teeth that they have to be spring-loaded, so they can bend out of the way when catching onto obstructions. Those can and do flip both scallops and other objects up from below the general level of the seabed. The scallops ought to be lying in depressions, rather than buried (the way clams are), but the teeth could dig out a buried sword in between lifting exposed scallops out of their depressions.

To get back to archaeology, however: An artifact taken by a scallop dredge anywhere really close to Oak Island would have been picked up when someone was making a few exploratory tows, since there are no regularly-fished scallop beds in the immediate vicinity. In exploration, of course, there is always the risk of hitting a patch of muddy seabed and then the dredge would dig in, potentially pulling stuff up from a buried shipwreck. So I should have added a caveat to my statement that an artifact taken by such a dredge "must" have been lying on the seabed. There are plausible scenarios in which a sword could be dug out of mud.

Is that sufficient dissection of a tangential issue?

RYan

1/19/2016 10:03:58 am

Certainly. I was just hoping to help you clarify. Essentially my point was that regardless of the type of shellfish dredge used it was unlikely to dig down particularly deep. Inches or feet at most. And one would expect a shipwreck that's purportedly this old to be buried deeper.

But I think you hit on something else there. The lack of scallop beds in the vicinity of Oak Island. If that's a situation that's persisted for decades, then it becomes an even less likely explanation.

Jonathan Feinstein

1/17/2016 04:14:44 pm

Irreverent comment (but I cannot resist):

By now I have done so many web searches with Sword and Hercules in the string that I realize I miss Xena Warrior Princess. I'm almost tempted to plant a "Chakram" (properly antiqued, of course) somewhere for Pulitzer to find and add to his soi-disant evidence.

Andy White

1/17/2016 04:18:53 pm

This is most elusive "famous sword" I've ever heard tell of.

I'm not sure he's allowed on the island. You might be better off wrapping the chakram in a towel and leaving it on a car hood somewhere.

Darren Beck

1/17/2016 04:17:23 pm

could anyone tell me if there are images like the hilt to hilt ones but with blades included?

Andy White

1/17/2016 04:20:53 pm

Not an updated one that I know of. Peter made one a while back, I think, when there were only four or five swords.

Darren Beck

1/17/2016 04:40:30 pm

I'll see if i can put something together did you take a 3d scan of the cali blade Andy?

Andy White

1/17/2016 04:42:35 pm

Only the part nearest the hilt. The full sword is way too long to get in a scan with the equipment I have now - I actually had to do the hilt in two parts, which is one reason why I haven't been able to smooth out the data yet (still learning the processing steps). Anyway, I can take a good plan view photo tomorrow.

Darren Beck

1/17/2016 04:55:02 pm

If you wouldn't mind i would like to try an compare all the blades as closley as posable, in every image ive seen they all have that small inconsistency around where the furrows end on the cali sword, the hilt looks to be molded from a broken sword or possibly from a statue or ornament where the rest of the blade or part of the blade was concealed, i live in England and have been kinda obsessed with where the original sword comes from, for the past couple of weeks i have been checking all sources available for me, (lots of roman artifacts get found over here) this sword is 100% not roman, there is nothing in the design at all that matches any of the roman blades ive seen, but it is a nice little mystery to pass the time

Andy White

1/17/2016 05:02:18 pm

Word. I'll post some good photos of the full length of the California sword tomorrow. If I can figure out how, I'll also use the 3D to create a cross-section of the fullered part of the blade.

spookyparadigm

1/17/2016 10:33:34 pm

I might recommend the x-ray filter in Meshlab.

Eric

1/17/2016 06:28:33 pm

Another piece of evidence for the MOAFHS as prop sword theory. Found a link to a prop gladius used in "Spartacus-Blood and Sand" and interestingly, the "blade" ends at almost exactly the same place as in the fullered section of the MOAFHS. Now "Spartacus" used CGI to create a blade, but the mechanics of a retractable prop sword are pretty much the same, regardless of era, so a stage gladius with a retractable blade attached to a truncated nub cast as one piece is exactly what the MOAFHS and the "Spartacus" swords are-one cast in bronze and the other in resin, but essentially the same.
Link one-blood spraying prop
http://www.propbay.com/original/sfx-prop-roman-sword-spartacus-blood-sand-2010-movie-prop-3683.html

Link two-base prop
https://www.yourprops.com/Distressed-Gladiator-swords-original-movie-prop-weapon-Spartacus-Blood-and-Sand-TV-2010-YP69799.html

Eric

1/17/2016 06:48:20 pm

And again, your putative MOAFHS is from California-with no provenance given. What is in California? Hollywood. And what was Hollywood full of back in the old days? Giant prop warehouses full of neat things used in the sword and sandal epics from the silent era to the 1960's. Ben Hur, Sparatcus, Cleopatra, the list goes on and on. The original could have been a stage prop from the 19th century cast in brass or a bakelite cast from the early Hollywood film era.

Mike Morgan

1/17/2016 09:40:20 pm

Wow, Andy. Over 75 comments on this post, I believe that is a record for you. You are now in Jason Colavito territory, although far short of his record which is well over a 1000 comments on one post, but who knows what may happen as "Swordgate" continues. I haven't counted, but the comments on all of "Swordgate" must eclipse all of your "giant" blogs and maybe even all the comments on everything else combined. Pulitzer and other "fringers" like to point out that people are hungry for the "truth" of history. Yours, Jasons and a few others are proving them correct, people are seeking the real truth rather than their fabrications.

Andy White

1/18/2016 02:03:43 pm

I think #Swordgate is kind of the perfect storm. It has some key ingredients that the "giants" stories lack, including (1) a piece of physical evidence that can be objectively evaluated and (2) a proponent with seemingly unlimited energy even in the face of significant evidence to the contrary (and a severe erosion of his credibility). The longer this story goes on, the more teachable moments it provides, it my opinion.

Craig

1/19/2016 12:18:38 am

Here's a guy you should talk to. He makes this specific Hercules hilted sword replicas, but also seems to own the original(s) from which they are made and has detailed info on each piece's history. Says the original was used in a video course by The Teaching Company, and is a Roman ceremonial sword. He also claims it has symbolism for the North Atlantic in the artwork, which makes it a nice piece for J Hutton's scam - or is a little evidence of Roman voyages to the New World, I guess.

Interestingly, he has photos of TWO supposedly original swords like this, but with very slight design differences? Just scroll down past the first few items and you'll see the swords. The both are from a German dealer who got them from the Netherlands and England, it appears.

http://romanofficer.com/PermcolC.html

Here is his bio: http://www.romanofficer.com/Bio.htm

Andy White

1/19/2016 02:43:02 am

Hi Craig,

The images are of the Florida sword - I think they're all of the same sword.

I had forgotten about his description of a sword in New Jersey, however - thanks for the pointing that out. Pulitzer has mentioned that one also. As far as I know there are no images available. By his description it sounds a lot like the California sword:

"It is slightly larger at 22 1/8 inches in length. The statue/hilt is of a finer design and somewhat more angular, the primary figure may be of Hercules only, or of Commodus as Hercules. . . . The first 3 to 4 inches of the blade has a rib with defined edges, this entire area is raised and squared at the bottom as part of the design, the way it is made shows that the sword may have for some unknown reason at times may have been partially drawn. The tip is crudely worked, this also gives more credence to my speculation that it had usually been in a sheath on a statue."

The description sounds a lot like the California sword: (a) more detail and more refined casting; (b) a portion of the blade that is fullered near the hilt.

Hammerson Peters link

8/24/2016 01:54:37 pm

Hi. Mr. White,
I'm working on an ebook on Oak Island for the site MysteriesOfCanada.com, and have been going through your list of articles on the "Swordgate" scandal (thank you for making that list, by the way; I wish more bloggers organized their content like you). Of course, you guys totally have the right of it, but damn, you and Mr. Colavito etc. have really kicked the snot out of an open door.
There's a point you've brought up in this particular article and others before it that I don't quite follow. It seems like you've suggested a couple of times that, since the California sword is the most detailed of the bunch, it must be the original model upon which the others were based (if I'm putting words in your mouth, please let me know). Is it not possible that the original model was worn and deformed, and that the artist who copied it added details he imagined the original might have had back when it was fresh from the mould (or details he thought would enhance its look)? For example, I like to carve little totem poles out of yellow cedar. If I wanted to make a replica of an old, rotting totem pole on Haida Gwaii (even one I'd hope to pass off as an original artifact), chances are I might use my imagination to conceive of what the original pole might have looked like and then add some of those extra designs to my own carving.

Andy White

8/26/2016 10:57:38 am

Hi Hammerson,

Thanks for the comment. It may not be completely outside the realm of possibility that the California sword is kind of a "separate" sword lineage created from an older, less detailed sword, but I think it's a real stretch. The much simpler explanation is that the California sword (and presumably also the Sonja sword) are earlier in the "copy" chain than the Nova Scotia sword and other swords that we're calling "Type J." Several things suggest this is the case:

1) Other than the finer detail, the Hercules hilt is essentially identical to those of the other swords. I can't believe that someone would have somehow fabricated a "new" original that shares so closely the proportions and shape of the original (but then added in extra details). The California sword hilt isn't just an interpretation of the Nova Scotia sword hilt - it's more-or-less identical except for size and detail.

2) The slightly larger size of the California sword hilt are consistent with the suggestion that it's earlier in the copy chain. Metal shrinks in volume when it cools, so the casts are always slightly smaller than the molds. This predictable size decrease is one of the things that helping us construct a chronological model of the swords.

3) The presence of fullers on the blade of the California sword is consistent with the idea that it pre-dates the Nova Scotia sword. Those features seem to have been lost somewhere along the way - the blades of the J swords are shorter, cruder in shape, and lack the detail of partial fullers. The simplest explanation is that a new mold was created with a shorter blade (perhaps to save on raw materials to make the swords cheaper to produce).

Hammerson Peters link

8/26/2016 02:23:47 pm

Mr. White,

Ah, I see, that makes sense. I couldn't tell from the hilt-to-hilt comparisons that the hilts were definitely identical. Thanks for the quick and thorough response!

Hammerson Peters link

8/31/2016 12:59:51 am

I owe you an apology and take back what I said about kicking "the snot out of an open door."

Back in January, I wrote an article on the Sasquatch/Bigfoot legend for MysteriesOfCanada.com. Earlier today, I received a private message from a lady who claimed to have taken a photo of a Sasquatch on her property, with the photo in question attached to the message. I proceeded to spend an embarrassing percentage of my evening doing some detective work and ultimately debunking her claim. Not that you're interested: Long story shot, it turns out the photo she attached was first published a few years ago by a 'Bigfoot site.' I crept around the Facebook page of the guy who apparently submitted it and found a pic of him at a Halloween party wearing a full-body wolfman suit. Case closed, I think. However, since the lady who messaged me is no JHP, I didn't call her out.

Moral of the story: I totally see now how easy it can be to become obsessed with getting to the bottom of a mystery. And you and Mr. Colavito were (I presume) motivated by professional obligation. I was just doing it for fun.

카지노사이트 link

7/5/2019 02:17:58 am

Very interesting list,if you dont mind,please visit my site,Thanks

바카라사이트 link

7/5/2019 02:20:41 am

really a very good list..many important things ive learn in your blog,,very informative,thanks a lot

Comments are closed.

New Insights into the Origin and History of the Hercules-Hilted Swords

Archives

Categories