Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
You do understand that when someone says that I am a direct
descendant of my father, that does not mean I am not also a
descendant of my grandfathers, and my great-grandfathers???
That is the argument you are making. It is logically flawed.
Nor does it mean that you are a descendednt of you great-grandfather's
neighbours.
Why do you continue to inject irrelevant points like that?
We are *not* talking about great-granddad's neighbors (that
would be the Norse and other Europeans, or the Innu that you
posted a link to above as a place keeper for confusion.
So you are arguing that that the Saqqaq, the Early Dorset, the Late
Dorset, the two different streams of the Independence people and the
Thule people were just one large happy family? I'm suggesting they
were different and often competing cultural groups and for the most
part went their independent ways.
The point is that while they each had distinct differences, they
were *all* similar in the ways that we use to define what is
Eskimo/Inuit culture. They were not Innu. They were not Aleut.
They *were* *all* Eskimo/Inuit.
It is not as if there was one unique and very distinct thing
that is "Early Dorset" that is and always was different than an
equally distinct and very different thing called "Saqqaq" or
another one called "Late Dorset". In fact there was a continuum
of culture without any break, without gaps and definitely with
links to each other.
During the times when these cultures overlapped each other you
can be assured the people both spoke the same language, they
traded with each other in every way we can imagine, and
individuals would have sometimes moved from one to the other.
As I mentioned previously, this is not much different than what
we have today with Yupik and Inupiat villages in Alaska today.
Or what we have with the cultural split between coastal,
riverine, and inland Eskimo villages.
And just as it was then, the different Eskimo/Inuit cultures of
today are still Eskimo/Inuit. Yet an anthropologist would
definitely want to put different names on each in order to
distinguish the differences.
You do realize, for example, that in say 1800 only about half of
the Eskimo people in Alaska would have ever seen an Umiaq. And
if we dig up the remains of various villages and try to classify
them, there would necessarily *have* to be at least two labels,
one for places where Umiaqs were used and one for where there
were none. But we also know that even Eskimo people who had
never seen an Umiaq were still just as much Eskimo as those who
used Umiaqs. (Riverine and inland Eskimos didn't use Umiaqs.)
The Dorset were the ancestors of the Thule people, and the
Saqqaq and Independence I were the ancestors of the Dorset.
They were all what can be called Eskimos or Inuit, and the
ones who were there 4000 years ago were making wood framed
skin boats.
You can bull**** all you like, but the quote which said there
was evidence of Inuit making wood framed kayaqs 4000 years ago
in Greenland was *exactly* correct.
Only with your broad definition of Inuit.
The definition does not belong to me. It is the most commonly
used one. Your narrow definition, except when you sometimes
restrict it in ways that virtually nobody else does, is just as
correct. But *you* are absolutely wrong in the way you
interpret what the significance is.
And you have been denying that they had ancestors, who were also
Eskimo/Inuit, in Greenland going back 4000 years.
The inuit in Greenland are descended from the Thule people who
migrated from Alaska over a period of centuries. Are you saying the
Alaskan Thule are descended from earlier inhabitants of Greenland.
First, the people from Alaska first migrated to Greenland about
2500 BC. There are descendants of those people living in Greenland
today. That does not exclude the possibility that more Alaskans
migrated to Greenland over the next 4500 years; but equally the
additional migration does not exclude the continuous presence of
descendants from the earliest migrations.
These are *all* one basic group of people. The same gene pool.
The same evolving cultures.
You still haven't gotten is settled in your head that Thule
*Technology* is what migrated to Greenland in 1200 AD. There
was *no* wave of people who were different than the ones already
there. It may not even have been *any* new people at all.
They were *all* related, genetically and culturally. That means
not just Greenlandic variations of that culture group, but the
ones from Canada, Alaska and Siberia.
Seppo and Inger claimed there was no wood. You claimed there
were no Inuit people. You are all three logically impaired.
As we both know, it all depends on how you define 'inuit'. I was using
what I believe to be the correct terminology which distinguishes the
current inhabitants from those earlier cultures which lived in
Greenland.
You have had it explained to you a dozen times or so that you
are making up something which doesn't exist, and then fabricating
an entire world to match what you have imagined.
Your terminology is *wrong*. It does *not* distinguish the
current inhabitants from those of earlier cultures in the manner
you are assuming. And that is exactly what makes it wrong.
There is *no question* but those peoples were essentially
one gene pool who over a 4500 year period continuously evolved
their culture, and we can identify differences over 1000 year
intervals. You want to use the distinct nomenclature applied to
these periods of evolution as the basis to claim that the
people's genes were as different as the letters in the words
used to label them.
That is just nothing but nonsense.
The quote that I provided was not from someone who didn't
understand the words. You don't understand, but the author of
the quote did. The quote was correct. There were Eskimo/Inuit
people in Greenland 4000 years ago, and they were building wood
framed skin boats.
I've never said there were no wood framed boats being built in
Greenland 4000 years ago.
I know. You think there was a lost race of Martians building
boats, and when the fleet was large enough, they sailed home
and we are left with nothing but strange artifacts.
The boats being built there 4000 years ago were being built by
the ancestors of today's Greenlanders. There weren't from Mars.
Now, I understand that there are other possible ways to use a
number of the words which appeared in that quote, including the
word Inuit. But the question is not how do we intentionally
misconstrue what the author had to say. That seems to be your
one and only real purpose. The fact is, the author was correct
in the message that was intended to be conveyed, and the word
usage is indeed common usage. Nobody with half a brain is
likely to misunderstand what was said.
You would have me wrong for employing the word 'inuit' in what I
believe to be its correct anthropological usage rather than in the
broader popular usage.
No, you are wrong for thinking that two definitions of "inuit"
means *you* can decide which one other people are using. You
claimed the statement that Inuit were making wood framed boats
in Greenland 4000 years ago was wrong. Clearly it is not wrong.
You might not want to say it that way, but when someone else
does they are still 100% correct.
Clearly you are unable to read what the author was saying,
because you want to use *your* definition regardless of which
definition the author used.
You've done it with the word "inuit", and you've done the same
thing with other words too. It is an obnoxious habit befitting
a 12 year old (that is about the age when most kids figure out
how to play that game, but they usually learn better by 15).
I can remember when my children went through that stage. I
always let them pull one of those word swap games on me just
once. And when they popped the punch line, I'd laugh just as
loud as them. Then I'd get very serious and explain just how
dishonest it was. You see, in my house there was only one
really serious offense. We can work out *anything*, unless
somebody lies to me. And that word game *is* just another form
of telling lies.
You are an adult, and we should be able to expect more integrity
from you.
You may well be right on this and I may be wrong. However, as I have
already said, I have sent out an enquiry on this and I will hold off
until I receive a reply.
I've given you several replies. It makes no difference what enquiry
you've sent, or who provides an answer. The correctness of my
statements has been *extremely* well documented.
That is simply not true. Any carpenter faced with starvation
would do that in an instant *if* he could not see where the
tools were going to be his salvation and something for which he
could trade would indeed be beneficial.
But then that doesn't come under the heading of 'trade goods' as it
was originally discussed.
Playing the Seppo The Word Weasel Game again? Nobody cares how cute
it is when you swap definitions. It's just a gross display of no
integrity.
Stop making up false scenarios that are not universally valid and
claiming they fit universally. They don't.
There is always an exception.
Exactly! Stop claiming there are none when they are common.
--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)