"David Johnson" wrote in message
. 125.204...
"stevewhittet" wrote in
:

[big snip]

Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using
something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife
handles and butt stocks for rifles
or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue?

Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle
someplace
where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't?

As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across
Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo,
Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who
lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the
maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic
and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact.

Haven't you all agreed on that yet?

You may have missed the beginning of this thread.

Nah, I was there for the beginning of it.

I have been seeing it in one form or another since before the end of the
last millenium.
It started about ninety and four I think. Every couple of years I pop in to
see if its still going on
and who the latest players to take it up are.

Quick synopsis is that Seppo or Inger (I'm not sure which - but they're
pretty much interchangeable when it comes to posting drek here) said that
Greenland Inuit would not have a use for a wood plane because "they had
no wood."

There was a little more to it than that, and of course they are just the
latest
to join in. They wouldn't member the way it was in the day.

Floyd (and others - but Floyd's supplied some of the most interesting
info, what with actually _living_ in the Arctic and all) then proceeded
to show that, yes, they _did_ have and _use_ wood.

Yeah, although its interesting that they moved from an area where wood
was plentiful because subsistence was easier where they could fish
for swordfish, whales and seals. Swordfish tend to be a bluewater species.

At which point Seppo tried to pretend that all those nice wooden frames
for kayaks (which were one of the examples of wood use - not the only
ones, of course, but in typical Seppo/Inger fashion, he feels if he can
"disprove" one example, he's "disproved" all of them) were _actually_
whale bone.

Some kayaks used whale bone, some used wood, what does that prove?

This in spite of the fact that Floyd could _walk_ about ten
minutes from his home and _see_ the example Seps tried to use the picture
of to "prove" it was bone - and see that, yes, it was _wood_.

You have to realise that the rules of this group prohibit you from arguing
that what the other guy is saying is counter to fact. That is to say I'm
sure
that if there were a FAQ that rule would be in there. Everybody in here
spins their ass off all the time.

Or, IOW, this has been a typical Inger/Seppo-class fudging so that they
can pretend they didn't make (yet) a(nother) mistake.

Why respond and encourage them?


David

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"

regards,

steve