alphared6
Map Folder
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
Posts: 25
|
Post by alphared6 on Sept 29, 2008 11:51:30 GMT -5
The actual idol used in Raiders was a coyp of an Aztec goddess. Also there is reason to believe that the original may be a 19th century fake! www.nationalgeographic.com/history/ancient/enlarge/aztec-goddess.html "In the opening scenes of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Indiana Jones is hot on the trail of an extremely valuable golden idol created by an unidentified ancient South American culture. The goddess's image, which Jones deftly snatches from an altar (setting off a series of booby traps that culminate with an enormous boulder nearly crushing our hero), is of a woman in the act of giving birth. The golden figure was modeled on a purportedly Aztec greenstone carving called Tlazolteotl, considered to be a masterpiece by the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington, D.C. In my research into the object's acquisition history, I discovered that a Chinese dealer in Paris sold the figure in 1883 to a famous French mineralogist, Augustin Damour. His friend, Eugene Boban, advised Damour on the purchase. In examining the artifact's iconography, I found that the birthing position is unknown in documented pre-Columbian artifacts or depictions in codices. I have also used scanning electron microscopy to analyze the manufacture of the idol and have found there is ample evidence of the use of modern rotary cutting tools on the object's surface. In my opinion, the Tlazolteotl idol, like the crystal skulls, is a nineteenth-century fake."
|
|
|
Post by GCR on Sept 29, 2008 12:44:36 GMT -5
Wow, well that's weird. I wonder how many "artifacts" that exist as major exhibits in some of the world's leading museums are actually phony? With today's technology, I would imagine many of the discoveries of the mid to late 19th century that had questionable origins could be verified as either authentic or a clever fake. Thanks for the link, Alphared6!
|
|
|
Post by enigmata on Jun 16, 2009 16:20:54 GMT -5
Just to complicate things, I have an argument in favour of rotary tools in ancient culture: The rotary tool marks found on the British Museum's crystal skull (and other artefacts) do not necessarily prove it is recent. They could equally prove that the pre-Columbian cultures of South America had sophisticated polishing tools. It is a received wisdom among archaeologist that due to the mountainous landscape the wheel was never put to use there. However archaeologists are not always engineers and may confuse the idea of the wheel with the idea of the axle. There is plenty of evidence for the knowledge of axles, the simplest being distaffs. It is not necessary to have machine-powered tools to produce high, even cutting speeds, just the understanding of flywheels. This can still be witnessed today in the bazaars of the Middle East where craftsmen produce works of stunning regularity of detail using nothing more than measurement by eye and home-made lathes. Such a lathe can be made entirely with natural materials. These have stone or wooden flywheels and are powered by foot: A treadle plate is connected to a cord then to a springy sapling or to a weighted counter-lever, the cord is looped round the axle. The pre-Columbians had highly developed culture within the limits of their materials and it is not inconceivable that they had such lathes. The grinding head of such a lathe could likewise have been made of natural materials, any even-grained hard stone would do. It could be shaped to requirement in situ by rotating it against even harder stones. The flywheel and grinding head could therefore be combined in one object. It is noteworthy that circular stones with central holes have been found in pre-Columbian sites. Equally the grinding head may have been finely powdered, commonly available, obsidian (or some other equally hard material) fixed with animal-based glue to a wooden or stone wheel. It could also be that the sharp powder was added to shaped clay before firing. It would be interesting to know if any candidate for this type of cutting wheel has ever been found. Over the last few decades our estimation of Stone Age cultures as 'primitive' has undergone a considerable reassessment as ingenious finds come to light. Perhaps the case of the British Museum's crystal skull is no more than another vestige of that die-hard thinking that nothing clever could have been achieved before the arrival of modern explorers?
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Sept 8, 2009 19:20:47 GMT -5
What will become of it now? Sold of to the highest bidder?
|
|