

Ancient Roman Swiss Army Knife on Display - Mz
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247230/The-Roman-Army-Knife-Or-ingenuity-Swiss-beaten-1-800-years.html

======
gjm11
The Fitzwilliam Museum's page about this artefact:
[http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail....](http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail.html?&priref=70534)

~~~
metasean
Tangent: I like the catalog display that you link to (aka, from the 'old
version of their collections database') better than their new revised version
[http://webapps.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/explorer/index.php?oid=7...](http://webapps.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/explorer/index.php?oid=70534)

The new version has more information available at a glance, but I like the
larger text of the previous entry, and I like having the full images at the
bottom of the previous entry. Not to mention the previous version has six
images while the new entry only has four.

I didn't check to see how hard it was to actually find something in their old
collections database, but I ended up having to snag the Accession Number from
the old entry to actual get to a detailed view in the new collections
database. For some reason, I could find the thumbnail view easily through
several searches, but when I clicked any the thumbnail, it always took me to a
different search results page with nothing but coins on it.

~~~
ZoZoBee
The 2 pictures which are not a part of the new collection look to be from a
reproduction piece as the steel blade appears to be way to pretty for 2000
years old

~~~
jacquesm
FYI The blade is not made of steel, the _iron_ age started 1200 BC and the
rest of the body of the tool is made from silver. And for an encore, it
_could_ have been made of steel since steel has been produced for a very long
time but the better bet would be for this to be iron from a meteorite which is
high in nickel content and so already quite hard and oxidation proof.

~~~
metasean
I believe ZoZoBee was referring to the blade in the reproduction piece [1, 2].
I didn't see any information on the reproduction piece itself.

[1]
[http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail....](http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail.html?&priref=70534#3)
[2]
[http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail....](http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail.html?&priref=70534#4)

------
ralfd
To bad it doesn't say where the knife was found and how it did go to the
museum.

I imagine the person who owned this silver tool was pretty upset when they
lost it (if they didn't perish along side it).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Turns out pocketknives are the most lost thing in the world. Almost everybody
loses them almost instantly. The kind with a lanyard last better - if you
remember religiously to reattach them after using them.

But their handy, pocket-sized dense nature makes them ideal for slipping out
of hand or pocket, or being left on a tree stump or post, or plunk! gone in
any body of water.

~~~
ZoZoBee
Turns out you're making that up without any statistical proof what so ever,
and if you're attaching a knife to a lanyard it is you yourself who becomes
the tool

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Cute. No statistics at all? I didn't know the Amazing Kreskin posted on HN! I
yield to superior argument.

~~~
ZoZoBee
Well you kind of pulled that stat straight out of your back pocket

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Again with the mentalist act. Clearly others know more about me than I do.
Again, I submit to a superior intellect.

------
driverdan
I thought Daily Mail was banned? If not it should be.

~~~
maaku
Care to comment on the actual article?

------
fredfoobar
shouldn't it be ancient "roman army knife" instead of "swiss army knife"?

------
devindotcom
Wonder if this will count as prior art and invalidate a bunch of multitool
patents?

~~~
cbr
Modern multitools like this one are more than 20 years old, so I don't see how
there could be active multitool patents this would invalidate. Unless they did
something especially clever in their design that would be specially patented?

~~~
chiph
I've been trying to find a reference, but the story goes that Tim Leatherman
and a friend created the first multi-tool that had a full-sized set of pliers
on it. They patented it, then shopped the design around to the various knife
companies (Gerber, etc), none of whom showed interest. So they started their
own company, selling the original pocket survival tool through Cabella's mail-
order catalog.

------
Crito
> _" Experts believe the spike may have been used by the Romans to extract
> meat from snails."_

Now I'm no expert, but I wager it was used for anything that needed picked or
poked, particularly dirt under fingernails. Just going by modern usage
patterns, if it can be used for something, it will be used for that, even if
it isn't the intended use of the tool.

------
comrade1
'We know almost nothing about the person who owned this ingenious knife, but
perhaps he was one of those who profited from the vast expansion of Rome - he
would have been wealthy to have such a real luxury item.

'Perhaps he was a traveller, who required a practical compound utensil like
this on his journeys.'

Or perhaps he was a desperate knife seller, traveling from city to city trying
to offload this ungodly expensive silver behemoth, where at every city he
tried to explain the benefits the crowd would shout 'but I can buy a wooden
toothpick for a 1/100 of a copper!', 'I already have a spatula made with olive
wood!', 'I already have a bone pick to pull snails out of their shell!'.

The knife seller eventually took his own life by iron blade to the eye.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ha! I like that idea. But ordinary things have a history of being outlandishly
ornamented, usually to show off wealth. People have been buying this crap for
millennia. The Amish actually banned buttons(!), not because they want to look
funny with hooks and zippers, but because in the 1800's it became a fad to
have enormous brass buttons with inlay and ivory and embossed scenes. They
rebelled against the pride and wastefulness.

------
dang
Url changed from
[http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/4587](http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/4587),
which points to this.

~~~
Mz
Whoops.

Thanks.

