Talk:Out-of-place artifact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

I removed these items:

  • The copper seal in a chalk bed
  • The gold thread in stone
  • The human skull in tertiary gravel
  • The iron instrument in coal
  • The letters in stone

If we're going to include these, we need more information, and proper links. User:Ben Standeven as 70.242.141.72 05:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

The "Mortar and Pestle" entry is confusing, too. The link to "mortar and pestle" just describes the generic tool, not the OOPart item. The link to "Table Mountain" goes to the wrong mountain (South Africa instead of one of the two California Table Mountains. Could someone please fix this to point to the right mountain and hopefully to some additional information about this 50 million year old tool? Thanks. Phiwum 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Source

Forbidden Archaeology has been refuted as a work overlooking many crucial pieces of evidence in the dating and interpretation of ancient artifacts. See: [1]. If this is the primary source for this article, the whole thing ought to be questioned, reviewed, and rewritten or deleted if necessary.--Rockero 05:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. Lets have some sources. I have yet to see a OOPART which has come through unscathed from serious investigation. --Dumbo1 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
While I agree that all of these items have non-paranormal explanations, and that this article should be better written, we mustn't think that just mentioning them validates them as OOPart. If enough people have the mistaken idea that these are inexplicable, then that belief deserves mention. We don't want to lend support to erroneous ideas, but we can't ignore their existence either. ... All of which means, this article should exist and most or all of the current entries should remain, but we need to greatly improve the wording and context. - DavidWBrooks 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Microscopic objects near Narada river in Russia on the ridge of Ural, dating as far back as 300,000 years ago." This needs to be clarified. (UTC)

Jackpot! The Finnish and Russian wikipedia have articles on these objects. Here's the external links from the Finnish article:
Don't know that it's worth adding to the article without a name, though. The last link is a wiki with a whole category on OOPArts. Unfortunately they apparently don't believe in citing sources. Ben Standeven (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And all unreliable sources, so no reason to think they even exist. Probably another Pravda story, they love making stuff up like that (really).Doug Weller (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating article, and I personally would not mind if it were longer. The stories of the "explained" artifacts are just as interesting, if not more interesting, than those that are unexplained. Hi There 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Creator?

I appreciate the link to the Pravda article regarding the Map of the Creator. Does anyone know any other sources of information on this thing? The photos in that article aren't particularly illuminating (I can't see any characters, for instance), so it might be nice to see another (more skeptical) article.

Thanks.

Do not trust Pravda too much... --Jollyroger 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explained

guys, lot of the Oopart here are well explained on scientific basis or are known hoaxes. (like the iron pillar, the crystal skulls, map of creator...) The article needs some work. If you want, check the it.wiki voice to know which ones are explained and hoe, and wich are not. --Jollyroger 12:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know Italian. I've deleted the map of the creator, since that page has been deleted. Ben Standeven 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Pagoda of Konarak in India

I looked at the WP page for the Black Pagoda and did not see anything there that would make suitable for inclusion in this article. Could someone please elaborate on the reasons for its being in here? Hi There 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I removed it; perhaps somebody can flesh out the Black Pagoda article, providing reasons why it should be here. - DavidWBrooks 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In fiction section"

I'd remove it as an invite to flood the article with countless examples from fiction. Scoo 17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I removed it, put in one sentence in the intro saying they are common plot devices in science fiction. - DavidWBrooks 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List Order

One thing I find troubling is that this list, in precisely the same order, is found on many sites, including the same links or lack of links. For example, the "Chinese Galena Radio" has no link, nor can I find any reference to it anywhere on the web. Is this list created here on Wikipedia first, or just copied verbatim from one of the many other identical lists? -- SunSw0rd 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Coso Artifact

I removed this item from the list since it clearly is no longer viewed by anyone serious as an OOPART. We know it is a circa 1920's era Champion spark plug. SunSw0rd 18:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the Coso Artifact to the OOPARTs list because, despite being thoroughly discredited, there are still a number of Internet web pages, which discuss the Coso Artifact as if it is viewed as a serious OOPART. For example, the below web pages still talk about the Coso Artifact as if it is a serious OOPART, even if a conventional explanation of what it is has been demonstrated
The claim that it has been thoroughly discredited isn't quite accurate as there has never been confirmation that the artifact is a 1920s Champion spark plug even if it is. Until that confirmation occurs, then the claim is only a possible theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.20.115 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why you think that. See [2] - it's a sparkplug. You shouldn't make edits without having done your research.Doug Weller (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above web pages show that a number of people still allege the Coso Artifact to be a valid OOPART despite what has been written about it. Until various alternative archaeologists, Young Earth and Old Earth creationists, and Fortean researchers stop using it as an example of a valid OOPART, the Coso Artifact should be listed. The Coso Artifact is still a “Famous case of alleged OOPART” despite having been completely discredited. Yours, Paul H.
Perhaps the list should be updated to reflect those artificts which are in fact still OOPArts as well as those which should no longer be considered OOPArts. Because I think the wikipedia list itself lends credibility to artifacts as being valid OOPArts when they should no longer be so considered. SunSw0rd 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For example, the Fuente Magna is clearly a valid OOPArt. Others (such as the unfinished obelisk of Assuan in Egypt, or the Coso artifact, clearly are not.) Might be better to have 3 lists -- those which clearly are OOPArts, and those which are alleged to be so, and those which clearly are not. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? SunSw0rd 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by those that are OOPArts? Presumably the differentiation would be those that do, or do not, have explanations accepted by ... well, mainstream science, I guess. Almost everything is an OOPArt to somebody who doesn't believe the explanation (e.g., the geode above). So I'd avoid terminology like what is or isn't something - put them in categories according to whether they have certain types of explanations. - DavidWBrooks 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that traditionally an "out of place artifact" is simply that -- an artifact that doesn't fit the conventional scientific/archaeological classification for its environment. But the point is, the Coso artifact, while initially falling into that category, clearly no longer does fall under that category, since it DOES fit the conventional scientific/archaeological classification for its environment -- it is a spark plug. QED. Just because some fringe groups and web sites deliberately ignore that simple fact to sell snake oil to the credulous doesn't mean, I suggest, that wikipedia needs to keep it on the list. Either the list means "out of place artifact" or -- it doesn't. And the fact that the concept of OOPArt is hardly addressed on the page itself lends, I think, to the confusion. SunSw0rd 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(Starting over at the left, because too many indentations get unreadable) I agree with your interpretation of OOPart paranormal foolishness, and its use by looney-tunes and scam artists ... BUT ... I think this article should reflect the fact that "OOPArt" doesn't just mean stuff that's truly scientifically baffling, but also stuff that's widely regarded as being scientifically baffling even if it's not - and even if the people doing the regarding are folks whom we scorn. We shouldn't ignore that, but we shouldn't give it more credence than it deserves. Compare UFO, which describes some goofy ideas even though they are goofy, because they were important in the perception of the field, so to speak. Somehow we need to keep mention of widely discussed OOPArt ideas in the article, even if they're proven as not being truly anomalous. That'll require some rewriting/reorganizing so we don't imply that having them here means scientists are baffled. - DavidWBrooks 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known hoaxes and the like...

Would it be useful to add a new section of the article, dedicated to listing stuff that used to be thought of as OOPArt but that have since been shown to be hoaxes? This would include things like that supposedly ancient spark plug that tuned out to be from the 1920s.... It would be useful to those looking for info on these objects who don't yet know that they are hoaxes. We could also have a section listing disputed artifacts, where some people claim they're genuine, and some claim they're not. Comments? ---Nomad Of Norad 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be broken up. Be careful with a "hoaxes" section, though - that implies (to me, at least) deliberately fooling people, rather than wishful thinking (which I think is usually the case). How about: Shown to be modern, Disputed, and Unsettled or something like that? - DavidWBrooks 11:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Perfectly peachy with me!  :^D So which one of those does everyone think is the best? Or maybe split it up into different ones? One for Hoax, one for Disputed, one for No Proof, and so on? Perhaps even Discredited? I'm sure we can come up with a better one, or ones, though. ---Nomad Of Norad 04:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
How about Discredited, Disputed, and Status unknown ... although I predict lots of struggles between true believers and the its-all-bollocks crowds - DavidWBrooks 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "Discredited, Disputed, or Status unknown" as a single category. Many of the items on the list would go into this bucket. Some few others would not. SunSw0rd 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... let's try again. We want terms for categories that cover these three circumstances:

  • Mainstream science has examined it and has no explanation, or at least none that is universally accepted (a "real" OOPArt) - are there any? The Iron Pillar of Delhi, maybe?
  • Mainstream science hasn't examined it - there's no real evidence one way or the other (OOPArt by default)
  • Debunked. (OOPArt only to the fringe crowd)- most of them

I'm darned if I can think of good terms for the first two categories. - DavidWBrooks 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 2 valid OOPArts.
  1. The Fuente Magna, discovered in Bolivia. Ceramic bowl with writing in Sumerian cuneiform.
  2. The Blue Hill 11th century Norse coin found in an American Indian shell midden.
The former is dated circa 3500 BC, the later is authentic 11th century. Both are out of place artifacts. However, the coin may have made its way from early Norse settlements in North America via trade between the Norse and the American Indians; the latter may have been held by a very early European settler to Bolivia. So there are prosaic explanations for both -- but both are valid OOPArts. SunSw0rd

The Fuente Magna claims are not accepted by Sumerian experts, for a start, so can't be seen as validated. The Norse coin -- we know the Norse visited North America, so what makes it out of place?--Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Validated OOPArts

Regarding the preceding discussion, rather than attempting to create a new set of classifications about questionable OOPArts, I created a new category for validated OOPArts. As far as I know, there is only one absolutely for sure validated OOPArt -- the Blue Hill Norse coin. As such, that is the only one I moved into that category. It is admittedly not a very exciting item for those who want to believe in aliens, extreme diffusionism, and so on. But it really is an out of place artifact, and it has good archeological provenance. So for now, it stands alone.

There are 4 there now. I don't see any of them are OOPARTs. Eg the Iron Pillar -- only if you assume that Indian metallurgy couldn't have made it, then it isn't an OOPART. There has been controversy about the Glozel stones, but why are they an OOPART?--Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divided more

I have divided the "alleged Oopart" into two sections - those that make at least halfway reasonable claims that involve real peoples, usually traveling to places they shouldn't have (Romans in ancient Mexico); and those that are crazy (50 million year old stuff, aliens). But it's a tough distinction, and I couldn't think of good headers. Improvement would be most welcome. - DavidWBrooks 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also removed Antikythera mechanism which is no longer considered out-of-place. - DavidWBrooks 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digg story

This web "story" recently showed up in Digg.com. It includes an "Ancient Model Aircraft" that I didn't see in the article. If anyone a tad more familiar with this stuff can add it to the article, I'd appreciate it. --Otheus 10:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "ancient model airplane" in the article is The Saqqara_Bird. The "The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts" article you cite is, by the way, not very good and written by someone who is either highly credulous, or feigning such credulousness in order to write a more interesting article. Hi There 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stone Balls of Costa Rica

[3] [4]

Added Stone balls of costa rica to the "Artifacts allegedly produced by unknown cultures or societies Section". Above are the 2 cited sources. Correct me if you find they are wrong. :) Ankithreya (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure about this. We don't know precisely what culture produced them. We know about when they were produced, which is not more than 2000 years ago. We know where they were produced and how. I can't see what makes them out of place. The fact that some people claim they are? Do we need a section for Alleged OOPARTs now explained or something like that?--Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OOPARTs for which there is no evidence they ever existed

I'm thinking of the Dropa stones here. They belong somewhere here, but whereas some of the claims are for real things (some artefacts, some natural, some forgeries), these don't seem to exist.--Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As you may see from above conversations, this has been a tough debate for this article since it began - how to distinguish among various types of OOParts, or even how to decide what "types" exist and how they can be described. The current article setup is far from perfect, although I think it's better than any before it. The "alleged OOPart" idea was tried and discarded because it was very, very hard to pin down - in a certain sense, all OOParts are alleged because if we knew all about them, they wouldn't be OOPart, would they? Or would they? Jeez, even the basic definition of "out of place" is up for grabs ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple question

The Ivan T. Sanderson article doesn't mention the authorship of the 'Out-of-place artifact' expression. Why ? DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article glosses over his entire paranormal side of his career - probably out of embarrassment. His nature admirers aren't big fans of that other side of his interests. Feel free to expand it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm in the dark about Sanderson. I was just wondering if I can translate his article in French only because he's named in the French article OOPArt. Thanks anyway. DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Photographs of each object?

I think it might be helpful if we added photographs to each of the objects. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would swamp this article. Maybe one or two representative ones, but not all of them. If the items have articles, photos should go there. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)