The Fuente Magna Bowl: Still Fake

4/13/2015

I was overwhelmed with a tsunami of work today, so I ran out of time for writing. I also received a number of emails today from readers who (a) believe I am Scott Wolter and want me to explore and/or promote their local rocks or (b) think I am Giorgio Tsoukalos and want to report on their alien abductions, have him explain their strange prophetic dreams, or buy one of his gold pre-Columbian “airplane” lapel pins. I can’t fathom how anyone can write to me on a website bearing my name and an email address that also features my name and not realize that I am not either Scott Wolter or Giorgio Tsoukalos. Since these emails have ranged into the hundreds over the last three years or so, what does this say about reading comprehension?

It also turns out that I am wrong (in a very minor way) about the Fuente Magna bowl, according to archaeologist Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews blogging over at Bad Archaeology. You’ll remember the Fuente Magna bowl as an alleged Sumerian (or proto-Sumerian) container discovered in Bolivia in the late 1950s or early 1960s. The object became famous in the fringe world after 2000 when it was featured in the documentary Atlantis in the Andes. I had described the object in reviewing Ancient Aliens S04E06 and stated that “no one paid attention to it until” the documentary. Fitzpatrick-Matthews would like everyone to know that this is not correct. A man named Mario Montaño Aragón wrote about its alleged cuneiform inscription in Raíces semíticas en la religiosidad aymará y kichua (Biblioteca Popular de Ultima Hora, 1979). Well obviously the claim had to come from somewhere! The accuracy of my statement depends on whether you agree that I was trying to state that the object wasn’t famous in fringe circles, not that no one wrote of it at all. I stand corrected in that someone did in fact refer to the bowl and its alleged inscription in 1979; I ought to have put “much” before “attention.” There are occasional references to the bowl here and there between 1979 and 2000, particularly in Spanish-language sources, but it didn’t become an object of widespread fringe speculation until after.

None of this changes the conclusion that the object is a fake. I agree entirely with Fitzpatrick-Matthews: “It looks to have been executed by someone who has seen a cuneiform text and is attempting to copy it onto a surface that they have no skill in working. To put it bluntly, it looks like a fake.”

Fitzpatrick-Matthews’s post is well worth the read. Be sure to check it out!

20 Comments

Steve

4/13/2015 11:46:51 am

I think it says a lot about the reading comprehension of the fans of those two individuals.

I read through the section on the hammer on the Bad Arch post, but kind of lost interest after that. I did venture to the linked site for a bit. Now there's some craziness.

SouthCoast

4/13/2015 12:11:17 pm

The bowl, from the photo, looks a whole lot like early 20th Century tourist or home decor tat. Orientalism and an interest in early archaeological expeditions not only in Egypt (as with Tut) but in the Middle East had, for better or worse, an effect upon popular taste at all economic levels.

Only Me

4/13/2015 12:11:55 pm

Fitzpatrick-Matthews:

"Perhaps I am wasting my time. On the other hand, given the sheer numbers of sites that make wrong claims about the past, I feel duty bound to provide a voice of reason. If I am able to correct at least one person’s misconceptions, then I hope that my efforts are worthwhile."

THIS. THIS is why such efforts are worthwhile. To Hell with "change the channel/turn it off". Aiding and abetting ignorance is as bad as peddling it to make money.

Jack Handy

3/15/2018 03:09:24 pm

Hmm...what if the "Fitzpatrick-Matthews" is the one who is spreading ignorance. Bad science stars with the scientist. Remember the many great discoveries in archeology and physics that were quickly dismissed by the scientist because it went against the dogmatic views.
True seekers of knowledge do not close their minds to the possibility of the the impossible.
Isaac Newton for example, well respected scientist, gave us a better understanding of gravity and calculus. He was also an avid alchemist in search of the Philosophers stone, and also wrote a controversial book called 'The Chronology Of Ancient Kingdoms Amended' which describes the ruling years of kings in Egypt, Summeria, and India. Some ruled longer than a natural humans life.
Archeologist like to think that they are also qualified geologist, engineers, and astronomers. Often negating what other specialist say in these fields that would oppose their mainstream dogmatic views.

carl feagans link

3/15/2018 08:15:35 pm

Fitzpatrick-Matthews may be wrong. I also wrote about this apparent fraud of an artifact (http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2017/11/fuente-magna-bowl-not-cuneiform-not-sumerian/).

I invite you to read both KF-M and my own article then come back here with the informed critique of where either or both of us might be wrong and why.

The short story is, the writing on the bowl isn't cuneiform. Nor is it Sumerian.

And, for the record, I've yet to meet an archaeologist that thought they were fully qualified as geologists, engineers, and astronomers that didn't already have educations and experience in those fields. I'd be interested in who, specifically, you might be referring to in that attempted jibe.

Clete

4/13/2015 12:57:41 pm

You know, Jason, if you wanted a vacation (both physically and from reality) you go out and look at someone's rocks. Show up, look stern, with a iron jaw and glint in your eye. Hammer on the rocks for thirty-seven seconds and then, in a grave voice say "This will change history. These carving show that Henry Sinclair was here and claimed all of the land around here for the Knights Templar. He buried this land claim, so that six hundred years later it could be found by you."

A.D.

4/13/2015 03:41:23 pm

Maybe they think you're an advocate of pseudo history and think you can help them with their delusions.Pseudo history attracts the ignorant.They're not aware of the bullshit they've been feed by these con artist.It seems pseudo history/archaeology is the real "mainstream" now than real archaeology.

Hypatia

4/13/2015 07:01:00 pm

"It looks to have been executed by someone who has seen a cuneiform text and is attempting to copy it..." (Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews)
That's what it looks like to me too. Those translations must be out of the translators' psychodream world.
The bowl might even be the creation of a local artist who just happened to like little cuneiform triangles and used them as a motif, after seeing pictures and talking to Mormon missionaries, to give the bowl a 'sacred' look and decorate the inside of the bowl, while chewing on coca leaves.

Mark L

4/13/2015 07:21:57 pm

I say publish the craziest letters, have bit of fun with it.

Then say, "I'll come and look at your dumb rock, I just need a plane ticket and a hotel".

MartyR

4/22/2015 09:21:58 am

Dear Scott,

You look different on TV than you do on your blog photo.

Malcolm link

9/24/2015 08:45:35 pm

Are you saying then that all the carvings and sculptures found at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, Sumeria, Persia, Ecuador, Bolivia - all featuring what looks like a handbag - must all be fakes? If so then what is it that Aldi have on special in Australia from tomorrow which looks the same and only Aussie$199?

shantiq

4/21/2016 01:36:08 pm

smells and looks like a fake

A kind friend

8/24/2018 11:53:41 pm

Hi,

So the problem with 99% of the people who comment or even write these assessments, besides their lack of credentials, is they have never been to the sites themselves. Haven't been there, haven't studied corroborating evidence, haven't even handled the actual subject in which they speak authoritatively about. It is a sad state when someone judges who isn't experienced, has never experienced, hasn't even been in the vacinity of the experience, in particular above 11,000ft and in the Alto Plano, lakeside and deep inside the mystery. Sad.

Aneliya Nikolova

11/25/2024 11:28:44 pm

Of course. From first, second etc, look. Totaly agree: "The problem however is that the object was not found in an archaeological excavation; it simply appeared. Another problem is that the bowl is utterly unlike any Sumerian object of the third millennium BCE, or the millennia before and after. The inscription is comprised of triangles and lines, reminiscent of Mesopotamian cuneiform writing, although not of the Sumerian period. But a closer look suggests the inscription is simply geometric filler or deliberate gibberish. And if anything, the face on the interior looks more like something produced by the local Tiwanaku culture (ca. 200-1000 CE)."https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2016/09/ask-near-eastern-professional

Carl Feagans link

2/27/2017 12:01:58 pm

I never noticed the Bad Archaeology post on the bowl until today (the bowl is making its rounds again on Facebook), but apparently I also got something wrong according to Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews when I stated that the bowl has no provenience ("None. Nada. Zilch. We have anecdotes of it being discovered."

I would certainly agree with KF-M that there is some limited provenance (in that it can be traced to the person who alleged to have "found" it), but that's where the trail ends cold and with much question. I stand by my statement that there is nothing in the way of provenience that would satisfy even an archaeologist with passing interest. None. Nada. Zilch. We're left with an anecdote.

In other words, we don't know what the context of the find is in relation to a larger site. This is very likely because the person that "found" it probably "made" it.

Lawrence David Hamilton link

12/7/2017 02:26:48 pm

So, since you can find a town or village/city to tie it to it must be fake. Do you have the same opinion for the Helicopter in the ceiling support beam in a building Ramses had built. what about the dead sea scrolls and the other texts in that cave find the place to get their origin? those goat herders most have made them too.Remember it is not as it appears more then it is what you first think.

CARL FEAGANS link

12/7/2017 02:55:42 pm

There are a lot of reasons for it to be fake, but I don't think I've every suggested that because it's tied to a village it must be fake.

It's *probably* fake because the "cuneiform" isn't real.
It's probably fake because the alleged "proto-Sumerian" isn't really a thing nor is it "proto-cuneiform."
It's probably fake because Sumerians didn't know about Bolivia at all.
And so on....

Also, there is no helicopter on any building commissioned for construction by Ramses or any other ruler of Egypt before helicopters were invented. The inscription set you're probably referring to is a palimpsest and the image of a helicopter is pareidolic since it's a combination of two symbols from two different passages. One was filled in then re-etched. The filling eroded out and we're left with a "helicopter-like."

Brian Johnston

3/2/2017 10:50:12 am

I think the resemblance to cuneiform is just coincidence,

Diana

4/26/2018 01:37:41 pm

You Sir are an Asshole. I suppose if I looked like you, I would be to.

Rinaldo Simas link

11/26/2018 02:06:29 pm

Jason,
I believe have found the evidence sought by Fawcett in 1925 in the Amazon . He walked in the meridian 55W. Such evidence found n the Meridian 60 W. Construction on stones with parallelograms formats.
Submerged in lake of the region.

Thank you.
Rinaldo Simas
Manaus- Brasil

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

The Fuente Magna Bowl: Still Fake

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives