In recent decades, there has been a steadily increasing number of archaeological discoveries, which are called "Out-Of-Place" (short: "OoParts") artefacts because of their mysterious and highly controversial classification.
These are objects that were found in the wrong place, contrary to an original scientific opinion. Sometimes such artefacts are found in geological strata, for example, where mainstream science believes they do not really belong because the age of the earth's strata goes back too far in time.
Such finds in geologically very old strata sometimes give non-traditional followers of science proof of an epoch of "human" individuals whose technical finesse was far beyond the inventive possibilities of ancient peoples known to us and therefore give rise to new speculations. Whether this is always the case is up to each individual case.
Since one repeatedly comes across artefacts which basically astound orthodox science and sometimes provide clues to old - sometimes technologically highly developed - cultures, these should also be brought into the public eye more often.
However, the danger posed by counterfeiting cannot be dismissed.
Among the "OoParts" is, for example, a 22 cm engraved disc from Bogota (Colombia), weighing about 2 kilos with a hole in the middle, apparently belonging to a "professor" Jaime Gutierrez Lega (industrial designer, architect and amateur archaeologist) from Bogota (Colombia). One has to admit that a concrete location of this piece cannot be proven at this point. According to Gutierrez Lega, he acquired this disc from a treasure hunter or grave robber. He apparently told this to Erich v. Däniken earlier (1982) (at least he knew about it). Allegedly the "treasure hunter" had found the Stückk on his Finca while laying a water pipe. A story without a real beginning ... So far, so bad ...
It is said to be made of black hard stone - a material that is almost as hard as granite; this is claimed in some places. However, there are fundamental differences between the two types of rock, which can also affect the way the material is worked - regardless of what it is. It is said that engraving in the present form is not possible even with today's technical means.
Dr. Vera M. F. Hammer (>> http://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/vera_m_f_hammer / scientific assistant, head of the mineral collection, head of the State Gemstone Institute at the Museum of Natural History in Vienna), is also said to have made a statement. Here too, there are contradictory sources.
One source claims to have found traces of weathering on the pane after appropriate analysis (but no written evidence of this can be found to date). The other source claims that Dr. Hammer has proved by some kind of analysis that it is only a mixture of feldspar, quartz and mica.
An age determination would allegedly not be possible here.
Unfortunately, there are neither clear written statements nor test certificates available. This disc could just as well be a replica or modern work of art.
At this point, at the latest, one has to postpone the speculations about age dating for a while, as long as the owner is not willing to provide evidence of the place of discovery or at least a clear proof of material.
In the meantime I have written to Dr Hammer and talked to her on the phone: In any case, the nature of the material should no longer be the subject of rumours. She wrote to me today: "... at that time the minerals feldspar, quartz and mica were determined radiographically. My boss at the time, Dr. Robert Seemann, who was in charge of the Petrographic Collection, had referred to the rock as lydite, a rock that consists mainly of these three minerals.
As I was still not 100% satisfied with this statement, I checked again by phone. As I am not a pure mineralogist, I was interested to see if I could deduce from the statement whether both are the same. I asked her and she told me that the combination of feldspar, quartz and mica CAN be the basis for lydite, but does not have to be. It would depend on the mixing ratio and the composition, i.e. the proportions of all 3 components would then have to be in an appropriate ratio to each other to meet the definition of lydite. My question, whether this was tested in order to accept Lydite without any doubt as a total material composition, was answered in the negative. At that time it was not tested for the appropriate mixing ratio. However, the result would in any case come close to this lydite. She also used the terms "granular rock" and "black clay slate". One could also describe this disk materially as "black clay slate".
Along the way she dropped that she can also remember some kind of coating or glaze on it. She admitted, however, that at that time the possibilities of X-ray fluorescence analysis were not yet available to investigate the qualitative and quantitative determination of the elemental composition.
In no case can one make a statement about the possible age of this disc. So the controversial battle between prejudiced doubters and good believers is likely to go on for a while.
Similar to the open age and the missing find site, the interpretation of the artefact is also similar:
The symbols or drawings on the plate are separated from each other by vertical lines running to the centre.
One side of the plate offers biological details of human development: Male sperm, female eggs and human genitals, a fertilised egg and a growing embryo. The male sperm and female eggs shown here could probably only have been detected by microscopes if they were really "old". Or they would have had to have had correspondingly "whispered" knowledge.
On the other hand, the stages of cell division are also curious. The chronological phases of the course of pregnancy are clearly visible on the plate. Noticeable are the widely spaced eyes and the broad nose of a presumed foetus.
Nevertheless, the scope for interpretation of the symbols is certainly greater overall than it appears at first glance.
This may all be very exciting, but I would prefer to postpone the different approaches until such time as a method can be found to make a reasonably reliable age prognosis or to clear the whole thing beyond any doubt of suspicion of forgery. Until then it is "only" a thoroughly decorative coaster for me. I am always looking forward to news with an adequate background - even if with such finds it will probably never be possible to clarify all circumstances completely beyond doubt.
Other artefacts from the South American region are circulating on the net, which could be interesting and also fit into the field of gynaecology and anthropology to a large extent, but would also have to be questioned. Unfortunately, the site of discovery, material check, etc. is regularly missing here.