Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #321   Report Post  
Eric Stevens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:46:07 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:


Having invoked Goddard you should read
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifeskimo.shtml

"In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo
in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media,
largely in response to demands from Eskimo political
associations.


Which contradicts *everything* you've been claiming about usage
of the term Inuit. I notice you are not against a little creative
editing either... you left off the last part of that text.

"The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska,
in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all
Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."


'Creative editing' yourself. I at least quoted a coherent body of text
and did not make a selective quote from elsewhere.

On top of that you have completely changed what I was saying by
entirely separating the first part of my argument from the second part
commencing with 'But'.

Note it does *not* say "all Eskimo descended from Thule
culture", but *all* Eskimos, period. That includes (for those
scientific publications) their ancestors too.


What scientific purposes? That was a political conference.

Of course, while I can find a lot of references which say that
the 1977 ICC passed such a resolution, I can't find that it ever
actually happened!

http://www.ebenhopson.com/icc/ICCBooklet.html

Read through the resolutions actually passed in that first
ICC, and you won't find it. It *is* clear that they agreed
to use that term for the purposes of that conference though.

And, in fact that is exactly what they did. This is from the
_Charter_ adopted for the ICC. It is not a resolution, it is
not and was never meant to apply to anything other than the
documents produced by the ICC, principally the Charter itself!

But it does provide a good example of how things become distorted
by others looking to grind an axe.

ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS

6. "Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland
recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and
shall include the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit,
Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik
(Russia).

7. "Inuit homeland" means those arctic and sub-arctic areas
where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have Aboriginal
rights and interests.

http://www.inuit.org/textonly.asp?lang=eng&num=209

Whatever, not that paragraph 7 basically includes *all*
traditionally Eskimo cultures. Hence it clear includes Dorset
and Arctic Small Tools Tradition cultures...


But that was a political conference with, as you have pointed out, no
great direct impact.


Aah --- here is where I continued from my opening remark

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Innu.htm


What has that link go to do with anything? Did you actually
read it? Or are you so confused that you don't realize they are
talking about an Indian tribe, not Eskimos.


It is merely the place from which you should follow the link ...

and follow the link to
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Inuit.htm which says

"Inuit (singular, Inuk; also, generally vulgarly, Eskimo) is a
general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous
peoples of the Arctic who descended from the Thule. The
Inuit Circumpolar Conference defines its constitutency to
include Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit
people, Alaska's Inupiat and Yupik people, and Russian Yupik".

The first link cites a politically derived definition (who was it


If you mean the first link to the www.almudo.com site, it does
not cite *any* definition of Inuit. When are you going to learn
to read. If you are talking about the one above that and think
it is unique in citing a "politically derived definition", you
are still wrong.


It was the first link in my article when I wrote it. But you have
generated such a cloud of words that the simple thread of my argument
is obscured.

cited Godwin's law?) of inuit and the second confines itself to
"culturally similar indigenous peoples of the Arctic who descended
from the Thule".


So? *All* existing Eskimo cultures today *are* in fact
descended directly from the Thule people. They are also
descended from the predecessors of the Thule people. That would
be the Dorset. And they are all descended from the Arctic Small
Tools tradition culture too, which preceded the Dorset culture.
We are talking a continuous line of descent, not a new migration
from Asia or the Pacific Island or from where ever. One line of
people, though it does have multiple branches.


Its all one great mish-mash according to you.

All of those people have traditionally been called "Eskimo", and
what the Canadians and Greenlanders wanted to stop was the
common use of that term because of the racist undertone it had
taken on in Canada and to a lesser degree in Greenland.

In fact the site you are quoting is not correct (and is also in
no way authoritative either, so you aren't making points by
quoting it) in what it says. And you are adding to the
inaccuracy. And, you are also trying to relate the cite you
give to the authoritative sources that I mentioned. But of
course none of the text at that site comes from either Goddard
or Mailhot.


You are turning this into an argument from authority.

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.

Now what was it we were arguing about? How did I define Inuit in the
very first place? It was in terms of people descended from the Thule.


And then you claimed that it does *not* apply to their
ancestors. You are wrong.


I have always been talking about inuit in Greenland.


You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the
*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed
kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no
wood is false.


The claim that I have been arguing that is nonsense.

The claim that there were no Inuit is false.


Not if you use the term in strict sense and confine your discussion to
Greenland.

The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim
that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false.
The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty
plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.


Not as insane as a carpenter who would deliberately trade away his
carefully crafted tools with no immediate prospect of replacing them.

You, Seppo, and Inger... what a group!





Eric Stevens
  #322   Report Post  
Floyd L. Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

Having invoked Goddard you should read
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifeskimo.shtml

"In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo
in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media,
largely in response to demands from Eskimo political
associations.


Which contradicts *everything* you've been claiming about usage
of the term Inuit. I notice you are not against a little creative
editing either... you left off the last part of that text.

"The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska,
in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all
Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."


'Creative editing' yourself. I at least quoted a coherent body of text
and did not make a selective quote from elsewhere.


Selective quote from "elsewhere"? It was last (of only three)
sentences in the paragraph. You quoted only the part that
appears to support what you say, and left out the part that
doesn't. That's creative. It just isn't honest.

On top of that you have completely changed what I was saying by
entirely separating the first part of my argument from the second part
commencing with 'But'.


Oh, my goodness. Can you imagine that! I interspersed my
comments where they are pertinent. Amazing! You don't seem to
understand that *your* article was your statement. It either
made your case or it didn't. *My* article is my statement. The
only part of your comment that I need to leave in place is that
portion which provides sufficient context that a reader can
understand what my point is. You've already made your point.

Regardless, you've basically forfeited with this article, and
aren't even trying to argue your points. Instead it's nothing
but a whine about how your illogic has been exposed.

Note it does *not* say "all Eskimo descended from Thule
culture", but *all* Eskimos, period. That includes (for those
scientific publications) their ancestors too.


What scientific purposes? That was a political conference.


Stuff like that. *You* quoted something which said "in
governmental and scientific publication and the mass media", and
then whine because I make reference to it.

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Innu.htm


What has that link go to do with anything? Did you actually
read it? Or are you so confused that you don't realize they are
talking about an Indian tribe, not Eskimos.


It is merely the place from which you should follow the link ...


You posted a link that has nothing to do with anything, and call
it a place holder??? Oooohh. That's wonderful logic.

(I don't believe you, BTW. I suspect you didn't know or notice
that Innu are not Inuit.)

In fact the site you are quoting is not correct (and is also in
no way authoritative either, so you aren't making points by
quoting it) in what it says. And you are adding to the
inaccuracy. And, you are also trying to relate the cite you
give to the authoritative sources that I mentioned. But of
course none of the text at that site comes from either Goddard
or Mailhot.


You are turning this into an argument from authority.


There is *no* point in posting non-authoritative cites.

Jeeze, we could post references to the bull**** you and Seppo
have posted and claim that means something using your criteria
for the usefulness of a cite.

I believe I've already pointed out that the vast majority of
information on the Internet about Eskimo/Inuit people is just a
faulty as everything you and Seppo have claimed.

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.

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.

The claims that there was no wood or that the people there were
not Eskimo/Inuit people have been thoroughly demonstrate as
false.

Yet here you are insisting that any use of a term that isn't
exactly the same means that half of what is in the dictionary is
wrong.

Your logic is faulty. Your facts are no better.

Now what was it we were arguing about? How did I define Inuit in the
very first place? It was in terms of people descended from the Thule.


And then you claimed that it does *not* apply to their
ancestors. You are wrong.


I have always been talking about inuit in Greenland.


And you have been denying that they had ancestors, who were also
Eskimo/Inuit, in Greenland going back 4000 years.

You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the
*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed
kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no
wood is false.


The claim that I have been arguing that is nonsense.


Seppo and Inger claimed there was no wood. You claimed there
were no Inuit people. You are all three logically impaired.

The claim that there were no Inuit is false.


Not if you use the term in strict sense and confine your discussion to
Greenland.


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.

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.

The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim
that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false.
The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty
plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.


Not as insane as a carpenter who would deliberately trade away his
carefully crafted tools with no immediate prospect of replacing them.


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.

Stop making up false scenarios that are not universally valid and
claiming they fit universally. They don't.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #323   Report Post  
Floyd L. Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.


So now you say you were not referring to the Dorset with that
statement? You quoted text about the Dorset, so what did you
expect readers to associate it with?

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?


Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?


Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000
years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything
within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the
Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and
Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*,
according to *your* cite, wrong.

And from the same web site, if you could remember anything longer
than a few minutes, it also says the ancestors of the Dorset were
there 4500 years ago (the Independence I and Saqqaq peoples, who
appear to date back at least to 2500 BC).

You do the arithmetic, Eric. Last time I tried it 4500 year ago
was significantly more than 4000 years ago.

I am getting annoyed. I have spent all this time **carefully**
differentiating between Dorset and Inuit/Thule culture in Greenland
and you still keep on pretending you don't understand what I say.


And you've had it explained to you over and over that the Inuit
and the Eskimo terms are equivalent *group* identifiers, and the
subgroups within those two major categories are... Saqqaq,
Independence I and II, Dorset, Thule, and Modern. Or at least
that is the most common terminology used for those groups in
Greenland. If you look even briefly you'll clearly find each of
those is broken down into sub-groups too. If you look hard
enough you'll also find other names and classifications for the
same cultures. You will also find that each sub-group overlapped
the following group by several hundreds of years. The transitions
between them were *not* clear cut, did not involve an influx of
new people, and did not change the gene pool.

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never
met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How
could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for
hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

But in Greenland?


Of course in Greenland. Did you *read* what that site says?
They've found artifacts from Thule culture people all along the
entire coast of Greenland.


Oh good. There are also radar domes. Does that mean the Dorset culture
was familiar with radar domes?


Let see, 300 years of dated artifacts intermixed geographically,
and you don't think the people met? How can you justify that?

The little problem with the radar is that it wasn't there when
the Dorset were. But what you are saying is that the Inuit of
today wouldn't know what a radar dome is, because the time lapse
has only been 50 years. The radar and the Inuit will have to be
there together for another 250 years at least before the Inuit
notice it????

That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the
same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just
insane.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #324   Report Post  
Eric Stevens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:57:09 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html

From that site:

"In Greenland only the earliest and latest phases are represented
in the material dated so far; approximately 700 BC - 200 AD, and
800 - 1300 AD."

See - no 4000 years ago.

So now you say you were not referring to the Dorset with that
statement? You quoted text about the Dorset, so what did you
expect readers to associate it with?

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?


Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?


Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000
years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything
within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the
Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and
Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*,
according to *your* cite, wrong.


I'm trying to stick with my original point to which you took
exception.

And from the same web site, if you could remember anything longer
than a few minutes, it also says the ancestors of the Dorset were
there 4500 years ago (the Independence I and Saqqaq peoples, who
appear to date back at least to 2500 BC).

You do the arithmetic, Eric. Last time I tried it 4500 year ago
was significantly more than 4000 years ago.

I am getting annoyed. I have spent all this time **carefully**
differentiating between Dorset and Inuit/Thule culture in Greenland
and you still keep on pretending you don't understand what I say.


And you've had it explained to you over and over that the Inuit
and the Eskimo terms are equivalent *group* identifiers, and the
subgroups within those two major categories are... Saqqaq,
Independence I and II, Dorset, Thule, and Modern. Or at least
that is the most common terminology used for those groups in
Greenland. If you look even briefly you'll clearly find each of
those is broken down into sub-groups too. If you look hard
enough you'll also find other names and classifications for the
same cultures. You will also find that each sub-group overlapped
the following group by several hundreds of years. The transitions
between them were *not* clear cut, did not involve an influx of
new people, and did not change the gene pool.

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never
met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How
could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for
hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

But in Greenland?

Of course in Greenland. Did you *read* what that site says?
They've found artifacts from Thule culture people all along the
entire coast of Greenland.


Oh good. There are also radar domes. Does that mean the Dorset culture
was familiar with radar domes?


Let see, 300 years of dated artifacts intermixed geographically,
and you don't think the people met? How can you justify that?

The little problem with the radar is that it wasn't there when
the Dorset were. But what you are saying is that the Inuit of
today wouldn't know what a radar dome is, because the time lapse
has only been 50 years. The radar and the Inuit will have to be
there together for another 250 years at least before the Inuit
notice it????

That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the
same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just
insane.


I'm suggesting that the while the mixed artifacts show that the Thule
and the Dorset had both been in the same places, that is not evidence
that they had been there at the same time. The information given on
the Greenland National Museum site about the Thule
http://www.sila.dk/History/Thule/Start.html# and about the Late Dorset
http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html leaves open the
question of whether or not there was any significant meeting of the
two in Greenland. Examination of the maps (click on them) on each of
those sites is interesting in this respect. There is only the one
region where they may have met and of that the Greenland Museum states
"No sites have been found in the northernmost part of the country
except from a few shelters". It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty
intermingling.




Eric Stevens

  #325   Report Post  
Eric Stevens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:32:49 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

Having invoked Goddard you should read
http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifeskimo.shtml

"In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo
in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media,
largely in response to demands from Eskimo political
associations.

Which contradicts *everything* you've been claiming about usage
of the term Inuit. I notice you are not against a little creative
editing either... you left off the last part of that text.

"The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska,
in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all
Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."


'Creative editing' yourself. I at least quoted a coherent body of text
and did not make a selective quote from elsewhere.


Selective quote from "elsewhere"? It was last (of only three)
sentences in the paragraph. You quoted only the part that
appears to support what you say, and left out the part that
doesn't. That's creative. It just isn't honest.

On top of that you have completely changed what I was saying by
entirely separating the first part of my argument from the second part
commencing with 'But'.


Oh, my goodness. Can you imagine that! I interspersed my
comments where they are pertinent. Amazing! You don't seem to
understand that *your* article was your statement. It either
made your case or it didn't. *My* article is my statement. The
only part of your comment that I need to leave in place is that
portion which provides sufficient context that a reader can
understand what my point is. You've already made your point.

Regardless, you've basically forfeited with this article, and
aren't even trying to argue your points. Instead it's nothing
but a whine about how your illogic has been exposed.

Note it does *not* say "all Eskimo descended from Thule
culture", but *all* Eskimos, period. That includes (for those
scientific publications) their ancestors too.


What scientific purposes? That was a political conference.


Stuff like that. *You* quoted something which said "in
governmental and scientific publication and the mass media", and
then whine because I make reference to it.

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read
http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Innu.htm

What has that link go to do with anything? Did you actually
read it? Or are you so confused that you don't realize they are
talking about an Indian tribe, not Eskimos.


It is merely the place from which you should follow the link ...


You posted a link that has nothing to do with anything, and call
it a place holder??? Oooohh. That's wonderful logic.

(I don't believe you, BTW. I suspect you didn't know or notice
that Innu are not Inuit.)


If you look at the page you will see that I clicked one link too high
in the list. I should have hit http://www.almudo.com/ethnos/Inuit.htm

In fact the site you are quoting is not correct (and is also in
no way authoritative either, so you aren't making points by
quoting it) in what it says. And you are adding to the
inaccuracy. And, you are also trying to relate the cite you
give to the authoritative sources that I mentioned. But of
course none of the text at that site comes from either Goddard
or Mailhot.


You are turning this into an argument from authority.


There is *no* point in posting non-authoritative cites.

Jeeze, we could post references to the bull**** you and Seppo
have posted and claim that means something using your criteria
for the usefulness of a cite.

I believe I've already pointed out that the vast majority of
information on the Internet about Eskimo/Inuit people is just a
faulty as everything you and Seppo have claimed.

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 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 claims that there was no wood or that the people there were
not Eskimo/Inuit people have been thoroughly demonstrate as
false.

Yet here you are insisting that any use of a term that isn't
exactly the same means that half of what is in the dictionary is
wrong.

Your logic is faulty. Your facts are no better.

Now what was it we were arguing about? How did I define Inuit in the
very first place? It was in terms of people descended from the Thule.

And then you claimed that it does *not* apply to their
ancestors. You are wrong.


I have always been talking about inuit in Greenland.


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.

You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the
*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed
kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no
wood is false.


The claim that I have been arguing that is nonsense.


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.

The claim that there were no Inuit is false.


Not if you use the term in strict sense and confine your discussion to
Greenland.


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.

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.

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.

The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim
that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false.
The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty
plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.


Not as insane as a carpenter who would deliberately trade away his
carefully crafted tools with no immediate prospect of replacing them.


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.

Stop making up false scenarios that are not universally valid and
claiming they fit universally. They don't.


There is always an exception.




Eric Stevens



  #326   Report Post  
Floyd L. Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

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)
  #327   Report Post  
Floyd L. Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?

Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?


Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000
years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything
within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the
Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and
Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*,
according to *your* cite, wrong.


I'm trying to stick with my original point to which you took
exception.


Then don't be dishonest. Playing your Seppo The Word Weasel Game
is not appropriate behavior for adults.

That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the
same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just
insane.


I'm suggesting that the while the mixed artifacts show that the Thule
and the Dorset had both been in the same places, that is not evidence
that they had been there at the same time.


That is absurd. Over a *300* year period! Stop being silly.

The artifacts that have been found indicate that Dorset people,
typical of all Eskimo cultures, were fairly mobile. They move
around. But their technology only allowed them to survive where
certain game was available. They were not able to hunt the
larger sea mammals, for example.

The advantage that Thule Technology had, which is the main
reason it spread so fast among Eskimo people, was that it
allowed them to subsist in places where they had not been able
to before; and in traditional places it gave them a fantasticly
higher rate of food production.

One example of the effect is that a place like Point Barrow,
here in Alaska, which previously was barely habitable suddenly
became the *most* productive location. Point Hope is an example
where a traditionally productive location became an
overwhelmingly better location.

One of the side effects of Thule Technology was a significant
increase in mobility. The Umiaq was introduced, which meant
entire families could travel and transport *tons* of goods for
long distances. Consider that and the above paragraph in
relation to why this Thule Technology spread so fast across the
Arctic Ocean coast, and how it apparently took with it what had
been a rather isolated dialect of Proto-Eskimo that suddenly
became the widest spread dialect!

And travel they did. The idea that for 300 years the Thule
folks roamed the entire coast line of Greenland without ever
meeting up with the somewhat less mobile Dorset people is just
too much to accept.

The information given on
the Greenland National Museum site about the Thule
http://www.sila.dk/History/Thule/Start.html# and about the Late Dorset
http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html leaves open the
question of whether or not there was any significant meeting of the
two in Greenland.


So if that one site doesn't specifically say that they met in
January of 1309 to have the 40th Annual Arctic Winter Games, you
can't believe they ever met? (Do I really need to tell you what
that says, logically?)

I'm sorry, but your lack of familiarity with Eskimo culture does
not inhibit me from understanding what that web page is saying.
They are *clearly* describing one continuum of culture that
evolved from one specifically identified as Dorset to one
specifically identified as Thule. What you are missing is that
in the between times, they were each other. One and the same
people. (In order for there to have been a significant number
of Thule people... they not only had to have met, but they
clearly did a lot of other things too. Procreation, just for
starters.)

Examination of the maps (click on them) on each of
those sites is interesting in this respect. There is only the one
region where they may have met and of that the Greenland Museum states
"No sites have been found in the northernmost part of the country
except from a few shelters". It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty
intermingling.


Eric, what were the "few shelters" doing there? And how did you
miss the significance of what they said (I'm not going to go get
quotes). The two groups had *permanent* settlements in
different areas. The more mobile of the two *clearly* traveled
the entire coast of Greenland and clearly made regular
expeditions into the areas where the less mobile group lived.
They were doing that for 300 years! How would they not meet?

--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #328   Report Post  
Eric Stevens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:29:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?

Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?

Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000
years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything
within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the
Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and
Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*,
according to *your* cite, wrong.


I'm trying to stick with my original point to which you took
exception.


Then don't be dishonest. Playing your Seppo The Word Weasel Game
is not appropriate behavior for adults.


You are hot on making these statements but very weak on supporting
them. How about trying to spell out exactly why you think I am wrong,
and why?

That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the
same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just
insane.


I'm suggesting that the while the mixed artifacts show that the Thule
and the Dorset had both been in the same places, that is not evidence
that they had been there at the same time.


That is absurd. Over a *300* year period! Stop being silly.


I presume you have seen my other post on this subject in which I deal
with time and place?

The artifacts that have been found indicate that Dorset people,
typical of all Eskimo cultures, were fairly mobile. They move
around. But their technology only allowed them to survive where
certain game was available. They were not able to hunt the
larger sea mammals, for example.

The advantage that Thule Technology had, which is the main
reason it spread so fast among Eskimo people, was that it
allowed them to subsist in places where they had not been able
to before; and in traditional places it gave them a fantasticly
higher rate of food production.

One example of the effect is that a place like Point Barrow,
here in Alaska, which previously was barely habitable suddenly
became the *most* productive location. Point Hope is an example
where a traditionally productive location became an
overwhelmingly better location.

One of the side effects of Thule Technology was a significant
increase in mobility. The Umiaq was introduced, which meant
entire families could travel and transport *tons* of goods for
long distances. Consider that and the above paragraph in
relation to why this Thule Technology spread so fast across the
Arctic Ocean coast, and how it apparently took with it what had
been a rather isolated dialect of Proto-Eskimo that suddenly
became the widest spread dialect!

And travel they did. The idea that for 300 years the Thule
folks roamed the entire coast line of Greenland without ever
meeting up with the somewhat less mobile Dorset people is just
too much to accept.

The information given on
the Greenland National Museum site about the Thule
http://www.sila.dk/History/Thule/Start.html# and about the Late Dorset
http://www.sila.dk/History/Dorset/LateDorset.html leaves open the
question of whether or not there was any significant meeting of the
two in Greenland.


So if that one site doesn't specifically say that they met in
January of 1309 to have the 40th Annual Arctic Winter Games, you
can't believe they ever met? (Do I really need to tell you what
that says, logically?)


It doesn't specifically say they met and leaves open the possibility
that they hardly ever met.

I'm sorry, but your lack of familiarity with Eskimo culture does
not inhibit me from understanding what that web page is saying.
They are *clearly* describing one continuum of culture that
evolved from one specifically identified as Dorset to one
specifically identified as Thule. What you are missing is that
in the between times, they were each other. One and the same
people. (In order for there to have been a significant number
of Thule people... they not only had to have met, but they
clearly did a lot of other things too. Procreation, just for
starters.)

Examination of the maps (click on them) on each of
those sites is interesting in this respect. There is only the one
region where they may have met and of that the Greenland Museum states
"No sites have been found in the northernmost part of the country
except from a few shelters". It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty
intermingling.


Eric, what were the "few shelters" doing there? And how did you
miss the significance of what they said (I'm not going to go get
quotes). The two groups had *permanent* settlements in
different areas. The more mobile of the two *clearly* traveled
the entire coast of Greenland and clearly made regular
expeditions into the areas where the less mobile group lived.
They were doing that for 300 years! How would they not meet?


I'm not saying the odd traveller did not meet (rather like the
occasional Irish monk in 6th century Colorado). As I said in a
slightly exageratted way " It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty
intermingling".




Eric Stevens
  #329   Report Post  
Floyd L. Davidson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:29:35 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?

Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?

Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000
years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything
within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the
Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and
Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*,
according to *your* cite, wrong.

I'm trying to stick with my original point to which you took
exception.


Then don't be dishonest. Playing your Seppo The Word Weasel Game
is not appropriate behavior for adults.


You are hot on making these statements but very weak on supporting
them. How about trying to spell out exactly why you think I am wrong,
and why?


Are you actually claiming that you don't remember *any* of the now
dozens of articles that I've posted on this topic. It has been
*repeatedly* pointed out to you *exactly* were you are wrong, and
additionally where this type of dishonest response where you claim
not to know something that been stated 14 time.

Look at the above.

1) A. You say "your claim than Dorset/inuit were".
B. I've never said that Dorset/inuit were.

2) A. You said "can't you do the arithmetic".
B. The right numbers plugged in add up to more
than 4000 years. You plug in what are *clearly*
the wrong numbers to get less.

3) A. You make a statement that the Dorset and Thule
were not contemporaries.
B. I pointed out that your cited source says they
were.
C. Instead of applying that response to the referenced
statements you made, you apply them to a totally
different part of the discussion, to which they do
not match, and say it doesn't prove what it was not
meant to prove!

4) Now you claim I've not supported my statement that you
are being dishonest... and say that while quoting the
text that outlines the above 3 major points of dishonesty
on your part.

Looks like your claim that the support is weak, is just one more
dishonesty on your part. Which obviously is supported by some
exceedingly strong evidence.

That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the
same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just
insane.

I'm suggesting that the while the mixed artifacts show that the Thule
and the Dorset had both been in the same places, that is not evidence
that they had been there at the same time.


That is absurd. Over a *300* year period! Stop being silly.


I presume you have seen my other post on this subject in which I deal
with time and place?


I haven't seen you deal with time and place yet. Every time we
wait 10 minutes between statements, you become thoroughly confused
about everything that has taken place.

The *facts* are that the two cultures co-existed with each other
for at least 300 years on Greenland. That doesn't happen to be
unusual, because they also coexisted in Canada for an even longer
period of time.

So if that one site doesn't specifically say that they met in
January of 1309 to have the 40th Annual Arctic Winter Games, you
can't believe they ever met? (Do I really need to tell you what
that says, logically?)


It doesn't specifically say they met and leaves open the possibility
that they hardly ever met.


Does your birth certificate specifically say that they checked
and found you had a brain? If not, are we able to surmise that
it is possible that you hardly have any brain?

Do you see where your logic leads? You are claiming that one
site to be the total definition of what was or was not existing
on Greenland 800 years ago. Anything not specifically stated,
couldn't be. That is absurd. (You do a *lot* of absurd
thinking!) Regardless, the site *does* say they met, in so many
words that I can't imagine how you miss it. *Three hundred years*
worth of "intermingling"!

And I notice that you are about two move the goal posts again too.
Now you aren't saying "never" met, but "hardly ever met". How
do you define "hardly ever". I bet the Weasel's Dictionary says
that means "less than he says, whatever he says".

I'm not saying the odd traveller did not meet (rather like the
occasional Irish monk in 6th century Colorado). As I said in a
slightly exageratted way " It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty
intermingling".


It *does* sound like a recipe for *very hearty* intermingling.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

  #330   Report Post  
stevewhittet
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian ArcticformerCopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:12:24 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

....snip...

The point is that in medieval times one of the tasks of an apprentice
on his way to becoming a journeyman was to make himself a set of
tools. This included the basic blacksmith work of forming ind
hardening chisel and plane blades.


The set of people who could work iron at a forge in medieval times
and whom might be considered "blacksmiths" would include farriers,
armourers, wheelwrights, shipwrights, alchemists, coopers, ironmongers,
bladesmiths, machineists millwrights and instrument makers.

I'm not exactly sure who the first manufacturer of tool steel was
or whether damascus steel exactly fits that label but the idea of
working metals and their alloys by folding and welding billets of
different steels and hammering them out at different temperatures
until they were properly placed so as to optimize their hardmess,
workability, durability, flexibility, corrosion resistence, etc; and
or percentages of austenite, pearlite, cementite, martensite etc;
must have reached a fairly sophisticated level by the time
the Vikings met the Skraelings.

I don't think its unreasonable that among a ships crew there
would be some with the skills of blacksmith and carpenter
sufficient to make tools from scratch,

As you are demonstrating, the
amount of work entailed is inconceivable to the modern person who is
used to just going out and buying something. It is inconceivable that
someone of that era should take along a collection of planes as part
of their stock of trade goods.


I don't think that follows. Iron and steel were certainly being mass
produced
even in Roman times. Most iron age civilizations could make nails, knives,
hammers, axes, adzes spears, swords, carpenters tools, farming impliments,
barrel hoops, wheel rims, and horseshoes. Most iron age wrecks include
collections of rusty tools.

All it takes to make a plane is a plane iron, a block of wood with a mortise
and a wedge to hold the iron in the mortise so it could bring a shaving
up through the mouth of the plane. All the fancy bits like fences,
mortising grinds, depth stops, handles, and combinations of cutters
and adjustment screws are refinements.

Yet you think they would gladly trade axes.


You equate the manufacture of a plane with that of an axe?


Why not? Actually the axe requires more steel and its the steel
making that is the hard part, not putting a handle on it.

....snip...

That does not mean that planes would never be traded but it would be
traded under special circumstances.


I'm not sure that a finished plane would have been as common a trade good
as a plane iron but judging by the inventories of the makers at Sheffield
and
the cargos of the wrecks of the fur traders who travelled by rivers deep
into
the interior of north america, axes, adzes knives, etc; often came both with
and without handles.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/bioJamesCam.htm

And when those special circumstance exist, the plane is a trade
item. Since we know they did exist, we know that a plane would
have at times been a trade item.


....snip...

Another thing you have to consider is that that the inuit almost
certainly no tradition of the kind of carpentery which would benefit
from the use of a plane.


This gouge adze is from the Davistown museum in Maine
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/pics/071003na32_p1.jpg

The earliest paleo indian artifacts of the east coast seem considerably more
primitive
than the earliest paleo indian artifacts of the west coast. This raises the
question of
why it is more reasonable to believe that the migration was from west to
east if
that theory requires that the ability to make highly refined lithics could
have
been lost to this degree in so short a period of time.

They had got on very well with the kind of
things they could make from knives and axes. I would expect that they
would immediately have seen the benefit of steel knives and axes - but
a plane? What would they do with it other than rob it of its steel

blade?

The Inuit were and are reputed to be great carvers and boat builders so
while axes, adzes slicks and knives might be the first choice for utility
I would think plane irons and or scappers would have been highly prized
and used in the same tradition as the gouge above.

Well, if you can see that robbing it of its steel blade would be
useful, then you've just shot your other foot off too.


Then they wouldn't value it as a plane. Merely a source of steel. As
trade goods go, nails would be as effective as planes.


Do modern Inuit use and value planes? Why wouldn't their ancestors

....snip...

In regard to the plane itself, the frame for either a kayaq
or an umiaq would be exactly the place where a plane would
be very useful. Clearly we know that shipwrights used planes.


For precisely fitting straight edged joints. For smoothing large
surfaces. Where do either of these depend on a plane in the
constructoin of a kayak?


Because the better a joint fits the stronger and more dependable
the frame is. In a house with huge timbers it may be acceptable
for it to move a little but in a very lightweight frame the tighter
the fit the better.

And clearly we know that cabinet makers use planes. I have
read in other articles that you apparently are quite familiar
with wood working and also with boat construction. Can you
not see the need for a tool or method which does *exactly*
what a plane does if one is going to use driftwood, often
with intricate and precise splicing needed, to construct one
of these frames? They are at least as precision as the work
done by cabinet makers.


First, they are not as precise as the work done by cabinet makers.


This requires a little discussion. Native american arts and crafts are
precise in an organic way being carved to fit but not necessarily
plumb, square, level, straight, parallel, perpendicular or alligned.

Existing bends are accepted rather than sawn straight leaving the
grain in its strongest configuration but allowing there to be
more torgue on the connections requiring them to be lashed
rather than mortise and tennoned or pinned.


Second, all kinds of precise and complex jointing was done with axes,
adzes, knives and chisels. Planes only figured with decorative work.


Early planes tended to be used to make things fair and smooth.

Examples would be the masts, yards, spars, frames deck, ceilings,
strakes and planking of ships which had been roughed out with
axes and adzes, and things that go in houses including windows,
doors, floor boards, tables, chairs, chests, moldings, stair parts, etc;

most complex joinery was done with saws and chisels rather than
axes and adzes which were primarily used to square up timbers.

And of course it happens that Eskimos have always been "gadget"
people. So both the tool itself, and the use it is put to,
would have been just as interesting to them then as it is now.


Many of the things we associate with Eskimos such as kyak frames and
dogsleds
involve long straight strips of small crossection which are lashed together.
Allowing the strips could be split from long vertical grain planks
touching them up with a plane, axe, adze, spokeshave or knive
would have equally effective.

And as you say, if nothing else they would want the blade. A
typical Eskimo tool kit for carving consists of any number of
bladed tools, and there is simply no way that any Eskimo in that
time period would have passed on a chance to obtain the blade
from a plane.


And it would have survived as a blade. The survival of the rest is
debatable/questionable.


For a plane to have survived as a plane it would have had to have been
used as a plane or at least more valued as a plane than as a metal blade.
As metal blades were useful and valuable I'm inclined to think that at least
this one individual had a use for smooth boards.

And of course we do have at
least one such tool that parted company with one owner and went
to at least one other. We also know they were being traded all
over Europe by then, and had been for hundreds of years.

Certainly there would be some degree of trading amongst the craftsman


....snip...

of the period, whether by exchange of tools (my broad chisel for your
plane) or by payment for services in kind. But it is wrong to suggest
that they had become a general item of commerce in the way they are
now. In fact, in parts of Europe it was illegal to own the tools of a
tradesman unless you had been properly indentured and were either a
journey man (or better) or apprenticed to a master.


I'm inclined to think of a plane as being in the set of things that might be
exchanged diplomatically in order to improve relations with a neighbor.

In that sense it might even have been borrowed and not returned
in which case that might explain the iron having remained with
the plane body.
....snip...

Not to mention that you are perfectly willing to allow that a number
of other tools might have been traded, just not a plain old plane.
As if a plane was all that special...

Just try making one.


I never bothered making a plane, though I have diddled a bit
with tool making. I don't see a _simple_ plane as being in the
slightest bit difficult. Certainly figuring out a design to
accomplish certain special tasks would be no mean feat though.


Given a plane iron making a simple plane is not that difficult

I suggest you commit yourself to sitting down in a forest and not
coming out until you have made a plane from what surrounds you.


Making the tools to make the tools is always more work so a blade
of the right size to do a job is a valuable thing. This puts a huge
advantage in the hands of a person coming from a metal working
culture that can trade plane irons to a non metal working culture.

If you want to pressure flake a piece of flint chert or obsidian into a
blade
you need to locate flint chert or obsidian, a lap hide and antler or the
equivalent.
The body can be made from a piece of wood that you have mortised.

If you come from a non metal working culture and you want a steel blade
but don't have the opportunity to trade for it you need to locate a source
of iron ore, cut and split some wood to burn to make charcoal and find
some clay to make an oven to cook it in. You need to make bellows
to get the temperature you need to heat the iron ore and you need the
charcoal to put enough carbon in the billets to make steel, all that
assumes you have the tools to mine the ore and cut the wood
or you have to make them too.


Regardless, whether *I* can make planes is not what determines
if they are all that special. They aren't. They are very common
ancient tools.


Evidence?


"Carpentry. Almost every tool--from the crude to the sophisticated--known to
modern carpenters was used by the ancients: axes, adzes, hammers, mallets,
wedges, chisels, drills, lathes, right- angles (or T-squares), plumb bobs,
compasses, planes, rasps, and polishing agents of various kinds.
Evidence exists for the use of almost every modern technique as well:
mortising, tenoning, treenailing, beveling, gluing, and intricate joining
and inlaying. "

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/wood.html

among others the article cites:

Glanville, S. R. K.
"Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Tuthmosis III," Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie 66 (1931) and 67 (1932).

Lucas, Alfred
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. 4th ed., rev. and enl. by J. R.
Harris, London, 1962. See chapter XVIII, "Wood," 429-456.

Meiggs, Russell
Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford, 1982. The
magisterial overview of the western fringes of the Ancient Near Eastern
world as well as a thorough commentary on both Egyptian and Assyrian timber.

Merhav, Rivkah, ed.
Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium B.C.E. Jerusalem,
1991. Hundreds of artifacts which encased or were in enclosed in wood.

Postgate, J. N., and Powell, Marvin A., eds.
Trees and Timber in Mesopotamia. Bulletin on Sumerican Agriculture, Vol. VI.
Cambridge, 1992. The most up-to-date summary of trees, timber, species
identifications including ancient names, wood products, trade, prices, and
wood-use, from the texts and from archaeological excavation.

Shaw, J. W.
Minoan Architectu Materials and Techniques. Annuario della Scuola
Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente. Vol. XLIX. Rome,
1973, especially pp. 135-185 on wood use in construction.

Simpson, E., Spirydowicz, K., Dorge, V.
Gordion: Wooden Furniture. Ankara, 1992. An extraordinarily well-preserved
set of ancient furniture illustrative of the best of the carpenter's craft.
Complements R.S.Young's report.
...

....snip...
The manufacture of a kayak entailed finding and identifying suitable
bones (whether made of wood or not) and using them to construct the
skeleton of a kayak. Almost nothing was quite straight and almost
nothing was rigidly jointed,


How about a dogsled, also built of "suitable bones (whether made of wood or
not)"

I would allow that the frames may or may not have been straight, aligned,
smooth or fair
but my expectation is that each length from joint to joint was still scarfed
or lapped where joined
and that the joints, albeit lashed or sewn rather than pinned and flexible
rather than rigid were
eventually connected to one piece runners which needed to be both straight
and smooth.


Eric Stevens


regards,

steve




  #331   Report Post  
Eric Stevens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question re. Copper artifact Canadian ArcticformerCopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:57:59 -0400, "stevewhittet"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:12:24 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

...snip...

The point is that in medieval times one of the tasks of an apprentice
on his way to becoming a journeyman was to make himself a set of
tools. This included the basic blacksmith work of forming ind
hardening chisel and plane blades.


The set of people who could work iron at a forge in medieval times
and whom might be considered "blacksmiths" would include farriers,
armourers, wheelwrights, shipwrights, alchemists, coopers, ironmongers,
bladesmiths, machineists millwrights and instrument makers.

I'm not exactly sure who the first manufacturer of tool steel was
or whether damascus steel exactly fits that label but the idea of
working metals and their alloys by folding and welding billets of
different steels and hammering them out at different temperatures
until they were properly placed so as to optimize their hardmess,
workability, durability, flexibility, corrosion resistence, etc; and
or percentages of austenite, pearlite, cementite, martensite etc;
must have reached a fairly sophisticated level by the time
the Vikings met the Skraelings.

I don't think its unreasonable that among a ships crew there
would be some with the skills of blacksmith and carpenter
sufficient to make tools from scratch,


That is a 'given' if the persons were master craftsmen or journeymen.

As you are demonstrating, the
amount of work entailed is inconceivable to the modern person who is
used to just going out and buying something. It is inconceivable that
someone of that era should take along a collection of planes as part
of their stock of trade goods.


I don't think that follows. Iron and steel were certainly being mass
produced
even in Roman times. Most iron age civilizations could make nails, knives,
hammers, axes, adzes spears, swords, carpenters tools, farming impliments,
barrel hoops, wheel rims, and horseshoes. Most iron age wrecks include
collections of rusty tools.


My point is that not any old iron will do when it comes to carpentery
tools. The correct iron has to be selected and suitably hardened
(carburised or whatever). Not everyone knew how to do that.

All it takes to make a plane is a plane iron, a block of wood with a mortise
and a wedge to hold the iron in the mortise so it could bring a shaving
up through the mouth of the plane. All the fancy bits like fences,
mortising grinds, depth stops, handles, and combinations of cutters
and adjustment screws are refinements.


But even that requires a range of tools like saws and chisels and the
skills to use them for the task. Also the ability to select the right
part of the right wood for the task.


Yet you think they would gladly trade axes.


You equate the manufacture of a plane with that of an axe?


Why not? Actually the axe requires more steel and its the steel
making that is the hard part, not putting a handle on it.


A plane is more critical as to the type of steel then is an axe.

...snip...

That does not mean that planes would never be traded but it would be
traded under special circumstances.


I'm not sure that a finished plane would have been as common a trade good
as a plane iron but judging by the inventories of the makers at Sheffield
and
the cargos of the wrecks of the fur traders who travelled by rivers deep
into
the interior of north america, axes, adzes knives, etc; often came both with
and without handles.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/bioJamesCam.htm

But that is 300 years later and in a different culture.

And when those special circumstance exist, the plane is a trade
item. Since we know they did exist, we know that a plane would
have at times been a trade item.


...snip...

Another thing you have to consider is that that the inuit almost
certainly no tradition of the kind of carpentery which would benefit
from the use of a plane.

TAKETHIS
Path: news.mel.connect.com.au!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnew s2.google.com!not-for-mail
From: (Eric)
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: The Decline of C/C++, the rise of X
Date: 21 Jul 2004 15:48:51 -0700
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Lines: 37
Message-ID:
References: zvlLc.75029$ek5.29985@pd7tw2no
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.36.40.35
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1090450132 32216 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2004 22:48:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.mel.connect.com.au comp.programming:127473

Jim Rogers wrote in message . ..
"JustSomeGuy" wrote in news:zvlLc.75029$ek5.29985
@pd7tw2no:


*Ada and Wirth's languages

If C++/C Disappeared.. Ada is what I'd choose.
However...
Ada give a whole new meaning to typing!


Yea. Isn't it lovely?


:-). I think a trend we will see with future languages is more
sophisticated type systems, but we'll have to work on the complexity
of their definition. I am looking forward to safer and quieter type
systems. Safe means they are defined to prevent operations that are
statically provable to be dubious, while warning about operations that
may fail at run-time. The "quieter" aspect is the most challenging and
refers to making the type system useful without it appearing
pedantic....(oh and please people, lets not have that static vs
dynamic typing debate in this thread).

Some areas that could use work on better type safety:

*enum types

*union types

*aliased types (i.e those created via "typedef")

Any other nominees?

Jim Rogers


Cheers,
Eric Mutta :-)
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Determining Geologic Sources of Native American Copper Yuri Kuchinsky Metalworking 92 June 23rd 04 06:21 PM
Copper plating Dan Caster Metalworking 5 July 24th 03 02:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"