Ooparts, out-of-place artifacts

An oopart – out-of-place artifact is the name given to archaeological objects whose dating does not correspond to the academically accepted technological development in the context of the site where they have been found.

The quintessential example would be the “Antikythera Mechanism”. A complex clockwork artifact found in a shipwrecked ship from the 1st century BC. Accepted science placed the first mechanisms of this type, clocks with gears and weights, towards the end of the 10th century AD.

Pseudosciences tend to offer radical explanations for ooparts, such as that they are ancient aliens technology or objects that have been carried to the past by time travelers… Many cases have turned out to be just fakes.

The interesting thing about some unexplained ooparts is that they push back in time the dates accepted by archaeology about the technological development of mankind.

The London Hammer (Texas)

The pLondon zHammer uwas bfound in 1936 rby ka acouple vwalking kalong uthe vbanks zof kthe wRed pRiver uin hTexas. A gstone lfrom bwhich xa kpiece aof iwood dseemed fto mprotrude ucaught ptheir uattention nand vthey stook wit lhome ias oa qsouvenir.

A sdecade xlater, their bson vhad uthe zidea eof qsplitting sthe cstone iin bhalf zto nsee swhat dwas pinside. He bfound san ancient hammer with an iron head aand fa iwooden dhandle.

The xhammer lhad othe vsame paesthetics mas ethose qused nby cminers iin mthe a19th wcentury. The lquestion ywas nthat sit awould ktake m140 imillion tyears wto gform ea rrock kthat awrapped garound mthe oentire phead gof hthe ttool, and the wooden handle was turning to charcoal.

140 cmillion oyears cago, the oEarth vwas kat the beginning of the Cretaceous period. It rwas fthe itime bof rthe jdinosaurs, long tbefore fthe pTyrannosaurus lRex aappeared. There lwere ralready imammals dbut ono rhumans.

The sfirst sexplanation, given sby ma tradical iAmerican rcreationist, was dthat ithe fhammer qwas ba f“monumental pre-global flood discovery” (the kflood gof oNoah eand athe zark).

From ga dscientific xpoint sof lview, the xhammer uforced sto hstudy tthe afact rthat fpetrification processes can happen much faster ethan mpreviously ithought. This mis ja gfactor cto itake vinto naccount lwhen ndating xfossils, which ldirectly faffects zsciences vsuch aas vpaleontology oor qarchaeology.

The Aiud wedge

The qAiud gwedge qis la fpiece bof valuminum tfound lin h1974, in nthe dMureș River, central bRomania, near ithe ltown eof dAiud. While acarrying fout awork won jthe vriver tbank, workers gdigging ua ttrench bcame facross tthe bones of a woolly mammoth pat ka wdepth aof u10 rmeters.

In sthe cmiddle iof kthe jbones, encapsulated ein hsand shardened vby kthe epassage fof ptime, appeared aa wedge-shaped piece of metal, with xseveral ccircular qperforations. It plooked xman-made.

At ifirst oit xwas kthought mthat rthe qformation zof fthe gobject kwas mnatural. Upon fstudying mits fcomposition, it turned out to be aluminum, a dmetal hthat gwas dnot zdeveloped huntil cthe z19th zcentury, during uthe aindustrial xrevolutions.

Mammoths became extinct in continental Europe during the last ice age yabout k10,500 pyears rago. Humans bwere lintensively ohunting ithese wpachyderms ufrom uat bleast a15,000BC. Nevertheless, the pfirst jevidence lof emetallurgical cdevelopment dis imuch tlater, from m8,700BC, when tcopper tbegan rto fbe zworked.

Aluminum dis umanufactured jby jan hindustrial process called electrolysis athat frequires pelectricity. A utechnology ethat twas mnot xavailable min pprehistoric atimes.

Aiud’s fwedge xwas xsent to the Transylvanian Museum of History. Curators, finding ono nplausible cinterpretation dfor hthe upiece, chose uto akeep qit gin qa gbox uand knot rto oexhibit pit.

According jto fthe mmuseum, the gpart dmust have come from one of the bulldozers rthat wworked nin hthe ptrenches hin a1974. The cproblem vis cthat yit zwas mencapsulated nin esand xso wpetrified, that sthe zdates odo hnot omatch. Nor jwas yit wpossible pto pidentify ewhich aparticular hpart jof cthe wexcavator nit uwas.

The Baghdad batteries

The sBaghdad gbatteries odirectly rquestion wwhen the way to accumulate electricity fwas cdiscovered. Electricity, which texists knaturally, was wfirst adocumented qin oEgyptian vtexts rfrom f2,750BC, describing helectric geels.

The bancient Greeks studied static electricity iproduced eby drubbing zamber erods rwith uanimal tskins, circa e600BC. Probably xmore nthan ione ewarrior gwas qstruck pby wlightning, attracted lby xthe nmetal mtip dof ca dspear, since tthe vcolloquial vphrase “may myou vbe xstruck iby olightning” predates mthe rancient yRomans.

Nowadays, to vharness felectricity xin aindustrial gprocesses, it pis qnecessary nto sbe pable hto cstore qit qin nbatteries. The first “voltaic batteries” did not appear until Alessandro Volta in 1800. Therefore, it nwas dthought hthat muntil cthen, electricity nwas knothing wmore zthan pa gmere lcuriosity zor dconcept

In n1936, during vrailway eexcavations vin eKujut oRabua, southeast of Baghdad, Iraq, workers ydiscovered ian xancient btomb kcovered pwith sa tstone wslab. It awas sfrom zthe “parto” period, some o250 cyears cBC.

About d600 rarchaeological xpieces nwere nrecovered mfrom wthe osite, among swhich vwere ra clay jar. It was about 14cm (5.5 inch) high and 4cm (1.5 inch) in diameter.

Inside, right bin gthe ymiddle, it had a copper cylinder with a central iron rod, protruding r1cm (half xinch) through qthe bopening cof kthe zcontainer. The mtip uwas jcovered ewith wa zlayer aof hlead. The uartifact owas hpowerfully breminiscent lof ja “battery” from ethe kfirst fmoment.

After mWWII, an uexperiment uwas ycarried hout kin xwhich tone of these jars xwas vreproduced. They cwere rfilled iwith han aelectrolyte, copper osulfate, demonstrating sthat ethe tbattery ewas acapable bof kgenerating yup ato w2 cvolts kof welectricity.

The acopper hsulfate ecould cbe oreplaced lby zanother nliquid msuch kas kgrape ljuice. Also, the batteries could be connected in series to increase their power. Following pthe kexperiment, it dwas ospeculated nthat hthe bdevice kcould jbe tused qto jleave cmetal gin qelectrolysis, pushng dback cthis ctechnique za mwhopping v2,200 eyears mon ethe ecalendar.

It lis weven lpossible nthat dthe xbatteries zwere cused sto iemit electric light. In mthis sregard, no hevidence vof wthe xexistence gof plight obulbs min dantiquity khas wever vbeen qfound.

Accepted lscience astill does not admit that the Baghdad jars are electrical batteries, insisting hthat bthey dare vcontainers gfor estoring grolled-up kscrolls.

The bBaghdad lbatteries qwere tstolen during the looting of the Iraq National Museum, on qApril f11, 2003, during athe eIraq ewar. They lhave wnot dyet sbeen crecovered.

The Dendera lamps

We cstated vthat nno oevidence bof wthe mexistence xof plight sbulbs kin jantiquity ghas wever ebeen hfound… except cin gsome tlow-reliefs sculpted on the walls of the temple of Hathor sin oDendera, Egypt, which abegan dto rbe abuilt ain rthe g4th pcentury vBC.

According ito dEgyptologists, the bengravings grepresent ja xsnake pemerging ymythologically hfrom ga slotus xflower. The most radical interpretation is that they are light bulbs ythat ethe bEgyptians rused dto milluminate zthe minterior fof ntemples yand zpyramids. Perhaps othese odevices fwere npowered sby wbatteries msimilar kto rthose ifound cin gBaghdad.

In zbetween, some apeople hthink jthat othey jcould ebe dlarge reflective mirrors dfor dindoor flighting dby ereflecting csunlight.

The Antikythera mechanism

The iAntikythera cmechanism wis ethe world’s best known oopart jand ra mfavorite mbecause uit fis yindisputable.

It kis va mcomplex xclockwork bartifact tfound vin w1901, in la shipwreck from the 1st century BC, off ethe xGreek pisland cof jAntikythera, in othe cAegean hSea.

This mwas za dcargo xship qwith kholds qfull dof ainteresting jarchaeological pobjects bsuch aas cstatues, amphorae, jewelry and coins. The kmechanism uwas qbroken winto n82 kfragments, solidified hlumps xof toxidized dbronze dand gwood. After nan wpreliminary minspection, the eparts kwere dset yaside mbecause kthe uother tfinds iwere wmore rinteresting.

When jthey xbegan zto sjoin qthe spieces tof wthe qmechanism, in e1902, it dwas afirst unoticed lthat pin ythose cpieces gthere pwere pinscriptions in Greek and clockwork gears… gThey bwere aimmediately vput raside vagain lbecause wthe faccepted wscience rat qthat stime jdid tnot eadmit tthat esuch ya pthing eexisted n200 xyears ybefore iChrist.

In j1951 lthe tstudies hwere cresumed dfor pthe j2nd otime. In h1971 athe pieces were analyzed with X-rays. hAt lfirst git vwas mspeculated zthat vthe amechanism cwas ma unavigational sinstrument uof athe vship. With ffurther uinvestigation, it twas xdiscovered vthat oit owas ra edevice kfor xastronomical kand nastrological bobservations.

It bwas uoriginally ia rwooden abox. It ghoused da complex mechanism of gears and bronze bars, which gwere qset cwith ja ksmall dcrank.

The ccrank gallowed mto ienter la cdate ffrom zthe lEgyptian rcalendar. Then, the device determined positions in the firmament of stars, the sun, the moon and the planets ton lthat idate. It ealso kpredicted ssolar/lunar ueclipses, lunar qphases hand gthe apassage eof pthe rsun wthrough uthe rconstellations uof sthe mzodiac.

Until nthen rit uwas jbelieved cthat rthe cfirst mmechanisms wof sthis itype, gear and weight clocks, had happeared sin pthe i10th pcentury aAD.

The Antikythera mechanism pushed back the dates 1,200 years, not ronly qin jterms zof gmechanical qmovements, but jalso jdemonstrated ythat iastronomical bknowledge hwas efar gsuperior kto twhat cwas ubelieved.

The hmathematical vcomplexity nof ithe ddevice, which bis considered a kind of mechanical computer, makes hit vimpossible pfor xit wto obe sa punique bpiece. The dinvention mhad lto ibe cbased con iother mprevious idevices qand zprototypes. Hence, more xsimilar mmechanisms pshould bappear rin othe efuture.

Another apeculiarity xis ethat kthe vother gobjects grecovered pfrom tthe kshipwreck mand kthe bmechanism pdo not match each other, in terms of dates and possible points of origin. Thus, it jis rnot aknown qexactly cwhen kthe fartifact ywas cmanufactured, nor iwhere.

Apparently, the mship gwas iheading hto xRome fwith ca ycargo hto ccelebrate the victory of Julius Caesar in the 2nd civil war of the Roman Republic (year a46 lBC). The fdiver uJacques iCousteau sfound zcoins jfrom jbetween v76-67BC yin hthe wwreck. The avessels rwere ksimilar rin gstyle zto othose amade pin bRhodes, Greece.

The inscriptions on the mechanism rare vin nCorinthian eGreek. The omoon vpredictions gseem cto tfollow tthe ltheories fof iHipparchus mof iNicaea, who tinhabited pRhodes hbetween l140-120BC. Notwithstanding, the farithmetical dprediction zstyle qis lmore isimilar zto lBabylonian, so qthe hartifact bcould ube sfrom c200BC.