Talk:Dorchester Pot

Untitled

Can we have some sources for the article? --Dumbo1 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There was another, but the page had been removed. I found and added some more sources, though it's interesting that the first twenty or so now are just copies of this wiki text... Aaronwinborn 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• This seems suspicious that the thing just disappeared. I would say that it's a hoax. Perhaps that should be mentioned somewhere on the page.NCartmell 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that the thing disappeared? For that matter, the article doesn't mention anything about the item's current state... tildetildetildetilde— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.73.232 (talk) 21:38, February 8, 2008

Article's problem is that It doesn't say anything where item currently reside. If item is missing then article should this clearly. I also agree with NCartmell about this being a hoax although I'm a Oopart enthusiast. Fotte (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the provenance of the photograph: I have seen this exact same photo in the book Strange Stories, Amazing Facts [ISBN-10: 0895770288] published by Reader's Digest, identified as a photograph of the Dorchester Pot (though not called the "Dorchester Pot" in the book. --User:Kejo13 12:42, 12 October 2007(UTC)

In text sources

Parentheticals are pretty, but are best kept, aside from within the world of maths, to create things of artistic merit such as ASCII fish. Please keep citations as footnotes, in text citations are for first years. 114.76.167.183 (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) }(,)

I look forward to your editing efforts to improve the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorchester Pot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070919193928/http://www.pureinsight.org:80/pi/index.php?news=1899 to http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/index.php?news=1899

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a problem, in my opinion, in how the broken URL was fixed. I revised it and a mistake that I made while fixing it. Paul H. (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

More Explanation on Mainstream Views Needed

Are there mainstream views explaining how it got into the rock in the first place? I find the article leaves that loose end, and therefore confusing. Even if it just says "Mainstream scientists have not proposed explanations " etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.20.10.219 (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, are there mainstream views about whether was it really in the rock to begin with? It was found loose on the ground after the explosion. Nobody either saw it actually in rock prior to the explosion, which is understandable, or more importantly, described any matrix attached to the outside or inside of the Dorchester Pot. From the description available, the people on hand assumed / concluded that it was "...blown out of the solid pudding stone, 10 feet below the surface...", without real discusion of why this conclusion was made. There is no real evidence in the description that it was in the rock to begin with and not something heaved from a privy fill or surface dirt. The problem is finding an acceptable reliable source about such views such that they can be added to the article.

Finally, a reliable source that discusses the strangeness of the Dorchester Pot being found in a deep sea fan deposit in an Ediacaran rift basin and the improbability of it surviving unmetamorphosed as the enclosing conglomerate was converted into a stretched-pebbled metaconglomerate is needed. Until such a source is found both concerns unfortunately remain in the realm of original research. Paul H. (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paul H.: Kevin D. Randle is a UFOlogist, but maybe we could use him. "In the end, we’re left with many unanswered questions, including that of the placement of the vessel and if it was actually embedded in the stone as originally suggested. It is always possible that it was not embedded in the stone but was as-sociated with it. That means, simply, that the vessel was hidden in the dirt on top of the stone, maybe lost in it, hut had not been embedded in the stone."[1] Doug Weller talk 10:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The original source that the Scientific American used

A Relic oF a BY-Gone Age. ' On Thursday last a powerful blast was made in the rock at Meeting House Hill in Dorchester, a few rods south of Rev. Mr. Hall's meeting house. This blast threw out an immense mass of rock, some of the pieces weighing eeveral tons, and scattered small fragment*s in all directions. Among them was picked up a metallic vessel in two parts, rent asuuder by the explosion. On putting fie two parts together it formed a bell shaped vessel, 4 1/2 inches high, 6 1/2 inches at the base, 2 1/2 inches at the top, and about an 1/8th of an inch in thickness. The body of this vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal, in which there is a considerable portion of silver. In the top there is a hole for a handle, and in the bottom opposite a'larger hole b filled with lead, soldered up close. The inside is considerably corroded, but the outside is smooth and free from rust. On the aides there are six figures of a flower, or bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel a vine, or wreath, inlaid also with silver. The chasing, carving and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning workman, and when new must have been very beautiful. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, 10 feet below the surface. Bow it came there, or for what use it was made, no one can imagine. It is now in the possession of Mr. John Ketlell, at his mansion house, opposite the ledge from which it was blown. It has been examined by nearly 300 persons, many of whom were scientific men, but no-one has yet beenn able to say what it could have been made for. Dr. J. V. C. Smith, who has recently travelled in tht East, and examined hundreds of curious domestic utensils, and has drawings of them, has never seen anything resembling this. He has taken a drawing and accurate dimensions of it, to be submitted to the scientific. There is no doubt but that this curiosity was blown out of the rock as above stated; but will Professor Agassiz or some other scientific man please to tell us how it came there ? The matter is worthy of investigation, as there is no deception in the case. As Pope says of the fly in amber: "Tis not because the thing is rich and rare; The wonder is. how tbs devil it got there.* From here. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this.--Auric talk 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)