Talk:Out-of-place artifact/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Objection to referencing Graham Hancock's work as relevant to "ooparts".

Graham Hancock's writings are about anomalous data in the field of archaeology. For example: many geologists are supporting the theory that specific weathering patterns on the Sphinx (Egypt) could only have been produced by torrential rainfall. This data challenges the prevailing theory that Egypt had always been a desert, and(/or) challenges the prevailing theory as to the date of origin of the sphinx. This is written about in "Fingerprints of the Gods", but this doesn't make the weathering on the Sphinx (or the Sphinx itself) an "out of place artifact". It just suggests that prevailing theories could be wrong. In Hancock's book about the Ark of the Covenant, there are also no "ooparts" mentioned. I don't think Graham Hancock has written about any ooparts in any of his nonfictions. So I think there is absolutely no reason to reference Hancock here except under the broader subject of "anomalies". So the reference to his work should be moved to that article, and removed from this one, to reduce confusion and clutter in the Wikipedia. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Question - was 'the rock outcrop that would be formed into the Sphinx' already weathered when the sculptors took it on? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Dreadful

This article is dripping with disdain for the subject matter. I'm not entirely convinced that this article didn't coin the term "OOPARTS", and I have deepening doubts about the addition of several artifacts as invalid. The Aiud object, for instance, is supposedly "debunked" by the editor who added some asshat's blogspot article as a reliable source (which it absolutely is not. Since when do we do that?? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The word was coined by someone who died in 1973, if you believe David Childress.[1] In any case, it's been around long before Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Shambolic state

This article is effing dreadful. -Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view"

Working definitions:

Science: The study of the observable reality.

Archaeology: The study of purportedly ancient objects, produced by humans of ancient civilizations. (Not to be unfair to other theories of origins, but its a honest assumption that complex artifacts are man-made)."

...

The problem with archaeology is that a lot of its discussion is regarding the unobservable past, which isn't science, in that science deals with the observable reality. Archaeology would not be interesting if we just talked about what we only observed and without the hypotheses based on the coalescing of evidence. However, people should realize the weaknesses of archaeology, despite the fascination it may bring. Archaeology isn't hard and shouldn't be treated as if it were as it deals with the past and is theory founded on theory, creating a possibility of a weak foundation. Thus, all other views, with evidence supporting the view, should be presented with equal merit, whether or not some Ph.D with a bias disagrees with it. That's also what can make archaeology in light of the Wikipedia even more fascinating and interesting.

Further, this page looks like its written to target Creationism or whatever subgroup of this view, and to and smoothly frame it as a view with less credence by lumping it in with other conjecture that people believe more easily to be false.

Thus, neutrality matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentmaker Prashanth (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Presenting all view with "equal merit" would be a violation of our neutral point of view policy. Read it please as well as WP:FRINGE which directly relates. Note that only your last paragraph is appropriate here, metadiscussions about archaeology have no place on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Pylos Combat Agate

I would like to nominate this object for inclusion here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pylos_Combat_Agate) I think that it is quite a surprising item indicating some potential technical capability in Minoan civilization unsupported by other archeology to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4E12:3D01:9852:7C35:B60E:4209 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Baghdad Batteries.

The authority used to say that they were holders for scrolls is just a stub. It is not authoritative in any manner. It is from the pop archaeology debunking site called Bad Archaeology. It is merely an opinion and has no science behind it. Here is what one comment for the site said: I rather think that either the use was for the purpose of providing a “buzz” as one feels when subjected to low charge or used for electroplating. The “buzz” or visible spark being interpreted as a supernatural force. You mention there is no way of obtaining the energy as it was plugged. This discounts the possibility that it was thus stored and then opened and used. Your, “Similar objects from Seleucia were used for storing sacred papyri and this is at least as likely an interpretation as the battery hypothesis.” Does not makes any sense. For they were found sealed and no papyri were found in them. By “similar objects” I can only assume that you meant such jars as designed for the purpose of storing many different items including food stuffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.124.206 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong.This University of Pennsylvania Press book[2] has an article in it[3]

"Electricity Generation Or Magic? The Analysis Of An Unusual Group Of Finds From Mesopotamia"

"A review of the literature isolates twelve comparable finds from Parthian and Sassanian contexts to which a similar function has been occasionally ascribed.

Four small unglazed earthenware jars sealed with bitumen were uncovered in 1930 by a University of Michigan excavation at the Seleucid trading post of Opis, on the Tigris. The vessels were about 15-20 cm high and of various shapes, two with handles. Three were found lying on their sides, each with up to four metal rods stuck in the ground around them. One of the rods with each find was iron; the rest were bronze, all about 20-25 cm long. Each toppled jar contained a bronze cylinder, just under 3 cm in diameter and 7.5 cm long, sealed at both ends. Tucked into these "containers" were compressed rolls of papyrus—presumably inscribed—in various stages of decomposition. The one jar still standing contained fragments of a glass bottle.

The finds were dated to the late Sassanian period (5th-early 6th century AT).) by coins. The excavator gave no interpretation of the finds, merely emphasizing that they had been deposited irregularly around a (cult?) building and that they were not associated with a burial (Watermann 1931:60-62). At about the same time German archaeologists were carrying out excavations on the east bank of the Tigris at Ctesiphon (Fig. 2, plan). In the second season of excavation (1931/32), undertaken jointly by the Islamic Art Museum of the Staatliche Museum, Berlin, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, led by Ernst Ktlhnel (KQhnel 1932, 1933; see also Upton 1933), six sealed unglazcd earthenware jars were found, each containing little rolls of metal or metal nails (Fig. 2a-f):" - these were from late Sassanian layers.

"The artifact group which prompted this article (Fig. 1) was found three years later, in 1936, on the northern outskirts of Baghdad near Khuyut Rabbou’a, in a late Parthian layer (Damerji 1979). The vessel of unglazed earthenware, originally sealed, contained a copper cylinder closed at one end with a copper plate, and sealed at both ends with bitumen. Inserted into the copper cylinder was an iron spike held in place by the bitumen stopper. The thicker end of the heavily encrusted and corroded spike projected about a centimeter from the sealing. Traces of metal, presumed to be lead, were registered on the stopper. According to KOnig (1938:8-9; 1940:164-168), the cylinder consists of “fairly pure copper with traces of zinc, lead, and iron." An investigation of the spike was not carried out.

"A group working under Prof. W. Jansen (Oldenburg) independently came to similar conclusions (Jansen et al. 1985). The finds have only an apparent outward resemblance to a cell (or dry battery). Instead, they probably served for the performance of magical practices." This is followed by a discussion of magic at the time, including eg the role of nails.

"The group of objects found at Scleucia becomes more comprehensible. The content of the texts of papyrus, unfortunately no longer accessible to us, probably concerned foundation texts or protective spells. For magical protection they were put into sealed bronze rolls (as discussed below); for practical protection they were then deposited in earthenware jars. The finds were in each case 'nailed fast' with a set of iron and bronze rods. Given the circumstances of discovery it is reasonable to assume they were deposited around a cult building."

"We conclude that the earthenware jars found in Parthian and Sassanian contexts, sealed with bitumen and containing metal cases, occasionally associated with papyrus remains and metal rods, did noc represent any apparatus with a practical use in the modem sense, e.g., the generation of electricity. Rather, they were, as Kuhnel (1932) described, containers fro “conjurations, blessings and the like, written perhaps 01 papyrus,” which had been deposited to exercise a protective defensive, or occasionally harmful magic spell."

There are more sources, but that's enough. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Three online papers that summarize the difficulties of the "battery" theory are:

Keyser, P.T., 1993. The purpose of the Parthian galvanic cells: a first-century AD electric battery used for analgesia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 52(2), pp.81-98.

Mills, A.A., 2001. The Baghdad Battery. Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society, 68, pp.35-37.,

and Von Handorf, D.R. and Crotty, D.E., 2002. The Baghdad Battery: Myth or reality?. Plating and surface finishing, 89(5), pp.84-87.,

More papers by Paul Keyser Paul H. (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A question from 'a non-expert in this field' - could the Copper Scroll be connected with this tradition? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Dino?

Can someone add the "dinosaur" of Ta Prohm temple in Thailand? - Krebsjails (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Graham Hancock

The Archive 2 only contains the short Graham Hancock section, aren't the archives supposed to contain removed content of the talk page when the talk page is too big? This talk page is not so big, so was that section moved there in order to hide it? It also contains the claim that "Egypt had always been a desert" which contradicts the Sahara article - "For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 20,000 year cycle". -- Barecode (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barecode: these archives are set to archive every 60 days, look at the top of this page. They are automatic so I doubt anyone tried to hide it, and that statement does look like an accusation against someone. Of course you can always check the history, maybe I’m wrong. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Denisova bracelet

The Denisova bracelet is 40,000 years old, was fashioned from imported chlorite, was made using easel speed drilling - according to archaeology.org. If that's true then it should probably mentioned in the article? -- Barecode (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s based on The Siberian Times, not a reliable source. We’d need something peer reviewed and suggesting it’s an oopart. Even a decent news source wouldn’t be enough. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)