Sword 17: Do I Sense Another Fake Hercules Sword Tipping Point on the Horizon?

2/20/2017

I just received the first photos of Sword 17. I don't have a lot of time today, but I wanted to pass along these photos, the information that we have about the sword, and few initial thoughts. I think this sword is potentially very important, possibly filling a gap between the Type F swords and the later "J" generation. First, here are the photos we have so far, emailed to me by the owner:

Sword 17, front.

Sword 17, back of hilt.

Sword 17, right side of hilt.

Sword 17, left side of hilt.

Here are the two comments by the owner left on this blog post:

"ladies and gentleman I have the exact match of that sword . I tried to contact the show but got no answer ( I wonder why). I purchased the sword some 35 years ago in a roman flee market in Rome. I took it to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art to be examined buy the curator of the museum in new York .he said it wasn't a real roman sword that was possibly made for a Cecil B DeMille movie. I have it hanging on my wall where it will probably be for a long time. Like the man said that show is all show and no go. I am posting my email address I have nothing to hide all you suckers excuse me believers can contact me if you wish. 3/20/16"

"Sword is brass or bronze. I was told 40 years ago by the curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art the sword was possibly made for a movie. There is a cast mark on the back of the handle the sides also seem to be two pieces combined together. I bought the sword in Rome at a flee market. The sword might be a collectors item if you're into old movies."

My first thought in looking at the photos was that Sword 17 looks like a Type F but without the partial fullers. While we don't have a good close-up of the front of the Hercules figure, it's evident even from the long shot that the detail is pretty good (the beard, belt, and lion's paws are discernible and it's got the two-bumped log). The blade is longer than the J blades, has "nicks" like the F blade, and is lacking the "J" anomaly. So it's like an "F" in many ways, but there aren't any fullers visible. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the Sword 3 (California) and Sword 17, scaled using the tape measures:

The comparison isn't perfect because of the oblique angle of the Sword 17 image. It looks to my eye, though, like Sword 17 could easily have been created by simply removing the fullered section of the blade from an "F" sword. If that's the case, it would post-date the "F" generation and presumably pre-date the "J" generation.

At some point soon I'll create of a graphic depicting what I think is the most likely sequence of these things at this point. I'd lay it out like this:

Earliest = Sword 21 (Type X);
Type F = created by replacing the expanding section of a Type X sword with a straight blade, retaining a short "fullered" section near the hilt (Swords 3 and 8); available for purchase in Italy in the mid 1970's;
Type K = created by cutting out the fullered blade section from a Type F, producing a sword with a straight, unfullered blade that still retains much of the detail of the earlier generations (Sword 17); available for purchase in Italy in the late 1970's and/or early 1980's;
Type J = created by replacing the F/K blade with a shorter, cruder, blunt-edge blade (Sword 1, 2, 4, 6, etc.); available for purchase in Italy in the 1980's [there appear to be multiple variants within the "J" generation, perhaps including versions with longer/shorter blades];
Type CS = created by replacing the blade of a "J" sword with a slightly shorter, less crude blade (Swords 7 and 12); available for purchase in Italy in the early 2000's;
Type I = created as a cast iron version of a Type CS; manufactured since at least 2003.

There's more to it than this, but I think this is a reasonable working model of change in our beloved Fake Hercules Swords. I can tell you that more data will be forthcoming, and I hope to be able to examine more of the swords firsthand. I can't think of anything we know right now that falsifies this general sequence -- let me know if I've overlooked anything! I'll post the updated database after I estimate some measurements from the Sword 17 images.

Peter Geuzen

2/20/2017 10:32:35 am

The elusive Ken sword has arrived! Just to be picky and to stick with Type characterization, if Type K is for Ken wouldn't it be better to go with a key morphology feature, e.g. Type N for Nicked, instead? I'm curious about the alleged casting mark - none noted by anyone else yet, so this could just be some other anomaly, which nonetheless would be good to see in a close-up. Last point, he notes two different time points, and this has happened before with #8 Spain, but it would be helpful to try to be more specific or pick one or the other, or as per #8 we just default conservatively to the newer date.

Andy White

2/20/2017 10:50:05 am

Type designation: I take your point, but the "F" swords are also "nicked." So what's distinctive about this one? It seems to be the long, unfullered blade . . . LUB?

35 years ago would put us at 1982 and 40 years ago would be 1977. How about an "Original Purchase Year" estimate of 1980?

Andy White

2/20/2017 11:16:38 am

And, yeah, I'm not sure what "casting mark on the back of the handle" means. I'm wondering if he's just referring to the visible seams along the sides?

Peter Geuzen

2/20/2017 11:55:09 am

My initial reaction was the two close nicks on the bottom edge (hilt face up left) were a match to the two close nicks on Type F, but they aren't in the same relative position upon further review, thus it might not be a simple cut down F. The two nicks are closer to the tip in this one than the hilt in Type F, so it's not an (F+N)-F=N exactly. If however the two nicks are exactly the same distance apart in both, then maybe the new blade is a highly, not simply, remodelled version. Fullers lost, tip shortened, and length offset added towards the hilt. If we had a second one, we would be able to corroborate explicitly. I've put Type TBD on the poster in early versions until we were clearer on corroborating details. Nonetheless as a standalone and assuming it retains some F nick features and matches shorter J length range, maybe T for Transitional, subject to change with more info at a later date. On the date thing, I don't like adding a third estimate when we already have two estimates, if you know what I mean. I prefer the conservative approach, use ca. as the qualifier, and it will still work with the chronology, and of course subject to more clarification with more info at a later date. Can you ask him about the casting mark? Thinking out load, maybe a post fact stamping of something, e.g. an embellishment by the seller (?). In the recent data base you have this as Kent, not Ken. Did we decide an official name for 21? Another database thought - a footnote list of the description of the vendor for each of the Rome and Pompeii swords, not necessarily a code or classification, but just footnotes. From the original correspondence and descriptions we have a mix of seller descriptions and/or not really clear. This is helpful to qualify them as first gen but nonetheless I have thought/worried a bit that in these markets maybe the odd one goes from dealer to dealer and maybe sits for a year or two or longer before actually selling to the public. In other words, we don't know for sure that the sell dates are perfect reflections of the manufacturing date, transport to market date, go out on the table date, and instantly sold date, all like clockwork in the same year. In these markets, dealers wheel and deal amongst themselves, they hoard, they collect themselves, they put away and bring back later, etc. etc. I can send you the footnotes I've made.

Jonathan E. Feinstein

2/21/2017 10:38:42 am

I have to agree that I do not see what I would characterize as a casting mark in the pictures. Sloppy casting and imprecise cleanup of the flash? Oh yes, I see that.

As for type: The hilt does look like type F, but the blade, as Peter points out is not just a cut down version of that one (Unlike Type K) so this probably deserves its own designation since, so far, the designations of types have been applied to the whole artifacts. Later it may be appropriate to re-designate them all to imply forms that might be transitional.

That does beg the question, is it possible that some nicks might have been applied after the swords were sold (I've seen some rather dinged up blades_)? Not having access to any of them and I don't think we have seen pictures of all the blades, it is difficult to say if the patina might have been knocked off the edge by percussive force.

I have to agree, however, with the above proposed chronology. It at least fits the facts as we know them at this time,

Jonathan E. Feinstein

2/21/2017 10:44:37 am

Correction I misread. I see this is the Type K but that it turns out it might not be a Type F with cut-down blade.

The rounded blade tips of Typoe F and K doo seem similar, however, as opposed to the more pointed tip of the Spanish Sword, the Type I and some others. Of course making the tip of a useless "decorative" sword blunt might have simply been the maker's attempt as a safety measure, although That sort of thinking would have been unusual especially at the times we suspect these were made.

Killbuck

2/20/2017 10:43:36 am

As important than the object itself is the provenance pertaining to the owners purchase at the flea market. The curator of the Met's comments as well.

The hits just keep on comin!!!

Abraxas

2/21/2017 10:21:51 pm

Andy can correct me if I'm wrong, but when it comes to this ongoing data collection, I don't think a "museum-grade" chain-of-custody is quite as important as it would be under other circumstances. Or at least, not for ALL the duplicates that keep popping up. The reason I say that is because what he's been testing is whether or not he can falsify the claim that the Nova Scotia sword is of Roman origin...

But since he doesn't have access to that specimen, he's been using these duplicate swords to collect comparative data. And while provenance is still desirable for that info, I don't know if it's necessary for the ALL the data points he's interested in collecting.

Actually...

Andy, this would be a good question for you to answer, because as I was typing this reply, I realized that this was about as far as I could take it --- and since I might be wrong, I didn't want to keep going with that train of thought. I'd be interested in knowing how provenance does factor into a casual study like this...

And what if this pet project does one day turn into something bigger, like a published paper? Does that change the rules, so to speak? The next thing I was going to write before I decided to stop was the blade anomaly issue, and how chain-of-custody factors into that... Because right now, the only defense J. Hutton Pulitzer seems to have left is claiming that ALL these duplicate swords are replicas of "his" sword, created by people trying to cash in on the Curse of Oak Island publicity.

I'm sure that's demonstrated to be false, because you do have some solid provenance for swords with identical blade anomalies, which are older than the airing of that episode. In studies like this, where you're collecting data points from a multitude of specimens, is "strict" provenance only necessary for a few "benchmark" specimens?

Andy White

2/22/2017 08:15:18 am

Excellent question.

From the beginning of this debacle, we've had to base most of our analysis (and hence, ultimately, interpretations) on the intrinsic characteristics of the swords themselves. Other than a few purchase times/places, we have no direct information on "provenience." That all the specimens with known origins were purchased in Europe (typically in Italy) after 1970 is certainly consistent with the modern origin of all the swords and the general chronology that we've worked out.

Our chronology is a falsifiable hypothesis. One of the things that could falsify it is a documented example of one of these swords -- of any "type" other than X -- that dates prior to 1970. The "Roman sword" advocates have asserted that such a sword exists (the purported "original in the Naples Museum") but have yet to produce any evidence of that. They've made the claim repeatedly, and we've checked it out as best we can and come up empty. If it exists, the burden is on them to produce evidence. They can't.

Peter Geuzen

2/22/2017 11:36:21 am

I think to avoid any dovetailing or confusion between more than one hypotheses, an ancient look alike wouldn’t falsify the hypothesis of tourist souvenirs since the 1970s but rather would just confirm a separate hypothesis or sub-hypothesis unto itself that similar looking antiquities exist. If an ancient look alike exists, all that it would confirm is that an ancient look alike exists, not to sound flippant. As a result, the description of the tourist souvenirs could be modified from the current summary of a combined influence of Greco-Roman art and Sword & Sandals theme, to purely a reproduction theme, but this is a long shot at this point as Andy notes because searching for an ancient look alike has resulted in nothing. Even if an ancient copy exists, big deal, modern is modern, including the Nova Scotia.

It might be time to elaborate on some points regarding the alleged Naples museum example that I don’t think have been fully woven together yet. Pulitzer has asserted the alleged Roman sword from Nova Scotia as being one of four, with the alleged Naples being the second, an alleged collection example in Europe being third, and the Dave Kenney alleged sword in Florida as fourth. As a result, the Florida alleged sword is the only physical comparative example known. Lets for fun just ignore that the Florida and Nova Scotia have matching J mark anomalies that would make the Florida example modern. Here’s the rub. Pulitzer claimed about a year ago that the Naples museum alleged example was recovered from a dig in Pompeii in the 1700s (digs did happen in the 1700s so the dig part is plausible). Pulitzer has never named his “Roman Antiquities Authority”, using his terms from several statements early last year and end of 2015, but the association with the Florida alleged sword clearly infers he means Kenney. Kenney describes his alleged sword as a representation of Commodus and dates it at 190-192 CE. Commodus was born 160 CE. Pulitzer alleges the Roman incursion(s) to Nova Scotia were mid second century, 130-150ish CE. Pompeii was buried in ash 79 CE. See the problems here??? Absolutely nothing works for Pulitzer with regard to dating. Absolutely nothing. Commodus wasn’t born before the alleged Pompeii/Naples sword would have been buried nor was he born before the alleged incursion to Nova Scotia. If the Nova Scotia sword arrived when Pulitzer wants it to, it cannot as a result be a matching representation of the alleged Commodus sword or the alleged Naples sword if it is also supposed to match Commodus. Spin this around, and the existing alleged Commodus sword simply doesn’t match the timing of the two other alleged sword stories. Facts matter.

Abraxas

2/23/2017 09:29:36 pm

Peter,

That reminds me of something else I thought of a while back and forgot about... So are we who frequent this blog just "playing nice" with the claim that the Florida sword is authentic, because the owner was nice enough to help out Andy with some data? Or am I confusing it with a different specimen?

Because I kinda got the impression it was like a, "nudge nudge, wink wink" sorta deal, where we weren't coming out and saying it was fake because that might imply the owner doesn't know as much as he claims to about antiquities (or at least, this one). And seeing as that guy did communicate with and offer some data to Andy, I figured maybe people were just trying to avoid burning bridges.

Like I said, am I mixing up owners and swords?

Andy White

2/24/2017 03:26:30 am

I haven't communicated with the owner of the Florida sword for some time (although it's been on my "to do" list for a while). When I did communicate with him, I was up front about my thoughts on the swords - I've never pretended to think the Florida sword was an authentic ancient Roman artifact. I would like the chance to examine it someday just as I would like the chance to look at each of the other swords, but it's not on fire and I haven't directly asked. I make no secret of the fact that I don't think any of these swords in anything but modern.

Peter Geuzen

2/24/2017 08:48:05 am

We have always included it in the Type J group because of the matching casting anomaly. Seam ridges and burs, and grinding marks confirm the bivalve mold construction, and the heavy applied patina is obvious. It matches to modern on several levels. It would be in Dave Kenney's interest to have metallurgy tested properly, being a dealer. Pulitzer has dropped much innuendo that the Nova Scotia was tested against the Florida example, but whether this means there is metallurgy data or not for Florida, who knows. Pultizer's idea of 'tested against' probably means nothing more than looking at the pictures and buying in to the description.

Comments are closed.

Sword 17: Do I Sense Another Fake Hercules Sword Tipping Point on the Horizon?

Archives

Categories