OOPAs - Out of Place Artifacts

Then there must be examples of these that still have papyrus inside them, or some kind of remains. At least the idea of a place to keep scrolls seems somewhat plausible. What kind of containers has papyrus been found in?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, jerks or greedy collector types or "elitist" types for their little frat houses or whatever.

However, the Smithsonian has a very bad record for "losing things". I will at some point make an outright attack on them in another thread at some point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Electroplating is not a technology that was present in Sumeria. They did, however, have some gilding processes that were chemical in nature, such as electrodeless deposition of copper on iron which is done by use of a copper sulfate solution -no outside electricity involved (though, if my chemistry is still with me, there is an electro-chemical reaction due to the base metal's ions).

Not only is the process of electroplating complex, but it wasn't likely to have been discovered by accident either. And the discovery would have necessitated that there existed an understanding of electricity enough that the metallurgist could have known to apply current to a solution to create an affinity between the two metals. Also, it would have required a method of dissolving a metal in an electrolyte solution. The Sumerians were still figuring out the limits of bronze and hadn't yet figured out iron. So it isn't likely that they accidentally discovered electroplating and there exists no evidence to suggest that it occurred.

But back to the 1st century CE: this was the time of the Parthian Empire and the vessels in question were found in, what was then, Parthia, which extended down into Mesopotamia.

There is a very interesting hypothesis that the vessels weren't galvanic cells after all -admittedly, they *do* resemble galvanic cells, but this is, perhaps, a good example of looking at the past through the lens of the present. We can dismiss the electroplating possibility for a couple of reasons: the process wasn't invented until Faraday in the 18th cent. CE if memory serves correct); experimental archaeology conducted on replicas of the vessels as cells showed that about 0.5 v of current could be generated which could sustain itself for only a short time (Al-Haik 1964); empirical testing shows that it takes 1.1 days to electroplate 1 g of silver at 1 mW which is grossly inefficient.

So that raises the question again (since König's is dismissed): what was the purpose of such a strange looking configuration of a jar. Two possibilities, both very plausible, remain: 1) storage of papryii 2) the tools of a magician

The second is one that I find fascinating. Keyser (1993) reviewed the literature and examined the jars and began with the research hypothesis that they were medicinal in nature. He noticed that in antiquity it was common practice at the turn of the millennium to use electric eels as an analgesic to ease the pain of gout and headache, specifically the torpedo ocellata. This was common practice in the coastal regions of the Aegean and the Mediterranean, but electric eel species don't exist in the Persian Gulf or Tigris/Euphrates waters. If the magicians new of the practice in the Med, they may have developed similar methods that don't require electric fish.

It could have been that someone, quite accidentally, discovered that by dipping a bronze spoon in vinegar contained by an iron bowl (or vice versa), they may have recognized the tingling sensation.

There are many examples (Waterman 1931; Connan et al 1999) and papyrus has been found in all manner of ceramic jars, since they allowed the owner to keep them safe from the elements (water and written papyrii are not a good mix). Moreover, Papyrus was first used in Parthia as a writing material at around the time that the vessels are dated (1st century CE). And the bitumen, often described as "asphalt" in mentions of the "Baghdad Battery," was used frequently to waterproof and seal just about everything, including jars (Connan et al 1999).

To cut this short, I'll conclude by saying that the so-called "Baghdad Battery" is a mystery, but not for the reasons that mystery-mongers and significance-junkies call attention to. There is no evidence for a secret advanced society but, rather, just a plain mystery of the true nature of the artifacts. There have been many discovered that are similar, some in what appear to be a magician's house (Wateman 1931). They could be storage jars for papyrii or containers for magicians who were commonly referred to for all manner of healing throughout the Near East from the Bronze Age through nearly the Ottoman Empire.

References:

Al-Haik, A. (1964). The Rabbou'a Galvanic Cell, Sumer 20, pp. 103-4.

Connan, J. ; et al (1999). Use and Trade of Bitumen in Antiquity and Prehistory: Molecular Archaeology Reveals Secrets of Past Civilizations [and Discussion]. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Vol. 354, No. 1379, Molecular Information and Prehistory. , pp. 33-50.

Keyser, Paul T. (1993). The Purpose of Parthian Galvanic Cells: the First Century A.D. Electric Battery Used for Analgesia. Journal of Near East Studies, 52(2), 81-82.

Kraeling, Carl H. (1952). A Dead Sea Scroll Jar. Oriental Institute Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 125, pp. 1, 5-7.

Waterman, Leroy (1931). Preliminary Report upon the E.xcavations at Tel Umar. Ann Arbor; vol. 1.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks, lots to chew on, I will have to investigate the gilding process. I assume it leaves similar residue/after effects found in those vases?

What's your take on the Antikythera device?

 

Okay....moving along with an example of an OOPA successfully forcing the general scientific community to re-evalute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi_the_Iceman

 

I'm not sure what would be considered "out of place" to the degree that significance-junkies and mystery-mongers crave, though I would readily concede that many, many artifacts are recovered in the archaeological record all the time that are "out of place" to what is currently known or understood. I'm actually working on an Arabian rock art project that, should the research hypothesis hold, the mural is very out of place. But its this sort of discovery that we all crave and hope for in archaeology.

The difference, however, with pursing archaeology as a science and the assertions and contentions that mystery-mongers and significance-junkies (MM-SJ) hold is that archaeologists begin by attempting to disprove or falsify their research hypothesis. The MM-SJ crowd begins with a speculation to which they seek only to prove. Data that are inconsistent are typically ignored, fallaciously explained/justified, or otherwise unfairly dismissed. Note: I'm not suggesting that you are a member of the MM-SJ crowd. In that regard, I'm speaking to well-published and vocal proponents like Hancock and Cremo as well as perhaps even Van Daniken and Velikovsky.

Coincidently, though, I wrote a recent article for Anthropology.net on the Iceman: http://anthropology.net/user/cfeagans/blog/2007/03/20/new_research_on_tzi_the_iceman_cometh

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2518iceman.html

"Archaeologists assumed that happened about 4,000 years ago in this region. But the Iceman with his copper axe was 5,000 years old—proof that the transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age happened much earlier than previously thought."

Edit: Nice article. Interesting he was probably killed. Also it appears he does not have mitochondrial decendents ( mitochondrial haplogroup K - he belonged to). Whomever killed him may have slaughtered his people.

Ya Otzi's axe is a softball OOPA for the Scientific community to adjust to.

 

Again, this sort of thing is what archaeologists hope for and even expect. Our "truths" in archaeology are like those of any science and thus provisional. We can only say where the transition from neolithic to copper/bronze ages is demarcated by noting where the data points lie chronologically. Once a data point is empirically shown to exist that outlies the rest, we can cheerfully revise what we know. The transition from stone to metal obviously isn't a demarcation that is abrupt (there are still cultures that make heavy use of stone tools).

The OOPA crowd, however, tends to lean toward spurious artifacts. Artifacts that either don't actually exist in the contexts they are placed/assumed or contexts that are misinterpreted and cherry-picked to present data to support various hypotheses like an exaggerated antiquity of man on the order of millions of years.

I think we need define what we mean when we say "out of place" in the OOPA term. Cremo and Hancock consistently mean those artifacts which provide major disagreement with current paradigms and understandings of human existence, not the minor, revising artifacts such as Otzi's ax. Now,if Otzi was dated to more than 10,000 years ago... then it would be something of much greater significance!

 

I see where you are coming from, I will limit this to outrageous OOPAs. So is the Antikythera device outrageous?

 

To be honest, I've been about to read the Archaeology magazine article on the Antikyrhera device for almost a month now, but haven't been able find the time to sit down to it. My knowledge of the device is limited to a few news articles I remember seeing recently when they finally finished examining it. I don't recall seeing anything that involved any technology or knowledge that shouldn't or couldn't have existed. I never thought of it as an "outrageous" device but, rather, as a mysterious one since it was so difficult to examine and determine the purpose and workings until now.