Talk:Cape York meteorite

Inuit reaction to the removal of the meteorite?

Is there any information concerning Inuit reaction to the removal of the Cape York Meteorite? Also, what was the reason for removing them in the first place? --Eraticus 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder this too. Foant 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I found these sites

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/Cape_York_meteorite.html

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Cape_York_Meteorite/capeyork.html?tair

it seems that with access to Western manufactured knives and tools the security of the locations of the meterorites became less important, though the sites don't dwell on the cultrul impact of having these traditional sources of metal taken away.Koonan the almost civilised 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the reason for removal was quite clear, as the article itself also makes clear - the breathtaking avarice of Robert Peary who stole them from the Iniut and sold them, for $40,000, to the American Museum of Natural History? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I cut that shit out. If you can come up with a way to say "breathtaking avarice" without the pathetic stench of white guilt, feel free to put it in the article. 99.108.18.12 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Impressive argument for deletion indeed, although a little surprised that you have only now replied. I have no guilt over that, but pure contempt. And why do you assume I am "white"? But sorry about the smell - perhaps it's the carcass of an issue that should have been properly buried years ago, but has been brushed under the carpet and left to rot. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a 2018 source with the title "Robert Peary: Thief of Meteorites". It begins: "Steal from the poor, give to the rich: how one man was celebrated for stealing from the Inuit. So many lives ruined, all because one man wanted fame." Looks rather clear to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Archaeological theft is warranted? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Added a short note on criticism of the removal of the meteorite. "Pathetic stench of white guilt" is not an appropriate reason to remove something. See WP:RVREASONS. Apeterlein (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A useful addition. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Iron

How did the Inuit obtain the iron and work it into tools? Are there coal deposits nearby that could be used to make a forge? PhilUK 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I presume that the metal was cold forged into tools, with whale blubber? and cold hammered into shape, small harpoon heads and hand knives? We need coal and coke to reduce iron ore because iron exists on earth as oxides it has literally rusted with oxygen in the atmosphere. Think of these meterorites as massive ignots of nickel iron from space. The metal and tools produced was inferior to manufactured ones, a reason it seems why their location was surrendered when manufactured knives etc became available.Koonan the almost civilised 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

State of preservation

How come the fragments of this space rock did not shatter into much smaller pieces on impact? This sort of strike normally doesn't leave such big splinters - compare the Sikhote-Alin meteorite (Octahedrite, coarsest) which may have been slightly bigger than the Cape York one, and where the fracturing was far more complete. Is it because near-solid iron, as opposed to rock, would be less susceptible to blowing into a myriad of fragments? 83.254.151.33 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Cape York, Willamette meteorite, Mbozi meteorite, Bacubirito meteorite and Hoba meteorite are iron-nickel alloys (density c. 8), they might had a "low trajectory". Willamette meteorite, Mbozi meteorite, Bacubirito meteorite and Hoba meteorite have an aerodynamically advantageous flat form and Cape York hit ice (density 0.9167). Fractures allow a pressure build up, this might be another point. All are iron meteorites. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The terminal velocity (free fall) is lower than the velocity in space/ orbit. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Inuit discovery

The 1897 dates for Peary's discovery of three fragments strikes me as terribly chauvinistic. Surely Inuit knew of these fragments long before that? Can anyone justify using 1897? Cstaffa (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How can found date be 1894?

If Inuit had been using this meteorite as a source of iron for centuries, the found date was obviously far earlier than 1894.

FFS, I'm an old white male and even I find it absurd that a thing known about for hundreds of years doesn't count as found until an old white guy decides to go and find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1443:80B9:5F3:AFD0:80EC:8B8B (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Impact Crater?

See also Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Are there already theories which connect these specimens to the Hiawatha Glacier impact crater? prokaryotes (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fall date?

@FunkMonk: - you seem keen to re-add the text "The meteorite collided with Earth nearly 10,000 years ago. " But this remains unsourced. It might be true, it might be sourceable, but it's not sourced in this article today, and that's the problem.

Can it be sourced? Well, quick looking shows at least two contrasting sources for this, one (AMNH) saying "some ten thousand years ago", another [1] saying "over 12,000 to 3 million". Now I distrust the first - museum websites and even on-site labelling placards are regularly inaccurate and the problem is getting worse as budgets are squeezed. These publications are not the peer-reviewed publications that we might assume for the organisation's imprimatur (I was in a well known museum last week and came out with two howlers on their labelling which I've just been emailing them photos of.)

Also, that 10,000 figure contradicts the text added here, which says nearly (i.e. definitely less than) 10,000.

I'm not an expert on meteorite dating, but I doubt that dating their fall is a terribly exact science. So if we start making claims (as here) that it's not only "10,000 years", but that we can know this precisely enough to give it as a single definitive number, then we need damn good sourcing to support that. What's the method for dating it? Examination of sediments overlaying an impact crater? Anthropological? What are the error margins for this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is not that we should include unsourced text, rather that it is very counterproductive to remove such info, instead of just finding a source to either back it up or give an alternative number, which is the desired procedure. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Policy does support removing it. So does regular practice here.

Now I happen to agree with you. But I can't source this. The obvious places and the meteorite databases just don't touch it, because the dating process isn't applicable to this meteorite. There's no observation of its fall. I know of no real geological study of the impact crater (the BBC cited source is going that way, but doesn't support this figure). I'm actually more interested in how a meteorite like this could be dated, more than the figure itself. We need a robust source here, not a throwaway round number on a museum website. I'm serious that public-facing labelling in museums just isn't reliable these days.

I see that you've added a magazine source, thanks for that, but I can't read it myself. What does it say? If it's an archaeological article, do they give a methodology for dating it, or are they just repeating the same untraceable figure again? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Surely Science is a "peer-reviewed academic journal"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

They cite a researcher. As for access and additional sources, scihub is your friend... FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References

The infobox date should be removed, anyway. Putting a date in an infobox clearly implies that the date is "safe", that is: supported by firm scientific consensus. There is *no* consensus at all on the fall date of this meteorite. 188.150.74.24 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

New "In popular culture" section?

Isn't the Cape York meteorite a major plot point in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.127.112 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

yes it is it is what the stand arrow is made of which plays a prominent role in part four Diamond is Unbreakable and part five Golden Wind I hope this helps. 71.14.253.152 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)