Fortean Times

In search of the Salzburg Cube

This infamous out-ofplace artefact is not a cube and you won’t find it in Salzburg, explains ULRICH MAGIN…

- ULRICH MAGIN

A cube of metal, carefully machined, notched, and rounded on one side, was found in the centre of a block of coal in Austria in 1885”, John Keel breathless­ly tells us in his wildly excited book Our Haunted Planet. “It’s still in a museum in Salzburg and no one has ever come up with an explanatio­n for it. Basing their conclusion­s on the age of the coal bed, various experts have estimated it to be 300,000 years old.”

This cube of pure steel from Salzburg in Austria, perfectly fashioned and with a groove in the centre, unearthed in fossil layers and therefore not the handiwork of any known civilisati­on, is one of the most frequently listed OOPARTS or out-of-place artefacts. Some writers even allege that it has vanished from the museum, perhaps hidden by sinister conspirato­rs in a vain attempt to hide the truth – which would be easy to believe were you to look for it in the Salzburg Museum. It’s not there; instead, it is, in fact still being exhibited, for all to see, in the Heimathaus Museum of Vöcklabruc­k, Upper Austria.

Variously called the ‘Salzburg Cube’ or ‘Dr Gurlt’s Cube’, the object probably gained most of its fame in the English-speaking world because Charles Fort mentioned it in The Book of the Damned. 1

Fort, in summary, has this to say:

“A block of metal found in coal, in Austria, 1885. It is now in the Salsburg museum… We’re a little involved here. Our own acceptance is upon a carved, geometric thing that, if found in a very old deposit, antedates human life, except, perhaps, very primitive human life, as an indigenous product of this Earth: but we’re quite as much interested in the dilemma it made for the faithful. It is of ‘true meteoritic material’. In

L’Astronomie, 7-114, it is said that, though so geometric, its phenomena so characteri­stic of meteorites exclude the idea that it was the work of man. As to the deposit – Tertiary coal. Compositio­n – iron carbon, and a small quantity of nickel. It has a pitted surface that is supposed by the faithful to be characteri­stic of meteorites… The scientists who examined it could reach no agreement. They bifurcated: then a compromise was suggested; but the compromise is a product of disregard: That it was of true meteoritic material, and had not been shaped by man; That it was not of true meteoritic material, but telluric iron that had been shaped by man; That it was true meteoritic material that had fallen from the sky, but had been shaped by man, after its fall. The data, one or more of which must be disregarde­d by each of these three explanatio­ns, are: ‘true meteoritic material’ and surface markings of meteorites; geometric form; presence in an ancient deposit; material as hard as steel; absence upon this earth, in Tertiary times, of men who could work in material as hard as steel. It is said that, though of ‘true meteoritic material’, this object is virtually a steel object… It’s a cube. There is a deep incision all around it. Of its faces, two that are opposite are rounded.”

The Cube is also mentioned by all the early ancient-astronaut supporters – Kolosimo, Charroux, and later Michael Baigent. 2 All just repeat the few excerpts from contempora­ry accounts that Fort already quotes.

The technical literature lists the Salzburg Cube as “Wolfsegg iron”. It was found by a worker in the Braun iron foundry in Schondorf when he broke up a lump of lignite (or brown coal) that had been mined at Wolfsegg. The man who introduced the find into the literature, Bonn physicist Friedrich Adolf Gurlt, thought it was a fossil meteorite. That made it quite a sensation at the time. In contrast to many modern authors, Fort luckily gives his sources (which themselves were translatio­ns from the German), and so I could follow the career of this strange find.

In 1886, the Naturwisse­nschaftlic­he Rundschau3 summarised Gurlt’s theses in an abstract: “Gurlt: Discovery of a meteorite in Tertiary brown coal. In a block of Tertiary lignite from Wolfsegg a very important discovery has been made at the very moment a worker smashed same to burn it. A meteorite was discovered inside, whose shape correspond­s to that of a right-angled parallelop­iped with strongly rounded edges. Its dimensions are 67mm, 62mm, and 47mm, and its weight 785g. The whole surface is covered with the finger-like depression­s

It was found by a factory worker in the Braun iron foundry

peculiar to meteorites; a layer of magnetic oxide which covers it is finely wrinkled. The iron contains compound carbon and some nickel, but a quantitati­ve analysis has not yet been carried out.” Although geometrica­l terms are used to describe the form, the measures already indicated mean that the object cannot have been a perfect cube! In 1892, the Die Fortschrit­te

der Physik 4 still regarded the Cube as a meteorite, but noted that one characteri­stic of iron meteorites was missing: “A piece of meteoritic iron was discovered in a lump of lignite from Wolfsegg when this was smashed. The piece has the dimensions of 67mm, 62mm, 47mm and weighed 785g. The iron showed fingerprin­ts, contained carbon, nickel, but showed no Widmanstät­ten pattern. Mr Daubrée has some notes on lignite mines and stresses how important this find is, as previously not a single meteorite has been encountere­d in these strata.”

However, despite these misgivings, Gurlt’s identifica­tion of the metal object as a meteorite was not questioned by anyone for quite some time. In 1888, the Vienna mineralogi­st and meteor expert Dr Aristides Brezina (1848-1909) carried out an investigat­ion on behalf of the Bergmannst­ag (miner’s assembly) and published his results in a six-page text ( Ueber

das Eisen von Wolfsegg, Verlag des Comité’s des Bergmannst­ag, 1888). He concluded that the iron was not meteoric after all, but artificial and man-made, and was the product of iron smelting. It also was recent, not Tertiary.

After Brezina, other experts had a closer look, and the story quickly changed. Much, it now appeared, had been pure imaginatio­n on the part of Dr Gurlt. It seems that by 1908, it had become common knowledge that the Wolfsegg Iron or Salzburg Cube was simply a piece of slag – a by-product of metallurgy. The science magazine Gaea pointed out that the iron had not been found in isolation, but as a part of a large deposit. “The Wolfsegg iron had been taken for a Tertiary meteorite, but later analyses by Dr Aristides Brezina has revealed it to be an artificial product.” 5 A mining magazine wrote, after carrying out its own investigat­ion: “The Wolfsegg iron is most likely a product of a furnace, and according to Dr M Mach an artefact of a doubtful historical period.” 6

I am not the first to find this out. As Canadian fortean Mr X explains in a note to his cyber text edition of Fort’s first book: “The object was believed by Adolf Gurlt, a mining engineer, to be a fossil meteorite; however, the object had no Widmanstat­tan pattern, and it contained no nickel, chromium, nor cobalt. The ‘Wolfsegg Iron’ was believed, by R Grill of the Geologisch­e Bundesanst­alt in Vienna, to be a piece of cast iron, which was found among pieces of coal at an iron foundry and which may have been ‘used as ballast with primitive mining machinery’.” That brings to three – Brezina, Mach and Grill – the total number of specialist­s who determined that the Cube was nothing more than a piece of slag. Common scientific opinion on the identity of the specimen has not changed since then. As the photo of the actual specimen in the Vöcklabruc­k Heimathaus Museum shows, the Wolfsegg iron was never a cube, and the groove is far from technicall­y perfect. When Gurlt described the general form as a

parallelep­iped (a three-dimensiona­l figure formed by six parallelog­rams) he obviously never intended to imply a precise, abstract body, but it was so taken by Fort, and after him repeated by many others. Fort could only speculate as to whether it was an alien artefact or the remains of a lost civilisati­on from our most distant past. But it is not. However, I am sure it will resurface in some fortean potboiler sooner or later, described once more as a perfectly machined cube bearing an equally precise and mysterious groove.

 ??  ?? LEFT: Gurlt’s discovery is mentioned in the Naturwisse­nschaftlic­he Rundschau of 11 Dec 1886.
LEFT: Gurlt’s discovery is mentioned in the Naturwisse­nschaftlic­he Rundschau of 11 Dec 1886.
 ??  ?? ABOVE LEFT: The Salzburg Cube. ABOVE RIGHT: The much-debated specimen can be found in the Heimathaus Museum in Vöcklabruc­k. BELOW: Dr Aristides Brezina.
ABOVE LEFT: The Salzburg Cube. ABOVE RIGHT: The much-debated specimen can be found in the Heimathaus Museum in Vöcklabruc­k. BELOW: Dr Aristides Brezina.
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom