A story about a “mysterious power plug” turning up in a 100,000‑year‑old cave sounds tailor‑made for viral headlines and late‑night talk shows. It also fits a long tradition of so‑called out‑of‑place artifacts that seem to promise proof of lost civilizations or time‑traveling engineers. When I look closely at the evidence behind these claims, however, the pattern that emerges is less about ancient technology and more about how modern objects can be misread once they are wrapped in stone, myth and repetition.
The most instructive case is not in a Paleolithic cave at all but in a lump of rock from California that became famous as a supposed ancient spark plug. That object, known as the Coso artifact, shows how an ordinary piece of machinery can be transformed into a symbol of forbidden history, even when geologists and engineers can explain it in straightforward terms. The cave “power plug” story follows the same script, and understanding that script is essential before treating any such discovery as a revolution in human history.
From spark plug to “ancient power plug”
The Coso artifact began as a small curiosity found inside a stone concretion and quickly grew into a sweeping claim about advanced technology in deep time. Its discoverers promoted it as a spark plug locked inside a geologic nodule that was said to be hundreds of thousands of years old, a narrative that framed the object as impossible under conventional archaeology. In reality, detailed examination showed that the core was a very ordinary twentieth‑century plug, and the surrounding material was not a multimillion‑year‑old geode but a relatively young concretion that can form around metal in a matter of decades, a point that is clear from technical descriptions of the Coso artifact.
Despite that mundane explanation, the Coso artifact was quickly embraced by fringe writers as proof that our timeline was wrong. Young‑earth creationist Carl Baugh, already known for promoting controversial claims about the Paluxy River tracks, cited the object as evidence that modern‑looking technology existed far earlier than mainstream geology allows. His arguments leaned heavily on the idea that such concretions must take immense spans of time to form, even though field studies show that mineral deposits can build up around metal, plastic and other debris in years rather than eons. The way Baugh and others treated Coso as a trump card against conventional science illustrates how a single misinterpreted object can be used to challenge entire disciplines, even when the physical evidence points in the opposite direction.
How myths harden faster than stone
Once a story like Coso enters the public imagination, it tends to accrete new details just as quickly as minerals accrete around a discarded machine part. In online discussions of the case, skeptically minded historians have pointed out that not all “rocks” take millions of years to form and that human trash can be incorporated into hard, stone‑like masses surprisingly quickly. One detailed breakdown on a specialist forum noted that the concretion around the plug was consistent with deposits that form around modern metal, plastic and associated human debris, a point that matches the observation that can be formed in relatively short periods under the right conditions.
Scientists who have revisited the Coso claims emphasize that the real lesson is about process rather than mystery. Geologists explain that concretions can grow around a foreign object as groundwater carries dissolved minerals through soil and sediment, gradually cementing the material into a hard mass. That mechanism is well documented in coastal environments, riverbeds and even construction sites where pipes and rebar become entombed in mineral buildup. When advocates of out‑of‑place artifacts insist that such formations must be unimaginably old, they are not just overstating the timescales, they are ignoring a large body of field evidence that shows how quickly these structures can appear around modern objects.
Why the “100,000‑year‑old plug” keeps coming back
The leap from Coso to a “mysterious power plug” in a 100,000‑year‑old cave is less about new data and more about narrative recycling. Stories about Paleolithic sockets or machine parts in ancient strata almost always trace back to a small set of disputed finds that have already been explained in conventional terms. In many cases, the supposed age of the surrounding rock is asserted without clear stratigraphic evidence, or the object itself is found in disturbed layers where recent material has been introduced by burrowing animals, water flow or human activity. When I compare these cave claims to the documented history of Coso, the parallels are striking: a modern‑looking artifact, an assumed deep age for the host material, and a reluctance to accept that the two may not be contemporaneous.
Researchers who track creationist and pseudoscientific uses of artifacts have highlighted how figures like Carl Baugh and his references to the Paluxy River tracks rely on a small stable of objects to argue that mainstream geology and evolutionary biology are fundamentally flawed. Analyses of Coso and related show that these arguments often rest on misunderstandings of how fast sediments, concretions and other geological features can develop. When a cave discovery is framed as a 100,000‑year‑old power plug, it taps into the same rhetorical strategy, inviting readers to marvel at the apparent impossibility rather than to ask basic questions about context, intrusion and dating.
More from Morning Overview