No. It's a forgery. There was an exact replica of this sword online a while ago. In addition, none of the artifacts in question have archaeological provenance, just a chain of observation linking them to the location. "A friend of a friend's cousin saw some people pull it out of the water ages ago, and they kept it hidden for decades". It's hogwash. XRF tests don't really tell you much except what type of metal the sword was made from. And since they are comparing their knowledge that the sword is genuine on comparison with another sword (one which they don't tell you where it comes from, mind you, so they could be testing it against another forgery, or even a replica like the one linked above). And artifacts like all of those are unfortunately trafficked globally through collectors. I know of many Roman-era coins which are in the United States right now, but certainly weren't brought there by Romans.

In addition, the patina on the sword is certainly not genuine, or what you'd expect to see for something being underwater so long.

If, and it's a big if, this white paper comes out, and there are names of legitimate scholars on there and they address all these issues, then it may turn out to be something. But until then, this has very little chance of being genuine.