In case you missed it...https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58963025

It will be interesting to see it once it is cleaned off!

If there is anything left after the incrustation has been removed! It should be X-rayed first to to ascertain what might have survived of the basic iron fabric.
Neil

since no kind of tests have been done on the sword, why are they saying it is 900 years old?

One of our members, Sa'ar Nudel, is mentioned in that Smithsonian article. How cool! He was less willing to say much about a sword so heavily encrusted (which is sensible) than some of the other folks they cited. While the headline doesn't reflect this, another authority mentioned in the article noted that some Ayyubid and Mamluk swords of the time were also straight-bladed, so this could be one of those, too.

Thanks Chad! This is my full quote to the reporter:
" Unfortunately there is not much to say... I could if I had more info, aside what was already published. No exact size and the crust makes it impossible to have morphology & chronology classification. Also the finding site is obscured, for good reason."

From past experience, sometimes it is best to leave such finds in their incrustation, as inside there may be only rust crumbles. The IAA should send it to X-ray photography, and even to MRI scan, before any attempt to open the crust.


Dr. Rafi Lewis is a friend and colleague, a pioneer (at least over here) in the relatively new subject of open grounds analysis and specifically of battlefield archaeology. Currently the excavator at the Horn of Hattin site, offering some new insights about the famous battle.

How likely is it that anything is left underneath the casing of barnacles? It has the rough outline of a sword, but couldn’t it just as easily be some other pieces of metal joined in a cross. Why not just a discarded piece of rebar?

THANK you, Anthony, for posting the Smithsonian article with Sa’ar’s more extensive quotes included in it. Like Roger, I was highly critical about assumptions, both declared and assumed, in other articles about this find. “Crusader’s sword”, “perfectly preserved”, and “very heavy” are comments that bothered me. I do look forward to seeing how it turns-out after conservation.

I’m skeptical on multiple levels. Willing to be proved wrong though.

I'll be thrilled if it's genuine, by there are so many red flags that I highly doubt it.

Jean, these are good solid questions. My advise was to perform first X-ray photos of various focal length, and MRI scan. AFAIK there is no gentle way to remove the incrustation as it composed of several minerals, but I'm less familiar today with advanced methods. There IS substance inside, if it is live metal or just rust powder but still the cavity is full, the cutting operation is too rough to create a precise mold.
To all skeptical people: I have no reason to question originality, it is not the first sword found underwater here.

The shape IS odd thanks to camera & angle maneuvers, and the length reported is, well, questionable (exaggerated). There are no arms & armor specialists within the IAA, I cannot understand why they refuse to get help from outside.