Shigir Idol 11,000 Years Old

[Patrick Waterson]

Or so experts think, having dated it with accelerator mass spectrometry.

The story:

A mysterious wooden idol found in a Russian peat bog has been dated to 11,000 years ago - and contains a code no one can decipher.

The Shigir Idol is twice as old as the Pyramids and Stonehenge - and is by far the oldest wooden structure in the world.

Even more mysteriously, it is covered in what experts describe as 'encrypted code' - a message from a lost civilisation.

Professor Mikhail Zhilin of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Archeology said: 'The ornament is covered with nothing but encrypted information. People were passing on knowledge with the help of the Idol.'

Russian experts think that the strange carvings may contain a belief system, the equivalent of the Bible's Genesis.

The statue had been dated as being 9,500 years old, after its discovery in a peat bog 125 years ago.

But new research in Mannheim, Germany used Accelerated [sic] Mass Spectrometry on small fragments of the sculpture, and found it is at least 11,000 years old.

That means the sculpture dates from the very beginning of the Holocene epoch - the era when man rose to dominate the world.

It also suggests the existence of a writing system, or at least a means of recording information by use of motifs, c.9,500 BC - an interesting coincidence, in view of recent discussions on possible early records.

More information on the Shigir Idol can be found here.  The idol and its enigmatic carvings have been known since 1894.  The surprise that is making the news is the recent AMS-based dating.

[Erpingham]

Read the wikipedia article and see a good example of inability to reconcile a BP radiocarbon date with a BCE date  

As to writing, I suspect that the reference to a code is a piece of journalistic puffery - the wikipedia article states, the meaning of the decoration (if any) is unknown.  Who knows, it could turn out to be not an idol but an Atlantean tax return

[Sharur]

Can't seem to locate any information on the dating errors or methodology for this specific object, which is a little disturbing (given the errors for C-14 dating can be very large at times - 4000 or 5000 years is not unknown!). So it's difficult to confirm the accuracy of the original c. 7500 BCE radiocarbon dating, let alone this latest AMS attempt. Indeed, there seems to have been some doubt about the legality of the removal of the sample wood for testing in 2014. It's worth checking the various stories from this Siberian Times page, as despite the "copy & paste" reuse of information from one page to the next, they do have some of the best images of the Idol I've found online. And it's interesting to see the range of comments in places.

As for whether the abstract symbols constitute a writing system, rather than a series of interesting geometric designs to decorate this potential "totem pole" artwork, that's anyone's guess. However, if so, it needn't be the oldest such "writing system", as abstract cave art long predates even the "new" c.9000 BCE dating for this piece. Maybe that too was a means of recording ancient tax returns information as writing.

There's a 2009 Masters thesis by G. von Petzinger, "Making the Abstract Concrete: The Place of Geometric Signs in French Upper Paleolithic Parietal Art" which is of interest in this respect, if anyone's keen. Direct free PDF download link is here, but there are websites including useful discussions on this matter and ongoing work on the topic, like the Bradshaw Foundation or the Encyclopedia of Art sites - like this Geometric signs page (includes information extracted from the above thesis) or the Shigir Idol page.

[Patrick Waterson]

The 'doubt about the legality of the removal of the sample wood for testing in 2014' seems to have no bearing on the dating attempt: it is just a piece of legalistic quackery sadly typical of Putin's Russia.

Can't seem to locate any information on the dating errors or methodology for this specific object, which is a little disturbing (given the errors for C-14 dating can be very large at times - 4000 or 5000 years is not unknown!). So it's difficult to confirm the accuracy of the original c. 7500 BCE radiocarbon dating, let alone this latest AMS attempt.

The validity of the actual dating is an interesting question, because accelerator mass spectrometry is considered to be the finest and most accurate dating method available, and seems to have taken over from earlier radiocarbon dating methods because of its real or supposed superior accuracy.

As to writing, I suspect that the reference to a code is a piece of journalistic puffery - the wikipedia article states, the meaning of the decoration (if any) is unknown.

I am vaguely reminded of this, which is a 'bandolier bag' covered in designs which appear to be Chippewa in origin.  Are the motifs decoration or communication?  It might be interesting to get the opinion of a Russian professor ...

[Sharur]

Patrick: Indeed, the whole thing seems very "Russian" overall, a lot of smoke and mirrors to distract away from what they're not saying, and a desperate need to establish some degree of "primacy".

The earlier c.7500 BCE radiocarbon dating (or its equivalent in years BP) is splashed across the Internet just about everywhere that mentions the idol, but nowhere does it give the dating error, nor is it clear if this is a calibrated date or not.

There are supposed to be standard scientific protocols for reporting such dates, which should include all this information, and more, to give confidence that this is something other than a date merely plucked from the air. Unfortunately, the reporting standards are commonly ignored, though the data should be made available somewhere, otherwise the dates remain merely speculative.

On radiocarbon dating generally, the NucleonicaWiki has this particularly helpful, and not overly technical, article on AMS, which gives more details than the Wikipedia link in your original posting.

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, a good explanatory article.  In addition to being a better general information source than the Wikipedia article, it makes the important point that atmospheric C14 levels have on occasion fluctuated, which can cause quite a degree of uncertainty regarding the range of possible dates.

In this particular case, the tests seem to have been carried out by German scientists in a German laboratory, although why the only apparent sources for the results are Russian news articles is a bit of a mystery.  Presumably there is a paper in German on the subject circulating somewhere - or perhaps still being written.  Perhaps it will emerge and detail the confidence intervals associated with the quoted date.

If not, we have little option but to treat the date as speculative and wonder whether it is actually indicative.

[Jim Webster]

Having looked at several pictures of the thing, I'm afraid it looks more like decoration than text.

After all, if that's text, I wonder what your average Norse or celtic cross reads like

[Patrick Waterson]

Having looked at several pictures of the thing, I'm afraid it looks more like decoration than text.

That is what it looks like to me.  I thought, however, that a fully-fledged professor would know more about the subject than my untutored brain and optics.  Not the first time I have made such a mistake.

[Jim Webster]

Having looked at several pictures of the thing, I'm afraid it looks more like decoration than text.

That is what it looks like to me.  I thought, however, that a fully-fledged professor would know more about the subject than my untutored brain and optics.  Not the first time I have made such a mistake.

note the footer under your name ;-)

[Sharur]

In this particular case, the tests seem to have been carried out by German scientists in a German laboratory, although why the only apparent sources for the results are Russian news articles is a bit of a mystery.  Presumably there is a paper in German on the subject circulating somewhere - or perhaps still being written.  Perhaps it will emerge and detail the confidence intervals associated with the quoted date.

I imagine the oft-quoted, but unlinked and underdescribed testing facility in Mannheim in the Russian press info, would be the Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum für Archaeometrie (link is to the English language homepage) in Mannheim, though oddly, they have no "Current" or "Completed Research" projects listed on the English site at all, while the German-language version has projects listed as "Ongoing" no more recently than 2013! Similarly, their "Publications" page has nothing more recent than 2014, while the latest "News" item was dated 1st June this year, a job advert.

Their reticence could be because the Russian sample was tested as a private commercial venture (there was mention of a "TV programme" in some of the Siberian Times articles, for instance), but it may be because of the ongoing legal dispute regarding how the sample was obtained - again, one of the ST items noted it was unlikely the German scientists would attend the press conference for this reason (i.e. they could have been arrested...). Maybe worth keeping an eye on this website in case anything fresh appears, but I wouldn't hold your breath judging by the dates of the other stuff there!

[Patrick Waterson]

Maybe worth keeping an eye on this website in case anything fresh appears, but I wouldn't hold your breath judging by the dates of the other stuff there!

Inclined to agree: for the present we can leave a large question-mark hanging over this one.

note the footer under your name ;-)

Yes - should have taken my own - or rather Mr Cornwell's - advice.  It goes along with the adage that secondary sources will sooner or later let you down.

[RichT]

Yes - should have taken my own - or rather Mr Cornwell's - advice.  It goes along with the adage that secondary sources will sooner or later let you down.

Not sure that adage applies here, since the primary source in this case is a set of geometric symbols nobody can read, or even tell if they are readable. I think the more applicable lesson is - yet again - don't believe everything you read on the internet. Real science and real archaeology are not carried out primarily on the internet, leaving this medium the primary domain of sloppy journalists, sensationalist headline grabbers, cranks and crackpots. Unfortunate, but caveat lector.

In this case Professor Mikhail Zhilin is almost certainly innocent of ever saying it was writing - look at the Siberian Times article:

Professor Mikhail Zhilin, leading researcher of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Archeology, has said previously: 'We study the Idol with a feeling of awe.

'This is a masterpiece, carrying gigantic emotional value and force, a unique sculpture; there is nothing else in the world like this.

'It is very alive, and very complicated at the same time.

'The ornament is covered with nothing but encrypted information. People were passing on knowledge with the help of the Idol.'

While the messages remain 'an utter mystery to modern man', the Russian academic said its creators 'lived in total harmony with the world, had advanced intellectual development, and a complicated spiritual world'.

With Svetlana Savchenko, chief keeper of Shigir Idol at Yekaterinburg History Museum, he concludes that 'a straight line could denote land, or horizon - the boundary between earth and sky, water and sky, or the borderline between the worlds.

'A wavy line or zigzag symbolised the watery element, snake, lizard, or determined a certain border. In addition, the zigzag signaled danger, like a pike.

'Cross, rhombus, square, circle depicted the fire or the sun, and so on'.


I don't think there's anything very controversial in those statements - it seems inherently quite likely that abstract symbols carried some sort of meaning to those who made them and Alastair's links above give other good discussions of the topic.

I don't think it's ever wise to ignore scholars - but it is always a good idea to listen carefully to what they are actually saying.

[Erpingham]

I don't think there's anything very controversial in those statements - it seems inherently quite likely that abstract symbols carried some sort of meaning to those who made them and Alastair's links above give other good discussions of the topic.

From an art historical point of view, the chances of motifs having meaning is great, because it happens in artworks of many cultures.  Trying to determine what those meanings are, however, is highly speculative and it is perhaps unwise of archaeologists to indulge in those speculations in the public domain, where too much may be read into them by a non-specialist audience.

I don't think it's ever wise to ignore scholars - but it is always a good idea to listen carefully to what they are actually saying.

I'd second that.

[Patrick Waterson]

I don't think it's ever wise to ignore scholars - but it is always a good idea to listen carefully to what they are actually saying.

It does seem a worthwhile preliminary before deciding whether or not to ignore them (cf. the Bronk et.al. 2007 carbon dating study 'proving' conventional Egyptological chronology).  Thanks for detailing that point, Richard.

[Patrick Waterson]

We may as well review what we know, or think we know, about this idol.

1) It is carved from wood.

2) It bears carved designs.

3) It is very old.

4) Its real or purported age increases with every assessment.

One of the commenters on a Siberian Times article draws comparisons with the Balkan Vinča culture, which is one of the earliest known users of metallurgy - although rather than limiting itself to symbolic carvings it seems to have possessed a pictographic script.  (This latter link has a collection of the symbols of that particular script at the end of the article before the ads and comments, so those uninterested in the site author's 'take' on the subject can just scroll down 2/3 of the page.  And if you wonder about the 'Scots are Descendants of a Long-Lost Race from the Sahara' headline, it only applies to the 1% of Scots who have a DNA link with North Africa.)