3 ms·

> The researchers used mass spectrometry carbon-dating to analyze trace amounts of twine discovered alongside three of the beads and date the artifacts’ creatio

> The researchers used mass spectrometry carbon-dating to analyze trace amounts of twine discovered alongside three of the beads and date the artifacts’ creation to between roughly 1397 and 1488. > When the archaeologists realized how old the beads were, “[w]e almost fell over backwards,” says Kunz in statement. “It came back saying [the plant was alive at] some time during the 1400s. It was like, Wow!” > If confirmed, the scientists’ discovery would indicate that Indigenous North Americans trading in northern Alaska wore European jewelry decades before Christopher Columbus’ 1492 landing in the Bahamas. Can I be skeptical for a moment? Even if the carbon dating is accurate (I go back and forth between "amazing what a bit of twine can tell us" and "can a bit of twine really tell us that"), wouldn't it also be possible that the thing wasn't made until 1488 and hung around in Europe for awhile before making its way over? Could it have been an antiquity that was brought by Russian fur traders? I know this has "just asking questions" vibes, but I think my point is just that, even though the language in the article appropriately hedged, we probably have a tendency to not read it that way.

defrost 3y ago
It's a fair question, and it's worth reading the full paper for details on the three sites in Alaska (some distance from where Columbus et al landed), the relationships between bead groups found, the layering of the sites, and the age and type of twine: Furthermore, the twine was a short-lived material—possibly one made from the inner bark of a shrub willow (Burch 2005:187) that was likely replaced regularly, so there would be no significant time lag between when the twine plant was photosynthesizing and when it was used to hold the ornament together. So, the reasoning goes that the beads are older than the twine, the twine was used to bind several objects including the beads together within a year (? say) of being 'lost' and left in a layer, and the twine predates 1488 and is in a remote interior part of Alaska. Full paper here: Kunz, M. L., & Mills, R. O. (2021). A Precolumbian Presence of Venetian Glass Trade Beads in Arctic Alaska. American Antiquity, 86(2), 395–412. doi:10.1017/aaq.2020.100 https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.100 https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.100
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  Nice context, thank you.

defrost 3y ago

It's a fair question, and it's worth reading the full paper for details on the three sites in Alaska (some distance from where Columbus et al landed), the relationships between bead groups found, the layering of the sites, and the age and type of twine: Furthermore, the twine was a short-lived material—possibly one made from the inner bark of a shrub willow (Burch 2005:187) that was likely replaced regularly, so there would be no significant time lag between when the twine plant was photosynthesizing and when it was used to hold the ornament together. So, the reasoning goes that the beads are older than the twine, the twine was used to bind several objects including the beads together within a year (? say) of being 'lost' and left in a layer, and the twine predates 1488 and is in a remote interior part of Alaska. Full paper here: Kunz, M. L., & Mills, R. O. (2021). A Precolumbian Presence of Venetian Glass Trade Beads in Arctic Alaska. American Antiquity, 86(2), 395–412. doi:10.1017/aaq.2020.100 https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.100 https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.100

Brendinooo 3y ago
Nice context, thank you.