1

I've found this article about The Mysterious Crespi Collection & The Metal Library

And there is a picture of The enigmatic Crespi plate:

enter image description here

And it's said:

The age and origin of these items is still unknown today.

These objects show the pictures of an unknown culture.

The most well known pieces are tablets made of silver, gold foil or other alloys with unknown letters and mysterious symbols.

This is what was posted few years ago.

Is it really we don't know to which culture this seal belong to? How come?


See also:

closed as off-topic by Tyler Durden, Mark C. Wallace, Kobunite, o0'., CGCampbell May 6 '15 at 19:30

  • This question does not appear to be about history within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on skeptics.stackexchange.com – Tyler Durden May 6 '15 at 14:49
  • Look like forgeries to me. In any case, it belongs on skeptics SE, not history. – Tyler Durden May 6 '15 at 14:49
  • @TylerDurden Are you saying this plate isn't real? – kenorb May 6 '15 at 14:59
  • It's probably real, just not old. – Tyler Durden May 6 '15 at 15:00
  • 2
    Interesting, but I have to agree with @TylerDurden: as long as the owner of those plates doesn't bother to allow proper historians to study them, it's a hoax "until proven otherwise". – o0'. May 6 '15 at 15:55
2

I don't see anything definitive about this. So yes, it appears to be true that there is no consensus on the plates.

One likelihood is of course that they are a hoax (sadly, its been known to happen).

If they end up being authentic, given where they were found, my conjecture would be that they are the only known exemplars of a proto-Incan writing system that didn't survive to the colonial period. I base this on them being found in a historical Incan area, and on the fact that they are similar in structure, but totally different in glyph style, to Mayan codex's (see below).

enter image description here

Notice how the glyphs are arranged in a grid pattern, but the glyphs themselves have a very rounded look compared to the Ecuadorian plates. Very much like what we'd see if the system was borrowed but adapted to a different language.

I've noticed others on the internet making this same speculation, but none that have any noticeable expertise.

It appears that the current holders of the plates will not make them available to the public. So I'd say until they are studied extensively by experts (eg: some kind of dating would be wonderful), they are best viewed as an intriguing one-off find that could quite possibly be a hoax.

  • No Mayans in Ecuador TED. – Tyler Durden May 6 '15 at 15:13
  • 1
    @TylerDurden - There are also no Sumerians in the Indus Valley. However, there were trade links, and it is thought their writing system may have come that way rather than being completely locally invented. This is the kind of mechanism I am thinking of. – T.E.D. May 6 '15 at 15:20
  • @TylerDurden - ...but again, that's just speculation. Occam's Razor would tell us we need to rule out a hoax before assuming anything that extravagant. You're absolutely right there. – T.E.D. May 6 '15 at 16:04
0

According to Ancient American (No. 68), this "Zodiac Plate" is a grid of fifty-six symbols which are embossed on a 51x13 inch oblong sheet of unoxidized copper alloy.

Fell Barry considered this a Paphian script which accompanying the corresponding Zodiac sings.

References:

  • Fell, Barry, 1985, Perietal Inscriptions of the Anubis Caves, Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, 14 #342

Professor Fox, author of Gods of the Cataclysm (1976) had been drawn to Cuenca, because of the similarities between the "Zodiac Plate" and Indus Valley script. Please check the video of Prof. Dileep Kumar Kanjilal who talks about decipheration of the Cuenca Script of Ecuador.

  • As near as I can tell, these are all claiming either old-world or even worse Atlantian origins for the script, which is such an extraordinary and seemingly-unlikely claim that it would need some seriously extraordinary evidence to back it up. – T.E.D. May 7 '15 at 12:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.