Richard Feynman suggests that this device is a fake or is not properly dated. He reaches that conclusion based on the fact that no simpler devices are in the archaeological record. Has it been shown that it is in fact from that era (circa 100BC)?
Thanks,
Rob Dennett
My first thought was “Richard Feynman’s still alive?”
Anyway, I don’t see why it’s a big deal. Heck, the Phaistos Disk is similiarly impressive.
Cite? Not being a smart ass. A link to what the heck you are talking about would be nice. Most of us aren’t experts on everything. Sometimes I even like to learn something new.
I thought the Phaistos disc was agreed to be a fake? Is there argument about this? Hmm (rushes off to Wikipedia). . .
It’s highly unlikely that it’s fake. While nothing similar has been turned up from that time period, we do have descriptions of things which probably had the same or nearly identical mechanisms from around that time. That none of them have survived to the present day isn’t really surprising as metal was a highly valuable commodity back then, and no doubt would have been cannabalized for some other use over the centuries. Or, we might simply not be looking in the right places. A lot of modern cities are built on the remains of ancient ones
Certainly, given the technological ability of people at the time, it was something that they could have made.
Not as far as I know - there’s massive controversy over the interpretation of the symbols on it, but nothing I’ve read seriously suggests it’s not a genuine archaeological find.
My ex-boss had his own set of pet theories on it and was writing a book about it - apparently it was found amongst ashes and it is his contention that it would not have been an uncommon item - but just that this example was preserved by accidental firing of the clay.