Talk:Out-of-place artifact

Bimini Road and Yonaguni Monument

I believe the Bimini Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Road) and the Yonaguni Monument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Rock_Formation), two natural formations should be considered under "natural objects mistaken as artifacts" for the simple reason that pseudoarchaeologists claim that the former is a road leading to Atlantis or at the very least having something to do with Atlantis and the latter has been claimed to be an example of a submerged civilization. Thoughts? 47.148.156.78 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Article rewrite

• Background discussion

OOPArts as a topic is notable. However, the categories that have been included in the article to date are obvious WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, with a little WP:GEVAL thrown in. They are the result of years of article neglect and accumulated cruft. For example, “alternative explanations”? How is this defined? How does an artifact qualify for definition as an "alternative" explanation, and who says it does? To remedy this, I propose a WP:BLOWITUP rewrite to remove all the categorization and extensively detailed examples. The article can be pared down to some number of paragraphs that describe the concept, who believes in it, what experts say, etc. Such a rewrite could be easily assembled and cited to a mixture of WP:FRIND books and media [1], [2], [3], [4] and WP:PARITY skeptical sources [5], [6]. Then let individual OOP articles themselves describe how expert RS's have interpreted each example -- which often does not fall into any convenient "categories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it seems fine. And there is an entire section elsewhere where this page is being discussed that should be cut/pasted and moved here, and this talk page hasn't even been linked to the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

True, see discussion at WP:FTN#Does anyone else think Out-of-place artifacts is a mess?. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I was not supporting the suggestion the article seems fine, it certainly does not. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie has been a very active editor in that discussion. This has often been the case at FTN, discussions are held, ideas are shared, and then people come to the page in question and "work". Maybe all such discussions being held there should be linked as soon as the topic is brought up and replies begin. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, you have noted that I've made procedural errors both here and at FTN. Any opinions on the proposal? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd personally remove the words "or may appear or be purported to challenge" from the lead and delete everything from the section "Natural objects mistaken for artifacts" on down to 'See also', and what's left fits the page criteria. Mistakes and hoaxes are not really out-of-place artifacts, they just appeared to be to someone for awhile. The first few sections of the article, however, do fit the critera (minus the "may appear..." part), and provide a valid encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Would like to ask FarSouthNavy, who has done good recent referencing work on the page, for their thoughts. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn. I'am no stranger to this kind of stuff since the times of old Erich von Daniken (BTW I am definitely skeptic), but I want to make clear that my only concern on this was to add citations where required. If you ask for my opinion, I agree the page is overpopulated with junk, like debunked theories or hoaxes that should not be listed here per WP:WEIGHT, since most sources confirmed they are not ooparts. I think the article should be trimmed down in the way you have proposed, from "Natural objects mistaken for artifacts" to 'See also'.--Darius (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that would be a good cut line, but everything above it seems fine. If no objections maybe it can be done within a day or so. Sound good? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that the article should be converted from a list to a normal article? I'm not sure that would be useful.

The prose is the most fringy part! It strongly implies that OOPs are some sort of class of related objects and that can you can be a believer or a skeptic of the whole block, and invites the reader to consider what the existence of this category means. That's a fringy idea in and of itself. No real expert in the field would think of them like that. They're just individual artifacts united only by the fact that some people got weird ideas about them. We should not be implying that they have anything more in common than that.

I say, nuke 90% of the prose, and rename the article "List of Out of place artifacts".

There's nothing wrong with the list part. It mostly just summarizes the linked articles, as is correct and proper for a list. ApLundell (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that the article should be converted from a list to a normal article? Not quite. My beef is with these categories/headers:

• Unusual artifacts - A highly ambiguous designation. What WP:FRIND sources categorize these as "unusual" artifacts? "Unusual" in what specific way?
• Questionable interpretations - Another ambiguous designation. Is their legitimacy as OOPs "questionable"? (And wouldn't this apply to ALL OOPs?) And what sources have made this determination and why?
• Alternative interpretations - My favorite. Like "alternative facts". Implies these things all have another, equally valid way of looking at them. And again, what sources have made this determination and why?

At least Natural objects mistaken for artifacts, Erroneously dated objects, and Modern-day creations, forgeries and hoaxes all have sources which identify them as such. The three named above appear to have been arrived at by well-meaning editors trying their hand at pigeonholing items into convenient buckets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In 1972 Erich von Däniken wrote Aussaat und Kosmos [The Gold of the Gods] claiming Eiserner Mann and Iron pillar of Delhi were possible alien artifacts. In response de:Klaus Grewe partially excavated Iron Man and wrote Der Eiserne Mann im Kottenforst. Von Däniken apparently then removed the section from later editions of the book. But Wikipedia says Iron Man is ...alleged by some to be an out-of-place artifact citing an interview with Grewe where he states:

Laut einer Urkunde stand ab er 1625 ein paar Hundert Meter entfernt vom heutigen Standort auf der Grenze zwischen den Gemeinden Heimerzheim und Alfter.

In going through the individual references in the items on the list, this one is so far the best support for being an "out-of-place artifact"; it has been moved a few hundred meters from its original location. How do you classify that one? fiveby(zero) 19:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has been gutted a bit too aggressively in my opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out-of-place_artifact&diff=1126966716&oldid=1126302856 deleted a lot. Now folks need to go to other wikis like https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_of_Aiud to learn about pre-1800s metallic aluminum. Can't we keep a bit more? When it comes to hoaxes, I very must prefer to find the info on Wikipedia, which I trust with a more balanced truth culture than other websites. If we are just mass-deleting things for being hoaxes, it pushes inquisitive minds onto fringe conspiracy websites instead. Habanero-tan (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that edit was way to aggressive and removed quite a few things that are primarily notable for being out-of-place artifacts.

Of course, that classification is based on misunderstandings, but that's what this article/list is mostly about.

If the category headings are misleading (as discussed above), it makes sense to organize the list better, but removing whole categories of content seems like the wrong thing to do. I think the edit should be reverted. ApLundell (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

For example I think Shroud of Turin should be a "Questionable interpretation" rather than "Unusual artifact". Since there's no RS to support either one, editors can change classifications as the mood strikes us. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

The Shroud of Turin section is poorly sourced and doesn't establish it as an out-of-place artifact. The "photographic negative" description doesn't seem to appear anywhere besides the fairly obscure cited source, Allen 1993, and our Shroud of Turin article doesn't focus on it being "out of place" for its time period. The controversy is whether it was an authentic burial cloth or a medieval forgery, not whether it was "out of place" for its time period. In fact even Allen 1993 proposes a way that it could have been made with medievel photographic technology. The section was originally copied from History of photography and was later deleted from that article due to lack of support from reliable sources. I propose that we do the same here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dlthewave, just saw this, apologies for not coming upon it (a ping would have worked since I was the editor who undid your text removal). The shroud fits the first sentences of the page perfectly: "...is an artifact of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest found in an unusual context, which challenges conventional historical chronology by its presence in that context. Such artifacts may appear too advanced for the technology known to have existed at the time." In short, the technology involved in the negative image is the "out-of-place" aspect, not the shroud itself. The shroud has a long sourced and documented history of existence as an artifact, and then, in 1898, the "real" image of a tortured human body was discovered on the shroud as a photographic negative, technology which wasn't available throughout the span of its centuries-long notoriety. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Randy Kryn. I guess my hangup is that our Shroud of Turin article doesn't treat the negative image as inconsistent or unexpected for the time period. Sources seem to treat the photographic analysis simply as a tool that allows modern researchers to view it more clearly, and any assertion otherwise would be OR unless we have a reliable source that supports that point of view. –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dlthewave. The ancient cloth, luckily enough already kept as an artifact and honored by the Catholic Church for many centuries, was "the place". The "out-of-place" designation which fits this page's criteria "Such artifacts may appear too advanced for the technology known to have existed at the time" was brought into view when the photographer developed his photographic plate. When he saw the image, and this is sourced on the pages, he was so "startled" that he almost dropped it which would have lost the plate (which is a historical artifact itself). I'd disagree that mentioning this is original research, as it's an obvious fact that the photographic negative brings forward something which is inexplicable, cannot be duplicated, has no right to exist yet here it is, and so out-of-place capable that photography and the chemicals involved in photography had to be invented in order for it to be found. The inadvertent 1898 proof, using modern technology, that this is not an artwork in the definition that society and encyclopedias place on and require of 'artworks', fits 'out-of-place' to a T. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I must say I don't think this belongs. The main theories are that it is a) a miraculous relic or b) a fake. The theory that it is some sort of (accidental?) early photograph using a technical process seems a poor third. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Johnbod. It was discovered by a technical process, photography and chemicals used for developing a photo, but nobody is saying it is itself an early photograph although it certainly simulates one. Nobody really knows just what it is (and I think it being an artwork has been ruled out, so "fake" doesn't cover what is being faked). The wording "found in an unusual context" seems to apply, as this was a totally unexpected discovery when photographed. It fits the page criteria: "...an artifact of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest found in an unusual context, which challenges conventional historical chronology by its presence in that context. Such artifacts may appear too advanced for the technology known to have existed at the time". These different good faith takes on the meaning of the criteria as being applied or not applied to the shroud seems to create an impasse. RfC anyone? If so, can we agree on wording? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How about "Should the Shroud of Turin be included in Out-of-place- artifact article?" –dlthewave ☎ 13:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that the Shroud of Turin is the best example of an "unusual artifact" on the OOPArt page. Extensive research has not yet revealed how the 600+ years old image was made. The artifact remains unusual, if not unique: theories about the image-making process involve very unusual processes and researchers have not yet managed to create a convincing copy. Negative images were at least a little unusual before the advent of photography, but somehow it is hard to find a source stating a lack of detailed pre-photographic negative images (despite being interested in this for years, as of yet I have only found evidence of one other clear example, presumably a "punch engraving" print from the 17th century). There has been quite some criticism concerning art historian Nicholas Allen's theory about a possible proto-photographic process, but the fact that the shroud image resembles a faint photographic negative and is much clearer when inverted has not been contested since that aspect was discovered in 1898. There's no lack of reliable sources for the existence of Allen's well-published theory, but the wikipedian who deleted the info on History of photography apparently couldn't stand any mention of the idea on that page, while others presumably didn't deem it important enough (although plenty of authors have included a reference in books about the history of photography). Joortje1 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What our job is not

It is our job to note - with RS'd references - apparent out-of-place artifacts, as they have been reported through those sources. It is not our job to debunk, disprove or otherwise disparage these instances. If RS sources do the disparaging - and they aren't UNDUE, then we add that. We as editors are not citable, so therefore our opinions have no value within the article. I am noting a shit-ton of personal opinion being added in place of reliable sourcing. No amount of rewriting the different instances is going to conceal editorial attempts to disprove the authenticity of the claimed artifacts. So please stop doing that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a few concerns with your additions to the London Hammer section:

• Archaeology World seems like a questionable fringe source since it treats "ufologists and ancient astronaut theorists" as credible experts and states "Unfortunately, some scientists do not agree" when presenting the opinons of mainstream scientists.
• You attributed "Suggesting an artifact at least one hundred million years old" to Skeptoid. In fact, Skeptoid only includes that claim in a quote from the Epoch Time (a deprecated source) which it then goes on to debunk.

It does seem that reliable sources are the ones "disparaging" the theory that this is a 100-million-year-old hammer, and the ones supporting it are sketchy at best. –dlthewave ☎ 19:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"archaeology-world.com" is a clickbait site with the same business model as "ancient origins" (which was deprecated, spam blacklisted, and removed from WP). They recycle subjects from real archaeology, sprinkle in liberal amounts of woo and WP:FRINGE material with no differentiation between the woo and the real. It hould never be used as a source on WP. Heiro 19:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I had run the source past RSN, and they agreed it was a shit source, and reevaluated the sources in the article. My initial comments were regarding the insertion of disparaging commentary that seemed to begin from a point of view of disproving Oopa items, which - I repeat - is not our job. That said, it is our job to ensure that each listing is supported by RS'd referencing. I am in agreement with the comments above that bestter sourcing is needed, both by myself and others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Tutankhamun's meteoric iron dagger

Tutankhamun's meteoric iron dagger was found in the tomb of the pharaoh who reigned from circa 1334 to 1325 BC, while no Egyptian archaeological evidence exists of iron smelting until the 6th century BC (according to info gathered from the wikipedia page).

An article on ranker.com says "This dagger seems to predate when we thought humans had the technology to forge iron products."[7]

This gives rise to some questions about when an artifact can be deemed OOP. The wikipedia page explains that iron was rare at the time, but that several other early iron artifacts are known, and that it is theorized that meteorites may have been the source of ore for those early examples (apparently only needing to be hammered, not smelted, see also Ferrous metallurgy). The dagger is just one of 19 iron objects from the tomb (others not yet tested to see if they contain meteorite ore) and may have been a gift from a Mitanni king. The page about the dagger also describes some complications for researchers in getting oppurtunities to test more artifacts, thus resulting in the lack of strong conclusions about early (meteorite) iron objects. "Determining iron's occurrence throughout the very ancient past – such as obtaining, smelting, and introducing into various civilizations – has been an ongoing topic of scholarly study and discussion. From the late Neolithic era to the Bronze Age, ancient Eastern Mediterranean cultures used iron infrequently."

I reckon that the OOPA page should not mention every rare artifact that seems one of several early infrequent predecessors of the results from a technology that became common later on (and/or are made from rare material). Then again, it can be said that the extraterrestrial source of the metal makes it out-of-place per definition (although iron is "by mass, the most common element on Earth" and "mainly deposited by meteorites in its metallic state, with its ores also being found [in the earth's crust]", I suppose obtaining a lump big enough to hammer into a dagger makes it unique nonetheless). If mentioning the dagger on the OOPA page is considered, maybe the attention should instead/additionally be directed towards the meteoric iron beads from a 3400BC Gerzeh grave (which are also mentioned on the wikipedia page about the dagger.

Maybe such artifacts warrant the creation of a new subcategory on this page? I suppose Pseudodon shell DUB1006-fL would be another interesting candidate for the category of remarkably early artifacts (there's a circa 400,000 year gap between the markings on this shell and the next known markings made by a humanoid), for instance. Joortje1 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)