This story began in July 1944. Waldemar Julsrud ran a hardware business in Acambaro, a small town about 300 km north of Mexico City. Early one morning, while riding a horse ride along the slopes of El Toro Hill, he saw several hewn stones and pottery fragments protruding from the soil. Julsrud was a German native who moved to Mexico in the late 19th century. He was seriously interested in Mexican archeology, and back in 1923, together with Padre Martinez, he was digging a cultural monument of Chupicauro eight miles from the El Toro hill. Later, the Chupikauro culture was dated to the period of 500 BC. - 500 AD
Voldemar Julsrud was well versed in Mexican antiquities and therefore immediately realized that the finds on the El Toro hill could not be attributed to any culture known at that time. Dzhulsrud began his own research. True, not being a professional scientist, he acted very simply at first - he hired a local peasant named Odilon Tinajero, promising to pay him one peso (then it was equal to about 12 cents) for each whole artifact. Therefore, Tinajero was very careful during the excavations, and accidentally glue the broken objects together before taking them to Julsrud. This is how the collection of Dzhulsrud began to form, the replenishment of which was continued by Voldemar's son Carlos Djulsrud, and then by his grandson Carlos II.
In the end, the collection of Dzhulsrud amounted to several tens of thousands of artifacts - according to some sources there were 33.5 thousand, according to others - 37 thousand! The collection consisted of several main categories of artifacts: the most numerous were figurines made of various types of clay, made using the technique of hand molding and fired by the method of open firing. The second category is stone sculptures and the third is ceramics. The most remarkable fact was that there was not a single duplicate sculpture in the entire collection! The sizes of the figurines varied from a dozen centimeters to 1 m in height and 1.5 m in length. In addition to them, the collection included musical instruments, masks, obsidian and jade instruments. Along with the artifacts, several human skulls, the skeleton of a mammoth and the teeth of an Ice Age horse were found during excavations. During the lifetime of Voldemar Djulsrud, his entire collection, packed, occupied 12 rooms in his house.
Promotional video:
In the collection of Dzhulsrud there were many anthropomorphic figurines representing an almost complete set of racial types of humanity - Mongoloids, Africanoids, Caucasoids (including those with beards), Polynesian type, and so on. But that was not what made his collection the sensation of the century. Approximately 2,600 figurines were images of dinosaurs! Moreover, the variety of types of dinosaurs is truly amazing. Among them there are easily recognizable and well-known species to paleontological science: brachiosaurus, iguanodon, tyrannosaurus rex, pteranodon, ankylosaurus, plesiosaurus and many others. There are a huge number of figurines that modern scientists cannot identify, including the winged “dragon dinosaurs”. But the most striking thing is that the collection contains a significant number of images of humans along with dinosaurs of various species. The iconography of the images suggests the only thought that humans and dinosaurs coexisted in close contact. Moreover, this coexistence included the entire spectrum of relationships - from the struggle between two such incompatible species of living beings to, possibly, the domestication of dinosaurs by man.
The now extinct mammals - the American camel and the Ice Age horse, the Pleistocene giant monkeys, and so on - were represented in smaller numbers in the collection of Dzhulsrud.
It was this component of the Djulsrud collection that served as the reason for the long history of suppression and discrediting of the finds of Voldemar Djulsrud. This is understandable, since the fact of coexistence and close interaction of man and dinosaur not only refutes the linear evolutionism of the theory of the origin of species on Earth, but comes into irreconcilable contradiction with the entire modern worldview paradigm.
From the very beginning of his research, Voldemar Julsrud tried to attract the attention of the scientific community to his findings, but in the early years he was faced with the fact that his attempts were completely ignored. Even the publication of a book on the collection by him at his own expense in 1947 did not induce academic scholars to show any interest in it.
Finally, in 1950, the American journalist Lowell Harmer came to Acambaro. He attended the excavations on the El Toro hill and even photographed Dzhulsrud with the newly dug dinosaur figurines (Dzhulsrud was already personally involved in excavations by this time). (Los Angeles Times, March 25, 1951). Following them, Los Angeles journalist William Russell published an article about the excavations of Julsrud with photographs of the work process. In his publication, Russell indicated that the artifacts were removed from a depth of 5-6 feet (1.5 m) and many objects were entwined with plant roots, so Russell had no doubts about the authenticity of the finds. (“Fate”, March, 1952, June, 1953). These publications played a role in popularizing the Djulsrud collection and breached a conspiracy of silence among academic scholars.
In 1952 the professional scientist Charles Dipeso became interested in the collection. Previously, samples of the figurines were sent to him and although laboratory tests did not give any intelligible picture, Dipeso was initially sure that this was a falsification. In July 1952, he personally came to Acambaro to see the collection. The nature of his actions to study this problem was later repeatedly repeated by other researchers. According to Voldemar Julsrud, Dipeso, after seeing his collection, personally expressed his admiration for the discovery of Julsrud and expressed his desire to buy samples for the museum of the Amerind Foundation, where he worked. However, when he returned to the States, he published several articles (“American Antiquity”, April 1953, “Archeology”, Summer, 1953) in which he stated unequivocally,that the collection of Djulsrud is falsification. In particular, Dipeso stated that having examined 32,000 items from the collection, he came to the conclusion that the iconography of the artifacts, especially the images of the eyes and lips of the statuettes, have a modern character. It is noteworthy that he spent four hours studying the 32,000 items in the collection (which had already been packed and stored in the Dzhulsrud house by the time Dipeso arrived). In addition, Dipeso, citing information from an illegal dealer in Mexican antiquities, claimed that the entire collection was made by a single Mexican family who lived in Acambaro, who were engaged in the production of these crafts during the winter months when they were not involved in agricultural work. And the falsifiers allegedly got information about dinosaurs from films, comics and books from the local library.
By the way, this last thesis was officially refuted by the local Mexican authorities in the same 1952 by Francisco Sanchas, superintendent of the National…. (National Irrigation Plant of Solis) said that after four years of studying archaeological activity in the area and the nature of the activities of the local population, he can clearly state that there is no ceramic production in Acambaro. On July 23, 1952, the mayor of Acambaro, Juan Carranza, published an official statement No. 1109, which stated that according to the results of a special study conducted in the area, it turned out that there was not a single person in Acambaro who would be engaged in the production of such products.
All of Dipeso's arguments in favor of the Dzhulsrud collection being a sophisticated falsification are easily refuted from the point of view of ordinary common sense. Firstly, not a single sculptor is able to complete the work of making more than thirty thousand sculptures (by no means small), both from ceramics and from stone, in a foreseeable period of time. Not to mention the fact that these sculptures still had to be buried to a decent depth. Secondly, even if the collection was made not by one person, but by a certain workshop, then in this case the features of a single style in the performance of artifacts should be clearly traced. But the entire collection not only does not contain a single duplicate, but the ceramic sculptures are made from different types of clay, in different styles and with varying degrees of skill. Third, it was unequivocally establishedthat the ceramics in the Djulsruda collection were processed by open firing. It would require a huge amount of wood to produce it, which has always been extremely expensive in the arid and treeless area of Acambaro. In addition, such a large-scale production with open firing of ceramics simply could not go unnoticed.
Ramón Rivera, professor of history at the Acambaro Graduate School, spent a month in the field in Acambaro to investigate the possibility of locally producing the Giulsruda collection. After numerous surveys of the population of Acambaro and the surrounding areas (Rivera interviewed the elderly especially carefully), the professor stated that over the past hundred years in this area there was nothing like a large-scale ceramic production.
Moreover, critics of the Djulsrud collection most often forgot that it consisted of more than ceramic artifacts. The collection contains a significant number of stone sculptures and all of them show traces of severe erosion. It is almost impossible to forge such an element of the surface of an object as erosion.
Finally, it should be remembered that Odilon Tinajero, who for several years replenished the collection of Dzhulsruda, had less than four years of education and could hardly read and write. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about the possibility of his deep knowledge in the field of paleozoology, just as it makes no sense to talk about the fact that in the 40s of the last century in a small Mexican library one could find enough books on this topic, and even in Spanish.
By 1954, criticism of the Giulsruda collection, at the suggestion of Dipeso, reached its maximum and this led to the fact that the official circles of Mexico were forced to show interest in the collection. A delegation of scientists headed by the Director of the Department of Pre-Spanish Monuments of the National Institute of Anthropology and History, Dr. Eduardo Nokvera went to Acambaro. In addition to him, the group included three more anthropologists and historians. This official delegation itself selected a specific site on the slopes of El Toro Hill for the control excavations. They took place in the presence of many witnesses from local respected citizens. After several hours of excavation, a large number of figurines were found, similar to those from the Djulsrud collection. According to the archaeologists of the capital, the examination of the found artifacts clearly demonstrated their antiquity. All members of the group congratulated Dzhulsrud on the outstanding discovery and two of them promised to publish the results of their trip in scientific journals.
However, three weeks after returning to Mexico City, Dr. Norkwera submitted a trip report claiming that the Giulsruda collection was falsified as it contained statuettes depicting dinosaurs. Those. the same universal argument was used: “This cannot be, because it can never be”.
In 1955, the collection became interested in the then still quite young scientist Charles Hapgood, who was at that time professor of history and anthropology at New Hampshire University. He came to Acambaro and spent several months there, doing independent excavations at the monument. Hapgood made an agreement with the local police chief, Major Altimerino, whose house stood on the site of the monument. It was known that the house was built in 1930. Having received permission from the owner, Hapgood opened the floor in one of the living rooms of the house and at a depth of 6 feet (about 2 m) found 43 figurines (albeit in fragments), similar in style to the Hapgood collection.
Major Altimarino himself undertook a three-month survey in the vicinity of Acambaro and interviewed many local residents about the possibility of modern manufacturing of the Giulsruda collection. As a result, he made sure that no one in the vicinity had a clue of anything like this.
In 1968 (after the publication of his book "Maps of the Sea Kings") Hapgood returned to the problem of Acambaro and came there with the famous writer Earl Stanley Gardner, who not only had a deep knowledge of forensics, but also seriously dealt with archaeological problems. Gardner stated that from the point of view of forensic science, the collection of Dzhulsrud can not be the result of the activities of one person, or even the result of falsification by a group of people. Based on the results of his research in Acambaro, Hapgood at his own expense published the book "Mystery in Acambaro" (1972).
In 1968 the radiocarbon dating method was already widely recognized in the world and Hapgood sent several samples for analysis in New Jersey to the laboratory of isotope research. Sample analysis gave the following results:
I-3842: 3590 ± 100 years (1640 ± 100 BC)
I-4015: 6480 ± 170 years (4530 ± 170 BC)
I-4031: 3060 +/- 120 years (1100 ± 120 BC)
In 1972, Arthur Young submitted two statuettes for analysis to the Pennsylvania Museum for thermoluminescence analysis, which gave the result in 2,700 BC. Dr. Rainey, who conducted the research, wrote to Young that the dating error does not exceed 5-10% and that each sample was tested 18 times. Accordingly, the authenticity of the Djulsrud collection is beyond doubt. However, when after some time Raney learned that the collection included dinosaur figurines, he said that his results were erroneous, due to distortion of light signals during analysis and the age of the samples did not exceed 30 years.
In the 70-80s, public interest in the collection of Dzhulsrud gradually subsided, the scientific community continued to ignore the fact of the collection's existence. Some publications in popular editions (including in Russian in the Tekhnika-Youth magazine) reproduced the version about the fake nature of the collection, based on the thesis that man could not coexist with dinosaurs.
In the late 1990s, the situation changed. In 1997, NBC aired a series of programs entitled “The Mysterious Origins of Humanity”, in which part of the material was devoted to the collection of Dzhulsrud. The authors of the program also adhered to the version about the recent origin of the collection and even sent a couple of samples for an independent examination according to the C14 method. The anthropomorphic figurine was dated 4000 BC, and the dinosaur figurine was dated 1500 BC. However, the authors of the program simply stated that the second date was wrong.
Also in 1997, the Japanese corporation Nissi sponsored a film crew trip to Akambaro. The scientist who was part of the group, Dr. Herrejon, said that the figurines depicting brontosaurs do not correspond to the appearance of the actually known representatives of this class, since they have a number of dorsal plates. However, in 1992, paleontologist Stephen Gerkas published an article in the journal "Geology" (N12 for 1992), in which he first pointed out this feature of the anatomical structure of brontosaurs. Needless to say that in the 40-50s. this fact was not yet known to paleontologists.
The decisive turning point in the recognition of Julesrud's findings came as a result of the activities of two American researchers - anthropologist Denis Swift and geologist Don Patton. During 1999, they visited Acambaro five times. By this time, the collection of Dzhulsrud was under lock and key in the city hall and was not available to the public. The collection fell under the castle after the death of Dzhulsrud, when his house was sold.
After several days of negotiations with local authorities, Swift and Patton received permission to inspect and photograph the collection. They took about 20,000 photographs of the collection samples. Their activities generated public interest and they were interviewed by the local press and television. Moreover, Dr. Swift unwittingly became the cause of the scandal, which also spilled over into the press. He asked the curator of the collection how many boxes with finds are kept in the mayor's office. He was told that there are 64 such boxes. Based on the boxes they personally unpacked with Patton, Swift calculated that 64 boxes can hold no more than 5-6 thousand items. Then where are the remaining 25,000 other finds from the collection of Dzhulsrud.
The end of this story is unknown to me. But as a result of the vigorous activity of Swift and Patton, local authorities decided to open a special museum. At the end of the same 1999, part of the Djulsruda collection was exhibited as a permanent exhibition in a house specially designated for the museum.
There are several other fundamentally important points related to the Acambaro problem. Swift and Patton learned from Federal Police Officer Ernesto Marines the story of how, in 1978, he confiscated a shipment of archaeological finds excavated by two antiquities hunters on El Chivo Hill, also near the town of Acambaro. This batch contained 3,300 figurines, similar in style to the Djulsrud collection, including 9 dinosaur figurines. All finds were turned over to Dr. Luis Moreau, then mayor of Acambaro, and placed in the town hall. Both hunters were sentenced to long terms and sent to the Federal Prison in Mexico City.
Swift also spoke with Dr. Anthony Hennehon, who personally excavated the El Toro and El Chivo hills in 1950-55. and also found dinosaur figurines. Dr. Herrejon claimed that in the 40-50s. practically no one knew anything about dinosaurs in Mexico.
Moreover, back in 1945, Carlos Perea, director of archeology for the Acambaro zone at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, stated that the items in the Giulsruda collection did not raise doubts about their authenticity. Moreover, he personally had to study dinosaur figurines found on other monuments in Mexico.
And second, during his 1968 research, Charles Hapgood explored and reopened one of the old excavations, where he discovered a series of slabs resembling a staircase going into the slope. One of the local residents told him that at this excavation site, a tunnel filled with earth and leading into the bowels of the hill had been previously discovered. In addition, there is information that one of the local residents discovered in the slope of El Toro a cave filled with figurines and other ancient objects. These data served as the basis for the assumption about the existence of a whole “underground city” in the bowels of the El Toro hill.
The American John Tierney, who has studied Acambaro's materials for almost forty years, is sure that the collection found by Julsrud is only part of the huge "library" that accompanied the tomb. Those. he believed that the main component of the El Toro monument should be a tomb.
ANDREY ZHUKOV