Talk:Farmingdale Statue

Unpublished sources

I've looked through one section, "Discovery". This appears to be based on three sources:

• Gramly, Richard Michael. "How a Long Island Relic Becomes a Zulu Artefact." Black Art: An International Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1980, pp. 33–48.
• Nesbitt, Pat (Secretary to Director). Letter to Mrs. John W. Genega. Suffolk Museum and Carriage House at Stony Brook. June 20, 1968. Genega family archive.
• Pike, Martha V. (Assistant Curator, History Collection). Letter to Mrs. Edna Genega. The Museums at Stony Brook. June 16, 1976. Genega family archive.

A paper published in Black Art can be assumed to be a "reliable source". (It's an academic paper. Academic papers often disagree with each other. Many turn out to be wrongheaded. However, this is tolerable.) However, consider the other two, while bearing in mind that Wikipedia:Reliable sources tells us:

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form.

There's no indication that either is published. Similarly, many of sources cited elsewhere in the draft do not appear to be published.

It's not normal to consider citing unpublished archival material. But if this were possible in some circumstances ... the situation turns out to be still worse. The draft includes a list of "Primary documents (Genega family archive)". Many of the cited sources, the draft tells us, "are held in the Genega family archive. The collection is in private ownership." (At some unspecified place.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The comment above prompted a radical pruning, and I was/am happy to promote the then-draft to article status. The next job (whether for Mithlyif2t or anyone else) is to provide links to the article from one or two other articles. Doing so would be less in order to avoid the addition at the top of an "orphan" template, more in order to inform potentially interested readers that this article exists. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Launchballer (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Farmingdale Statue, front view

• ... that one of fewer than a dozen wooden artefacts (pictured) known to have been collected from sub-Saharan Africa before 1650 was discovered in 1961 buried in a Long Island backyard?

• Source: Gramly, Richard Michael. "How a Long Island Relic Becomes a Zulu Artefact." Black Art: An International Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1980, pp. 33–48.

• • Reviewed:

Created by Mithlyif2t (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Mithlyif2t (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC).

• Article is currently at AFD and this nom is on hold till the AFD is closed; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmingdale Statue. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t: AfD concluded as keep; please address the {{one source}} tag.--Launchballer 03:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I am currently working with independent experts to address the {{one source}} tag, but the process will take some time to complete. Given that, I think the best course is to withdraw this nomination for now, with the intention of resubmitting once the sourcing issue has been resolved. I apologize for any inconvenience. Mithlyif2t (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Name of article

Interesting topic! Wondering if there's a potential better name for the article, since I don't see "Farmingdale Statue" in the accessible online articles. See WP:COMMONNAME for guidelines - what's the most common way that it has been referred to in secondary coverage? Dreamyshade (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. The name 'Farmingdale statue' is used consistently throughout the primary scholarly source — Gramly's 'How a Long Island Relic Becomes a Zulu Artefact' — which is the only published academic article about this artifact. The newspaper coverage uses various informal descriptions rather than a consistent proper name. Mithlyif2t (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous reply, here is how the statue is referred to in other published sources: the Buffalo News (Allen, 1981) calls it 'Zulu Woodcarving' and 'statuette'; the Buffalo Courier-Express describes it as 'one of the oldest such artifacts'; Newsday refers to it as 'LI Zulu'; and the Buffalo Museum of Science exhibition catalogue calls it simply 'Wooden Statue'. Given this variety, the only alternatives I can think of are 'Long Island Zulu' or 'Long Island Zulu Woodcarving', but I am not sure either of these is more suitable than 'Farmingdale Statue'. What do you think? Mithlyif2t (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t Thanks, that's a helpful summary. Thinking about it, this is part of why we have the inclusion criteria at WP:Notability - it's tough to write good articles when there are few sources. Am I reading correctly that all of the secondary coverage derives from Gramly's work? I see the academic article he wrote, the catalog from the museum exhibit he curated, and three newspaper articles related to the exhibit. Have any other qualified experts analyzed or written about the statue? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I am shocked that this statue hasn't gotten much attention. I am beginning to be suspicious of it. An object so rare and so uniquely positioned to give insight into 17th century American life should have been examined by multiple experts by 2026, over 60 years after it was discovered. Thriley (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this statue would be more appropriately covered as a section in an article about Gramly, in the context of other work he did. There's a lot of other secondary coverage about him. For example:

• Indian Mining Site Yields Archaeological Bonanza at Berlin 1980
• 11,000 years old: That's thought to be age of Indian hunting site 1980
• Unearthing Treasures From Past 1983
• A Prehistoric Dinner Party 1985
• Washington Dig Opens Rift With Indians 1991
• Chapter in Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources: "Using the Courts to Enforce Repatriation Rights: A Case Study Under NAGPRA" (see review) 2003
• R. Michael Gramly 2007
• Gramly defends his sales of artifacts 2007
• "A lifetime unraveling the past" 2007
• "Fossil show offers glimpse of Stone Age" 2008
• More Paleo patter - part 2 2013
• "Digging for the truth: Roundabout project stirs archaeological hunt, lawsuit and public outcry" 2020
• We Keep the Dead Close: A Murder at Harvard and a Half Century of Silence by Becky Cooper (2021) (article mentioning connection)

Dreamyshade (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive list of coverage about Dr. Gramly — I was not aware of much of this and you make a compelling case that he merits his own Wikipedia article. I would be happy to contribute to such an article, and the Farmingdale Statue investigation would naturally form one section of it.

That said, I would argue that the Farmingdale Statue also merits its own standalone article. The statue was accepted by reviewer Hoary after revision, and its notability rests not only on Gramly's involvement but on the radiocarbon dating, the independent expert identifications by Dr. Leon Siroto at Harvard and Patricia Davison at the South African Museum, the wood identification by specialists at Syracuse University, the Buffalo Museum of Science exhibition, and the newspaper coverage in the Buffalo News, Buffalo Courier-Express, and Newsday. These represent multiple independent sources across several institutions.

A Gramly article and a Farmingdale Statue article are not mutually exclusive — they would complement each other naturally, with the Gramly article covering his broader career and linking to the Farmingdale Statue article for readers who want more detail on that specific investigation. Would you be willing to collaborate on a Gramly article? Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t I'll politely decline helping write an article about Gramly, but happy to provide links to a few more sources for anyone interested in that project. Good to note that there are some very controversial elements in his history, and biographies of living people need to follow high standards especially for controversial content: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

• State Archeologist Plans Special Project at Aziscohos 1979
• A Maine rockhound's chance find has unlocked secrets of... 1980
• Archaeologist to return Indian remains, artifacts to Senecas under settlement 2000
• Archaeologist returns bones to Indian site, page 2 2000

Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. The statue was in fact examined by multiple independent experts during Gramly's investigation in the late 1970s, including Dr. Leon Siroto of Harvard's Peabody Museum, Patricia Davison of the South African Museum in Cape Town, and wood identification specialists at Syracuse University. The Smithsonian Institution expressed institutional interest in acquiring it in 1978. It was publicly exhibited at the Buffalo Museum of Science from 1981 to 1982.

The relative lack of subsequent attention is likely explained by a combination of factors: the statue remains in private ownership and has not been accessible to the broader scholarly community; the journal in which Gramly's findings were published, while professionally produced, had limited circulation; and the southeastern African attribution placed it outside the mainstream of African art scholarship, which has historically focused on West and Central Africa. Christie's auction house assessed it in 1987 but did not offer it for sale. None of these factors reflect on the authenticity of the object, which was established through radiocarbon dating, wood identification, and expert stylistic analysis. Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You raise a fair point, though I would note that several independent experts contributed to the research documented in Gramly's article. The wood was identified as "Cassia siamea" by Professor Carl de Zeeuw and Dr. Richard L. Gray of the Tropical Timber Information Center at Syracuse University. The attribution to the Zulu or another Nguni group was made by Dr. Leon Siroto, a leading expert on traditional African wood carving then at Harvard's Peabody Museum, and independently confirmed by Patricia Davison, Professional Officer at the South African Museum in Cape Town. The radiocarbon dating was conducted by Harold W. Krueger of Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts. While these expert contributions are documented through Gramly's published article rather than independent publications, they represent the assessments of multiple qualified specialists across several institutions. Mithlyif2t (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you took the images and are new to Wikipedia editing, I'm a bit skeptical of this article now. You have a relationship with the family that owns the statue? Why not have it looked at again this decade by several experts? Thriley (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

These are fair questions that deserve a direct answer. I am a member of the Genega family and the current custodian of both the statue and the family archive — I have been transparent about this throughout the article's development. Wikipedia encourages self-nominations for articles and does not prohibit writing about subjects in which you have a personal connection, provided the content is verifiably sourced, which I have endeavored to ensure.

Regarding expert examination, the statue was professionally examined by Anne Kingery-Schwartz, an objects conservator and Professional Member of the American Institute for Conservation, in April 2026. She assessed it as stable and in good condition. I have also been in direct contact with Dr. Richard Michael Gramly, who conducted the original investigation, and he has reviewed the article.

I would welcome additional expert examination and am actively pursuing institutional interest in the statue. If you or other editors have suggestions for appropriate experts or institutions, I would be very grateful for the recommendations. Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is important for this object to be examined by neutral experts who have never looked at it before. If the basic facts are confirmed, then this is one of the most interesting objects from colonial North America to survive from the 17th century. Thriley (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting isn't quite the word. This statue may someday sit in the center of a gallery at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Thriley (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree, and this is precisely my goal. I am actively seeking institutional interest, including having contacted the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, where Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, Director of the Arctic Studies Center, expressed institutional interest in the statue as far back as 1978. I have also been in contact with the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming, where Dr. Gramly's papers relating to the investigation are held, regarding the possible donation of the Genega family archive as a complementary collection.

I would welcome suggestions from the Wikipedia community for appropriate experts or institutions who could conduct a fresh examination. If anyone has contacts in the fields of African art history, Zulu material culture, or colonial American archaeology, I would be very grateful for introductions. Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t Oh! I missed that you disclosed a personal connection - where did you put it? I don't see it on your user page or talk page, or in the draft history. I'm thinking that this article is really better placed somewhere other than Wikipedia while you work on finding other experts and institutions interested in it. See WP:TOOSOON. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I second that it needs to go to draft. There's too much potential for this article to be used to sell/promote this before it is examined again and the findings published. There's been some terrible frauds over the past 60 years. Christie's looking at it in 1987 doesn't mean anything. Thriley (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The concern about fraud is understandable given the history of archaeological hoaxes, and I welcome scrutiny. However I would note that the statue's authenticity rests on several independent lines of evidence that are difficult to fabricate simultaneously: radiocarbon dating conducted in 1976 by Geochron Laboratories established a date of approximately A.D. 1630; wood identification by specialists at Syracuse University identified the wood as "Cassia siamea", an Asiatic species introduced to South Africa no earlier than the first half of the seventeenth century; and stylistic identification was made independently by Dr. Leon Siroto of Harvard's Peabody Museum and Patricia Davison of the South African Museum. These represent three separate and independent lines of evidence from four institutions.

Regarding promotion or sale — I have no current intention to sell the statue and the article makes no claim of monetary value. I am actively seeking institutional interest precisely because I want the statue in a public collection where it can be properly studied.

I respect the Wikipedia community's judgment on whether the article should return to draft status, and will abide by whatever consensus is reached. Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

All dating and identification have to be done again by experts. Thriley (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree, and this is my goal. A fresh independent examination by qualified experts in Zulu material culture and southeastern African art, with results published in a peer-reviewed or scholarly venue, would provide exactly the kind of independent secondary coverage that Wikipedia requires. I am actively working toward this. If you or anyone in the Wikipedia community has suggestions for appropriate specialists or institutions, I would welcome them warmly. Mithlyif2t (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Unfortunately I don't have any special expertise in this topic. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try that Mithlyif2t (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. You are correct that I should have formally disclosed my connection on my user page — I have now done so. I apologize for the oversight.

Regarding WP:TOOSOON, I understand your concern, but I would note that the article was reviewed and accepted by Hoary, an experienced reviewer, after revision to rely solely on published sources. The statue has been the subject of published scholarly and newspaper coverage since 1980. I take your point seriously however, and would welcome your thoughts on what additional expert attention or institutional involvement would need to occur before the topic is considered ready. Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t Thank you for providing your disclosure! In general, Wikipedia works on a consensus basis (Wikipedia:Consensus) - it's part of our normal process for multiple editors to notice different issues and opportunities, bring in additional information, and hopefully cooperatively come to a better understanding of how to cover various topics. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Gramly

What year did Gramly first contact the Genega family and cut the piece off to date it? Thriley (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Gramly first contacted the Genega family and conducted his initial examination in 1976. The wood sample was submitted to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with the sample received on June 30, 1976 and results reported on July 9, 1976. Mithlyif2t (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

I note that a conflict of interest tag has been added to the article. I disclosed my personal connection to the subject on my user page when this was pointed out earlier in this discussion. The article relies entirely on published, verifiable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. I welcome any specific suggestions for improving neutrality. Mithlyif2t (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This article needs to be looked over by other editors. It is one thing to write an article about someone notable you know, it is another to write an article about an extremely unusual object that was last documented in academic sources over 40 years ago. This object needs to be looked at by top experts in 2026 before this article says anything in Wikivoice. Thriley (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, because the article was published through the AfC process with your COI declared; and because no specific issues with the current content have been raised here.

That said, you should now refrain from editing the article, but instead make requests for changes on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy, for removing the tag and for your clear guidance. I will follow your advice and make any future requested changes through this talk page rather than editing the article directly. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and provide this clarification. Mithlyif2t (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Just as a point of clarification, I'm not sure whether COI was declared during the AfC process, although I believe the intent was to declare - I can't find a COI declaration in the article history during the draft stage, and the editor declared on this talk page and their user page after the article was accepted. @Hoary, did you know? (No strong opinion on whether to include the tag though...the bigger issue to me is that the article largely relies on a single academic article, so I'm thinking about bringing this to AfD due to not clearly meeting WP:GNG and not seeming eligible for re-draftification according to WP:DRAFTNO.) Dreamyshade (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

To clarify the COI timeline: Dreamyshade is correct that I did not declare my conflict of interest during the draft stage, which was an oversight on my part. When it was pointed out after acceptance, I immediately added the disclosure to my user page. I acknowledge this should have been done earlier and apologize for the oversight.

Regarding WP:GNG, I am actively working to obtain fresh independent expert examination of the statue, which I hope will result in new published scholarly coverage. I would ask for some patience while this process is underway before any AfD nomination is made. Mithlyif2t (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t Appreciate that you're trying to do the right things! We have a guideline of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I've nominated the article for deletion because I believe the most appropriate next step is to take the article out of "mainspace" while you work toward getting more scholarly coverage. Usually deletion discussions happen over seven days. After that, if the consensus is to delete, it can become a draft again. You can also publish the material elsewhere in the meantime, such as on a personal website or blog.

I'd also like to encourage you to contribute to other articles! I imagine you've developed some related expertise while researching this object, and I'm sure there are related articles that would benefit from your research and writing. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Dreamyshade for this clarification and for your encouraging words. I understand and appreciate your reasoning, and I am committed to pursuing the independent scholarly coverage that would justify the article's place in mainspace. I will continue working toward that goal. Mithlyif2t (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

the editor declared [a CoI] on this talk page and their user page after the article was accepted. @Hoary, did you know? I didn't know of the CoI declaration, because I paid no attention to this article after I (rather too hastily) promoted it from draft status. (Now that Dreamyshade has pinged me above, I arrive and am amazed to observe the degree of activity here.) The notion that there was a CoI of some kind had of course occurred to me. -- Hoary (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Dating questions

According to the article text, the statue "arrived on Long Island in the seventeenth century". The basis for this statement is not clear to me.

On the timeline, we can consider five dates, in chronological order, of the following events:

1. the felling of the tree;
2. the fashioning of the artifact;
3. the artifact making a transatlantic journey;
4. it being lost or discarded in the swamp at Farmingdale;
5. laying down of sandy fill and construction surrounding ranch-style houses;
6. it being discovered, in 1961.

The article text makes clear that the statue was carved from a piece of wood of a tree that had been felled around 1630 CE, with a margin of error of 115 years. Is that ± 115 years, with a possible late date around 1745 CE?

The artifact cannot have been been made before the tree was felled. But dating the wood only establishes a bound on the earliest possible production date. At the time of carving, the piece of wood could already have been quite old.

The current article text only establishes that event #4 can likely be dated to "the seventeenth century or later". Nothing gives a definitive handle on an upper bound other than the date of discovery. But we (the reader) also have no handle on an upper bound for event #3 other than one for #4. The scenario that someone brought the statue to North America in the late 19th century, upon which it was quickly discarded as being primitive and ugly (in the eye of the beholder), followed by the sandy fill, cannot be ruled out. This leaves room for a host of other provenance theories.

It seems to me that the only hope on a definite upper bound for the arrival is an established bound on the construction date of the surrounding ranch-style houses.

See also Out-of-place artifact.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this careful analysis — these are valid and important points. You are correct that the radiocarbon date of A.D. 1630 ± 115 years establishes only the felling date of the tree, not the date of carving, transport, or deposition. The upper bound of the margin of error does extend to approximately A.D. 1745, and the scenario you describe cannot be ruled out on the basis of radiocarbon dating alone.

The phrase 'arrived on Long Island in the seventeenth century' reflects Gramly's interpretation rather than a definitive established fact, and I agree it should be reworded to more accurately reflect what the evidence actually supports. I would suggest changing it to something like 'the circumstances and date of the statue's arrival on Long Island remain unknown' or attributing the seventeenth century hypothesis explicitly to Gramly.

I welcome suggestions for more precise wording that accurately reflects the limits of the available evidence. Mithlyif2t (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism#Farmingdale Statue

Path forward — questions for the community

As I work toward obtaining independent scholarly coverage, I would welcome guidance from the community on a few practical questions: 1. If the radiocarbon dating, wood identification, and ethnological attribution were each independently confirmed by qualified experts and the results published in reliable sources, would that be sufficient to return the article to mainspace? 2. Since I as a member of the Genega family would be funding these activities, would that constitute a conflict of interest that would undermine the independence of the resulting sources? 3. If independent confirmation of the basic facts is not sufficient, is the expectation that a new researcher independently investigate the statue's provenance and history and publish their own conclusions?

I ask these questions in good faith because I want to pursue the right path efficiently and not expend time and resources in a direction that would not ultimately satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. One of my goals in writing this article was precisely to bring the statue to the attention of present-day researchers who might continue where Gramly left off. Mithlyif2t (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mithlyif2t Editors use the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to evaluate the reliability of sources and the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability to evaluate whether a topic should have its own article. Different editors have different perspectives; it's possible that sufficient editors will think that the article should be in mainspace as-is, even if I think it needs more sources.

From my perspective, I'm trying to apply the guideline at WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include...Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". I'd want to see substantial analysis from qualified experts in an academic journal, newspaper, magazine, or other reasonably reliable publication to support the verifiability of the exceptional claims, especially the interpretations of provenance and significance.

Regarding whether it matters if you fund testing or research, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Independent sources: "Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." For example, if you gave some money to a university to fund a grad student research project, and they published a paper in a reputable journal, I'd say we could cite the paper, since you presumably wouldn't have any editorial control over the published results.

However, I don't know if a Wikipedia article is very relevant for your goal of getting researchers to pay attention to the object? Wikipedia articles on obscure topics don't necessarily get a lot of readers, especially not expert readers. It seems like trying to get a journalist or reputable podcast interested could work better, or pitching your own piece to a magazine or online publication of some kind. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Dreamyshade for this detailed and helpful guidance. I appreciate your patience and constructive engagement throughout this process. Mithlyif2t (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Single source doing a lot of heavy lifting

Is Black Art: An International Quarterly is a reliable source on archaeology, a reliable source on art only, or unreliable? That single source is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

In particular, the claim "Radiocarbon dating of the wood established a date of around A.D. 1630, with a margin of error of 115 years, making it one of the oldest surviving African wood carvings known to researchers." is suspicious. Dated by what lab? Give me a few bucks and I can hire someone to forge some African art out of 400-year-old wood. Forgery experts have ways of dealing with this sort of thing. Wood that was carved when it was green looks different than wood that was carved much later. Sometimes there is ancient pollen in the cracks that can be dated. You can date the oil finish separately from the wood. Is there any source that gives us details about the dating methodology?

Speaking of which, the article says "...clear, waxy matter identified by the Chemistry Department of the State University of New York at Stony Brook as animal fat or oil". Is there any evidence from SUNY that can be used to verify this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)