The Coso artifact
About sixty years ago was discovered an artifact that was destined to become the subject of heated discussion in the dispute between creationists and evolutionists. The "Coso artifact" or "Coso geode" (actually a clay rock) discovered on February 13, 1961 in California can upset current knowledge about the age of our planet.
Unfortunately the circumstances of the discovery, the lack of verifiable testimonies and the impossibility of analyzing the object since it disappeared, lead us to certainly lean towards the classic farce, albeit well orchestrated.
Wallace Lane, Virginia Maxey and Mike Mikesell, who had a souvenir shop in Olancha, California, often went hunting for geodes (round stones with cavities covered in crystals) and in 1961 found something similar on the hills of the Coso mountain range (hence the name of it). After cutting it, instead of a crystal they realized they were dealing with an unknown form of some mechanical device, surrounded by a white substance: a small cylinder of porcelain or ceramic, with copper rings around it and a shiny metallic, without apparent traces of oxidation rod in the center.
A geologist, whose name is not even known, would have declared that by analyzing the external cover it was possible to hypothesize a dating of half a million years but Virginia Maxey, the same one who had cited this elusive geologist, later declared that perhaps it was only an artefact dating back to a few decades earlier.
From what we know, the object was analyzed by Ron Calais, a collaborator of Brad Steiger (a well-known paranormal writer) who following some x-rays analysis noticed the presence of a thin helix-shaped metal spring. Calais, who was also responsible for the few photographs still available today of the artefact, provided this initial info to the INFO Journal of Ivan Terence Sanderson and the editor Paul J. Willes, together with his brother Ron wrote an article in 1969, which remains the main source of information today.
While suggesting the hypothesis that it was a spark plug from an engine, he claimed, without any proof, it could date back to unknown eras and civilisations. Wallace Lane, who held the find, refused to give it to the Willes for further and more in-depth analysis, trying instead to sell it to the highest bidder for $25,000.
From that moment the object disappeared. Research in this regard is useless, considering that one of the discoverers is dead, the other has disappeared while the third prefers not to say anything. A spark plug expert in 1999, Chad Windham, president of the Spark Plug Collectors of America which dealt with the collection of electric spark plugs, was consulted and had no difficulty explaining that the artifact was a common Champion electric spark plug dating back to 1920, already in use on the engines of some Ford models. The comparison between the photographs of the artefact and a pair of these candles, one of which was dismantled, dispelled any remaining doubts. Although it is impossible to analyze the artefact, in the area of the alleged discovery there existed, in the early 1900s, a mine in which it is possible that machinery equipped with a combustion engine was used and therefore the presence of this candle would also make sense.
A recent artefact
The formation of a geode takes a long time but in our case, before venturing into assigning a biblical age to the artefact, it will be good to remember that the one from Coso is not strictly a geode as it does not have the right characteristics: there are no layers of quartz crystals on the inside and not even a chalcedony crust on the outside.
This observation also significantly affects the age of the mechanism. The formation of the clay rock under examination can easily coexist with the dating of the candle. Practical examples in this sense can be found in the study of the archaeologist J. M. Cronyn who in the volume "Elements of Archaeological Conservation" (published in 1990) offers clear examples with X-ray images of contemporary objects decayed into oxide nodules, such as a bolt, a padlock and a belt buckle.
A few decades are then enough for the agglomerate to harden again.
The formation of these iron oxide nodules, in the case of our artefact, may have been favored by the corrosive mineral dust dispersed by the wind blowing on the dry bed of Lake Owen, right in the area where the candle was found. Despite the evidence, even today the find is cited as "controversial" proof of the existence of ancient civilizations. Instead, as we have seen, we find ourselves faced with an exhibit (indeed, some photographs that portray it) which does not meet, not even in the slightest part, those basic requirements indispensable for proceeding with an in-depth analysis.
The evidence or clues to look for to confirm the existence of an ancient civilization are very different.
