It’s been years since I looked into this one (the same as I commented to someone else about another object). I didn’t find a specific make/model then, but I also didn’t spend a lot of time on it. The general look of it was enough lean on Occam’s razor for the rest.

I’ve not read of any such analysis, but it’s been years since I looked into this bowl. I want to say I remember a comment that it was made of local stone, but this is more a memory of a memory at this point. The carvings were most definitely *not* actual cuneiform but are consistent with what might have been carved by someone that had spent time looking at cuneiform but didn’t have it with them as they carved. Some of the symbols were *almost* correct, but not quite. As a fake, I find it to be pretty cool and, at this point, it’s an historical piece since it was created decades ago at this point. It has value in that regard.

It seems like you have a reason for stating that the aluminum wedge was an excavator tooth.

Would you happen to know the specific make/model or technical drawing of an aluminum excavator bucket tooth that matches the Aiud wedge’s dimensions, alloy, holes, and wear pattern closely enough to rule out other modern machine parts?

That sounds more like some junior marketing hack at the publisher.

And I agree, Graham could have let the ancients’ method stand as undetermined or unknown sciences, rather than ESP.

Archeology is Not a Hard Science

My comment that archeology is an art rather than a science, well, I’ll be more precise.

Hard Science: Math is a formal science, the foundation of those sciences requiring experimental manipulation and reproducibility; physics, chemistry, geophysics, biology, engineering, computer science, and others.

Soft sciences, such as psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, archeology, political science, philosophy and demography are characterized by indirect measurement, limited experimental control, theory under-determination by data, and dependence on interpretive frameworks. Data are frequently incomplete, or non-repeatable. These features increase reliance on theoretical, framing and contextual judgment.

Graham Hancock

The thing that gets me about Graham Hancock is that he has been keenly driven to understanding ancient phenomenon that has been ignored or dismissed by modern and arbitrary schools of archaeology and anthropology.

He did not come from those schools, but because of that, he was not limited by them. He can explore and look at something new and look at it without blinders. And he had a gift for seeing patterns and connections.

What he’s able to do as a result is find the anomalies and the oddities that measure quite older than established scientific wisdom will allow. He is self taught, and intensely curious and is able to make connections where others refused to explore.

The truth is that all advances in science have come from the minds and mouths of lunatics.

We didn’t have advances because we looked for them. We had advances because there were people who challenged conventional wisdom.

Copernicus, Galileo, Fermi, Morse, Tesla, Edison, Marconi each withstood barrages of derision the real scientific scholars. And each and every one of them stood on the path of progress to lay their own brick in the name of advancement.

They were all heretics. Look up the meaning of the word ‘heretic’ and you will find that it comes from the Ancient Greek word ‘heriticos’, meaning “one who is able to choose”.

I, for one, believe Graham and enjoy reading about his bricks.

H2IK

H2IK = “Heck If I Know”

Sorry for the delay. I lost track of your website. Found it. I want to reread your review before I answer later today.