• The Aiud Wedge: Once More With Feeling

    Several thousand years ago, a mysterious machined aluminum object entered the archaeological record in what is now Romania, on the banks of the River Mures near the town of Aiud. Or maybe it was a few hundred years, or maybe a quarter million—or maybe it was in the middle of the 20th century. I strongly suspect the latter dating is correct.

    I wrote a brief note about this mysterious object, the so-called Wedge of Aiud, some time back; to my surprise, that blog post continued to get comments and queries, some of them quite impassioned. I think it’s worth revisiting.

    Recap: the object was allegedly recovered in about 1973, 10 metres down in a sandpit/construction excavation near the river, in the company of two bones identified as belonging to a mastodon (or hairy rhino in some versions). Analysis showed the wedge to be composed of an Al-Cu alloy with various additives, though several tests over the decades produced varying percentages. A corrosion layer of about 1mm thickness was claimed to indicate an age between 400 and 250,000 years—but processes for refining aluminum were developed only within the last two centuries.

    That is why the object is claimed to be an OOPART—an out-of-place artifact—and its believers usually interpret it as part of the landing gear of a prehistoric VTOL aircraft or (inevitably) a flying saucer which had an unfortunate encounter with a mastodon. To some of us, though, it looks more like a discarded bucket tooth from a mid-twentieth century clamshell excavator, cast from poor-quality 2000-series aluminum alloy (aka duralumin), and found in a pit that was most likely being dug by a clamshell excavator. (The blogger Hil Blairious has produced a very plausible design of how the object could have been attached to the bucket.)

    A major sticking point seems to be the depth of the “patina” on the object’s surface—that is, the 1mm layer of corrosion products, which is usually described as “thick.” The layer is described only as aluminum oxide, though it is unclear to what extent it was separately tested. The photos show extensive pitting corrosion, to which Al-Cu alloys are particularly prone; and the original laboratory analysis apparently made some cryptic mention of “the allied elements partially regaining their own structures,” which sounds suspiciously like the effect of galvanic corrosion. At first glance, this would be surprising, since galvanic corrosion tends to involve contact between metals of differing electrical potential, but I’ll return to that later.

    The huge range of suggested dates, from 400 to 250,000 years, should itself serve as a red flag, but it is not the only dubious aspect of this claim. Another is that none of these suggested dates was presented with any documentation or any statement of methodology. To the best of my knowledge, there are still few techniques for dating archaeological metal, and none involves aluminum or aluminum alloys. Basing an age estimate solely on the corrosion-layer thickness ignores the huge variability in the rate at which aluminum alloys will corrode, depending on composition and conditions like ambient moisture, pH, salinity, temperature, and surrounding materials. There is no simple coefficient you can apply. And in fact, there is no reason to think the degree of corrosion on the Aiud Wedge is anything extraordinary, to the point that it would require thousands or even hundreds of years to build up.

    This last has to do partly with the nature of the alloy. Pure aluminum is indeed resistant to corrosion, because its surface quickly and spontaneously forms a very thin protective film of aluminum oxide, only nanometres thick; this is this property that gives aluminum its reputation for corroding at a glacial pace, if at all, and is probably one reason why the 1mm coating on the Aiud wedge is considered evidence of great age.

    But aluminum alloys are a different matter. Unprotected, they can and do corrode rapidly under a wide variety of circumstances, such that a mm of pitted corrosion product is nothing unusual. In the case of Al-Cu alloys, the addition of copper makes the fabric stronger, but also makes it peculiarly vulnerable to corrosion. Where this would be problematic—say, when it is being used in aircraft components—the problem can be alleviated by other additions, such as magnesium, or by protecting the surface with a thin coat of purer aluminum. Notably, none of the assays conducted on the Aiud object found any significant magnesium content. (See here for a summary and discussion of the various analyses.)

    So what we have is an object made of an aluminum alloy particularly vulnerable to corrosion, but strong enough for rough work. Its provenience and the circumstances of its discovery are unclear—another red flag—but the narrative consistently places it about 10m down in an industrial excavation close to the river, in a wet matrix. Significant variables that would affect the rate of corrosion are unknown, such as pH, salinity, and soil composition; however, there is an absolutely critical known factor that I have not seen taken into account in any previous discussion: the effect of heavy metals pollution.

    Aiud was a major centre of metallurgical heavy industry between 1931 and 2013, when the great factory complex of Metalurgica Aiud shut down for good. The works are situated on the eastern outskirts of the town, virtually on the bank of the River Mures, in roughly the area mentioned as the object’s source; the blogger Irna plausibly suggests the best candidate is an offshoot of the plant a little to the northeast, now abandoned. Interestingly, the Metalurgica Aiud expanded its facilities in the 1970s, the period when the object was found; but at any rate, a find-spot in the vicinity of the works is more than likely.

    In its heyday, Metalurgica Aiud employed about half the residents of Aiud (the infamous prison probably accounted for a good portion of the rest). But the town’s prosperity came at the cost of heavy, lingering soil and groundwater pollution, a heritage that leaves it even now with levels of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc that far outstrip the legal maxima, partially attributed to historic pollution from the plant. Whatever wet matrix the Aiud object was found in would have been powerfully contaminated with heavy metals, salts, and other industrial pollutants. The abysmal record of Soviet-era industrialization in this regard is well known. Which brings us back to the corrosion layer:

    Heavy metal ions such as copper and mercury are very aggressive toward the pitting corrosion of aluminum alloys. The aluminum reduces the ions of copper, mercury, lead, etc. These ions can plate out on the aluminum and form localized galvanic cells with the aluminum becoming the anode and the heavy metal becoming a very effective cathode.

    This galvanic deposition corrosion bumps up and accelerates the process, in the form of extensive rapid pitting plus a heavy buildup of corrosion products and deposits of the heavy metal which is acting as the cathode—which sounds like a pretty fair description of the Aiud Wedge. And it is not a process measured in centuries or millennia, but in months or years.

    To summarize: we have an aluminum alloy known to be vulnerable to corrosion, found in a wet matrix contaminated with heavy metals known to accelerate corrosion. Where is the mystery?

    Category: FeaturedScienceSkepticism

    Article by: Rebecca Bradley

    One Pingback/Trackback


    1. Was working on music today with Ancient Aliens on in background ..and came across episode with Wedge of Aiud. I went to iPad & googled & came across Rebecca’s Blog comments. Am a avid long time listener to Skeptics Guide to the Universe… So know some of the pitfalls of wild claims. The one aspect I am not clear on is the circular holes in object. On episode Giorgio seemed to imply ” and there’s the hole where they took the sample” without sufficiently displaying ” the where” of what he meant…are the holes I can see ” Germaine to the Wedge” & in Side by Side photos in same place as ” other Bucket Teeth or Covers ?… I did think the information ending Rebecca’s recent post ie: History of Aiud Metalurgical works went long way in establishing reasonable info on the Patina issue.. I rarely follow blogs liKe this..thoroughly enjoyed my read….Rick Eckerle NYC

      1. Glad you enjoyed it! The hole where the sample was taken is the one with the shiny interior, drilled right through one of the “wings.” The original holes are the big depression on top, and the little hole that runs into it at a right angle. Anyone who has ever assembled an IKEA dresser will be familiar with the configuration. 😀

    2. OK, can you provide the part number? Or from what model comes that wedge? I’m just curious as that design won’t work on excavations…. it will come off. Oh, and just to let you know I did the Construction Machinery University in Romania. We didn’t build anything like that, not to mention we didn’t import anything until 1990. So that piece can be anything else, a locking device maybe, even the landing gear is not working on that design.

    3. Hello my name is Dakota Logan and I’m a student at MWSU doing a project on the Aiud Wedge and I was wondering if you would mind answering some questions for me?

    4. Decent sleuthing… but there is a logical problem wit it.

      Who on earth would ever make an excavator bucket tooth out of ANY kind of aluminum, alloy or otherwise?

      No one… it would last mere minutes under common usage.

      Could it be a prototype rendering of a later steel alloy? That’s possible. Design rendering and adjustment of a prototype would be much easier with a softer metal, that could be used to develop a hardened version of the bucket tooth.

      However… all of the above is a bit of a stretch. An aluminu blank with a significant amount of non-aluminum composition would not tend to look as aged and patena laden as the artifact in question.

    5. Hello Mrs BRADLEY,

      Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
      My fist assumption was like: who the hell would be so darn stupid to make a tooth with Al (I’ll skip the various alloy crap)? The response is – no doubt about it – we, humans. We are all time, all category Guinness book champions of stupidity.
      On another side, given the wideness of universe I strongly believe we are not alone either, we just don’t know it.
      Some random third side maybe that the “artifact” may have ended in that location from a deep space advanced (now supernova blasted) world…
      Well, most of the times the truth is always halfway, and people will not accept the truth because is disappointing-depressing-reasonable… People are fueled by romance, science-fiction crap where the Good triumphs over Bad on 4th of July => Entertainment/Excitement.

    6. If was a tooth from an excavator bucket it has be broken off somehow, where is the pin that held it in place or where did it break off, basically the tooth doesn’t look broke. If somehow came loose while in use how ends up by mastodon bones hahaaaa it doesn’t make sense

    7. Even though I’m prone to believe it’s a modern artifact – whether excavator tooth or something from a plane from WWII – how could it get under 10 meters of sand ? That’s too much IMO. I haven’t heard of catastrophic floods that would justify it ?

      1. Ike, this was not a controlled archaeological excavation – it was a bunch of guys with heavy machinery digging out a deep pit in unconsolidated river sediments. The objects of interest (which I think consisted only of the bones) were packaged up with some matrix (which I think included a castoff digger tooth, too ordinary for the diggers to take notice of it) and sent off to an institution that knew a lot about nuclear physics, but bugger-all about diggers or river sediments. In all these years, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has thought to ask surviving workers from the Aiud Metalica plant what THEY think about the object.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *