Talk:Telluric iron

	Earth sciences portal Telluric iron is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

problem sentence

This sentence seems like an enormous problem.

"In the late 1840s, when large boulders of iron were discovered near the Disko Bay area by European explorers, it was assumed that the metal was of meteoric origin, since both contain significant amounts of nickel and both had Widmanstatten structures. The local Inuit were known to have made iron tools from the Cape York meteorite. In 1871, several large blocks were brought to Europe for further study. A 25 ton block now rests outside of the Riksmuseum in Stockholm, a 6.6 ton block outside the Geological Museum in Copenhagen, and a 3 ton block can be found in Kaisaniemi Park in Helsinki."

Everything after "The local Inuit were known to..." does not have anything to do with Telluric iron. The Cape York Meteorite is not Telluric iron. They are relevant, because the Inuit used flakes from the Cape York meteorites for tools, just as they apparently have used Telluric iron for tools, but the Cape York Meteorite is /not/ Telluric iron.

I'll go ahead and delete it, so it just states: "In the late 1840s, when large boulders of iron were discovered near the Disko Bay area by European explorers, it was assumed that the metal was of meteoric origin, since both contain significant amounts of nickel and both had Widmanstatten structures."

Well, when Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld discovered the boulders of iron in Greenland, he knew that the Inuit had made tools from the Cape York meteorite. That, combined with the fact that these boulders contained both nickel and Widmanstatten structures, he naturally assumed that his find was also meteoritic. (He was actually completely convinced, and rejected Steenstrup's find, until Lorenzen completed his own analytical work in 1882.) My reason for including the sentence about the Cape York meteorite is to help show how Nordenskiöld would have been easily confused.

On his second expedititon to Greenland, Nordenskiöld brough the three large samples of telluric iron back to Europe. My reason for including their location is that I thought it would be interesting for those living in or visiting Europe to know where they can find these samples of telluric iron, in case someone would like to see it for themselves.Zaereth (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem, enormous or otherwise. The whereabouts of the bulk samples in Europe even seems usefullly instrcutional. Midgley (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the biography page of Nordenskiöld, it looks like his first trip to Greenland was in 1870, not the 1840s. He was born in 1832 so would have been quite young even at the end of the 1840s. Belltower (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I don't know where that info came from, but I'm guessing either from Buchwald's books or from my own error. I don't have the books in front of me right now, but I'm assuming the error is more likely on my part rather than a highly renowned metallurgist like Buchwald. I didn't just make it up, because I knew nothing about this subject until running across it while researching Viking swords.

I was able to check Steenstrup's own writings, and have adjusted the article accordingly. He's likely the best source, since he was in on all of this when it happened. Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Inuit

This phrase, in the 'Type 1' section, is problematic:

... by the ancient Inuit people, (the local inhabitants of Greenland), and ...

Although the Inuits live there now, they only arrived about 1200ce or 1300ce. Not "ancient". I'm not sure what years they're talking about, but before the Inuits was the Dorset_culture starting around 500bce. See the Inuit and Dorset articles for more detail. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "ancient" is "thing from the very distant past. The 12 and 1300s seem pretty ancient to me. (Heck, the 1800s seem pretty ancient. My grandpa seems pretty ancient.) The point is it's no longer used by the modern Inuit. I'm just going by the sources, but if you have a better way to phrase it, go for it. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've been thinking hard about changing that to something else, like maybe "medieval Inuit", but that just doesn't seem to fit. (Conjures up weird images of knights in parkas riding dog sleds.) Rather than just a time period, these terms also give a particular connotation about a stage in technological development and a way of life, similar to "Bronze Age" or "Iron Age". At that point in time (1800s) the Inuit were still for the most part in the Stone Age. In many of the Eskimo, Aleut, Tlinkit, Inupiat, etc., villages I've visited in my life, many of my good friends still proudly live almost exactly like they have for thousands of years, with the exception that the snowmachine has largely replaced the sled dog. No electricity, no running water, no internet, making most of their living through hunting and gathering. It's difficult to find another word that fits, but I'm open to suggestions. Zaereth (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]