http://io9.com/5859403/what-was-a-bronze-buckle-from-east-asia-doing-in-11th-century-alaska

"This artifact was likely cast long ago in Asia before making its long, mysterious journey Northward.

The artifact features several telltale signs that it was made in a mold, indicating whoever made this had knowledge of metallurgy. That means there's almost zero chance that the artifact originated in the Seward Peninsula, or indeed anywhere near the area where it was found, as there's zero archaeological evidence of prehistoric metalworking north of Mexico."

JC put the artifact there himself to test the faith of mormons.

Same dudes that made the Jaredite submarines made that thing. It's one of those rings that the Lamanites used to drag their women about by the hair.

Ron

Is too!

Has to be, your just not listening to the mormon archeologists side of things. They will tell you....

Fourteen hundred year old leather is going to survive? Which is more likely, an improbably long journey across some of the roughest seas on the planet in the coldest temperatures or an artifact from contemporary times contaminated with petroleum such as kerosone (or even whale oil since seawater can affect C-14 dates)?

I expect this archaeology newsgroup I peek in on will have some comments, some doubtless reasonable voices, and some from the outer limits of fringedom.

And the article does say the origin was likely Asia. The leather around the handle could have been added long after the metal was cast and the original material worn out.

I was looking up precolumbian metallurgy and it talked about arsenic bronze.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze
"In South America, arsenical bronze was the predominant alloy in Ecuador and north and central Peru, because of the rich arsenic bearing ores present there. By contrast, the south and central Andes, southern Peru, Bolivia and parts of Argentina, were rich in the tin ore Cassiterite and thus did not use arsenical bronze.[7]

The Sican Culture of north western coastal Peru is famous for its use of arsenical bronze during the period 900 to 1350 AD.[12] Arsenical bronze co-existed with tin bronze for in the Andes, probably due to its greater ductility which meant it could be easily hammered into thin sheets which were valued in local society.[7]"

In the right environment, yes.

The Inuit dwellings are given as around a thousand years old; the leather "pre-dates" them by 400 years...

Leather surviving in a perma-frost environment is a no-brainer, but...

See my link below, Richard...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 04:23PM by SL Cabbie.

Yet another hoax ?
I somehow do not think the archeological community has yet weighed in on this one.

he has made larger and stupider (is that a word) leaps.

That's the buckle I lost last year on my vacation in Alaska! Funny how far off carbon dating can be...

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/988dd111ad289f567bd293f531dc88a5.html

>A small piece of leather found wrapped around the rectangular bar by the research team yielded a radiocarbon date of roughly A.D. 600, which does not necessarily indicate the age of the object, he said.

What was "news to me" is DNA evidence that may indicate the ancestors of the Eskimos arrived in this hemisphere much later (~6000 years ago) rather than the 13,000 plus years for the ancestors of other Native Americans. I'm troubled, though, that the Boulder University gives dates of only 1,500 years ago for those folks...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5884/1787.abstract

The individual this sequence was taken from lived 3,400 to 4,500 years ago... In Greenland, with probable "ties" back to Siberia...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/nature08835.html

Your first article, says, in part:

"This result suggests that the earliest migrants into the New World's northern extremes derived from populations in the Bering Sea area and were not directly related to Native Americans or the later Neo-Eskimos that replaced them."

In other words, this article does not dispute, nor is it in any way contradictory to the article in question.

Your second article says, in part:

"This provides evidence for a migration from Siberia into the New World some 5,500 years ago, independent of that giving rise to the modern Native Americans and Inuit."

Again, this does not disupute the claim in the article that:

"Alternatively, some of the earliest Inupiat Eskimos in northwest Alaska -- the direct ancestors of modern Eskimos thought to have migrated into Alaska from adjacent Siberia some 1,500 years ago."

In fact, both of the articles you provided are quite clear that the paleo-eskimoes peopling the artic circa 6000 ybp are NOT the ancestors of the modern eskimo population.

The research being conducted that located the buckle, IS directly related to the modern population, which arrived in the area much later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 04:40PM by Richard the Bad.

What's 4,500 years anyway? From the U of Colorado piece...

>The earliest Inupiat Eskimos in northwest Alaska -- the direct ancestors of modern Eskimos thought to have migrated into Alaska from adjacent Siberia some 1,500 years ago...

The "best case scenario" on this one is its inclusion in the report was "probably unfortunate." Or perhaps they dropped a zero...

http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=151

>No one knows just when the first Eskimos arrived in Alaska, but it was at least 6,000 years ago. The earliest Eskimos inhabited Southwest Alaska. Possibly more Eskimos came to Alaska about 4,500 years ago from coastal Siberia. Although they do not know for sure, archaeologists speculate that the inhabitants of the coast 8,000 years ago might have been Eskimo people.

>The ancestors of Inupiaq Eskimos, whose presence may be documented by archaeological evidence, arrived in Alaska before 4,000 years ago. Bands of Eskimos moved north and east across Alaska and northern Canada to Greenland around 4,000 years ago.

The DNA evidence I'm reviewing is "fleshing out" this stuff, is generally consistent, and it appears Greenland "Eskimos" descended from earlier Alaska inhabitants (although there's still a lot of debate). Back migration across the Bering Sea is documented, of course, but my view is the reason this artifact "went viral" (I read the story first on MSNBC) is because of its "dramatic sex appeal" as much as any possible historical merit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379174/

>The geographic specificity and remarkable intrinsic diversity of D2 lineages support the refugial hypothesis, which assumes that the founding population of Eskimo-Aleut originated in Beringan/southwestern Alaskan refugia during the early postglacial period, rather than having reached the shores of Alaska as the result of recent wave of migration from interior Siberia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 06:14PM by SL Cabbie.

Your right.

Does this mean the church is true and I have to go back to church?

The bronze buckle is easy to explain.

We all know that Cain who is the Sasquatch now lives in the Northwest area of North America.

Well, Sasquatch has a very hardy appetite. Several thousand years ago he ate this Asian guy, clothes and all.

What many people do not realize is that Sasquatch's digestive tract is very slow. So it was not until he had traveled from Asia to Alaska that he finally pooped out the undigestable bronze buckle.

Now you might ask yourself, what was Cain the Sasquatch doing in Asia? Easy, he is the father of the Yeti Clan. The Yeti are his decendants. He has traveled all over this planet and spread his accursed seed far and wide.

God may have changed him into the Sasquatch, but He did not take away his dick!