Seppo,
it's lucky for Floyd that he wasn't King of England when King Erik of
Sweden-Denmark and Norway called for the English to pay for merchansise,
cargo they stole or didn't pay trading tax for and all the codfish they
after 1418 un-authorized fished south of Greenland and southwest of
Iceland...... he has no clue about the trade at all. Thus he doesn't know
that the Greenlanders also had butter and hard cheese from cowmilk as well
as goats sent on trading ships over to Norway....

I guess much of the totally stupid comments we see here from people who
should have done their homework reading how the situation actually was in
Scandinavia, Iceland and Greenland from let's say 850 AD to 1490 AD. There
obviously are a lot who still try to lean to Icelandic Sagas forgetting all
other documents, diplomas, donation length, ships documents and annals.....

Inger E
btw. have you any good idea why copper turtle-broaches suddenly became
common in Iceland between 9th century to 11th? My thought NA. Your thoughts?
IEJ

Inger E
"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
Snicker. Keep trying... the fact is that *anything* on a ship
that had metal in it (never mind sharp metal) was by definition
a "trade item".

Certain items are necessary for the ship and the safe operation of the
ship and therefor are NOT by any definition trade goods. "Trade goods"
are those items that have been loaded on board a ship for the purpose
of trade. EG, glass beads. At least get your terminology right, as a
starter.

Giggle snort.

Stop it - snorting is not good for your health besides being illegal!

You do understand the reason for my putting
quotes around the two words in the text you quote? You are just
as pedantically foolish with your European mindset as Inger.

Are you being "pedantically foolish" by picking on the difference
between "item" and "goods" perhaps? If not perhaps you could translate
your gibberish into English.

Like I said, *anything* that could be traded for was by
definition a "trade item".

It has already been rejected as nonsense - and it remains nonsense.

What they thought was a trade item
when they loaded the cargo is one thing; and what they thought
was a trade item when they were shipwrecked and planning an
overland trek is a different thing. And what was a trade item
to the first Eskimo that picked it up off the beach is another
thing too!

So you are suggesting Norse sailors wouldn't know the difference
between essential tools and trade goods? Care to provide the proof, or
do we just accept it as ignorance on your part?

Something picked up "off the beach" doesn't qualify as "trade goods",
you know. It is merely finding lost property.

More over, *none* of these ships were uniquely "traders". They
carried explorers, the carried colonists, they carried military,
and perhaps other classification.

How do you know that? Which ships are you talking about? WHEN are you
referring to? Why wouldn't ships of ANY kind also carry some trade
goods - you know gifts, to impress powerful people? Your claims are
founded on quicksand!

All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada.

So after all that dribble you now admit you don't have any idea if
they were trade goods or not - and that you have been full of the
proverbial all the while!

Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd.

Oh really..... but you weren't speculating, you were claiming FACTS
even in this post - which you state above CANNOT BE as you haven't a
clue!

Further more where is the sanity in claiming something cannot be said
NOT to have occurred? After all it is much, much simpler to define
what CANNOT have occurred and be correct, that what has occurred.
After all without a single shred of evidence, not even sound logic,
you claimed something as a fact - despite now saying it cannot be
done! I think you've got things base over apex - again!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------