[meteorite-list] Pojoaque Pallisite

From: Regine P. <fips_bruno_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:00:36 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <1335765636.50452.YahooMailNeo_at_web132105.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Camp Verde comes to mind, of which one side, "the backbone" as Laurence Garvie calls it, seems to have been rubbed smooth. But taken its weight it could hardly have been carried around by a medicine man. Since I have first seen it I have always imagined someone taking it for its deceased child which has fallen back from the sky. It has a head, shoulders and a spine. Just a trifle heavy perhaps.



----- Urspr?ngliche Message -----
> Von: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> An: fips_bruno at yahoo.de; Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> CC:
> Gesendet: 1:57 Montag, 30.April 2012
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pojoaque Pallisite
>
>& quot; the meteorite had been carried in a medicine bag? It doesn't sound
> implausible, but what are the clues?"
>
> Hi, Regine, Carleton, Mike, Bernd, Jeff, David, Listers;
>
> I would like to draw some attention to the "carried in a medicine
> pouch" since Regine asked ;-)
>
> These guys are all with the Great Spirit now, who did the excavations, so
> we're stuck analyzing something that was contermplated in the 1920's
> with the baggage of nearly an intervening century.
>
> It is quite possible, like many things, that this medicine pouch comment is a
> comment run amok as usual with meteorites, someone says something, then it takes
> on a life of its own due to tales getting taller,even among conservative
> scientists, unintentionally, of course, everyone just takes away a different
> idea and they follow natural 'election'.
>
> The original comment seems to be that it was carried as "medicine",
> rather than in a medicine pouch.? While this seems to be a minor difference,
> it's not.? One involves an inference and the other is more of an
> observation.
>
> Nininger later (1952) expounds on the comment when discussing Native American
> meteorite collectors and the medicine pounch has by then become alive in its
> own, through no one's fault.
>
> The concept of "medicine" doesn't necessarily require a pouch, and
> may not even be in the hands of a medicine man, why, it just as well could have
> been a chief, or a brave warrior ... and could just as well be from a great deal
> of handling.? The observation was simply that at least three of the
> protuberances above the regmaglypts depressions were highly worn from what was
> very plausibly a soft material.? To make the leap to call it a pouch, or just a
> lot of hands ... is a good philosophical theme for a room full of meteorite
> collectors and archeaologists without Regine's magic powder burns evidence.?
> But the fact was, the wear was supposedly caused from a lot of handling or
> rubbing.? That said, ablation is a strange master and it would be verrrrry
> interesting to revisit this "wear" which formed the basis of the
> original archaeological comments.
>
> What is for sure, apparently is that it was found inside the pottery and that in
> turn in a burial ground.? So there are some Spirits floating around it.? Perhaps
> Man & Impact Ed has a theory, it's his ballywick.? But we do need to see
> it.? Carleton kindly mentions that a couple of grams were at ASU, that makes
> sense that Nininger would take some.? My fear is that calling this pivotal iron
> "just" another synonym does no good to science if it is lost for
> inspection.? Apparently the piece weighed originally 3 ounces (about 85 g), and
> it was a complete individual subject to what was speculated to be a violent
> history, that is, after Nininger figured out how Glorieta ripped apart along of
> course with Kunz.
>
> But not only is the mystery with the original piece, this piece is historical in
> that it was the first specimen that was used as a keystone to pair a pallasite
> fall to a siderite fall ... and help create the need to have a single name with
> synonyms ... how ironic, errr... palladoxical ;-)
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Regine P. <fips_bruno at yahoo.de>
> To: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>; bernd.pauli
> <bernd.pauli at paulinet.de>; meteorite-list
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sun, Apr 29, 2012 7:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pojoaque Pallisite
>
>
> Hi Doug, Bernd and all,
>
> I too would like to know where this one is being kept. What baffles me though,
> how does one get to the conclusion the meteorite had been carried in a medicine
> bag? It doesn't sound implausible, but what are the clues? Magic powder
> topping?
> Is there any further info?
>
>
> Regine
>
>
>
> ----- Urspr?ngliche Message -----
>> Von: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
>> An: bernd.pauli at paulinet.de; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> CC:
>> Gesendet: 23:54 Sonntag, 29.April 2012
>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Pojoaque Pallisite
>>
>> Hi Listers,
>>
>> Paired - quite likely - It has a much more interesting history than
> to be
> lumped
>> as a synonym and IMO value as a named iron in its own right:
>>
>> This particular iron showed a lot of evidence of wear from human
> handling and
>> Nininger supported Mera's suggestion that it was carried in a
> medicine pouch
>> in Pojoaque, which makes a triangle geographically, roughly, with
> Santa Fe,
>> Glorieta, Mountain locality and Pojoaque pueble.? According to the
> circumstances
>> of the fine, it was found inside some old pottery during excavations
> at the
>> Pueblo, i.e., protected, and exhibited beautiful flow lines and
> notable bluish
>
>> fresh fusion crust, indicating it was a reasonable possibility that
> whoever
>> found it saw it fall.? As it was found during excavations, it raises
> the
>> possibility of using this to date the Glorieta Mountain fall.
>>
>> It would be nice to know where this meteorite is now.? Did it make it
> to New
>> Mexico's collection?? Nininger, in 1931, saw it in Santa Fe,
> specifically in
>> the "Department of Anthropology", where Mera may have been
> working.?
>> But someone else needs to sleuth a bit further from here because I
> sure
>> don't know where it is now, and it would be great to see it in its
> present
>> condition ;-), as it was cut up a bit because Nininger and others
> used it to
>> argue that Glorieta Mountain wasn't a siderite, but a
> sidero-pallasite
>> combination as well as consolidate some of the names Bernd lists ...
> I think
> the
>> paper was 1940.
>>
>> Definitely a specimen with a very special, if not sacred, history ...
>>
>> Kindest wishes
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bernd V. Pauli <bernd.pauli at paulinet.de>
>> To: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Sun, Apr 29, 2012 5:03 pm
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Pojoaque Pallisite
>>
>>
>> Hello Jeff, Mike, David and List,
>>
>> David wrote: "It is indeed the synonym for Glorieta"
>>
>> ... and only one out of several others:
>>
>> Albuquerque
>> Canoncito
>> Glorieta
>> Pojoaque
>> Rio Arriba
>> Santa Fe
>> Santa Fe County
>> Trinity County
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>
Received on Mon 30 Apr 2012 02:00:36 AM PDT