Archaeologists find 3000-year-old sword, exceptionally well preserved(newsingermany.com)
newsingermany.com
Archaeologists find 3000-year-old sword, exceptionally well preserved
https://newsingermany.com/archaeologists-find-3000-year-old-sword/
193 comments
More nice pictures here, very metal: https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie...
Wow! That really does look like it's in good shape. I understand it's because bronze doesn't oxidize as readily but it's not what I picture when someone says 3000 year old sword.
Same here. With something that old I was expecting "well preserved" to mean that I could probably make out that it has the shape of a sword.
Fwiw bronze does oxidise quite readily, but the copper oxide is not porous, and becomes a resilient copper carbonate.
Which is why bronze and other copper-alloy artefacts are extremely resilient, unless they come in contact with chlorides and get bronze disease.
Which is why bronze and other copper-alloy artefacts are extremely resilient, unless they come in contact with chlorides and get bronze disease.
I can tell you have some experience with old bronze/copper. Most people do not even know what "bronze disease" is.
A lot of people learned about it when tutorials on inducing it on statues of questionable personnalities sprouted up.
The arrow points are pretty amazing too
wow many heavy metal music to be made in its tribute surely
I collect swords, and this is a nice example. When researching swords from the medieval period I found this technique of starting with an octagonal "bar" of stock material and then using a hammer to shape the blade while leaving a round segment for the handle to be interesting. It makes sense of course, although it can make for an uncomfortable handle (hence the wrapped handles in more modern swords.)
Cool, what's your oldest sword and where does it come from? Do you display them or just collect them? I have a friend in Australia with a fairly significant knife (not sword) collection which will be for sale shortly (aged owner), let me know if interested.
I too have knives in my collection, and would be interested but generally shipping things from Australia is hecka expensive too. Generally, I add things, with interesting stories to my collection. My oldest sword is privileged information but my favorite is the first one I got.
In 1990 I was visiting Edinburgh on business for Sun, and I wanted a Claymore in celebration of my Scottish ancestry. At the Haymarket, I met an antique salesperson who let me in on the sad truth that a "real" one would set me back $40,000+ in 1990 dollars. But he mentioned that the British Museum sometimes sold "extras", swords which weren't particularly significant or not something they were going to add to the collection but selling them raised funds to cover costs. And he gave me the number of a curator of the Arms and Armor section of the museum.
I called and spoke to the curator who told me that no, they didn't have, nor would they sell me a sword from their collection, but they did do business with a swordsmith in Whitburn who they sometimes used to make copies of swords in their collection so that they could display the copy and preserve the original. This smith had worked with them for years and made a point about re-creating the original process as closely as possible. The curator gave me contact information for the swordsmith[1].
I called the swordsmith and explained to him what I was trying to accomplish and he understood right away but explained that it would be expensive. Making these copies often took months to make. I told him that was okay and asked what he would charge me, his answer was 1,500 pounds[2], 750 up front and 750 on completion. He had a sword he was making for the museum and it would make a good template for the one he would make me. I agreed to his terms and across a bunch of timezones on two different continents managed to arrange a wire transfer to his account for the 750 pounds.
I returned from Scotland and told my wife the whole thing and she was skeptical and thought I had burned up $2,000 on a silly idea. About five and a half months letter I get a telegram (yes, honest to goodness "YOUR SWORD IS READY STOP SEND BALANCE STOP ..." etc kind of thing. I called him on the phone and he agreed to make a crate for it and to ship it via counter to counter service of British Airlines (they had a couple of different non-stop flights to SFO). We had a discussion about customs and duties and whether or not I wanted the sword tempered as it would have been in the 15th century, or not. The plan was to not temper it, making it somewhat useless as a "real" sword, and declaring it as a "Work of art, made of metal" (no duty required). He gave me the flight number they would ship it on and I wired him the rest of the funds.
A few days later I went to SFO to pick it up, inquired at the BA desk and they redirected me to customs. I went to customs and they said, "This isn't a work of art, this is a sword. You owe 10% duty on it." I tried to explain to them that the Venus de Milo was just some pottery with no arms but they were having none of it. They stuck firm and asked what I paid for it. I told them "1,500" so they charged me $150 duty.He didn't ask the units, and I didn't offer :-).
A bit less than a year later, the smith called me and explained that he had thrown out his rotator cup (shoulder injury) which made it impossible for him to make swords. He had someone looking for a Claymore and they would pay 5,000 pounds for it, would I be interested in selling mine. And I said "No, this is something I want my kids to inherit."
[1] A place called Whitburn Arms.
[2] The exchange rate at the time made this somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000 USD.
In 1990 I was visiting Edinburgh on business for Sun, and I wanted a Claymore in celebration of my Scottish ancestry. At the Haymarket, I met an antique salesperson who let me in on the sad truth that a "real" one would set me back $40,000+ in 1990 dollars. But he mentioned that the British Museum sometimes sold "extras", swords which weren't particularly significant or not something they were going to add to the collection but selling them raised funds to cover costs. And he gave me the number of a curator of the Arms and Armor section of the museum.
I called and spoke to the curator who told me that no, they didn't have, nor would they sell me a sword from their collection, but they did do business with a swordsmith in Whitburn who they sometimes used to make copies of swords in their collection so that they could display the copy and preserve the original. This smith had worked with them for years and made a point about re-creating the original process as closely as possible. The curator gave me contact information for the swordsmith[1].
I called the swordsmith and explained to him what I was trying to accomplish and he understood right away but explained that it would be expensive. Making these copies often took months to make. I told him that was okay and asked what he would charge me, his answer was 1,500 pounds[2], 750 up front and 750 on completion. He had a sword he was making for the museum and it would make a good template for the one he would make me. I agreed to his terms and across a bunch of timezones on two different continents managed to arrange a wire transfer to his account for the 750 pounds.
I returned from Scotland and told my wife the whole thing and she was skeptical and thought I had burned up $2,000 on a silly idea. About five and a half months letter I get a telegram (yes, honest to goodness "YOUR SWORD IS READY STOP SEND BALANCE STOP ..." etc kind of thing. I called him on the phone and he agreed to make a crate for it and to ship it via counter to counter service of British Airlines (they had a couple of different non-stop flights to SFO). We had a discussion about customs and duties and whether or not I wanted the sword tempered as it would have been in the 15th century, or not. The plan was to not temper it, making it somewhat useless as a "real" sword, and declaring it as a "Work of art, made of metal" (no duty required). He gave me the flight number they would ship it on and I wired him the rest of the funds.
A few days later I went to SFO to pick it up, inquired at the BA desk and they redirected me to customs. I went to customs and they said, "This isn't a work of art, this is a sword. You owe 10% duty on it." I tried to explain to them that the Venus de Milo was just some pottery with no arms but they were having none of it. They stuck firm and asked what I paid for it. I told them "1,500" so they charged me $150 duty.He didn't ask the units, and I didn't offer :-).
A bit less than a year later, the smith called me and explained that he had thrown out his rotator cup (shoulder injury) which made it impossible for him to make swords. He had someone looking for a Claymore and they would pay 5,000 pounds for it, would I be interested in selling mine. And I said "No, this is something I want my kids to inherit."
[1] A place called Whitburn Arms.
[2] The exchange rate at the time made this somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000 USD.
Great story. Do send me an email, the owner will need to share their catalog and price, but I don't think the shipping would pose an issue as three of us are flying in a couple of months and could bring it over then.
That is a great story. Thanks for writing it up.
You could have both made a profit and let him make one, helping with his life after his injury. Your call though, of course.
That's an interesting take on it. On the one hand, it wasn't presented as "this would help my recovery/treatment," rather it was presented as "I threw out my rotator cup so I'm not doing swords, but if you wanted to sell, I can connect you with someone who wants to buy one."
I am acutely aware that one never knows what is going on in the other person's head in a conversation, so I have to accept the possibility that he was hoping to generate another sale to me, but I feel pretty strongly that if that was what he was hoping for he would have mentioned it.
I am acutely aware that one never knows what is going on in the other person's head in a conversation, so I have to accept the possibility that he was hoping to generate another sale to me, but I feel pretty strongly that if that was what he was hoping for he would have mentioned it.
"I am acutely aware that one never knows what is going on in the other person's head in a
conversation"
True.
So due to that, different people can have different reactions to the same situation.
True.
So due to that, different people can have different reactions to the same situation.
The article mentions that the handles were often cast over the blade.
This is mindblowing. Here we are, 3000 years in the future. But how many of us could make such a “primitive” thing?
How many people could make them 3000 years ago? Im curious how many blacksmiths there were back then with the appropriate skill and resources to learn it and do it well. I feel as if there are still a surprising number of people that could make a sword today, although maybe not from raw resources.
> Im curious how many blacksmiths there were back then...
The sword is bronze, blacksmiths work with iron. Bronze is usually cast, iron is usually forged (heated and hit with a hammer).
The sword is bronze, blacksmiths work with iron. Bronze is usually cast, iron is usually forged (heated and hit with a hammer).
it was one of the most popular and widespread occupations
I think it’s more accurate to say most communities had a blacksmith. “Farmer” was the most popular and widespread occultations. A community at that time didn’t require a ton of specialized labor, they needed more people using the output of a blacksmith.
Unlike how popular culture depicts, blacksmiths seldom operated alone. A village would have a big team of blacksmiths, including many acolytes.
We can do and learn things that require further intellectual ability though ;)
How many "primitives" could pass a 8year olds Spelling Bee?
How many "primitives" could pass a 8year olds Spelling Bee?
How many people can really spell that many words correctly today? Without a red squiggly line that is. I know I personally am terrible at it. Like really, really bad. So are most people I know well enough to admit it. English for example is a terrible language with so many edge cases and tons of inconsistency that to me as a layman make zero sense.
For example I try to sound out words with my kids as they learn to read. But it's not that simple. So many words are pronounced "incorrectly". It makes it very frustrating for all parties involved.
So.. is mass memorizing how to spell complicated words truly a sign of intelligence or just applied memorization to a field.
I would simply say I hate spelling but I loathe it so I can seem smarter even though they mean the same thing. English...
For example I try to sound out words with my kids as they learn to read. But it's not that simple. So many words are pronounced "incorrectly". It makes it very frustrating for all parties involved.
So.. is mass memorizing how to spell complicated words truly a sign of intelligence or just applied memorization to a field.
I would simply say I hate spelling but I loathe it so I can seem smarter even though they mean the same thing. English...
How many 8-year olds could pass a spelling bee of a 3,000-year old language, though?
Its more than simply making the thing.
There's advancement in several fields of study and industry that need to happen before you can make the thing, especially circa 3000. Geography, Mining, Manpower, Logistics, Science... to name a few!
This post covers it quite well.
https://acoup.blog/2020/09/18/collections-iron-how-did-they-...
There's advancement in several fields of study and industry that need to happen before you can make the thing, especially circa 3000. Geography, Mining, Manpower, Logistics, Science... to name a few!
This post covers it quite well.
https://acoup.blog/2020/09/18/collections-iron-how-did-they-...
To be fair, how many of the populace 3000 years ago could make such a thing?
With the right youtube videos and enough practice, I'll bet most mechanically inclined people could work it out.
I imagine the information you could fit on a single piece of printer paper with 12 point font would net someone something much better than this sword. Metallurgy has come a long way
The article is somewhat sensationalistic. Finding an octagonal type bronze sword ("Achtkantschwert" in German) from that period is rare, but we have quite a couple of them. Since bronze does not rust, the conditions of such swords are often quite good (and typically far better than that of medieval iron swords, for instance).
Here is a map of the distribution of octagonal-hilted swords in Europe:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-distribu...
As you can easily see, there are two clearly separated areas where these swords were found.
The following article (PDF, in German, including an English abstract and some nice photos) explores the possible (dis-)connection between the two areas:
https://goedoc.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/1/8646/pz....
Here is a map of the distribution of octagonal-hilted swords in Europe:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-distribu...
As you can easily see, there are two clearly separated areas where these swords were found.
The following article (PDF, in German, including an English abstract and some nice photos) explores the possible (dis-)connection between the two areas:
https://goedoc.uni-goettingen.de/bitstream/handle/1/8646/pz....
The "exceptional" part is literally a quote from the top expert of preservation for the region.
> The sword and the burial still need to be examined, said Conservator General Mathias Pfeil, head of the Bavarian State Office for the Preservation of Monuments. “But we can already say: the state of preservation is exceptional!”
This article has more photos and compared to the sources mentioned here does seem much better preserved. The entire sword doesn't even look corroded https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie...
> The sword and the burial still need to be examined, said Conservator General Mathias Pfeil, head of the Bavarian State Office for the Preservation of Monuments. “But we can already say: the state of preservation is exceptional!”
This article has more photos and compared to the sources mentioned here does seem much better preserved. The entire sword doesn't even look corroded https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article245860994/Archaeologie...
My knowledge of bronze vs iron comes purely from playing dwarf fortress. Are they fairly comparable in the damage they can cause?
I've just started listening to the Fall of Civilizations podcast (https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/), and their second episode is on the Late Bronze Age collapse. The theory they put forward as to one of the reasons the big successful Bronze age civilizations got out-competed is that bronze is very expensive / hard to acquire, primarily because of the need for tin. (Copper is very common but unsuitable for weaponry without turning it into bronze.)
Iron is extremely common and cheap, but requires much much higher temperatures to work with than bronze. Once the furnace technology was out there to make smelting iron and creation of steel feasible, poorer / less complicated civilizations were able to make iron weaponry and go up against their richer neighbors.
Iron is extremely common and cheap, but requires much much higher temperatures to work with than bronze. Once the furnace technology was out there to make smelting iron and creation of steel feasible, poorer / less complicated civilizations were able to make iron weaponry and go up against their richer neighbors.
Bronze is superior to iron, but not to steel. Both bronze and steel can take very sharp edges while only steel can be tempered to be springy and tough and therefore can make much lighter weapons. Iron is soft, weak, prone to rusting, can't easily take or hold an edge, and requires a lot of fuel to process from ore, but you can get it anywhere in large quantities if you have the fuel, while bronze needs the much harder to find tin.
Depends on the quality of the iron. Poor quality iron is often inferior, but of course actual steel is much better. Bronze can take a great edge but is a a bit softer and can get edge damage in battle/usage quicker. However bronze does have one big benefit over iron/steel, repairability. If a bronze item is damaged it can be cold worked and annealed repeatedly over a simple wood fire. With iron or steel you need a more proper forge and charcoal to repair it and it has to be worked while hot which requires more tools on hand to do properly. A "cheap" bronze sword can be smashed over dozens of heads until it is basically a bronze club, but then later with a campfire and some rocks or simple hammer can be reworked and sharpened into a sword again.
Any real difference in damage would be weight based, as swords were more used for beating than cutting. It's likely that one metal could hold a better edge, and one (perhaps the same) would be more resilient to breaking.
It's not quite like the D&D "this metal is higher ranking and does more damage".
It's not quite like the D&D "this metal is higher ranking and does more damage".
platinum underpants > steel underpants > bronze underpants > cloth underpants
I think they are comparable. A blow from a bronze sword will kill you just as well as a blow from an iron sword. The most widespread weapon of all times prior to the American Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic wars were spears. A spear with a bronze tip and one with an iron tip will also kill you with equal probability. If you have a shield, the damage to the spear is much more likely to come from a broken shaft than from a cracked tip. The shield itself generally had a metallic part (a "boss") that could be made of bronze or iron. Both were equally effective.
Swords were generally not used in battle. But if used, a bronze sword was a bit more likely to crack than an iron sword. Bronze weapons were resistant to corrosion though. So that meant they did a better job in their secondary role: that of provider of status. A warrior with shiny armor, shield and sword is much more imposing and frightening than one with a rusty armor, shield and sword. Of course, in the bronze age, war was more ritualistic than war during the Roman empire, when war was much more like an industrial operation. For the purposes of the Roman empire, iron was probably doing a better job than bronze.
Swords were generally not used in battle. But if used, a bronze sword was a bit more likely to crack than an iron sword. Bronze weapons were resistant to corrosion though. So that meant they did a better job in their secondary role: that of provider of status. A warrior with shiny armor, shield and sword is much more imposing and frightening than one with a rusty armor, shield and sword. Of course, in the bronze age, war was more ritualistic than war during the Roman empire, when war was much more like an industrial operation. For the purposes of the Roman empire, iron was probably doing a better job than bronze.
What were swords used for if not for battle?
People often compare sword with handguns. Handguns nowadays are deadly weapons, but they are not used in war, where people use assault rifles instead, or other heavier weapons. Swords were sidearms. Warriors carried them around every day, they could be used for self defense (in those times there was not police or law enforcement). Or they could be used for intimidating opponents, and if needed, for chopping someone's head or limb.
In combat though, spears were much, much more effective.
With one exception. As far as I can tell only one exception, but a big one. The Romans have figured out that all other people are quite bad at close quarters combat. Since soldiers were used to using spears, very few soldiers knew what to do if someone got in a close range than the length of a spear. The Romans then would bull-rush the enemy using their shield, and when close they would use their (quite short) swords. Without training, their opponents didn't stand a chance. Of course, this type of battle tactic required an enormous amount of training. The Romans did that because they were a very war-oriented society. Others couldn't match their level of training.
Even for the Romans though, who were regularly using swords, the choice of bronze versus iron would have made little difference. Although bronze is a bit more brittle than iron, and a bronze sword is more likely to break when it strikes a hard object, the Romans were trained to thrust the sword, not to use slashing moves. Thrusting is much more deadly, but less instinctive. It's another thing that requires extensive training, which the Romans were great at. For thrusting, I think a bronze and an iron sword do equally well.
In combat though, spears were much, much more effective.
With one exception. As far as I can tell only one exception, but a big one. The Romans have figured out that all other people are quite bad at close quarters combat. Since soldiers were used to using spears, very few soldiers knew what to do if someone got in a close range than the length of a spear. The Romans then would bull-rush the enemy using their shield, and when close they would use their (quite short) swords. Without training, their opponents didn't stand a chance. Of course, this type of battle tactic required an enormous amount of training. The Romans did that because they were a very war-oriented society. Others couldn't match their level of training.
Even for the Romans though, who were regularly using swords, the choice of bronze versus iron would have made little difference. Although bronze is a bit more brittle than iron, and a bronze sword is more likely to break when it strikes a hard object, the Romans were trained to thrust the sword, not to use slashing moves. Thrusting is much more deadly, but less instinctive. It's another thing that requires extensive training, which the Romans were great at. For thrusting, I think a bronze and an iron sword do equally well.
Nice explanation, but the Romans did use spears - the 7-foot heavy pilum. They just threw them. It was effectively used to disrupt a threat in a mass volley before swords were drawn and the zerg rugh. Several battles were won by the pilum - the battle of Telamon for example.
I was under the impression that iron causes more damage- hence, why the Iron Age followed the Bronze Age, because the people with the iron armor and swords would pierce through the armor of the peoples wearing the bronze armor, but not vice-versa.
>somewhat sensationalistic
What a cynical comment. The title doesn't even say rare, and there's only a few dozen found in "all of Europe", ever. What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here? Thanks for your excellent sources, however.
I know it's trendy to say sensationalist, and it's often true. Just seems like a lazy thing to write in this case.
What a cynical comment. The title doesn't even say rare, and there's only a few dozen found in "all of Europe", ever. What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here? Thanks for your excellent sources, however.
I know it's trendy to say sensationalist, and it's often true. Just seems like a lazy thing to write in this case.
> What could possibly be seen as sensationalist here?
I wrote "somewhat" on purpose, meaning something in the middle between "really sensationalistic" and "quite interesting". The sensationalist aspect of the article is that it gives the uninformed reader the impression that it is something like the find of the year, which it really isn't. Yes, it is a nice find and well-preserved, but in the end, everything is rare if one only narrows down the area enough. Instead, the author should have informed the reader that bronze swords are often quite well-preserved and why this is the case, and that "rare" does not mean "one or two others", but "about 200 others of this specific type and thousands of others considering all types".
I wrote "somewhat" on purpose, meaning something in the middle between "really sensationalistic" and "quite interesting". The sensationalist aspect of the article is that it gives the uninformed reader the impression that it is something like the find of the year, which it really isn't. Yes, it is a nice find and well-preserved, but in the end, everything is rare if one only narrows down the area enough. Instead, the author should have informed the reader that bronze swords are often quite well-preserved and why this is the case, and that "rare" does not mean "one or two others", but "about 200 others of this specific type and thousands of others considering all types".
"Somewhat sensationalistic" ranks somewhere around "slightly uncomfortable" or "a little misleading" on the cynicism scale. I know it's trendy to write entire comments responding to a single, passing word usage in someone else's comment, but...
I wouldn't say it's used in passing. I'd say it's the entire point of their comment.
Whether the usage was reasonable I don't feel qualified to comment on.
Whether the usage was reasonable I don't feel qualified to comment on.
It's funny to think that the fantasy/speculative fiction trope of "precursor civilization that has advanced tech" was probably grounded in the historical memory of people happening upon ruins, weapons and artifacts of extraordinary craftsmanship.
Such myths are likely based on classical Rome rather than bronze age discoveries.
For several centuries after the Western empire fell apart, Europeans lacked the capability to build settlements or structures anywhere close to the size typical of classical Roman civilization. Populations were depressed by pestilence, social order had declined, and most Europeans were within a short distance from a former Roman settlement of a size larger than they'd ever seen populated in their lives. The Eastern empire was a little different, but Western Europe was pretty much fubar in the early middle ages.
Although technology steadily progressed throughout the middle ages, it took centuries for population and social organization to return to anywhere near classical levels. If you lived during the early middle age, it was an unmistakable fact that a great "precursor civilization" capable of wonders far beyond what your own civilization was capable of had lived and fallen long before you were born. With colossal roman ruins scattered across Europe, there was no need to look to the bronze age for a fallen civilization.
For several centuries after the Western empire fell apart, Europeans lacked the capability to build settlements or structures anywhere close to the size typical of classical Roman civilization. Populations were depressed by pestilence, social order had declined, and most Europeans were within a short distance from a former Roman settlement of a size larger than they'd ever seen populated in their lives. The Eastern empire was a little different, but Western Europe was pretty much fubar in the early middle ages.
Although technology steadily progressed throughout the middle ages, it took centuries for population and social organization to return to anywhere near classical levels. If you lived during the early middle age, it was an unmistakable fact that a great "precursor civilization" capable of wonders far beyond what your own civilization was capable of had lived and fallen long before you were born. With colossal roman ruins scattered across Europe, there was no need to look to the bronze age for a fallen civilization.
It goes further back than that. In 400BC, Xenophon, while retreating from a failed attempt at taking Babylon, came across the abandoned ruins of a bunch of Assyrian cities, like Nineveh and wrote about them. 200 years after being abandoned, they were far more impressive than anything Xenophon would have seen in his home country. For example, Athens at that point had a city wall(the Themistoclean wall) approximately 5 miles circumference, made of rubble, 30' tall, 10' thick at the base
Compare to what Xenophon saw at Nineveh: A city wall 7.5 miles circumference, made of stone and brick, 55' tall and up to 50' thick. The most impressive structures he would have ever seen - just out in the middle of nowhere, absolutely abandoned.
Compare to what Xenophon saw at Nineveh: A city wall 7.5 miles circumference, made of stone and brick, 55' tall and up to 50' thick. The most impressive structures he would have ever seen - just out in the middle of nowhere, absolutely abandoned.
Just a quick plug for the marvellous Landmark edition of Xenophon’s Anabasis:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Landmark-Xenophons-Anabasis-Shane-B...
Beautiful book with lots of maps and illustrations covering the journey mentioned above, if that’s anyone’s bag.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Landmark-Xenophons-Anabasis-Shane-B...
Beautiful book with lots of maps and illustrations covering the journey mentioned above, if that’s anyone’s bag.
The Fall of Civilizations podcast episode on the Assyrians starts with Xenophon's experience.
My YouTube feed has been (pleasantly) taken over by ancient Rome videos where historians and archaeologists cover how various Roman inventions and buildings worked.
I don't think people realize how far ahead of everyone else Rome was at that time.
Like most people know that Rome had aqueducts bringing in water to the city, but they probably don't know that water was supplied to different buildings directly, and you could pay to get a line installed straight to your house. Running water in your house, 2000 years ago!
I don't think people realize how far ahead of everyone else Rome was at that time.
Like most people know that Rome had aqueducts bringing in water to the city, but they probably don't know that water was supplied to different buildings directly, and you could pay to get a line installed straight to your house. Running water in your house, 2000 years ago!
Sounds interesting. Do you have any channels or particular videos you'd recommend?
Look up “Ancient Rome Live” on YouTube and then go down the recommendations rabbithole.
That trope is about something so forgotten that any discoveries would be entirely unexpected. But awareness of Rome was never lost, quite the opposite. Even bureaucratic connections survived, they just shifted back a gear from political to spiritual authority. Most nominal titles like count or duke assumed by european nobility derive their names from some role in Roman administration, they all considered themselves as continuation of something that never disappeared but merely changed shape.
Came here to say much the same thing. A great book that gets into the details of this is https://www.amazon.com/Inheritance-Rome-Illuminating-Dark-40...
TLDR; people considered themselves "Roman", or something adjacent to it, long after the western empire officially disintegrated, and of course in the east it didn't really die.
Even on the outskirts (e.g. Romano-British) people held onto Roman, Christian, and Latin culture at a very deep level. And even when the Anglo-Saxons invaded they were extremely aware of who and what the Roman ruins etc. were, even if they chose not to settle in them in many cases.
TLDR; people considered themselves "Roman", or something adjacent to it, long after the western empire officially disintegrated, and of course in the east it didn't really die.
Even on the outskirts (e.g. Romano-British) people held onto Roman, Christian, and Latin culture at a very deep level. And even when the Anglo-Saxons invaded they were extremely aware of who and what the Roman ruins etc. were, even if they chose not to settle in them in many cases.
> Even on the outskirts (e.g. Romano-British) people held onto Roman, Christian, and Latin culture at a very deep level.
Three of the 10 most common languages on Earth boil down to "Latin with a bad accent".
Three of the 10 most common languages on Earth boil down to "Latin with a bad accent".
Exactly, and the most popular religion in the world is basically cultural continuity with late western Roman culture and its largest most organized official form even uses the Latin language and maintains political institutions with continuous lineage back to Rome.
I don't think there's a real timeline where Europeans were wandering around the ruins of the suddenly collapsed empire wondering who these people were. They knew fully, but the economic and political (and physical! plague!) situation meant they were unable to reconstruct the Pax Romana.
But they certainly tried, even when they were former "outsiders" like the Franks (who, in the west half of their realm, even dropped their native tongue to speak a form of Latin!).
In fact I feel it's possible that actual "progress" wasn't possible in Europe until philosophical thought moved beyond late-Roman neo-Platonic & neo-Aristotelian boundaries, and into new radical enlightenment era concepts.
I don't think there's a real timeline where Europeans were wandering around the ruins of the suddenly collapsed empire wondering who these people were. They knew fully, but the economic and political (and physical! plague!) situation meant they were unable to reconstruct the Pax Romana.
But they certainly tried, even when they were former "outsiders" like the Franks (who, in the west half of their realm, even dropped their native tongue to speak a form of Latin!).
In fact I feel it's possible that actual "progress" wasn't possible in Europe until philosophical thought moved beyond late-Roman neo-Platonic & neo-Aristotelian boundaries, and into new radical enlightenment era concepts.
Knowing fully what happened to Rome, if it’s even possible, would have been limited to the educated class. Stories would still have come out of the peasant class, whose folk memory of Rome couldn’t match what the clergy had.
Eventually we did remake the Pax Romana, but it took two utterly ruinous wars, humanism, and a working knowledge of free trade to recreate the system that Rome had managed to create almost by accident.
Eventually we did remake the Pax Romana, but it took two utterly ruinous wars, humanism, and a working knowledge of free trade to recreate the system that Rome had managed to create almost by accident.
What has been created with modern global capitalism is extremely different from the Roman form of commerce and administration. Not just in technology but in complete ideological foundations. Not only was slavery fundamental to its whole foundation, its accepted and normal practices for doing business would today, in the west, be considered forms of absolute extreme corruption, and their justice system would absolutely horrify us.
I'd posit that today's world is what it is because it is partially on built enlightenment values that stepped away from the old Roman model, not back to it.
I'd posit that today's world is what it is because it is partially on built enlightenment values that stepped away from the old Roman model, not back to it.
If you look at what the Romans in the context of their own time, it looks much different. Citizenship was an open class, unlike most everyone in the Mediterranean. Slaves actually had rights. Conquered peoples were able to earn tributes in future conquests. Women could own property. Yes, it’s all terrible by our standards, but becoming Roman could actually improve the lives of subject common people.
Reproducing the previous society is the mistake, because it wasn’t just the society. It was the free trade and lack of Mediterranean piracy that brought prosperity. The relatively increased civil rights that brought stability, and Senate that brought legitimacy. They had a model that produced the best economy and civil rights for their era, but looking backwards to past glories can’t replicate that.
Reproducing the previous society is the mistake, because it wasn’t just the society. It was the free trade and lack of Mediterranean piracy that brought prosperity. The relatively increased civil rights that brought stability, and Senate that brought legitimacy. They had a model that produced the best economy and civil rights for their era, but looking backwards to past glories can’t replicate that.
Polish nobility, stretching well into today’s Ukraine, was inventing ways in which they were continuation of imaginary outskirts of said empire.
Russian Orthodox nationalists have this fantasy still. Including Putin.
https://brill.com/view/journals/joah/4/1-2/article-p28_4.xml
https://brill.com/view/journals/joah/4/1-2/article-p28_4.xml
that article is a long winded way of rehashing the old Tzarist claim that the Russian Empire was the inheritor of the Byzantines, a self-styled "Third Rome".
Putin simply sees himself as the new Tzar, and by extension master of the lands of the Third Rome, i.e. the Baltics, Ukraine, et al.
Putin simply sees himself as the new Tzar, and by extension master of the lands of the Third Rome, i.e. the Baltics, Ukraine, et al.
Most of what you wrote was true for the most of the Mediterranean after the Bronze Age collapse too. That is why the Greeks and Romans also had such myths, remember Atlantis is something that seemingly originated with Plato.
There was also the Minoan civilization, wiped out by the eruption of Santorini. Probably inspired the Atlantis legend.
Almost everywhere on earth, there have been many regional collapses in different times. This is enough for a corpus of stories about mythical, great past to be created, survive through the highwater mark of the next cycle of civilization (which was usually higher than the previous great past), and provide context during the next collapse and it's aftermath.
When Roman power in the West collapsed, and, for example, the remaining population of Arles retreated into the amphitheater of their previously much greater and more prosperous city, building a fortification in the middle and from the ruins of what used to be before, there were almost certainly people among them who could recite Hesiod. I just for some reason find this so trippy.
When Roman power in the West collapsed, and, for example, the remaining population of Arles retreated into the amphitheater of their previously much greater and more prosperous city, building a fortification in the middle and from the ruins of what used to be before, there were almost certainly people among them who could recite Hesiod. I just for some reason find this so trippy.
And oral history I'm sure. We will probably never know how advanced and widespread some of these ancient technologies are but the existence of artifacts that are far, far ahead of anything we would expect historically (e.g. Antikythera Mechanism, Gobekli Tepe) suggests there are some big, big holes in our records of the past.
I don't think anybody really thought much about it before the discovery of the Antikythera Mechanism, but at least in retrospect there seem to be clear reference to such devices in ancient contemporary literature. Particularly, Cicero described such devices and attributed them to Archimedes.
I find the ancient stone works the best evidence for some kind of advanced civilization in the far past. (No not aliens). Some date back 10.000 years ago. The precision and similarities between different sites all over the world is incredible. We are just in the beginning of this research field.
I think it might be a general bias in the human psyche. When you're born, you're utterly dependent on the gods that are your parents (and extended village, to a greater or lesser extent) and this has selected for a bias in the human brain that expresses itself as "older people good, oldest people better".
I base this only on finding the trope of "precursor civilisation/society with the best tech" in literature from across the globe.
I base this only on finding the trope of "precursor civilisation/society with the best tech" in literature from across the globe.
Before written text and easy access to books and knowledge, you also relied on the experience and skills of older people to learn and make your way in the world.
Is there a website where you can view chronologically interesting archaelogical finds? Like a timeline of what has popped up from the ground made by human hands?
I highly, highly recommend A History of the World in 100 Objects (particularly the out of print 2011 hardback, which is not available from any non-Amazon sources I could find.) As you can guess from the title, it tells the story of human history through archaeological finds. They are all from the British Museum, so it wouldn't include something like the sword from the OP, but given that independence from the British is the most widely celebrated holiday in the world, it's nearly comprehensive.
https://www.amazon.com/History-World-100-Objects/dp/06700227...
https://www.amazon.com/History-World-100-Objects/dp/06700227...
I think GP means chronologically as in (best estimate) age of the artefact, not the time of discovery.
What stands out to me is the pommel with the large handhold. That makes me think that it's a slashing sword, not a stabbing one. Then there's the fact that it's all metal, unlike how most ancient and medieval swords which were made with an handle of organic material around the tang of the blade. Probably not intended (ever) for use in fighting? Since it doesn't have a replacable handle.
Generally speaking, shorter swords from that period (as the current one), which are more like large daggers, were typically cast in one piece with the handhold. For larger swords, we often find some with separately attached handles, too.
Here you can see a selection of Danish swords of both types alongside each other from the same period: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Images-of-Danish-swords-...
Here you can see a selection of Danish swords of both types alongside each other from the same period: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Images-of-Danish-swords-...
The handle seems to be a separate piece of metal from the blade, and it appears to have been riveted to the blade (with two pairs of lateral rivets), so it might have been replaceable, even if there should have been little need to replace a bronze handle.
The blade seems thick, so even with a bronze handle the sword might have been balanced well enough to be usable.
Just from the pictures it cannot be guessed whether the sword was too heavy to be easily handled by a normal human.
The blade seems thick, so even with a bronze handle the sword might have been balanced well enough to be usable.
Just from the pictures it cannot be guessed whether the sword was too heavy to be easily handled by a normal human.
> "What stands out to me is the pommel with the large handhold. That makes me think that it's a slashing sword, not a stabbing one."
it looks like the pommel of a rondel dagger which is as stabby as it gets
it looks like the pommel of a rondel dagger which is as stabby as it gets
A pommel is supposed to be small, this one is so large and protruding, how do you even slash or stab with this thing? The only thing this seems good for is for beating your opponent on the head with its handle.
I was under the impression that bronze swords' lifespans were limited by the metal; they can't be sharpened, but would need to be re-cast. A replaceable handle probably wouldn't help much.
Bronze can be resharpened that much is fine.
But other damage was limited. Bends and dents andd the like can only be repaired so often before the metal becomes brittle. Work Hardening is sort of the application of this process just to the surface/edge.
But other damage was limited. Bends and dents andd the like can only be repaired so often before the metal becomes brittle. Work Hardening is sort of the application of this process just to the surface/edge.
Wait, can you really not sharpen bronze? From what I know it takes a good edge, just not quite as fine as steel would. But I don't know anything about not being able to sharpen it.
Am I wrong? Can you really not sharpen bronze?
Am I wrong? Can you really not sharpen bronze?
I have been told that, but I really don't know. It's a tech that's been obsolete for a couple millenia now, so I hadn't put much actual research into it.
You can definitely resharpen bronze. The castings are not perfectly sharp, the edges are further worked (and can be hammered and work hardened). I don't think you can redo work hardening indefinitely but you can a bit and can scrape and grind and hone repeatedly. There are (or were last I looked) some people supplying cast blanks these days for re-enactors to try sharpening up. Always wanted to try that one day.
[deleted]
If the handle is metal, why would it ever need to be replaced? It's not going to rot, and it's not going to break.
It’s not that the handle is going to rot, it’s that there’s zero shock absorption. The fact that it doesn’t have a replaceable handle probably means that it’s for ceremonial purposes, not fighting. Hitting another sword with it would be exhausting and painful.
I doubt that "shock absorption" would have been a problem.
This kind of sword would not have been used like a hammer.
The wavy pattern on the bronze handle would have ensured a firm grip even with a sweaty or wet hand. I have some Japanese Tojiro kitchen knives, which have stainless steel handles with a similar pattern on the handle, and they are more comfortable than most of the knife handles made of wood or plastic, especially when used with a dirty hand.
So based on this experience, I do not believe that such a bronze handle would have been a serious disadvantage, even if it is possible that the sword was purely ceremonial.
This kind of sword would not have been used like a hammer.
The wavy pattern on the bronze handle would have ensured a firm grip even with a sweaty or wet hand. I have some Japanese Tojiro kitchen knives, which have stainless steel handles with a similar pattern on the handle, and they are more comfortable than most of the knife handles made of wood or plastic, especially when used with a dirty hand.
So based on this experience, I do not believe that such a bronze handle would have been a serious disadvantage, even if it is possible that the sword was purely ceremonial.
I have found though that my kitchen knife is not very good when I have to parry, or when I have to bash my way through a shield.
Nobody would have parried with a sword, except in desperate situations, because of the risk of breaking the sword or damaging its edge. That's what the shield was for.
However you have a valid point that anyone wielding a sword had to resist the shock of a successful parry with the shield done by the opponent.
For thrusting movements, I do not believe that such a bronze handle would have been worse than any other handle, because it is unlikely to have been more slippery.
Only for cutting movements you are right that a handle wrapped in leather or cords should have been better at absorbing shocks.
However you have a valid point that anyone wielding a sword had to resist the shock of a successful parry with the shield done by the opponent.
For thrusting movements, I do not believe that such a bronze handle would have been worse than any other handle, because it is unlikely to have been more slippery.
Only for cutting movements you are right that a handle wrapped in leather or cords should have been better at absorbing shocks.
The reason I bring it up is a (minuscule) amount of personal experience: I've had the chance to practice/play fight with a replica bronze sword & shield against an opponent. We were expressly forbidden from parrying with the swords and it surprised me just how physically demanding the parries were against the shield, largely I think due to the ringing. Regaining control after the impact of the sword was hard.
That said, the craftsmanship of the sword I used was nothing like the one in the TFA and it didn't have a handle cast onto the blade, nor such an intricate design. I don't know how accurate the shield were to the time period (one was leather bound, the tower shield was not) but they didn't have metal rims and shield bosses.
That said, the craftsmanship of the sword I used was nothing like the one in the TFA and it didn't have a handle cast onto the blade, nor such an intricate design. I don't know how accurate the shield were to the time period (one was leather bound, the tower shield was not) but they didn't have metal rims and shield bosses.
If the blade breaks, that handle is fancy enough that somebody might want it fitted with a new blade.
The level of details and craftsmanship is amazing considering how old it is.
plenty of earlier civilizations had better crafts than we do now.. Second, existing society has lost its crafts.. example 17th century French goldsmithing that is not reproducible today
I completely agree. A few hundred years ago is somewhat understandable. It’s the peak before electricity allowed further progression (and demise).
To me, 3k years ago is a bit more shocking, when I compare it with items from 5-10th century.
It’s german quality!
The shape, intricate detail, not something I would have expected from a civilization 3000 years ago. The more you know.
Well, the famous mask of Tutankhamun was dated to 1323 BCE. Plenty of older artefacts than 3000 years ago that are equally impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Tutankhamun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Tutankhamun
[deleted]
Shame. Missed opportunity to editorialise it to "Ineffective Rust" ;)
Callandor... The sword that is not a sword.
Here's the original source: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/3000-jahre...
I can see why neanderthals went extinct
Time between Neanderthals and this sword: 37000 years.
Time between this sword and drones and nuclear weapons: 5000 years.
Now that valuable piece must be saved and taken care of, and there’s no where else except the British museum!! ;)
A question for the metallurgists: how would a bronze sword compare to an iron sword, even if the iron is low quality (ie, impurities, not heat treated etc)?
Not a metallurgist but — my understanding is that pure iron weapons are quite inferior to bronze. Pure iron is very soft and ductile. It would not hold an edge well and is easily bent - to the point that some sources say they would need to be repeatedly un-bent during battle.
Another advantage of bronze weapons is they could be cast in a mold instead of forged.
Iron was much more plentiful than copper and tin however (especially as they were mined out), which was the main reason bronze fell out of use.
Good steel was superior to both, but much harder to make.
Another advantage of bronze weapons is they could be cast in a mold instead of forged.
Iron was much more plentiful than copper and tin however (especially as they were mined out), which was the main reason bronze fell out of use.
Good steel was superior to both, but much harder to make.
Odd that it says 3000 years ago. The start of the Wikipedia entry on bronze swords says they appeared in 17BC which is of course only 2000 years ago.
I've realised my mistake there. Embarrassing. I've no ability to edit though, never noticed that before. I guess I never had the need.
Had to enable JavaScript to be able to view the images on the original site.
Is there any technical reason why this is needed, or they just did it that way?
Is there any technical reason why this is needed, or they just did it that way?
And whomever shall pull the sword from the stone becomes king/queen of what exactly?
Asking for a friend.
Asking for a friend.
You'd think a civilization 3000 years in the future would take more than a couple questionable resolution pictures.
Umm there can be only one?
It blows my mind that these godawful cookie banners is where we ended up. Web devs, you clowns need get your shit together. No, the law doesn't require you to do this. Go back to the drawing board and do better.
"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36341702.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36341702.
Agree with the sentiment, disagree with the assignment of blame. Blame legal, marketing, design, or PM. No web dev decided this was how they wanted to spend a day.
To be fair, the web developers are the ones actually typing in the code and deploying it. They must share at least partial blame.
This whole "Don't blame me! Boss told me to do it" attitude is rampant in software.
This whole "Don't blame me! Boss told me to do it" attitude is rampant in software.
Pretty easy to say, but if someone is going to quit their job because they think the cookie banner they've been ordered to program will annoy people, they're either absurdly privileged or comically stupid.
I would never work someplace that promoted hostility to their users. I am neither privileged or stupid.
It sounds like you're at least privileged in the sense that you have the apparent option. For a lot of people it's a serious deal to pursue alternate employment, especially if the conditions they are seeking to avoid are a common practice in the industry.
Big agree with this sentiment, personal responsibility/dev mutiny/collective action could go a long way toward making the world less garbage.
yes individualism is the answer; collectivism is also the solution, everyone should do what they think is the morally correct thing and the whole garbage pile will suddenly go away, nobody will starve and Great Leaders will be no more. This has always worked in the past. Leadership be damned! I am important and smart enough to do the right thing!
I also agree with you. And the legal or marketing team that asked for it all have bosses too asking them for certain things.
Don’t hate the player hate the game
I don't mean the individual developers. I mean the industry. Y'all need to spin up a working group or something and figure it out. This is getting completely insane.
It’s wild. Especially for someone who doesn’t speak German. It’s a full page takeover on mobile with a scroll bar for fine print. Absolutely bonkers.
The web devs have got their shit together. If you delete the cookie banner through the DOM inspector, it comes back.
In this case it’s not just a legally required tracking consent question. It’s saying either accept tracking if you want to read for free or subscribe and then there is no tracking.
> subscribe and then there is no tracking.
Is that what they're saying? Because that must be a lie. It's probably more that if you're subscribed and log in, they don't have to ask to set a cookie.
Is that what they're saying? Because that must be a lie. It's probably more that if you're subscribed and log in, they don't have to ask to set a cookie.
I'm a web dev and I've tried to tell most of my clients (in the US) that they don't even NEED a cookie banner, and moreover that if they do, then it needs to be compliant with the law otherwise its completely pointless and cumbersome. They don't care. They don't trust what I tell them because they see countless other websites doing it, including some bigger companies. Even when I provide links to official EU sites or to articles that explain everything quite clearly, they do not care. And I also think it is seen as a sign of legitimacy, like companies want to prove they are a serious company in their space and so they do the same things much larger companies do, without actually considering what the point is and definitely without asking any attorneys to weight in. I suppose I could flat out refuse to do something that is dumb and pointless, but I'd rather keep their business because it doesn't actually affect me much.
GDPR made a lot of headlines when it was announced and a lot of American companies confused that with the cookie requirements, because that is the time I started seeing a lot of American companies install them, including my own clients asking for them. Despite the cookie requirements being around long before that. It's quite clear that, without enforcement, nobody will ever take these things seriously. The best way to handle it would be something that requires browsers to implement and which cannot be skirted. Maybe we should do away with cookies altogether and come up with something else.
GDPR made a lot of headlines when it was announced and a lot of American companies confused that with the cookie requirements, because that is the time I started seeing a lot of American companies install them, including my own clients asking for them. Despite the cookie requirements being around long before that. It's quite clear that, without enforcement, nobody will ever take these things seriously. The best way to handle it would be something that requires browsers to implement and which cannot be skirted. Maybe we should do away with cookies altogether and come up with something else.
It's not the web devs that do it, they know what is adequate; as others said, it's legal, people who overthink these things.
I was once working on a website, we had everything fine, but then a committee of various people from various departments spent days coming up with everything that they thought the cookie banner should conform to.
And then the ad revenue people come in, and say that it should be easiest to just accept all. They quickly backtracked when the EU or France fined one of the big parties; suddenly, the (legally required) reject all button was back on all the cookie banners, which is a good example on how fining large companies large sums bubbles down quickly to smaller companies doing the same thing.
I was once working on a website, we had everything fine, but then a committee of various people from various departments spent days coming up with everything that they thought the cookie banner should conform to.
And then the ad revenue people come in, and say that it should be easiest to just accept all. They quickly backtracked when the EU or France fined one of the big parties; suddenly, the (legally required) reject all button was back on all the cookie banners, which is a good example on how fining large companies large sums bubbles down quickly to smaller companies doing the same thing.
I find it absurd that you complain about the cookie banner while ignoring the absolute trash advertising on the actual page (which appears even though I am running an adblocker). I like cookie banners, I get to set my preferences and if a website serially abuses them they don't have the excuse that I consented by surfing to the page or something. If they really engage in abuse, I can take part in legal action.
Meanwhile trash clickbait advertising is semantic and psychological pollution that actively makes the internet (and by extension the world) a much worse place for profit. Your priorities need recalibration.
Meanwhile trash clickbait advertising is semantic and psychological pollution that actively makes the internet (and by extension the world) a much worse place for profit. Your priorities need recalibration.
This isn't a cookie banner. It's a full page blocking modal FFS. Way to conveniently argue past the point.
It's not on desktop, I just clicked it away in under a second although I don't read German. The point isn't all that special, is what I'm saying. The advertising on the underlying page is significantly worse.
It was definitely full page on desktop for me. Wayyyy way different from your typical cookie banner along the bottom.
I just spit my drink through my nose seeing that someone actually feels the need to defend cookie banners, lol. You have a fair point on how the inline ads themselves are trash, but I wouldn’t choose one over the other—I’d have neither of them.
I would prefer that cookies and tracking didn't exist, but given that they do I like having the option to opt out of them when I first visit a website.
I don't know about your experience (individual web footprints and all), but the banners I see mostly aren't really asking for permission. They're telling you that they use cookies, that by using their website you consent, and the "accept all" button just notes your consent and makes the banner go away. Not all sites with banners work this way, but it seems quite common to me.
> Web devs, you clowns need get your shit together.
It’s not some hobby site you’re visiting and a web dev likely isn’t the decision maker…. and I doubt a web dev had much to do with the legislation for all these stupid banners.
It’s not some hobby site you’re visiting and a web dev likely isn’t the decision maker…. and I doubt a web dev had much to do with the legislation for all these stupid banners.
It blows my mind that people still browse the web without an ad blocker. Install Firefox + uBlock and the problem goes away.
uBlock (at least uBlock Origin) doesn't block banners, at least not by default. Apparently you can adjust your filters to do so, but I didn't even know that was a thing until I looked into it just now.
There's about 4 themeparks of regulations and "we hope this is an adequate ritual" packed into all the stuff those banners need to check and keep up to date when regulations (or the way they are enforced) change.
So third parties specialize in it, and we buy the banner have the company behind them trawl our sites and pull in the info about all the cookies we don't even keep taps on.
And when we've installed them, we all try not to get involved with them again. Because it is the least fun and rewarding area of any web dev day and tinkering with them just might get you invited to a whole series of GDPR review meetings.
So third parties specialize in it, and we buy the banner have the company behind them trawl our sites and pull in the info about all the cookies we don't even keep taps on.
And when we've installed them, we all try not to get involved with them again. Because it is the least fun and rewarding area of any web dev day and tinkering with them just might get you invited to a whole series of GDPR review meetings.
This kind of UI is malicious compliance, part of a campaign by European websites to slowly grind down support for GDPR by making a really shitty experience out of it.
All the official EU websites have them too.
> Web devs, you clowns need get your shit together. No, the law doesn't require you to do this.
Your comment is a good reminder that a median HN opinion has no idea what they are talking about.
This reads almost word for word what one of our execs might have expressed at us 6 years ago when we started doing GDPR compliance.
Your comment is a good reminder that a median HN opinion has no idea what they are talking about.
This reads almost word for word what one of our execs might have expressed at us 6 years ago when we started doing GDPR compliance.
>A man, a woman and a youth were buried in it. It is still unclear what relationship the people may have had to one another.
Yeah, real puzzler that one
Yeah, real puzzler that one
There may be a single, overwhelmingly likely option, but absent DNA testing or further context clues we can't know for sure. Let's not snark the one science journalist who isn't adding baseless speculation to their article.
The woman and child were clearly put there for ceremonial purposes.
Vikings used to that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_funeral as described by Ahmad ibn Fadlan
Probably roommates.
What kind of news site is this? Seems fake. Not reported anywhere else.
Not fake but rather breaking news. Bavarian State Office for the Care of Monuments official press release was yesterday, the 14th: https://www.blfd.bayern.de/mam/blfd/presse/pi_bronzezeitlich...
But what a beautiful sword!
But what a beautiful sword!
It is! Why is the hilt at the end instead of the end of the blade?
With the caveat that I'm not an expert, that's the pommel (hilt is the entire handle) and it is at the bottom to prevent the sword from slipping out of your hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilt
Heh, you're right on both counts; thanks! Looks like the pommel at the end acts as a counterweight for heavy swords.
Yeah, think about how leverage works, those things really suck to swing around and manipulate if you just bang them out without consideration for balance. Especially the larger ones...
Glad to be wrong!
> Alle Artikel sind aus der Originalquelle übersetzt. Wir betreiben einen Übersetzungsdienst, um Englischsprachigen in Deutschland zu helfen, zu verstehen, was in ganz Deutschland passiert.
All articles are translated from the original source. We run a translation service to help English speakers in Germany understand what's happening across Germany.
But yeah, it has strong freebooting energy.
All articles are translated from the original source. We run a translation service to help English speakers in Germany understand what's happening across Germany.
But yeah, it has strong freebooting energy.
>But yeah, it has strong freebooting energy.
The FAZ and Zeit articles are just copy pasted from the dpa, which is why they are identical. I am sure they payed for them, but I can't say I am particularly sorry for them.
Welt was the one article I saw which included some more info and a few more pictures.
The FAZ and Zeit articles are just copy pasted from the dpa, which is why they are identical. I am sure they payed for them, but I can't say I am particularly sorry for them.
Welt was the one article I saw which included some more info and a few more pictures.
The link is a translation. At the bottom is a source link: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/3000-jahre...
That's the website of the Frankfurter Algemeine, which (as far as I know) is a reputable German newspaper.
[deleted]
It's my buddy Klauss! I haven't seen him in ages!
http://web.archive.org/web/20230615154129/https://newsingerm...