In September 2009, we sent four figurines from the Voldemar Giulsrud Museum in Acambaro for laboratory examination. These samples were brought from the March expedition to Mexico. One of them was examined for plaster patina at the Museum of Mineralogists of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This time, the samples were sent to St. Petersburg to the isotope center at the Department of Geology and Geoecology of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen.
First of all, micromorphological studies of four sculptures were carried out:
Sample 1.
Sample 2.
Sample 3.
Sample 4.
Analysis of these samples led to the following conclusions:
1. The ceramic figurines were made by open firing, ie. fired at the stake, not in the oven.
Promotional video:
2. The kaolinite clays, from which the presented samples were made, have a similar composition, but most likely come from different places. The final conclusion requires a spectral analysis of clays taken from various locations in Mexico. At the moment, this seems to be somewhat difficult for us.
3. The manufacturing technology of the figurines differs in details (the composition of the dough, the use of a weaker, the coating of some figurines with a special composition to make them black).
Those. the main conclusion: the studied figurines were made by different craftsmen from different places. Thus, the argument of skeptics is refuted, suggesting that these are modern crafts of local hoaxers. In principle, this was already known. But it is one thing when such conclusions are made by enthusiasts or even specialists after a visual examination, and quite another thing when we receive an official expert opinion based on the results of laboratory research in an academic scientific institution. As they say, here is the document: ceramics-mexico.pdf 280 Kb
But the main goal for us was to conduct a radiocarbon analysis of the available ceramic samples from Acambaro. Unfortunately, we failed here. The largest dinosaur figurine (Sample 1) was used for the analysis. Its length was 17 cm. The resulting amount of benzene (0.15 ml) was completely insufficient for analysis (more precisely, after purification and distillation of the benzene obtained, nothing remained). For radiocarbon research, samples are required here in 2 - 2.5 times. And we don't have those. Those. this research has to be postponed until the next trip to Mexico, from which we expect to bring the necessary material.
We would like to express our deep gratitude to Marianna Kulkova, Candidate of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences, who carried out these laboratory studies.
PS It is difficult to refrain from "throwing a stone into someone else's garden." In 2005, the then director of the Giulsruda Museum, Miguel Huerta, sent 4 dinosaur sculptures for thermoluminescence analysis to the Thermoluminescence Laboratory of the Institute of Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. The samples were examined there and the corresponding conclusions were issued (see below). We will not provide the full technical translation, but only the last paragraphs.
Interpretation: On the obtained thermoluminescent curves, the TD mark is located just below 400 ° C. This position may have been influenced by X-ray propagation, so it should be concluded that the item was made and fired recently (see appendix for a more detailed explanation).
Conclusion: fake.
Note: Due to the small amount of material and the lack of other (chemical) elements, authenticity tests, by definition, do not allow thermoluminescence (TL) dating.
Like this: in a simple way, in Mexican. First, we draw a conclusion about the modern origin of the subject, and then we sign the inconsistency of the research. There is simply no logic. But now any skeptic (if he owns the topic, of course) can claim that laboratory studies have “proven” the modern origin of the dinosaur sculptures from Acambaro …
By the way, we saw these sculptures in March. By this time they were returned to the museum. So, all the samples had traces of samples for analysis on their "belly" - cone-shaped holes about 15-18 mm in diameter and 5-7 mm deep. And we didn't have enough sculpture for radiocarbon. Which we have to admit. Which approach is more scientific?
The TL method is widely used for dating ceramics and, according to experts, is quite reliable. But. When taking and transporting samples, it is necessary to avoid various effects of sunlight, cleaning of samples, various types of radiation. All this affects the electron-hole transitions in atoms, and the result can be erroneous. And four sculptures, sent for analysis to the TL laboratory, were taken from the museum exposition (from the windows), in which they had stood for three years before. What can we say about the purity of the examination?
Andrey Zhukov