Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating
kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...
Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people
for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time?
4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?)
Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000
years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north
of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the
south,
Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is
some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously
if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands
of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.
I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo
and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset.
That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from
New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow.
In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your
introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is
a red herring.
So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are
not the same? (I'll point out that the only reason you even know
there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.)
Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word
"Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from
the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some
nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit"
means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language,
and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be
technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common
usage).
Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe
that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe
*everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in
that sense.
In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used
the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos,
not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group.
Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)
You can make a febble argument that Independence I was
Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but
you can try it.
Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)
From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly
agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually
total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble
argument is possible.
Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)
Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)
Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)
Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)
Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)
You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture
as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the
most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with
which the Norse had significant contact.
There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here.
You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something
which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake
that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact
that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world,
I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point
you should have learned a long time back Eric.
--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)