5 ms·

They date the twine used, not the actual beads themselves. It could be the case that the beads were put on some old twine. Or that the twine and beads were ol

They date the twine used, not the actual beads themselves. It could be the case that the beads were put on some old twine. Or that the twine and beads were old, but landed in Alaska at a much later time.

goda90 6y ago
"This date range was subsequently affirmed through the testing of charcoal and caribou bones found at the three sites." Looks like they compared to the site as well, confirming the beads were there in pre-columbian times.
- jmartrican 6y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that part.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>It could be the case that the beads were put on some old twine. The inverse is far more likely. Twine is basically a consumable whereas being non-reactive to most of the things people come in contact with is all but a requirement of jwelry.
Archelaos 6y ago
The article states that the twin was not directly associated to the beads (so no putting them on some old twine), but was from the accompanying bangle (probably item "o" in the image), which was dated 1397–1488 and "was subsequently affirmed through the testing of charcoal and caribou bones found at the three sites". This is a typical situation when dating items indirectly from their find context. The standard counter-argument is, of course, that the item was added at some other point in time to its find context. So in this case the counter-argument would be that the beads had been added at least a few decades later, while anything else that had been dated is from 1488 or earlier. (A few decades, to allow for some time for their journey from the Atlantic coast to Alaska.) How likely or unlikely is that?
- jmartrican 6y ago
  Thanks for clearing that up. So the question is, which direction did the beads take to arrive there... from the Atlantic route (which is cool but not ground breaking), or from the Pacific, which is way more interesting in significance.
credit_guy 6y ago
You can't date the beads themselves. Or you could, but you'd get the date when the rock formed, which is potentially a few million years ago, not the date when the beads were polished by some jewelers into their current shape. With the twine, you get the date when the carbon was metabolized, which is when the plant or animal where the fiber came from was alive and breathing. This is very close in time to the date when the fiber was actually twisted to form the twine, and to the date the twine was coupled with the beads to form a necklace or pendant.
naebother 6y ago
I wonder if you can narrow down what types of fiber the twine was made out of and rule out plants native to North America?
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Most plant families in the arctic are fairly cosmopolitan and exist on both sides of the strait. This particular twine is thought to be from a willow species, which is a particularly widespread family up there.
- aksss 6y ago
  "probably the inner bark of a shrub willow" https://news.uaf.edu/blue-beads-in-the-tundra/ https://news.uaf.edu/blue-beads-in-the-tundra/

goda90 6y ago

"This date range was subsequently affirmed through the testing of charcoal and caribou bones found at the three sites." Looks like they compared to the site as well, confirming the beads were there in pre-columbian times.

jmartrican 6y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that part.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>It could be the case that the beads were put on some old twine. The inverse is far more likely. Twine is basically a consumable whereas being non-reactive to most of the things people come in contact with is all but a requirement of jwelry.

Archelaos 6y ago

The article states that the twin was not directly associated to the beads (so no putting them on some old twine), but was from the accompanying bangle (probably item "o" in the image), which was dated 1397–1488 and "was subsequently affirmed through the testing of charcoal and caribou bones found at the three sites". This is a typical situation when dating items indirectly from their find context. The standard counter-argument is, of course, that the item was added at some other point in time to its find context. So in this case the counter-argument would be that the beads had been added at least a few decades later, while anything else that had been dated is from 1488 or earlier. (A few decades, to allow for some time for their journey from the Atlantic coast to Alaska.) How likely or unlikely is that?

jmartrican 6y ago
Thanks for clearing that up. So the question is, which direction did the beads take to arrive there... from the Atlantic route (which is cool but not ground breaking), or from the Pacific, which is way more interesting in significance.

credit_guy 6y ago

You can't date the beads themselves. Or you could, but you'd get the date when the rock formed, which is potentially a few million years ago, not the date when the beads were polished by some jewelers into their current shape. With the twine, you get the date when the carbon was metabolized, which is when the plant or animal where the fiber came from was alive and breathing. This is very close in time to the date when the fiber was actually twisted to form the twine, and to the date the twine was coupled with the beads to form a necklace or pendant.

naebother 6y ago

I wonder if you can narrow down what types of fiber the twine was made out of and rule out plants native to North America?

AlotOfReading 6y ago
Most plant families in the arctic are fairly cosmopolitan and exist on both sides of the strait. This particular twine is thought to be from a willow species, which is a particularly widespread family up there.
aksss 6y ago
"probably the inner bark of a shrub willow" https://news.uaf.edu/blue-beads-in-the-tundra/ https://news.uaf.edu/blue-beads-in-the-tundra/