Aluminium Ooparts classified as spindle-whorl?

The British Museum may have some possible Out of Place Artifacts (OOPARTS) that are currently classified as spindle-whorls by mainstream archaeologists - could some of these misclassified proof of ancient forgotten technologies?

Aluminium mechanical looking object

To me, the artifact below looks like it is made of aluminium; this would be impossible according to mainstream archaeologists though as aluminium was not manufactured as a metal before the 19th century. If it is not aluminium then what else could it be considering it is not rusted and has no patina - very weird.

It also looks like a mechanical piece of something larger.

Undated, Middle East (Asia,Afghanistan,Herat (province)).



Registration number: As1973,07.21.b

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Looking at the collection that it is associated with at the British Museum, it could possibly have been made as recently as the 19th century. It is not part of their "ancient" collections but their anthropological acquisitions, which date from late 18th century mostly, just when we were having colonial contacts with those peoples.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Looking at the collection that it is associated with at the British Museum, it could possibly have been made as recently as the 19th century. It is not part of their "ancient" collections but their anthropological acquisitions, which date from late 18th century mostly, just when we were having colonial contacts with those peoples.

It would be interesting with a precise date of the find. However, aluminum was not wide-spread until the 20th century. Here is an example of how high-tech aluminum was even in the early 20th century; when Wilbur and Orville Wright, American aircraft designers, in 1903 flew a controlled aerial vehicle, the Flyer-1, a completely new engine with aluminium parts was developed to make the flight possible. So, a tribe in Afghanistan having aluminum "items" in the 19th century already I think is unlikely.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The idea of a spindle whorl is to add weight to the spindle for increased momentum... to keep it spinning longer. Aluminum would not be a good choice of material for a spindle whorl because it is relatively light.
If it is aluminum, maybe it is not a spindle whorl.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I see a piece of pewter.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I see a piece of pewter.

If it is pewter it looks very fresh.

Where is the patina that usually comes with old pewter?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I see a piece of pewter.

It's almost going to have to be aluminum, given the weight for the volume.

a reply to: nonspecific

i was looking down in the hole and the patina in there, and the brownish/grey of it.

but bedlam is right....the weight/volume indicates a density that is more like aluminum.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Are we to think that the holding institution or some other agency has not tested that material to absolutely determine its content? If that has not been done, then why, lack of interest, lack of funds or not wanting to know something that is beyond the pale of what is the official line of archeology and history?

You can't judge an object by how it "looks".

1 cubic inch = 16.387064 cubic centimeters

one cubic inch of aluminum weighs 1.5 ounces
www.ask.com...

The weight of the object in the museum is 1.516780oz
www.metric-conversions.org...

However, that object isn't a cubic inch in volume. It's less.

If you pretend that it's a solid cone, the volume is 12.566370614359172 cc

We don't have enough information to accurately derive the volume (formula for a frustum is here: jwilson.coe.uga.edu... and then you'd have to remove the volume of the central hole (a cylinder) -- but the end result is that you have a lot less volume than 1 cubic inch.

Therefore, it's not aluminum.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditationIt is hand formed, and appears to be a tapered spacer. I cant get the link to come up. anyone have another link to the story? How old is it, and where was it found?

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Are we to think that the holding institution or some other agency has not tested that material to absolutely determine its content? If that has not been done, then why, lack of interest, lack of funds or not wanting to know something that is beyond the pale of what is the official line of archeology and history?

if you can find any testing to verify, please post.

Otherwise, i would assume that it, like countless other pieces, has yet to be fully analyzed. And its still better off than the countless pieces lying in a bin just waiting to have someone take a look at it. Let alone having an image taken of it.

Nevermind, math wrong.

originally posted by: Byrd
You can't judge an object by how it "looks".

1 cubic inch = 16.387064 cubic centimeters

one cubic inch of aluminum weighs 1.5 ounces
www.ask.com...

The weight of the object in the museum is 1.516780oz
www.metric-conversions.org...

However, that object isn't a cubic inch in volume. It's less.

If you pretend that it's a solid cone, the volume is 12.566370614359172 cc

We don't have enough information to accurately derive the volume (formula for a frustum is here: jwilson.coe.uga.edu... and then you'd have to remove the volume of the central hole (a cylinder) -- but the end result is that you have a lot less volume than 1 cubic inch.

Therefore, it's not aluminum.

Byrd, when I calculate the volume and weight I get the volume to be 1 in³ and it thus weighing 1.5 ounces since 1 in³ of pure aluminum weighs 1.5 ounces. In my example below I've illustrated my math:

I used the picture to estimate the radius of the center hole to be 1.29 cm (orange) and its outer ring to be 1.78 cm (green), see illustration below.



diameter (d) := 4 cm
height (h) := 3 cm

First, get the Volume of the Truncated Cone

r1 := (d / 2.25) / 2 => ~0.89
r2 := d / 2 => 1 cm

Volume of Truncated Cone := 1/3 * 3.14 * 3 cm * (r1² + r2² + r1 + r2) => ~20.65 cm³

Online truncated cone calculator

Secondly, get the Volume of the inner Cylinder

Diameter of Cylinder := 4 cm / 3.11 => ~1.29 cm (see drawing)
Length of Cylinder := 3 cm
Volume of Cylinder := ~3.9 cm³

Online Volume of Cylinder calculator

Finally, subtract the Volume of Cylinder from the Volume of the Truncated Cone

Volume of Truncated Cone - Volume of Cylinder => 20.65 cm³ - 3.9 cm³ => 16.75 cm³

Online cubic centimeters to cubic inches calculator

16.75 cm³ equals 1.022148 in³ according to the conversion tool above, as one cubic inch of aluminum weighs 1.5 ounces and the weight of the museum piece is the same (44 grams equals 1.5 ounces) it must be aluminum.

-MM

Rampant speculation without regarding the facts, once again.
First the items provenance, previous to the aquisition by the museum (which was 1973) is unknow to us.
Second if anyone had actually followed up on the link to the collector you will find that the entire collection is from the 20th century.
Fantastical baseless speculation.

And to attempt to discern the type of metal based on a photo is ludicrous.

And as a PROFESSIONAL metal worker, i can tell you its not aluminum, it has casting inclusions and voids, and there is no way they were pouring aluminum in the tribal areas of afghanistan.

a reply to: punkinworks10

And why would the British Museum have a modern aluminium nut in their collection and classify it as a spindle-whorl from the Middle East. We're talking the British Museum here, and I don't think they would be tricked easily into buying something without the sufficient provenance. I would like to know more obout the item though.

-MM

originally posted by: punkinworks10
and there is no way they were pouring aluminum in the tribal areas of afghanistan.

There's no way they were manufacturing AK47s either, but they still seem to have a few. It could have come from anywhere. Though I'm not arguing with your expert opinion on whether it is aluminium.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
classify it as a spindle-whorl from the Middle East. We're talking the British Museum here, and I don't think they would be tricked easily into buying something without the sufficient provenance.

Who says they were tricked? They bought an interesting collection, maybe for a small amount money. If you have a look at what they bought from the same guy:

www.britishmuseum.org...
There are 443 items, some of which are clearly marked as 20th century. They might not care about the spindle-whorl, and just bought the collection for other items they wanted. Or just to stick it all in their anthropological archive.

a reply to: FatherLukeDuke
I wasn't as clear as i could have been, if it is aluminum its was smelted out or reworked out of existing aluminum, mfg'd somewhere else. But the aluminum was not made from ore in the tribal areas, thats a first world endevor that requires copious amounts of AC electrcity and all of the infrastructure that goes with it.

The main reason I'm saying its not Aluminum is that the british museum curators would have been easily able to tell if it was aluminum, the fact they call it "metal" indicates to me that it is one of those alloys that only chemical analysis would be able to pin down.
Since there was a sample of native antimony in the collection I'm leaning towards an Antimony/zinc alloy of some sort, some of which can be fairly light.

Here's a stone spindle whorl from the Minoan era:

www.metmuseum.org...

I haven't been able to find any metal ones. Thought it might have been the tip of an umbrella (ferrule), but didn't find anything.

That item looks like it could be platinum or silver.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: FatherLukeDuke
Since there was a sample of native antimony in the collection I'm leaning towards an Antimony/zinc alloy of some sort, some of which can be fairly light.

I don't see how you cana make an alloy as light as alumunum using Antimony and Zinc. Antimony weigh 3.9 ounces per cubic inch and Zinc weighs 4.1 ounces per cubic inch, while aluminium weighs 1.5 ounces per cubic inch; just how are you going to make something just as light as aluminium mixing elements that are 3-4 times heavier?

The item weighs 1.5 ouches and has a volume of 1 cubic inch - exactly what aluminium weighs (weighs 1.5 ounces per cubic inch )

-MM