The Coso Artifact – Episode 9

The Archaeological Fantasies Podcast, hosted by Sarah and co-host Ken Fader, delves into the Koso artifact, a supposed ancient geode that, when cut open, revealed a 1920s-era Champion spark plug. The episode critically examines the myths and misinterpretations surrounding the artifact, highlighting how natural processes can create misleading appearances. They discuss how such artifacts are often used by fringe groups to support outlandish theories, such as advanced ancient technologies or rapid geological formations, despite clear debunking by experts. The podcast underscores the importance of critical thinking and proper scientific inquiry in archaeology.

• The Koso Artifact is a subject of debate regarding its origin and nature.
• It raises questions about whether it is a geode or a different type of rock.
• The artifact is often discussed in the context of misinterpretation of natural processes and fringe archaeology.

"What is the Koso artifact? Is it a geode? Is it even a rock? If it's not those, what is it?"

• Introduction to the artifact and its ambiguous nature.

• Discovered in February 1961 by amateur geologists Wallace Lane, Virginia Maxey, and Michael Mikesell.
• Found during a rock-hunting expedition in California.
• Initially thought to be an abnormal-looking geode.

"In February of 1961, there were three amateur geologists, Wallace Lane, Virginia Maxey, and Michael Mikesell, and they owned a rock shop and they would frequently go and look for rocks in the California area that they could take home, rocks and geodes, so they could take back to their store and sell them."

• The circumstances of the discovery and the initial assumptions about the artifact.

• The artifact caused damage to a diamond saw when Mikesell attempted to cut it.
• Inside, it revealed a circular section of hard white material resembling porcelain and a metal cylinder.

"Mike Mikesell claims that he ruined a brand new diamond-bladed saw while trying to cut the specimen in half. And once he did finally get it open, he noticed that there was a perfect circular section of hard white material that appeared to be porcelain, and in the center of the porcelain was a cylinder that was a two-millimeter shaft of bright metal which responded to a magnet."

• Description of the internal structure and materials found within the artifact.

• The artifact has been associated with various fringe theories, including claims of it being evidence of advanced ancient technology.
• The term "OOPArt" (Out of Place Artifact) is often used in such contexts.

"It's a great word, I mean, it's a neologism. It's a brand new word like 30 years ago, and it's O-O-P-Art. It's art for artifact, and the OOP is out of place."

• Explanation of the term "OOPArt" and its relevance to fringe archaeology.

• Experts have debunked the artifact, explaining it as a natural concretion around a modern object.
• The artifact does not resemble a geode, and its features align with known natural processes.

"If you've ever seen a concretion or the way concretion grows around iron objects, I mean, you know instantly what you're looking at for sure because you've got that soft white cortex and then the rusts are on the inside."

• Scientific interpretation of the artifact as a natural concretion.

• Maxey claimed an unnamed geologist dated the artifact to 500,000 years old, but the method and credibility are questionable.
• Lack of verifiable scientific backing for such claims.

"Miss Maxey claims that she took this geode at one point to an educated geologist who is unnamed, and that particular geologist somehow was able to date the geode and the artifact to be 500,000 years old."

• Skepticism about the claimed age and the credibility of the unnamed geologist.

• Discussion on the lack of legal definitions for professions like geologists and archaeologists.
• Importance of credentials and verifiable expertise in scientific claims.

"Anybody can have cards drawn up saying geologist or archaeologist, and there is no... legal definition."

• Importance of verifying credentials and the potential for misrepresentation.

• The Koso Artifact serves as a case study in the misinterpretation of natural processes and the propagation of fringe theories.
• Emphasizes the need for critical thinking and scientific validation in archaeology.

"The Koso artifact is a wonderful test case because it's exactly what's being claimed... it's also because it's just so bloody lame."

• Final thoughts on the artifact's significance in the context of scientific skepticism and critical analysis.

• Discussion on the importance of physical evidence for court admissibility.
• Mention of a diamond saw and the need for tangible proof to validate claims.

"It's like stories people tell around campfires at night. It's cool, it's scary, but where's the evidence? Where is the physical evidence to back it up? We don't have it."

• Emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence rather than anecdotal stories.

• The artifact is currently missing, adding to its mystery.
• Comparison with other lost artifacts like the Grave Creek tablet.
• Ron Kallis, a creationist investigator, examined and X-rayed the artifact.

"We do have evidence that it did exist because as I stated earlier we do have some colored photographs and, uh, there was an individual who was allowed to examine it, his name was Ron Kallis."

• Establishes that despite the artifact being lost, there is documented evidence of its existence.

• X-ray images critical in debunking the artifact.
• Descriptions of the artifact resembling a giant virus cell.
• Ron Kallis' proclamation of a metal object inside the rock.

"The X-ray becomes critical in the debunking of this artifact because it clearly shows what is inside of the concretions both halves."

• Highlights the importance of X-ray technology in revealing the true nature of the artifact.

• Last known owner was Wallace Lane, who had an offer to sell the artifact.
• The artifact used as evidence for various theories including aliens and young Earth creationism.

"The last person known to own it to possess it physically was Wallace Lane... he did have a standing offer up until 1999 to sell it for $25,000."

• Indicates the artifact's perceived value and the different claims surrounding it.

• Pierre Stromberg and Paul V. Heinrich, skeptics, conducted a detailed investigation.
• Sent X-ray images to experts, including Chad Windham, who identified it as a 1920s Champion spark plug.

"They send it to a gentleman, his name's Chad Windham... and so he thought that they were joking and they were trying to pull one over on him."

• Demonstrates the skeptical approach and expert validation in debunking the artifact.

• Explanation of how small metallic objects can form large concretions over time.
• Comparison with historical artifacts like nails and iron spikes found in the Northeast.

"Even a small piece of metal that has an iron content to it can create a very large shell for lack of a better term around it of this kind of soft material."

• Provides scientific context on how concretions form around metallic objects.

• Speculation that the experienced geode hunters knew it wasn't a geode.
• Possible local joke that got out of hand, leading to the artifact's disappearance.

"You've got these three experienced geode hunters who come across this object; there's no way they didn't know that it wasn't a geode."

• Suggests that the story might have been a prank or an exaggerated claim.

• Creationists use the artifact to challenge conventional geological timelines.
• Misunderstanding between rock and chemical concretions.

"The creationists will completely accept that that is a 1920 spark plug without question... they seem to think that it is [stone]."

• Discusses how creationists interpret the artifact to support their views on Earth's timeline.

• Creationists' use of flawed logic and bad math to support their arguments.
• Importance of taking scientific evidence and expert opinions seriously.

"I've seen creationists try to use what I consider bad math to kind of drive home their younger viewpoint doing themselves a huge disservice."

• Critiques the logical fallacies and misunderstandings in creationist arguments.

• Recap of the artifact's debunking and the importance of scientific validation.
• Announcement of a break and return to the discussion.

"Not only does he say it's a spark plug, he can give us the year and the company that manufactured it."

• Reinforces the definitive identification of the artifact as a modern object.

• Creationists argue that rapid rock formation suggests a young Earth.
• The Koso artifact, resembling a 1920s spark plug, is claimed to be from the time of Noah's flood.
• This claim challenges established archaeological, historical, and geological chronologies.

"Creationists say what this proves is they had internal combustion engines around about the time of Noah's flood which throws all of archaeological chronologies and historical chronologies and geological chronologies throws them all out of whack."

• Creationists use artifacts like the Koso artifact to dispute conventional timelines of technological development.

• Importance of recognizing subtle stratigraphic disturbances during excavation.
• The site in Connecticut dated to nearly 2000 years ago through radiocarbon dating and stylistic analysis of ceramics.
• Discovery of a modern beer bottle at the same stratigraphic level as ancient ceramics due to soil disturbance.

"We knew something was amiss but I can also tell you that anybody who is not familiar with has no very little experience digging in stratigraphic levels and keeping track of all that stuff it was subtle enough that I don't think they would have caught it anyway."

• Correct identification of stratigraphic disturbances is crucial to avoid misinterpreting the age of artifacts.

• Archaeologists must meticulously maintain stratigraphic profiles to ensure accurate dating.
• Depth alone is not a reliable indicator of an artifact's age.
• Example of a farmer inadvertently introducing a modern beer bottle into an ancient stratigraphic level.

"Merely because two objects are found at a particular depth does not make them old and it doesn't make them even the same age you have to look very carefully to make sure they come from the same natural or cultural stratigraphic level."

• Accurate stratigraphy involves understanding the natural and cultural context of each layer.

• OOPArts often result from misinterpretation of stratigraphy or lack of expertise.
• Animal activity, human intervention, and natural processes can disturb stratigraphy.
• Example of a tradition where archaeologists leave a coin to mark the date of excavation, which could be misinterpreted in the future.

"When somebody tells you but this ooh part this object was found 20 feet deep in a coal mine that doesn't mean anything because stuff can move around stratigraphically whether it's a woodchuck digging to burrow a farmer digging uh digging holes for fence posts somebody putting in a foundation or somebody digging coal material gets mixed around all of the time."

• Understanding the context and processes affecting stratigraphy is essential to accurately date artifacts.

• Stratigraphy varies significantly by region, affecting the depth at which artifacts are found.
• Example of different deposition rates along the Connecticut River and Farmington River.

"What's old in Connecticut is not necessarily old in Wyoming where there's stuff's on the surface."

• Regional differences in soil composition and deposition rates must be considered in archaeological analysis.

• Depth alone is not a reliable indicator of age without context.
• Example of artifacts being found at different depths in different regions due to varying deposition rates.

"If you read something about a new part where somebody says yes but we found it at a depth of 20 feet that means absolutely nothing unless you're real familiar with the soils in that area."

• Accurate dating requires comprehensive knowledge of local soil and stratigraphic conditions.

• Ancient alien theorists use artifacts like the Koso artifact to argue for advanced technology in the past.
• These theories often attribute technological advancements to extraterrestrial influence.

"Ancient alien theorists view the coastal artifact they see it as evidence of advanced technology at a much earlier stage in human development than we give people credit and a lot of times of course they're associating that with the aliens who came and gave us this technology."

• Such theories challenge conventional understanding of human technological development.

• OOPArts typically reflect known historical technologies rather than future technologies.
• This suggests that claims of advanced ancient technology are based on existing historical knowledge rather than genuine anachronisms.

"I've never read of an oop part that reflects a future technology a technology we don't already have in our history."

• The absence of genuinely futuristic technology in OOPArts undermines claims of advanced ancient technologies.

• Accurate archaeological analysis requires meticulous attention to stratigraphy and context.
• Misinterpretation of stratigraphy can lead to incorrect conclusions about the age and significance of artifacts.
• Claims of advanced ancient technologies often lack credible evidence and rely on misinterpretations or unfounded theories.

• Ancient Technology Claims:

  • Claims of advanced ancient technology (e.g., Apple Watches, iPads) lack credible evidence.

  • Artifacts found are always consistent with the known technology of their time period.

  • The artifacts are often misinterpreted or misrepresented to fit a narrative of advanced ancient civilizations.

  "Wouldn't it be great if somebody in the 1950s claimed that they found something and what the hell it was and it turned out to be an Apple Watch right?"

  • Highlights the unrealistic nature of claims about advanced ancient technology.

  "They're always technologies that are from the context of the time period they're being excavated."

  • Emphasizes that artifacts found are always historically consistent.

  "It's never some technology that we can't immediately identify; it's merely that they're claiming, well, but it's older than you would expect it to be."

  • Points out that artifacts are often misdated rather than being truly advanced.

• Victorian Era Fakes:

  • Similarities between modern artifact claims and Victorian-era frauds.

  • Many artifacts from the Victorian era were fabricated to appear ancient.

  "There was that period of time where everybody was finding basically fraud pieces but they were claiming that they were ancient artifacts."

  • Draws a parallel between modern and Victorian-era artifact frauds.

  "You will never find one older than modern human tech, not modern day but modern historical technology."

  • Reinforces that fraudulent artifacts are always within the scope of known historical technology.

• Non-Artifacts as Artifacts:

  • Modern phenomena of interpreting natural objects as historical artifacts.

  • Often a willful misinterpretation of natural rock formations or recognized historical artifacts.

  "It's almost a willful misinterpretation of rock or of commonly understood and recognized historical artifacts and trying to force them into a context that just doesn't fit a standard chronology."

  • Discusses the intentional misinterpretation of objects to fit a narrative.

  "It's not that they're creating fakes this time, but it is finding non-artifacts and trying to assign them the status of artifact."

  • Differentiates between creating fakes and misinterpreting natural objects as artifacts.

• Background and Location:

  • The Coso Artifact was found in California, near the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake.

  • The area is rich in genuine archaeological sites, particularly rock art.

  "The Coso artifact is called the Coso artifact. This was found in a little town in California along the Coso Range."

  • Provides the geographical context of the Coso Artifact.

  "There are four canyons in the Koso range on this base that have the densest concentration of rock art you're going to find anywhere in the world."

  • Highlights the significance of the area in terms of genuine archaeological finds.

• Genuine Archaeology vs. Misinterpretation:

  • Emphasis on the value of genuine archaeology over sensationalized non-artifacts.

  • Encourages visiting real archaeological sites to appreciate authentic historical artifacts.

  "Real Deal archaeology is so much more interesting than the [__] archaeology that we end up having to discuss here."

  • Advocates for focusing on genuine archaeological discoveries.

  "If you want to see real Coso artifacts, go to the little get a tour of Little Petroglyph Canyon."

  • Suggests visiting authentic sites to see real artifacts.

• Formation of the Coso Artifact:

  • The artifact is a result of natural chemical reactions involving iron and soil.

  • Misinterpretation stems from a lack of understanding of these natural processes.

  "It's a chemical reaction between ferric materials and the soil and the matrices around them."

  • Explains the natural formation process of the Coso Artifact.

  "Once you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about, but until you see it, you really don't have it's hard to explain."

  • Describes the difficulty in understanding the artifact without seeing it firsthand.

• Disappointment in Misinterpretation:

  • The artifact is often disappointingly misinterpreted as evidence of advanced ancient technology.

  • Encourages a focus on genuine, scientifically-supported archaeological findings.

  "It's so obvious that it's not a real artifact yet people still to this day push for the Coso artifact to be a real artifact."

  • Expresses frustration with the persistent misinterpretation of the artifact.

  "It's not evidence of aliens, it's not evidence of a global flood, it's not evidence of anything other than natural processes at work."

  • Clarifies that the artifact does not support sensational claims.

• Visiting Authentic Sites:

  • Encourages the audience to explore genuine archaeological sites for a true understanding of history.

  • Highlights the educational value of seeing real artifacts in their historical context.

  "I highly recommend it. Mike Baskerville actually gave me a private tour because, you know, I'm an archaeologist."

  • Recommends visiting authentic sites and learning from experts.

  "Go do that. That's your takeaway from today is if you want to see real Coso artifacts, go to the little get a tour of Little Petroglyph Canyon."

  • Summarizes the main takeaway: visit real archaeological sites for genuine artifacts.

• Encouragement to Engage with Genuine Archaeology:

  • Reiterates the importance of engaging with authentic archaeological research and sites.

  • Criticizes the focus on debunked or misinterpreted artifacts.

  "If you're a Believer, if this is the best you've got, you got to find something a little more interesting."

  • Challenges believers in sensational claims to seek out more credible evidence.

  "Don't use the Coso artifact. It's not a good find something better."

  • Advises against using the Coso Artifact as evidence for sensational claims.

• Podcast Editing Volunteers:

  • A call for volunteers with editing skills to help maintain the podcast's publishing schedule.

  • Encourages listeners to contribute to the podcasting network.

  "We are currently in need of individuals with editing skills who can help us put together these shows and keep to our rigorous publishing schedule."

  • Requests help from listeners with editing skills.

  "If you think you have what it takes to help us edit and keep these shows on the air, email us."

  • Provides contact information for potential volunteers.