Just Revealed: Roman Sword Reportedly Found Off Oak Island

a reply to: Marduk

You may be right...

Link

Pulitzer supports his claims with a number of other unproven assumptions. Among these is the false claim that the Romans used barberry (Berberis vulgaris) to fight scurvy and thus left the plant on Oak Island. (The species arrived in America with Europeans in the colonial period.) He also alleges that the Mi’kmaq have Levantine DNA, which is a claim based on the fringe history DNA Consultants’ allegation that the Mi’kmaq’s Haplogroup X links them to the ancient Near East, something that DNA experts dispute.

He further argues that the Mi’kmaq preserve 50 Roman sailing terms, though he identifies none. Since the Mi’kmaq have a long history of interaction with French sailors, and French is a Romance language, if there are Latinate borrowings, he would need to prove these were not mediated through French.

Finally, he alleges that a shipwreck off Oak Island is “100% confirmed” to be Roman, though his only evidence is a scan of the seafloor, which he declined to share. Given that fringe explorers like Barry Clifford have been hard-pressed to distinguish between European and Asian shipwrecks, or those of the Middle Ages and Early Modern periods, it’s difficult to credit Pulitzer with such flawless perspicacity, particularly since he in the same breath alleges that the Nova Scotia government might not let him explore the wreck, implying that he never tried.

Seems like a lot of talk and very little evidence to support his claims. They go on to further analyze the sword, noting that it may be a poorly made replica.

So that leaves us with the sword itself, for whatever an object with no definitive connection to Oak Island is worth. At first glance, it resembles no Roman ceremonial sword with which I am familiar; however, as we learned from Andy White’s blog, the sword is identical to one alleged to have come from a Dutch antiquities dealer out of a German collection.

The current owner of that sword, David Xavier Kenney, 60, is a diffusionist who believes that ancient European peoples, particularly the Romans, had sustained and frequent contact with America. He also produces reproduction Roman votive offerings to order, and some have accused his artifacts of being crude fakes. What’s particularly noteworthy is that Pulitzer mirror’s Kenney’s conclusion that the Romans were in America in the first century CE and thus dates the sword to that time, even though Kenney explicitly alleges that his sword represents Commodus as Hercules (how would he know this?), placing it in the second century.

What’s quite interesting is that the hilts of the sword aren’t just nearly identical; the differences are also odd: If I direct your attention to the crotch of the Florida sword, you’ll see a small hole. In the Nova Scotia sword, that hole has been cast directly into the bronze, appearing as a seemingly raised dot. This is certainly unusual, but the fine details also differ, appearing in slightly different angles and degrees of perfection, as though one were copied imperfectly from the other rather than simply cast from the same mold.

All in all, the signs point to the sword not being what Pulitzer claims, but how and why he chose to share his “discovery” in a regional British newspaper in an attempt to scoop Curse of Oak Island, a show he uses to bolster his credibility yet routinely attacks for not conforming to his views, is perhaps the bigger story.

Awesome thread!

Celtic style bronze hilt(off coast in Dublin)


Roman(found in Iberia)

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: theantediluvian

First, I want to preface that I am no expert, yet I do have a decent background in archeology:

My first thought is that it is too ornate to be Roman.

Here is a link to a site on real Roman sword artifacts.

One thing that you already noted, which can be seen in a comparison is that the artifact from the site has a lot more wear on it and age damage.

HereAdded this site, shows almost all the swords archeologist have found from the roman time period. Nothing on that site looks like the sword either. I just don't think it can reliably be called a roman artifact.

A sword like that looks Celtic or perhaps even Viking in origin, which would fit with the real history of Oak Island.

Interesting story, thanks for posting. I would like to see if this really has any validity to it.

The Romans, and other cultures made some pretty nice things out of metal and stone. That sword would have been a decorative sword if it was Roman, owned maybe by a high ranking official or religious leader. Or maybe by a sailor who's dad was good at making things like that.

Italy is full of substandard sculptured rocks buried in the field, created by people who wanted to learn how to carve rock. Now does that mean their ancient statues there were not real? Military swords were not that nice but some had highly decorated swords. That practice is even in the history of our country, fancy knives and swords were the generals swords. It has been that way for thousands of years. Denying something because it does not match a soldiers sword is not correct. I used to be interested in old swords and there are illustrations of them in old books. I do not know if this sword is in there, custom made swords were unique. Some old swords even had gems in the handles.

The artistic diversity in early Italy was broad, there were a lot of artistic people there in metalworking and rock working. Where are these swords? Probably in rich families vaults or rec rooms scattered around the world. They have been colected by people for thousands of years. Some time they are found out of context, someone moved them and their house rotted after they died or they buried them next to their home somewhere then died. Treasures are found all over the place....out of place artifacts.

They could be from any culture as far as I know. You would need an expert in ancient swords to look at it to make a proper determination. That would have been done before releasing it as Roman I would think or archaeologists would quickly debunk it. Most archaeologists have never seen some of the best things made those days and many might deny authenticy without actually researching it. That's the way it goes. What is in museums on display is usually not the best of stuff.

Pictures of the sword in question.

I guess we can't really trust the sword's validity until further evidence is produced.

But Wait . . . There's ANOTHER Sword!

I wrote a short post earlier today about J. Hutton Pulitzer's latest claim: an alleged Roman sword allegedly discovered some years ago in the waters off of Oak Island, Nova Scotia. Knowing nothing about Roman swords, I asked for assistance from whoever might be reading. An alert reader who identified himself as Doug Crowell pointed me in the direction of the website "Roman Officer Arts & Design," where a very similar sword is pictured. That website is attached to a store in South Beach, Florida, run by David Xavier Kenney.

Another out of place artifact

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: theantediluvian

This is sweet with a capital ATS.

I'm a believer in what I call the 'Bering straight Hypothesis' where the seas froze after the ice age and allowed for easier travel; That might explain stories about how some artifacts found off the California coast appear to be of Chinese origin. But a roman in a pre Coloumbus America? a tad hard to swallow but I wouldn't be surprised.

The sea did not "freeze." The Ice Age used up a lot of water and the Bering Sea is only 60 feet deep. It became dry land for thousands of years at a time, plenty long enough to allow migration over that isthmus. This theory is also corroborated by genetics. There is no doubt that the vast vast majority of what we now call "Native" Americans arrived via that route from 12-20,000 years ago. That doesn't mean a few did not arrive earlier, or that a few came from other places (which also explains Chinese artifacts), but in terms of a "migration," that's what happened.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: theantediluvian

This is sweet with a capital ATS.

I'm a believer in what I call the 'Bering straight Hypothesis' where the seas froze after the ice age and allowed for easier travel;

Why would the sea have had to freeze over after the LGM? Beringea was dry land for thousands of years and hosted a thriving ecosystem and semi permanent settlements as hunter gatherers followed herds back and forth from North America to Northeast Asia.

That might explain stories about how some artifacts found off the California coast appear to be of Chinese origin. But a roman in a pre Coloumbus America? a tad hard to swallow but I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not sure which specific artifacts you're referring to but if it's the stone anchors, they're all from the 19th century when Chinese immigrants began fishing off of the West Coast of the U.S.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Perhaps dropped in battle with the Vikings... I tried to get into the Curse of Oak Island, but like you, I found it a bit uninteresting since they never uncovered anything, but I couldn't stick to it like you. I think that'll change now.

Man, imagine your main weapon only having a foot and a half reach... Wow.

I watched the most recent episode today and was really interested in the story by the guy who says the treasure is Aztec. He says they used their super duper engineering skills to dam the area between what was once two islands, dug out caverns to hide their treasure with booby traps, and then filled it in with rocks and dirt thus forming one big oak island. I gotta say sweet theory and looking at aerial views of the island now it really does look like it was two islands once.

a reply to: Malynn

My first thought when I saw that part of the episode was that it was intriguing, but how did the Aztecs drain the water out when they blocked off both ends? Last time I checked electric pumps didn't exist back then and that is a hell of a lot of water to bucket out, let alone refill with dirt when they were finished.

originally posted by: Marduk
The sword itself proves nothing, as it has been removed from its alleged location destroying its provenance there is no way of knowing, if it came from there, or was purchased to make it look as if it came from there, no amount of tests proving it to be a genuine sword can now help with its credibility. I think its rather convenient that its finder has since died.

However, the claim that there is a Roman ship needs investigating it, if true it would rewrite history.
But from what I can see, the only person claiming "Roman ship" is the long dead fisherman, who didn't know anything about Roman ships or swords...
I don't think they will find the ship, so they're going to make all the claims based on a sword which will be meaningless to veracity, but might sell a few more TV episodes
But having a professor of geography along for credibility is hardly useful.

This claim of Hutton Pulitzer stinks of BS

“The shipwreck is still there and has not been worked,” said Pulitzer. “We have scanned it, we know exactly where it lays, but it will be a touchy thing for the Nova Scotia government to allow an archaeological team to survey it. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Roman.

They have scanned it, presumably with side scan sonar, which is the last tool in the world which would reveal a ships identity and in the latter part of the quote, he's already formulating an excuse as to why they will be unable to ever dive on it. Because the government won't let them. So I'm calling shenanigans on this
Made up bull# based on a sword which was most likely purchased on the antiquities market

Yeah will have to wait for more development, remember those amphora jars of supposedly Roman origins found off the coast of Brazil, well they were very convincing until someone found that the site was salted.

a reply to: rickymouse

Both my links show the ornate nature of roman metal craft and both are referenced by well-respected experts on roman swords.

Having seen the sculptures from ancient Greece and Rome, I would never doubt their craftsmanship.

I am not denying because it does not match soldier swords, I deny that it is roman because it does not match any known style of a Roman sword(ornate or not). I looked up two credible sites and posted them as proof. After your post, I dug in my JSTOR account looking for scholarly articles on ornate roman swords and found nothing that looked like the picture from the OP.

Nothing I have said deny's the craftsmanship of Rome, nor would I use that as a counter-point to try and disprove an artifact. I was trying to offer some valid examples of Roman swords that date from the Roman empire/republic time period.

Your last paragraph seems to agree with my main premise:

you would need an expert in ancient swords to look at it to make a proper determination. That would have been done before releasing it as Roman I would think or archaeologists would quickly debunk it. Most archaeologists have never seen some of the best things made those days and many might deny authenticity without actually researching it.

That was why I posted my argument in the first place. The OP seems to reference a guy who has acted without researching, so I spent some time looking up roman sword artifacts and found nothing that seems to say this was Roman. You seem to have an opinion that it is not roman, yet you dismiss my comments without pointing out the illogical ideas of Mr. Pulitzer.

If you want to find a picture of a Roman sword that has a similar look to the one in the OP and want to refute what I said, that's fine. Otherwise, I think we are in agreement on this not being a roman artifact.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: theantediluvian
I'm sure the Canadian government is trying to decide whether to throw the family in jail or confiscate their worldly possessions. (That's a joke, maybe a half truth

At least the local government backed off of their "renegotiations" and allowed the excavation to continue.
Very interesting indeed! S&F

I believe that the dig continues under the observation of professional archaeologists, as dictated by the Province. As to the rest of it...show me a Roman shipwreck and we have something to talk about.

So cool!!! I love this show, I have been watching it since the beginning. Some of the theories have been CRAZY, and all of them plausible. I really liked the recent one they showed on TV about the Inca, that seemed plausible to me as well.

What kinda worries me about this show, they tend to RIP stuff out of the ground when they find it. I believe whatever the island contains, is of HUGE historical importance and will teach us a great deal about our past. I don't want them to ruin something by drilling a hole through it or something.

I hope they find something that we can all benefit from.

originally posted by: Kryties
J. Hutton Pulitzer, formerly known as Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, is a fraud and a failure at everything he has done in the past. He makes up extraordinary claims with little to no evidence to back them up.

He was recently on History Channels "The Curse of Oak Island" and, based on his ridiculous performance and the nonsense he spewed, was asked to leave and not return.

Even Scott Wolter, from "America Unearthed" doesn't particularly like him or his theories.

There's a lot of peculiar things about the article.
* why is the sword lying on a British paper (or what looks to be British)?
* "professor Carl Johannssen" is apparently unaware that Amerigo Vespucci has long been credited with being the first Western European to reach the Americas, with the Norse having reached here before that (this is according to scientists, archaeologists, and everyone else teaching in universities.)
* the Petroglyph evidence is easily disputed
* the "linguistic" evidence is pure bunk, based on written dictionaries (of people who did not have a written language

The whole thing's just a mess. And as others have noted, the sword is very unlike other swords. The hilt appears to have Heracles on it, though.

Looks like an early version of the gladius.

What I wouldn't give to have one.

I really enjoy the show! Great thread!

a reply to: hubrisinxs

I'll have to have my wife ask Dr. Johanneson about it, I don't do facebook. I'm sure the guys writing the article will go out and visit Oak Island, It is being done by people from AAPS and they are very picky about making sure evidence is correct.

I'm guessing that this sword will be verified somehow as to where it originated. The evidence in the article says it was ancient Roman metal, it could have been recycled into what it is now though. There was no wasting metal those days.

There is evidence of the Romans being in this country all over but it isn't quite enough that archeologists will say it happened for sure. The artifacts found may have been hauled here by early settlers so that is why the evidence cannot be used to prove that they were here.

I wonder if Scott Wolter has been out there to do carbon dating. Lee and his wife may have gone out there too, they are all over the world checking out this kind of stuff.

I missed this years AAPS conference, We had out of town company that weekend and another scheduled event. We'll be going to some of the winter meetings.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Looking at the patina, it looks like it is bronze, Phoenician I would hazard to guess.

With the Vikings anything is possible.
They ranged over such a large area in the old world and likely took a lot of swords in battle.
www.destinationviking.com...

Finding a old roman sward taken by a viking off oak island would not be a big thing.
Even finding a viking long ship would not be impossible.

Would the vikings be able to sail a captured roman ship. i believe they likely could sail it better then the Romans could.
Roman ships are something close in design to viking ships.
upload.wikimedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Norman conquest of southern Italy
en.wikipedia.org...