Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing is several French & British late
> 18th & early 19th century military swords
> looked very much like a gladius... example
>
> > "The French M1831 Foot Artillery Sword was
> patterned after the Roman Gladius"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering where it was recovered I think it's
> far more likely a French or English


I find that to be a bit too convenient of an explanation and the scarcity of evidence to support it in this case barely exceeds the scarcity of evidence in the article to support their claims as well.

Such speech as "“I began my forensic work into it using an XRF analyser - which is a leading archaeological tool for analysing metals,” he explains. “And we found all these other metals that tell you this was made from ore that came directly from the ground. It has the same arsenic and lead signature in it. We’ve been able to test this sword against another one like it and it matches. This goes against everything we have been taught.”

I find to be quite unclear and annoying. Now... if they mentioned that they found the same type of sand & dust contaminants and metal percentages when comparing to a handful of authenticated gladii that would be much more convincing.

Equally non-convincing is the alleged provenance of th sword -- with authentication, it lmost seems specious.

Finding other roman bits there certainly seems supportive - but there is also a corresponding lack of authentication for the other bits ;0 (the coin, the shlied brace, etc.)

Far more effectual in persuasion is the details around the DNA -- that could clinch the whole show if it is proven beyond doubt.


However, I do see one glaring thing missing... Even the Atlantis explorers, looking for Atlantis in the middle of the atlantic, when they found a prospective harbor, immediately sought artifacts and promptly found several 'sea anchors' carved in a surprisingly roman fashion.

At Oak Island, where 1 shipwreck is clearly seen (and if that is the right photograph in the article, it just increases my skepticism - it's not old enough) -- a) where are the other ships? and b) where are the anchors?