Mysterious 5,000 Year Old Sword Discovered In Venice

[sam5971]

A new study shows that one of the oldest swords in the world which mislabeled in a museum on the island of San Lazarus in Venice, is around 5000 years old. The unique ultra-rare sword was made created in 3,000BC and originated from eastern Turkey. However, the sword was contained in a cabinet as part of a medieval collection.


It was only when a local PhD student and expert in ancient weaponry noticed the sword that it was removed for further analysis to pinpoint its date. The sword caught the eye of Vittoria Dall’Armellina, whose studies included the origin and evolution of swords in the Ancient Near East. The 17-inch sword was similar to those she saw in her studies as an archaeologist. The sword could have been a ceremonial object or an offensive weapon used in battle. Another theory suggests the sword was used in a burial and was casually retrieved by townsfolk before moving to a museum. During the reassessment that followed, the weapon has been found to be 5000 years old, making the sword one of the oldest in the world.

 

[fncceo]

More of a dagger than a sword.

 

[rightwinger]

More of a dagger than a sword.

People were shorter then

 

[fncceo]

More of a dagger than a sword.

People were shorter then

 

[Marion Morrison]

Ah! A neat historical, non-political thing! I like!

 

[Mushroom]

A new study shows that one of the oldest swords in the world which mislabeled in a museum on the island of San Lazarus in Venice, is around 5000 years old. The unique ultra-rare sword was made created in 3,000BC and originated from eastern Turkey. However, the sword was contained in a cabinet as part of a medieval collection.

Of course, that is also suspected, no actual proof.

It uses a form of early bronze from that era, and resembles swords of that era that have been dug up in Turkey.

But here is the interesting thing, the swords it resembles are more funeral goods than actual "swords". With the size, it seems much more likely this is more akin to a "working knife" or "symbolic representation" than an actual "sword".

I have no idea what the video is, I do not watch videos as references, since most of them are highly biased and nonsense. But there are other references available on this discovery.

Student discovers 5,000-year-old sword hidden in Venetian monastery

It's one of the oldest swords ever found.

www.livescience.com

5,000-year-old sword is discovered by an archaeology student at a Venetian monastery

After visiting Saint Lazarus in 2017, a PhD student followed a hunch that a sword on display was not medieval as labeled. Two years of research proved she was right. The sword is among the most ancient ever found, dating as far back as 5,000 years.

www.cnn.com

 

[westwall]

More of a dagger than a sword.

People were much smaller back then.

 

[Mushroom]

People were much smaller back then.

Actually, not by that much. We are talking about humans here, not Hobbits.

The average human at the edge of the Neolithic-Bronze ages was around 170cm. Or 5'5" or so. And that is actually down from our earlier ancestors, who were closer to 5'10". This is because as we transitioned from hunter-gatherers into early farming, height matters less when hunting for game.

Even the famous Gladius Iberius came in at a longer 20-27 inches. And that was to be used in very close quarters, where the wielder was fully enclosed in armor and had a shield. In fact, it was the very presence of the scutum that caused the Roman Army to shrink their sword, so it could be used as a thrusting weapon around the large shield. This is very different from most of the world, which still used much longer hacking swords (many were even still of the very wide "leaf shaped" blade - to counter the fact that bronze bends easily).

An 18" sword, in an era where a leather jacket was the best armor around? Nope, purely ceremonial.

 

[westwall]

People were much smaller back then.

Actually, not by that much. We are talking about humans here, not Hobbits.

The average human at the edge of the Neolithic-Bronze ages was around 170cm. Or 5'5" or so. And that is actually down from our earlier ancestors, who were closer to 5'10". This is because as we transitioned from hunter-gatherers into early farming, height matters less when hunting for game.

Even the famous Gladius Iberius came in at a longer 20-27 inches. And that was to be used in very close quarters, where the wielder was fully enclosed in armor and had a shield. In fact, it was the very presence of the scutum that caused the Roman Army to shrink their sword, so it could be used as a thrusting weapon around the large shield. This is very different from most of the world, which still used much longer hacking swords (many were even still of the very wide "leaf shaped" blade - to counter the fact that bronze bends easily).

An 18" sword, in an era where a leather jacket was the best armor around? Nope, purely ceremonial.

Actually they were smaller. Depending on which region of the world they happened to live in the average height could be from 4'10" to around 5'6".

That size sword would be about right for a 5 foot person. Bronze swords don't fare well when they get beyond 20 inches overall length. The weight needed to maintain their shape becomes excessive at that point.

Add to that the propensity to bend on impact and shorter and denser works better.

I also don't support the idea that this was ceremonial. This was a weapon. The dimensions are perfect for a short sword used for self defense in tight quarters. Think of the wakizashi as a analogy. They perform the same function.