On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 06:36:35 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!


The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


Seppo,

Read and absorb:

I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.

What do you think normally fills the spaces between the atoms of a
crystal lattice?

(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


Hopeless case ..... :-(



Eric Stevens

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 03:31:56 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:44:08 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
There is NO weld technique which produces a weld with metallurgy
identical to the the parent metals. ANY weld technique leads to a
discontinuity in material properties in or around the weld zone which
ALWAYS results in a propensity for the welded structure to fail in or
around the weld zone rather than the parent metal.

Incorrect. Consult a good welding text such as "Modern Welding" by
Althouse and Turnquist (the most widely used, and most authoritative,
welding textbook).


Right now I have consulted:

Metallurgy for Engineer's - Rollaston
Mechanical Metallurgy - Dieter
The Practical Use of Fracture Mechanics - Broek
Pressure Component Construction - Harvey
Creep of Engineering Materials - Pomeroy
How Components Fail - Wulpi
Practical Stress Analysis in Engineering Design - Blake
Mechanical Engineering Design - Shigley
A Procedure Handbook of Arc Welding - Lincoln Electric

.... and none of them agree with you.

It is true that fusion welding produces a HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) around
the actual weld joint. This can significantly alter the properties of *some*
materials, namely medium and high carbon steels, some alloy steels, and
some aluminum alloys. But *part of the welding process* in those cases is
post-weld heat treatment to restore those properties to their original pre-
weld state. In other words, you haven't completed the welding process for
those materials until you've done the post heat treatment.

For materials such as mild steel, the most commonly welded material,
there is no such concern. The HAZ doesn't affect the material properties.
That's because mild steel has too little carbon in the solid solution to
produce the phase changes that could alter its crystaline structure.
A *competent* welder will also choose an appropriate alloy filler material
so that the fusion zone won't have different properties from the parents
either.

It is well to note too that different welding techniques produce differing
size HAZ. TIG welding produces less than arc, MIG produces less than
either, and exotic techniques such as laser welding produce practically
none at all.

Now you are postulating *cold welding* for the gage blocks, and that
produces *no HAZ at all*. So the material properties surrounding the
weld joint would not be altered *at all*. Of course cold welding isn't
what's actually happening when you wring gage blocks together, but
if it were, you'd still be wrong.

An analogous process is the natural welding by spontaneous adhesion of
frozen mercury when constructing molds for precision casting.



Eric Stevens

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 03:31:56 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:44:08 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
There is NO weld technique which produces a weld with metallurgy
identical to the the parent metals. ANY weld technique leads to a
discontinuity in material properties in or around the weld zone which
ALWAYS results in a propensity for the welded structure to fail in or
around the weld zone rather than the parent metal.

Incorrect. Consult a good welding text such as "Modern Welding" by
Althouse and Turnquist (the most widely used, and most authoritative,
welding textbook).

I've already answered this but you deserve a better response than a
mere battle of authorities.

It is true that fusion welding produces a HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) around
the actual weld joint. This can significantly alter the properties of *some*
materials, namely medium and high carbon steels, some alloy steels, and
some aluminum alloys. But *part of the welding process* in those cases is
post-weld heat treatment to restore those properties to their original pre-
weld state. In other words, you haven't completed the welding process for
those materials until you've done the post heat treatment.

For materials such as mild steel, the most commonly welded material,
there is no such concern. The HAZ doesn't affect the material properties.
That's because mild steel has too little carbon in the solid solution to
produce the phase changes that could alter its crystaline structure.
A *competent* welder will also choose an appropriate alloy filler material
so that the fusion zone won't have different properties from the parents
either.

It is well to note too that different welding techniques produce differing
size HAZ. TIG welding produces less than arc, MIG produces less than
either, and exotic techniques such as laser welding produce practically
none at all.

OK, you have partly acknowledged my main point, that there is a
discontinuity around the weld. In this case it is the 'heat affected
zone'(HAZ). Now, not all HAZs need post-weld heat treatment, but HAZs
still exist.

The metallurgy of the HAZ is visibly affected as can be seen in the
micrographs in http://www.nuvonyx.com/catalog2/welding.html
The variation of the mechanical properties of the material in the
immediate vicinity of the weld can be seen in diagrams at the same
site.

More information is available at the site of The Welding Institute at
http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/protected/band_3/jk48.html

It is a common view that the resulting weld will be strong if one uses
a weld material that is stronger than the parent material. However
fusion welding is a casting process and entails a puddle of molten
material cooling down and solidifying. The resulting shrinkage
requires local yielding of both the parent and weld material. If the
weld material is too strong it will not yield and all the shrinkage
has to be pulled out of the parent plate. Even if this does not cause
cracking it leaves high residual stresses.

Someone will now say that you can relieve the stresses by heat
treatment. That is perfectly correct but this further modifies the
metallurgy of the weld zone and some of this may be adverse. Grain
growth and embrittlement is a particular problem.

The reason why any discontinuity in properties at a weld results in a
local weakness is that the mechanisms of failure are complex. Even
ignoring any geometrical disturbances caused by the original welding,
deformation will occur in the metal when stresses are applied.Tension
applied to a plate will cause it to become slightly thinner and
narrower. At low stresses the deforemation is elastic and the plate
will return to its original shape if the load is removed. If the
applied load becomes sufficiently high yielding (i.e. plastic
ceformation) will occur in the material. If there are local variations
in the material properties (e.g. at a weld) some parts will yield
before others. This will result in a local redistribution of the
stresses and the stronger parts of the material will end up carrying
more load than they would if they had been surrounded by a material
with a higher yield stress.

Now it gets really complicated. The local material is subject to a
mixture of tensile and shear stresses. The interaction of these gives
rise to 'principal stresses'. there is a principal tensile stress and
a principal shear stress which acts at right angles to the principal
shear stress. With some meterials it is the principal tensile stress
which causes the failure and with others it is the principal shear
stress which causes the failure.

The metallurgical discontinuities associated with a weld give rise to
local disturbances in the stress pattern. These give rise to local
variations in the principal stresses. Some will be higher than in the
undisturbed parent plate. Others will be lower. Some parts of the weld
zone will be less likely to fail than the parent plate but there will
always be parts more likely to fail than the parent plate. It is at
these latter locations that failure will commence.

That's why I say a weld is never as strong as the parent material.

For materials such as mild steel, the most commonly welded material,
there is no such concern. The HAZ doesn't affect the material properties.
That's because mild steel has too little carbon in the solid solution to
produce the phase changes that could alter its crystaline structure.
A *competent* welder will also choose an appropriate alloy filler material
so that the fusion zone won't have different properties from the parents
either.

It is well to note too that different welding techniques produce differing
size HAZ. TIG welding produces less than arc, MIG produces less than
either, and exotic techniques such as laser welding produce practically
none at all.

Now you are postulating *cold welding* for the gage blocks, and that
produces *no HAZ at all*.

Unless the weld is perfect, it still leaves an interface detectable by
microscopy.

So the material properties surrounding the
weld joint would not be altered *at all*.

Its not just the properties 'around' but the properties 'at' which
matter.

Of course cold welding isn't
what's actually happening when you wring gage blocks together, but
if it were, you'd still be wrong.





Eric Stevens

Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:


On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:


On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".



SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!



The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.



Seppo,

Read and absorb:


I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.
(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


[..]


You're funny, Seppo. Don't ever change.


So you are crying "Uncle" again..... when are you going to learn :-)

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

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 06:36:35 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!


The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


Seppo,

Read and absorb:

I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.

What do you think normally fills the spaces between the atoms of a
crystal lattice?

It's down to "spaces between atoms" now..... next you are going to ask
me what fills in the spaces of an atom!! Where will you stop?

(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


Hopeless case ..... :-(

Eric Stevens

....and I note the correct person it applies to nominated himself :-)

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

Seppo and Tom,
I am reading an interesting article about Copper casting, Norse Artifact
Copper casting, found in Canadian arctic. I guess I refered to it before.
What's intriguing is that it's seems as if some of the Copper has been
analyzed and some not. Thus I wonder if anyone of you have read or heard of
the full testresult of the Copper in the analyzed artifacts. Is the origin
of the Copper discussed at all?
I have read:
P Schledermann and K M McCullough: Inuit-Norse Contacts in Smith Sound
Region in Contact, Continuity and Collapse.ISBN 2-503-51291-7
where they in a table dealing with artifacts and descriptions Cat.No. resp
Remarks regarding several artifacts found in among other sites House 21
Skraeling Island Site refer to Mc Cullogh 1989 for a Copper endblade
Sf-Fk-4-1216? Have anyone of you or the others seen any hint of where the
Copper origin from?

Inger E

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 03:16:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 06:36:35 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!


The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


Seppo,

Read and absorb:

I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.

What do you think normally fills the spaces between the atoms of a
crystal lattice?

It's down to "spaces between atoms" now.....

Yes.

next you are going to ask me what fills in the spaces of an atom!!
Where will you stop?

Right now.

You are back in your 'drongo' mode.


(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


Hopeless case ..... :-(

Eric Stevens

...and I note the correct person it applies to nominated himself :-)




Eric Stevens

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo and Tom,
I am reading an interesting article about Copper casting, Norse Artifact
Copper casting, found in Canadian arctic. I guess I refered to it before.
What's intriguing is that it's seems as if some of the Copper has been
analyzed and some not. Thus I wonder if anyone of you have read or heard of
the full testresult of the Copper in the analyzed artifacts. Is the origin
of the Copper discussed at all?

I reported on copper said to originate from the Coppermine River
region found on Greenland in an earlier post. The river was named for
the Copper Inuit (?) who live in this area.

I have read:
P Schledermann and K M McCullough: Inuit-Norse Contacts in Smith Sound
Region in Contact, Continuity and Collapse.ISBN 2-503-51291-7
where they in a table dealing with artifacts and descriptions Cat.No. resp
Remarks regarding several artifacts found in among other sites House 21
Skraeling Island Site refer to Mc Cullogh 1989 for a Copper endblade
Sf-Fk-4-1216? Have anyone of you or the others seen any hint of where the
Copper origin from?

Inger E

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

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 03:16:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 06:36:35 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!


The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


Seppo,

Read and absorb:

I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.

What do you think normally fills the spaces between the atoms of a
crystal lattice?

It's down to "spaces between atoms" now.....

Yes.

You have to prove there ARE spaces first, you know.

next you are going to ask me what fills in the spaces of an atom!!
Where will you stop?

Right now.

You are back in your 'drongo' mode.

Hmmmm... as in replying to "drongos", presumably..... well you could
at least have told us what is between all them electrons and protons
you know.... oh and don't forged the quarks.....

(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


Hopeless case ..... :-(

Eric Stevens

...and I note the correct person it applies to nominated himself :-)

Eric Stevens

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

Seppo,
sorry I missed that ref. you say Greenland, the one I refered to definitely
wasn't found in Greenland. Btw there were an Iron blade found with a handle
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

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


Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo and Tom,
I am reading an interesting article about Copper casting, Norse Artifact
Copper casting, found in Canadian arctic. I guess I refered to it
before.
What's intriguing is that it's seems as if some of the Copper has been
analyzed and some not. Thus I wonder if anyone of you have read or heard
of
the full testresult of the Copper in the analyzed artifacts. Is the
origin
of the Copper discussed at all?

I reported on copper said to originate from the Coppermine River
region found on Greenland in an earlier post. The river was named for
the Copper Inuit (?) who live in this area.

I have read:
P Schledermann and K M McCullough: Inuit-Norse Contacts in Smith Sound
Region in Contact, Continuity and Collapse.ISBN 2-503-51291-7
where they in a table dealing with artifacts and descriptions Cat.No.
resp
Remarks regarding several artifacts found in among other sites House 21
Skraeling Island Site refer to Mc Cullogh 1989 for a Copper endblade
Sf-Fk-4-1216? Have anyone of you or the others seen any hint of where
the
Copper origin from?

Inger E

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

Inger E Johansson wrote:



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


Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo and Tom,
I am reading an interesting article about Copper casting, Norse Artifact
Copper casting, found in Canadian arctic. I guess I refered to it
before.
What's intriguing is that it's seems as if some of the Copper has been
analyzed and some not. Thus I wonder if anyone of you have read or heard
of
the full testresult of the Copper in the analyzed artifacts. Is the
origin
of the Copper discussed at all?

I reported on copper said to originate from the Coppermine River
region found on Greenland in an earlier post. The river was named for
the Copper Inuit (?) who live in this area.

I have read:
P Schledermann and K M McCullough: Inuit-Norse Contacts in Smith Sound
Region in Contact, Continuity and Collapse.ISBN 2-503-51291-7
where they in a table dealing with artifacts and descriptions Cat.No.
resp
Remarks regarding several artifacts found in among other sites House 21
Skraeling Island Site refer to Mc Cullogh 1989 for a Copper endblade
Sf-Fk-4-1216? Have anyone of you or the others seen any hint of where
the
Copper origin from?

Seppo,
sorry I missed that ref. you say Greenland, the one I refered to definitely
wasn't found in Greenland. Btw there were an Iron blade found with a handle
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

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

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...


Inger E Johansson wrote:



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


Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo and Tom,
I am reading an interesting article about Copper casting, Norse
Artifact
Copper casting, found in Canadian arctic. I guess I refered to it
before.
What's intriguing is that it's seems as if some of the Copper has
been
analyzed and some not. Thus I wonder if anyone of you have read or
heard
of
the full testresult of the Copper in the analyzed artifacts. Is the
origin
of the Copper discussed at all?

I reported on copper said to originate from the Coppermine River
region found on Greenland in an earlier post. The river was named for
the Copper Inuit (?) who live in this area.

I have read:
P Schledermann and K M McCullough: Inuit-Norse Contacts in Smith
Sound
Region in Contact, Continuity and Collapse.ISBN 2-503-51291-7
where they in a table dealing with artifacts and descriptions
Cat.No.
resp
Remarks regarding several artifacts found in among other sites House
21
Skraeling Island Site refer to Mc Cullogh 1989 for a Copper endblade
Sf-Fk-4-1216? Have anyone of you or the others seen any hint of
where
the
Copper origin from?

Seppo,
sorry I missed that ref. you say Greenland, the one I refered to
definitely
wasn't found in Greenland. Btw there were an Iron blade found with a
handle
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

Well what would they do with ship rivet, Chain mails(pieces found several
places), Chain mail lump, Iron spikes and Axe-blade????

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Inger E

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

Inger E Johansson wrote:

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...

[..]
Seppo,
sorry I missed that ref. you say Greenland, the one I refered to
definitely
wasn't found in Greenland. Btw there were an Iron blade found with a
handle
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

Well what would they do with ship rivet, Chain mails(pieces found several
places), Chain mail lump, Iron spikes and Axe-blade????

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

The Iron spike and axe blade are definitely very useful tools in the
Arctic - you know make holes in the ice to fish through.

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.


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

Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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

Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a trade-item at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you read the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E



"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in
the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a trade-item at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you read the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E

First, I don't have access to the full article in the book you
read. Regardless, it the article defines or causes others to
think in terms of rivets and chain-mail as "jewelary", it can't
be taken too seriously.

Second, what you've stated is either predicated on a narrow
definition of "trade goods" (and there is no indication in the
context of the below discussion which suggests that is the case)
or you believe (as the context indicates) that Inuit culture had
no wood to work with and/or no use for a wood plane.

I don't buy either of those.

Inuit culture was always very technology oriented, and one of
the reasons they survived so well was because they would adapt
to any superior technology that became available. When European
technology first appeared in the Arctic, the parts that were
superior were very quickly adopted and adapted by all Eskimos,
Inuit included. (Unfortunately, Europeans were extremely slow
to adopt superior technology from Eskimo cultures, or any Native
cultures for that matter, and suffered needlessly because of it.
In the Arctic that was particularly true.)

A carpenter's plane, just as with *all* steel or iron cutting
tools, would have almost instantly become a desired trade item.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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

Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone, not
even expect to have one for each man in a family. You better learn a bit
more about what tools that were common and what wasn't...

Your comments are funny. So funny that is' not worth doing anything but
laughing.

Inger E

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a trade-item
at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you read
the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E

First, I don't have access to the full article in the book you
read. Regardless, it the article defines or causes others to
think in terms of rivets and chain-mail as "jewelary", it can't
be taken too seriously.

Second, what you've stated is either predicated on a narrow
definition of "trade goods" (and there is no indication in the
context of the below discussion which suggests that is the case)
or you believe (as the context indicates) that Inuit culture had
no wood to work with and/or no use for a wood plane.

I don't buy either of those.

Inuit culture was always very technology oriented, and one of
the reasons they survived so well was because they would adapt
to any superior technology that became available. When European
technology first appeared in the Arctic, the parts that were
superior were very quickly adopted and adapted by all Eskimos,
Inuit included. (Unfortunately, Europeans were extremely slow
to adopt superior technology from Eskimo cultures, or any Native
cultures for that matter, and suffered needlessly because of it.
In the Arctic that was particularly true.)

A carpenter's plane, just as with *all* steel or iron cutting
tools, would have almost instantly become a desired trade item.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a
carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood
in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

Apparently *you* don't know a thing about who did or didn't have
carpenter's planes before 1500. In northern Europe they date at
least back to the Roman invasions, 700-1000 years *before* the
period you are speaking of.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone, not
even expect to have one for each man in a family. You better learn a bit
more about what tools that were common and what wasn't...

What you can find in a Scandinavian household has *nothing* to
do with what would have been aboard the average ship sailing to
Greenland in 1400.

Think for a minute! The ships are made of wood. They are *all*
equipped for repairs (and for that matter, to build a whole new
ship!).

Your comments are funny. So funny that is' not worth doing anything but
laughing.

You've got people rolling on the floor now. First you think
there is no wood in the Arctic, and conclude that therefore
Eskimos wouldn't see any value to having a carpenter's plane.
Now you say that because your experience is that not all
Scandinavians are carpenter's, there wouldn't have been a
carpenter or carpenter's tools on board any ships that colonized
Greenland!

All of that would be funny if you were joking, but you are
seriously trying to foist this off as pseudo science or
something. Maybe next week, but not this time...

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
...
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane
before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

The carpenters plane is a common tool known throughout the ancient world
in a form virtually unchanged from the toolkits of the ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Persians, and Europeans to the modern day.

http://www.toolbazaar.co.uk/gallery/tbgallery.htm
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/M...ory_Code=TC&Sc
reen=CTGY

It was a trade good and is found along with axes, hammers, hoes, rakes,
chisels, gouges, adzes, and weapons like spears, arrows and swords
in ancient wrecks that go back to the bronze age.

You can still buy wooden planes made with bronze fittings adjusted
with wooden wedges. In terms of whether there is evidence of
American Indians using them,

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeol...tagapoint.html

"The tool assemblage which was deposited at Petaga Point during the Archaic
Period consists of hammered copper implements (conical points, an ulu knife,
round and square awls) and a range of stone artifacts, including large
stemmed points, eared side-notched points, rectangular side scrapers,
asymmetrical stemmed knives and large conchoidal flake choppers. Other
possible constituents of the pre-ceramic assemblage are irregular stone end
scrapers and engravers, small pointed knives and ungrooved hammerstones."

Anyone who has used a scraper knows a plane would be recognized as
a betterment and quickly adopted to serve the same purpose. Tools like
chisels, gouges, adzes, saws, planes, hammers and axes are found made
of stone, iron, and steel but generally not copper or bronze except in the
Old Copper Culture of Mn. After Europeans arrived copper
and bronze are more commonly used in the east.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone,
not
even expect to have one for each man in a family.

I expect most men in most cultures that built anything of wood would have
had hammers, saws, chisels, awls and planes as a part of their basic tools.

You better learn a bit more about what tools that were common and what
wasn't...

Can you name a culture where woodworking tools were not as common
as say wooden furniture? Tables, chests, chairs, benches, tubs, barrels,
boxes, doors, windows, looms, and boats all required planes to build as
did a lot of other artifacts common to most cultures.

Inger E

regards,

steve

Your comments are funny.
So funny that is' not worth doing anything but laughing.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a
trade-item
at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you
read
the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E

First, I don't have access to the full article in the book you
read. Regardless, it the article defines or causes others to
think in terms of rivets and chain-mail as "jewelary", it can't
be taken too seriously.

Second, what you've stated is either predicated on a narrow
definition of "trade goods" (and there is no indication in the
context of the below discussion which suggests that is the case)
or you believe (as the context indicates) that Inuit culture had
no wood to work with and/or no use for a wood plane.

I don't buy either of those.

Inuit culture was always very technology oriented, and one of
the reasons they survived so well was because they would adapt
to any superior technology that became available. When European
technology first appeared in the Arctic, the parts that were
superior were very quickly adopted and adapted by all Eskimos,
Inuit included. (Unfortunately, Europeans were extremely slow
to adopt superior technology from Eskimo cultures, or any Native
cultures for that matter, and suffered needlessly because of it.
In the Arctic that was particularly true.)

A carpenter's plane, just as with *all* steel or iron cutting
tools, would have almost instantly become a desired trade item.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a
carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand.....
they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood
in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message ...
Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a trade-item at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you read the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E

snip
Link of archaeological interest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ll/3451095.stm

stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a tool you
gave away, not even as a wedding gift. If the work Contact, Continuity and
Collapse used wrong word, I don't know. I know that the carpenter plane
found was of a Scandinavian type and that it wasn't a tool no one would
think to leave behind either neither here in Scandinavia or elsewhere.

Inger E
"stevewhittet" skrev i meddelandet
...

"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
...
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane
before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

The carpenters plane is a common tool known throughout the ancient world
in a form virtually unchanged from the toolkits of the ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Persians, and Europeans to the modern day.

http://www.toolbazaar.co.uk/gallery/tbgallery.htm

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/M...ory_Code=TC&Sc
reen=CTGY

It was a trade good and is found along with axes, hammers, hoes, rakes,
chisels, gouges, adzes, and weapons like spears, arrows and swords
in ancient wrecks that go back to the bronze age.

You can still buy wooden planes made with bronze fittings adjusted
with wooden wedges. In terms of whether there is evidence of
American Indians using them,

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeol...tagapoint.html

"The tool assemblage which was deposited at Petaga Point during the
Archaic
Period consists of hammered copper implements (conical points, an ulu
knife,
round and square awls) and a range of stone artifacts, including large
stemmed points, eared side-notched points, rectangular side scrapers,
asymmetrical stemmed knives and large conchoidal flake choppers. Other
possible constituents of the pre-ceramic assemblage are irregular stone
end
scrapers and engravers, small pointed knives and ungrooved hammerstones."

Anyone who has used a scraper knows a plane would be recognized as
a betterment and quickly adopted to serve the same purpose. Tools like
chisels, gouges, adzes, saws, planes, hammers and axes are found made
of stone, iron, and steel but generally not copper or bronze except in the
Old Copper Culture of Mn. After Europeans arrived copper
and bronze are more commonly used in the east.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone,
not
even expect to have one for each man in a family.

I expect most men in most cultures that built anything of wood would have
had hammers, saws, chisels, awls and planes as a part of their basic
tools.

You better learn a bit more about what tools that were common and what
wasn't...

Can you name a culture where woodworking tools were not as common
as say wooden furniture? Tables, chests, chairs, benches, tubs, barrels,
boxes, doors, windows, looms, and boats all required planes to build as
did a lot of other artifacts common to most cultures.

Inger E

regards,

steve

Your comments are funny.
So funny that is' not worth doing anything but laughing.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a
trade-item
at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you
read
the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E

First, I don't have access to the full article in the book you
read. Regardless, it the article defines or causes others to
think in terms of rivets and chain-mail as "jewelary", it can't
be taken too seriously.

Second, what you've stated is either predicated on a narrow
definition of "trade goods" (and there is no indication in the
context of the below discussion which suggests that is the case)
or you believe (as the context indicates) that Inuit culture had
no wood to work with and/or no use for a wood plane.

I don't buy either of those.

Inuit culture was always very technology oriented, and one of
the reasons they survived so well was because they would adapt
to any superior technology that became available. When European
technology first appeared in the Arctic, the parts that were
superior were very quickly adopted and adapted by all Eskimos,
Inuit included. (Unfortunately, Europeans were extremely slow
to adopt superior technology from Eskimo cultures, or any Native
cultures for that matter, and suffered needlessly because of it.
In the Arctic that was particularly true.)

A carpenter's plane, just as with *all* steel or iron cutting
tools, would have almost instantly become a desired trade item.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood
carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a
carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand.....
they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of
wood
in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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

Floyd L,
I wonder which type of carpenter's plane you are believing we are talking
about. Found a photo of an alike at a Hembygdsmuseum(a district's local
museum) look at the 'hyvel' in the bottom:
http://medlem.spray.se/ffk_hjo/index-6.html_foremal
for lager image push on the photo.

This wasn't a tool anyone from Scandinavia would trade.
It wasn't a tool you would expect to be used outside the farm where the
owner had it or if the owner belonged to a Guild which had started in 14th
century(or earlier), he wouldn't dream to give it to an other person at all.

And you know there weren't so much Driftwood on Ellesmere Island that you
needed to bring one with you there.

Inger E

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane
before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

Apparently *you* don't know a thing about who did or didn't have
carpenter's planes before 1500. In northern Europe they date at
least back to the Roman invasions, 700-1000 years *before* the
period you are speaking of.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone,
not
even expect to have one for each man in a family. You better learn a bit
more about what tools that were common and what wasn't...

What you can find in a Scandinavian household has *nothing* to
do with what would have been aboard the average ship sailing to
Greenland in 1400.

Think for a minute! The ships are made of wood. They are *all*
equipped for repairs (and for that matter, to build a whole new
ship!).

Your comments are funny. So funny that is' not worth doing anything but
laughing.

You've got people rolling on the floor now. First you think
there is no wood in the Arctic, and conclude that therefore
Eskimos wouldn't see any value to having a carpenter's plane.
Now you say that because your experience is that not all
Scandinavians are carpenter's, there wouldn't have been a
carpenter or carpenter's tools on board any ships that colonized
Greenland!

All of that would be funny if you were joking, but you are
seriously trying to foist this off as pseudo science or
something. Maybe next week, but not this time...

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
I wonder which type of carpenter's plane you are believing we are talking
about. Found a photo of an alike at a Hembygdsmuseum(a district's local
museum) look at the 'hyvel' in the bottom:
http://medlem.spray.se/ffk_hjo/index-6.html_foremalfor lager image push on the photo.

This wasn't a tool anyone from Scandinavia would trade.
It wasn't a tool you would expect to be used outside the farm where the
owner had it or if the owner belonged to a Guild which had started in 14th
century(or earlier), he wouldn't dream to give it to an other person at all.

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

Start looking at *shipwright* tools and stop worrying about a
bunch of Scandinavian farmers. For Goodness Sakes, by the time
period you are talking about there were all sorts of fancy,
ornate planes of rather artistic design all over Europe.

And you know there weren't so much Driftwood on Ellesmere Island that you
needed to bring one with you there.

And you know, that's beyond your scope of imagination. But
since I live about 400 yards from the Arctic Ocean, I'll be
happy to tell you that there is indeed enough driftwood to allow
people to build wood frames from skin boats. Not to mention
that it was a major source of structural material for igloos
(aka, sod houses). You might be able to believe that fitting
wood pieces together for a house would be typical use for a
plane; but I suppose the fact that a plane would be *many* times
more useful in the construction of an umiaq frame is probably
not within your limited grasp. Let me explain: a skin boat
frame cannot have any rough edges, nor can it have ill fitted
parts, else it sinks.

Do you even know what a plane is used for?

Inger E

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane
before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

Apparently *you* don't know a thing about who did or didn't have
carpenter's planes before 1500. In northern Europe they date at
least back to the Roman invasions, 700-1000 years *before* the
period you are speaking of.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone,
not
even expect to have one for each man in a family. You better learn a bit
more about what tools that were common and what wasn't...

What you can find in a Scandinavian household has *nothing* to
do with what would have been aboard the average ship sailing to
Greenland in 1400.

Think for a minute! The ships are made of wood. They are *all*
equipped for repairs (and for that matter, to build a whole new
ship!).

Your comments are funny. So funny that is' not worth doing anything but
laughing.

You've got people rolling on the floor now. First you think
there is no wood in the Arctic, and conclude that therefore
Eskimos wouldn't see any value to having a carpenter's plane.
Now you say that because your experience is that not all
Scandinavians are carpenter's, there wouldn't have been a
carpenter or carpenter's tools on board any ships that colonized
Greenland!

All of that would be funny if you were joking, but you are
seriously trying to foist this off as pseudo science or
something. Maybe next week, but not this time...

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

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

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.

gave away, not even as a wedding gift.

Why not? They aren't *that* ugly!

If the work Contact, Continuity and
Collapse used wrong word, I don't know. I know that the carpenter plane
found was of a Scandinavian type and that it wasn't a tool no one would
think to leave behind either neither here in Scandinavia or elsewhere.

That is purely conjecture on your part. And clearly not well
considered.


Inger E
"stevewhittet" skrev i meddelandet
...

"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
...
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane
before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

The carpenters plane is a common tool known throughout the ancient world
in a form virtually unchanged from the toolkits of the ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Persians, and Europeans to the modern day.

http://www.toolbazaar.co.uk/gallery/tbgallery.htm

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Category_Code=TC&Sc reen=CTGY

It was a trade good and is found along with axes, hammers, hoes, rakes,
chisels, gouges, adzes, and weapons like spears, arrows and swords
in ancient wrecks that go back to the bronze age.

You can still buy wooden planes made with bronze fittings adjusted
with wooden wedges. In terms of whether there is evidence of
American Indians using them,

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeol...tagapoint.html

"The tool assemblage which was deposited at Petaga Point during the
Archaic
Period consists of hammered copper implements (conical points, an ulu
knife,
round and square awls) and a range of stone artifacts, including large
stemmed points, eared side-notched points, rectangular side scrapers,
asymmetrical stemmed knives and large conchoidal flake choppers. Other
possible constituents of the pre-ceramic assemblage are irregular stone
end
scrapers and engravers, small pointed knives and ungrooved hammerstones."

Anyone who has used a scraper knows a plane would be recognized as
a betterment and quickly adopted to serve the same purpose. Tools like
chisels, gouges, adzes, saws, planes, hammers and axes are found made
of stone, iron, and steel but generally not copper or bronze except in the
Old Copper Culture of Mn. After Europeans arrived copper
and bronze are more commonly used in the east.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by everyone,
not
even expect to have one for each man in a family.

I expect most men in most cultures that built anything of wood would have
had hammers, saws, chisels, awls and planes as a part of their basic
tools.

You better learn a bit more about what tools that were common and what
wasn't...

Can you name a culture where woodworking tools were not as common
as say wooden furniture? Tables, chests, chairs, benches, tubs, barrels,
boxes, doors, windows, looms, and boats all required planes to build as
did a lot of other artifacts common to most cultures.

Inger E

regards,

steve

Your comments are funny.
So funny that is' not worth doing anything but laughing.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you must be joking. Of course a wood carpenter's plane isn't a
trade-item
at
all in trades between Greenlanders and Inuits. Would be good if you
read
the
full article in the book I refered to as a starter instead of joking.

Inger E

First, I don't have access to the full article in the book you
read. Regardless, it the article defines or causes others to
think in terms of rivets and chain-mail as "jewelary", it can't
be taken too seriously.

Second, what you've stated is either predicated on a narrow
definition of "trade goods" (and there is no indication in the
context of the below discussion which suggests that is the case)
or you believe (as the context indicates) that Inuit culture had
no wood to work with and/or no use for a wood plane.

I don't buy either of those.

Inuit culture was always very technology oriented, and one of
the reasons they survived so well was because they would adapt
to any superior technology that became available. When European
technology first appeared in the Arctic, the parts that were
superior were very quickly adopted and adapted by all Eskimos,
Inuit included. (Unfortunately, Europeans were extremely slow
to adopt superior technology from Eskimo cultures, or any Native
cultures for that matter, and suffered needlessly because of it.
In the Arctic that was particularly true.)

A carpenter's plane, just as with *all* steel or iron cutting
tools, would have almost instantly become a desired trade item.

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood
carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a
carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand.....
they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of
wood
in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames. Each and every one of
them with a wood frame. And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

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





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

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:
Inger E Johansson wrote:
of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

I certainly would agree.

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

First of all you are not able to recognise levity even when a smiley
is used. Further to that YOU have NO IDEA what they used them for.
None what ever, and therefor cannot scoff and sneer at ANY suggested
use. Therefor YOU cannot be taken seriously. Further to that I haven't
heard anything so absurd as suggesting "chain mail" being used "for
making tools"!!

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

You are quoting... who exactly and from where? Are you saying there
were forests on Greenland - Ellesmere Island in particular?

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames.

The "arctic" wasn't referred to - but GREENLAND was. There were no
trees on Greenland at the relevant time.

Each and every one of them with a wood frame.

Bull****! First of all provide some proof that boat building (using
WOOD) occurred on Greenland AND that is has been done "for at least
a few thousand years". You can't, can you.

And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

So, where is your evidence of your claims? Please tell us all what
"tool" one can make out of a small piece of chain mail.

A carpenters plane isn't a TRADE GOODS for the several simple reasons.

- It was an essential tool for any ship's carpenter on a ship.
- The steel blade may have been of use as a knife or axe, but then why
not trade those - or any piece of scrap steel?

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Yes..... have you heard of ship worms? "Fire wood"? Supply problems?
Water logged?

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

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.

The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30
different planes. Many were used to shape ogees.
I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other
nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.
http://jonzimmersantiquetools.com/tools/woodlist.htm
Whats the betting inger has a grandfather who was a carpenter ?

George wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:

stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.


The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30
different planes. Many were used to shape ogees.
I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other
nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.
http://jonzimmersantiquetools.com/tools/woodlist.htm
Whats the betting inger has a grandfather who was a carpenter ?

George,

Interesting site. I wonder whether the prices asked on that
site are, adjusted for inflation, similar to the price paid by
the original owners. They seem pretty reasonable, for the age
and type of tools being sold.

Tom McDonald

Wood plane - shave bone. Shave Ice. Mostly Bone.
Remember they carve bone into figures and tools.
It is their wood and stone item.

Martin

Inger E Johansson wrote:

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...


Inger E Johansson wrote:

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


Inger E Johansson wrote:

Seppo and Tom,
I am reading an interesting article about Copper casting, Norse

Artifact

Copper casting, found in Canadian arctic. I guess I refered to it

before.

What's intriguing is that it's seems as if some of the Copper has

been

analyzed and some not. Thus I wonder if anyone of you have read or

heard

of

the full testresult of the Copper in the analyzed artifacts. Is the

origin

of the Copper discussed at all?

I reported on copper said to originate from the Coppermine River
region found on Greenland in an earlier post. The river was named for
the Copper Inuit (?) who live in this area.


I have read:
P Schledermann and K M McCullough: Inuit-Norse Contacts in Smith

Sound

Region in Contact, Continuity and Collapse.ISBN 2-503-51291-7
where they in a table dealing with artifacts and descriptions

Cat.No.

resp

Remarks regarding several artifacts found in among other sites House

21

Skraeling Island Site refer to Mc Cullogh 1989 for a Copper endblade
Sf-Fk-4-1216? Have anyone of you or the others seen any hint of

where

the

Copper origin from?

Seppo,
sorry I missed that ref. you say Greenland, the one I refered to

definitely

wasn't found in Greenland. Btw there were an Iron blade found with a

handle

of musk ox and a carpenter's special tool - a wood carpenter's
plane(McCullough 1989, pl 73).....
typical trade items don't you agree? :-)

A knife, machete or axe would be "trade goods" - but not a carpenters
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?


Well what would they do with ship rivet, Chain mails(pieces found several
places), Chain mail lump, Iron spikes and Axe-blade????

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Inger E

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





--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
I wonder which type of carpenter's plane you are believing we are talking
about. Found a photo of an alike at a Hembygdsmuseum(a district's local
museum) look at the 'hyvel' in the bottom:
http://medlem.spray.se/ffk_hjo/index-6.html_foremalfor lager image push on the photo.

This wasn't a tool anyone from Scandinavia would trade.
It wasn't a tool you would expect to be used outside the farm where the
owner had it or if the owner belonged to a Guild which had started in 14th
century(or earlier), he wouldn't dream to give it to an other person at all.

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

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




[..]

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

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

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

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

Like I said, *anything* that could be traded for was by
definition a "trade item". What they thought was a trade item
when they loaded the cargo is one thing; and what they thought
was a trade item when they were shipwrecked and planning an
overland trek is a different thing. And what was a trade item
to the first Eskimo that picked it up off the beach is another
thing too!

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

All we know is that at least one "carpenter's plane" ended up in
the possession of Inuit people in Canada. Speculation about how
it got there is fine, but making assumptions about how it
*couldn't* have happened in ways that clearly *are* possible, is
absurd.

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

Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
plane. What would Inuit do with one of them?

What would they do with one???? Plane wood. What else?

Ahhh.... now a ships rivet and chain-mail, I can understand..... they
are JEWELLERY :-)

Maybe to *you*. They would have been "raw material" to an
Eskimo during that time period. Useful for making tools...

First of all you are not able to recognise levity even when a smiley
is used. Further to that YOU have NO IDEA what they used them for.

The fact is that yes I do have a very good idea of exactly what
they used them for. And neither you nor Inger has even a hint.

None what ever, and therefor cannot scoff and sneer at ANY suggested
use. Therefor YOU cannot be taken seriously. Further to that I haven't

Well it is an interesting concept coming from you that somebody
who doesn't know anything about what something would be used for
shouldn't be taken seriously. Why are *you* posting? Why is
Inger posting? Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning
of it is, not trying to tell others.

heard anything so absurd as suggesting "chain mail" being used "for
making tools"!!

Your lack of ingenuity did not limit what they may have used it
for.

I thought someone here at an early stage spoke of the lack of wood in the
Arctic area, Greenland included.....

Sure but then deer antlers and the like can be shaped with steel
knives, axe etc - not so good with a plane.

What is this "lack of wood" business?

You are quoting... who exactly and from where? Are you saying there
were forests on Greenland - Ellesmere Island in particular?

You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows...

They've been building skin boats in the Arctic for at least a
few thousand years... with wood frames.

The "arctic" wasn't referred to - but GREENLAND was. There were no
trees on Greenland at the relevant time.

Each and every one of them with a wood frame.

Bull****! First of all provide some proof that boat building (using
WOOD) occurred on Greenland AND that is has been done "for at least
a few thousand years". You can't, can you.

Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture. In particular
the difference between Dorset and Thule technology. Among other
differences is the increased importance of wood framed skin
boats. In Greenland, look for the different uses of an umiaq
and a kayaq compared to other Inuit cultures. Of course the first
thing you'll discover is that, indeed, *all* of those skin boats
used wood frames!

Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your
benefit):


3d. ... The country looked pleasant,
with many berry-bearing plants and bushes. There was,
likewise, *plenty* *of* *drift*-*wood* *all* *along* *the* *coast*; *not* *the*
*large* *Greenland* *timber*, *but* *small* *trees* *and* *roots*, evidently
carried out of the great rivers of the Ungava by the ice. We
had, of course, fire- wood enough, without robbing the graves
of their superstitious furniture. Our Esquimaux pitched

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html

And while ships nails and chain mail
might have been seen as simply raw material that could be used
to manufacture useful tools, a carpenter's plane would have been
seen for exactly what it was, a tool of considerable value.

So, where is your evidence of your claims? Please tell us all what
"tool" one can make out of a small piece of chain mail.

A carpenters plane isn't a TRADE GOODS for the several simple reasons.

Only due to lack of imagination on your part.

But the evidence is pretty clear that at least one such item did
end up with Inuit people. Somewhere between being made by a
Norwegian and coming into its current ownership, it traded hands.
We can speculate on how many times... but once is all it takes.

- It was an essential tool for any ship's carpenter on a ship.
- The steel blade may have been of use as a knife or axe, but then why
not trade those - or any piece of scrap steel?

**** happens. The Master's watch might get traded too!

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Yes..... have you heard of ship worms? "Fire wood"? Supply problems?
Water logged?

Never walked the Arctic Ocean beach, have you! And you clearly
know nothing about Eskimo cultures either.

People on the Arctic coast *don't* burn wood. It's too
precious. Do some research on "ship worms". Do some research
on "water logged" too, for that matter. (Oh, check out the
temperature of water in the Arctic Ocean whilst you learn about
ships worms.)

The point however should be clear that you are imagining you know
about circumstances that you've never experienced. As I said, I
live 400 yards from the Arctic Ocean, and you are a *fool* to tell
me there is no drift wood or that people on the Arctic Coast never
used wood as a raw material. There of course isn't a tree growing within
hundreds of miles of Barrow, but umiaqs and kayaqs here were all built
(and still are) with wood frames, just as they were from the Bering Sea
all the way to eastern Greenland.

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

Floyd,
you are abusing me. Since you obviously aren't familiar at all with what was
common and what wasn't in Scandinavia before 1500 AD, there is no use
discussing it with you at all. You simply have no clue. Let's leave it at
that and don't continue to abuse me. You ARE the one who hasn't done your
homework when you believe that what's common in other parts of the world
must be common here in Scandinavia and especially among Scandinavians in
Greenland.

Good Night until you done your homework and at least send valid OBS valid
contra-argument from Scandinavia and Greenland.

Plonk

Inger E



"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
I wonder which type of carpenter's plane you are believing we are talking
about. Found a photo of an alike at a Hembygdsmuseum(a district's local
museum) look at the 'hyvel' in the bottom:
http://medlem.spray.se/ffk_hjo/index-6.html_foremalfor lager image push
on the photo.

This wasn't a tool anyone from Scandinavia would trade.
It wasn't a tool you would expect to be used outside the farm where the
owner had it or if the owner belonged to a Guild which had started in
14th
century(or earlier), he wouldn't dream to give it to an other person at
all.

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

Start looking at *shipwright* tools and stop worrying about a
bunch of Scandinavian farmers. For Goodness Sakes, by the time
period you are talking about there were all sorts of fancy,
ornate planes of rather artistic design all over Europe.

And you know there weren't so much Driftwood on Ellesmere Island that you
needed to bring one with you there.

And you know, that's beyond your scope of imagination. But
since I live about 400 yards from the Arctic Ocean, I'll be
happy to tell you that there is indeed enough driftwood to allow
people to build wood frames from skin boats. Not to mention
that it was a major source of structural material for igloos
(aka, sod houses). You might be able to believe that fitting
wood pieces together for a house would be typical use for a
plane; but I suppose the fact that a plane would be *many* times
more useful in the construction of an umiaq frame is probably
not within your limited grasp. Let me explain: a skin boat
frame cannot have any rough edges, nor can it have ill fitted
parts, else it sinks.

Do you even know what a plane is used for?

Inger E

"Floyd L. Davidson" skrev i meddelandet
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd L,
you don't know anything about who had or who hadn't carpenter's plane
before
1500. Yes the house dates to 1163-1435 AD (680 +100 BP calibrated).

Apparently *you* don't know a thing about who did or didn't have
carpenter's planes before 1500. In northern Europe they date at
least back to the Roman invasions, 700-1000 years *before* the
period you are speaking of.

In Scandinavia you wouldn't find a carpenter's plane owned by
everyone,
not
even expect to have one for each man in a family. You better learn a
bit
more about what tools that were common and what wasn't...

What you can find in a Scandinavian household has *nothing* to
do with what would have been aboard the average ship sailing to
Greenland in 1400.

Think for a minute! The ships are made of wood. They are *all*
equipped for repairs (and for that matter, to build a whole new
ship!).

Your comments are funny. So funny that is' not worth doing anything
but
laughing.

You've got people rolling on the floor now. First you think
there is no wood in the Arctic, and conclude that therefore
Eskimos wouldn't see any value to having a carpenter's plane.
Now you say that because your experience is that not all
Scandinavians are carpenter's, there wouldn't have been a
carpenter or carpenter's tools on board any ships that colonized
Greenland!

All of that would be funny if you were joking, but you are
seriously trying to foist this off as pseudo science or
something. Maybe next week, but not this time...

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

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

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

Tom,
stop continue to abuse me, you are doing so by writing under George abuse
without adding that you don't support his abuse.
secondly what I, you and George might have or haven't today or our relatives
had in 19th-20th century has nothing at all to do with what Scandinavians
living on Greenland and in Vinland owned and appreciated as valuable tools
in 9th - 15th century. Or are you able to prove otherwise?????

Inger E
"Tom McDonald" skrev i meddelandet
...
George wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message
...

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:

stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a
tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.


The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30
different planes. Many were used to shape ogees.
I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other
nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.
http://jonzimmersantiquetools.com/tools/woodlist.htm
Whats the betting inger has a grandfather who was a carpenter ?

George,

Interesting site. I wonder whether the prices asked on that
site are, adjusted for inflation, similar to the price paid by
the original owners. They seem pretty reasonable, for the age
and type of tools being sold.

Tom McDonald

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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

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

Giggle snort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
Floyd,
you are abusing me. Since you obviously aren't familiar at all with what was
common and what wasn't in Scandinavia before 1500 AD, there is no use
discussing it with you at all. You simply have no clue. Let's leave it at
that and don't continue to abuse me. You ARE the one who hasn't done your
homework when you believe that what's common in other parts of the world
must be common here in Scandinavia and especially among Scandinavians in
Greenland.

Good Night until you done your homework and at least send valid OBS valid
contra-argument from Scandinavia and Greenland.

Plonk

Inger E

No wood available to Greenland Inuit people! What a hoot. The
mainstay of their culture is a pair of skin boats made with
wooden frames, and you say they have no use for wood working
tools...

Looks like *you* had best be doing some homework.

You all ever heard of drift wood?

Get the drift yet?

It *still* hasn't sunk in yet, has it!



3d. ... The country looked pleasant,
with many berry-bearing plants and bushes. There was,
likewise, *plenty* *of* *drift*-*wood* *all* *along* *the* *coast*; *not* *the*
*large* *Greenland* *timber*, *but* *small* *trees* *and* *roots*, evidently
carried out of the great rivers of the Ungava by the ice. We
had, of course, fire-wood enough, without robbing the graves
of their superstitious furniture. Our Esquimaux pitched ...

http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html


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

George wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.

The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30
different planes. Many were used to shape ogees.

Oh brother!!! An "ogee" IS a shape, not a thing to BE shaped.....
bloody ignorance......

I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other
nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.

DOORS???? TO make drum doors needs a PLANE? Panel doors are NOT made
with 30" planes - it is used for TABLE TOPS! Didn't he learn anything
in school?

http://jonzimmersantiquetools.com/tools/woodlist.htm
Whats the betting inger has a grandfather who was a carpenter ?

Certainly Mona George has no idea what the tools are for. The tools he
describes are NOT standard issue for "carpenters" they are
CABINETMAKERS tools. Nor is a "shipwright" a "carpenter" but far
closer to a cabinetmaker compared to a land-lubbers job.


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

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

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

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

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


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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

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

Giggle snort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
...


George wrote:

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message
...
"Inger E Johansson" wrote:
stevewhittet,
if you belive the Norse type of carpenter plane to be common among
Scandinavians in Viking Age to Late Medieval Age in Greenland, then
you
obviously don't know much. It wasn't a tool you traded. It wasn't a
tool you

You can't support that statement with facts. Every carpenter,
shipwright, and cooper had not just one plane, but probably a
number of them.

The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30
different planes. Many were used to shape ogees.

Oh brother!!! An "ogee" IS a shape, not a thing to BE shaped.....
bloody ignorance......

I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other
nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.

DOORS???? TO make drum doors needs a PLANE? Panel doors are NOT made
with 30" planes - it is used for TABLE TOPS! Didn't he learn anything
in school?

http://jonzimmersantiquetools.com/tools/woodlist.htm
Whats the betting inger has a grandfather who was a carpenter ?

Certainly Mona George has no idea what the tools are for. The tools he
describes are NOT standard issue for "carpenters" they are
CABINETMAKERS tools. Nor is a "shipwright" a "carpenter" but far
closer to a cabinetmaker compared to a land-lubbers job.

And while George was partly right. I do have cabinetmakers not carpenters
among my ancestors. I inherited cabinets, sofa, chairs,
double-writing-tables and so on made by them the other year.
But George doesn't seem to have used a proper carpenter's plain himself
especially often. Does he?

Inger E


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

Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

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

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

Rejected by *you*! (Which is clearly bogus by definition...)

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

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

Where did I say that?

What I said is that circumstances change, and people adapt.

Shipwrecked sailors, as one example, are *very* creative. While
it is true that Europeans in general were known for their
hide-bound stubbornness as Arctic adventurers and Norwegians, in
particular those in Greenland, seem to have been true to that
form, it still doesn't follow that something useful as a trade
item is not going to be traded just because when sitting in the
home port while the ship was being loaded that item was
manifested as a maintenance tool rather than as cargo for trade.

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

Such limited imagination! It might not have been "trade goods"
to the ship from which it came, but that has *nothing* to do
with how the person who finds it washed up on the beach
classifies it. Perhaps that person, being particularly sharp of
eye, has found another tool just like it and therefore has no
need for a second one! Bingo, it is "trade goods" in the eye of
that particular beholder, and he proceeds very quickly to make a
deal to trade for something he does need.

And we don't even know if the beach comber was Norwegian or
Inuit! (Nor does it make a bit of difference.)

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

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

Your statement is founded on inability to read English. I said
none of them were uniquely traders. That says they had other
purposes, but in *no way* says that none of them carried trade
goods. The only quicksand is that which *you* brought to the
discussion and splattered on your pant legs.

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

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

You aren't reading well today. I've simply said that claiming
it was not and could not be considered "trade goods", and
therefore would not have been acquired by that means by Inuit
people, is purely fiction. I've *never* said that every wood
plane that arrived off the coast of Greenland was there as trade
goods. What I've been doing is laughing at *your* suggestions
that you know *none* of them ever were. Particularly the idea
that it would be so because Eskimos had no use for a wood plane,
what with there supposedly being no wood available in Greenland!

As has been pointed out, the entire basis for your statements
exists solely in your imagination, and is simply wrong.

Your circular arguments defending that bit of idiocy are just as
hilarious.

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

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

Oh. Like the facts that Inuit people used wood frames, and
therefore 1) had access to wood as a raw material and 2) used
wood cutting tools?

Those are the FACTS that I brought to this conversation. *You*
are the one making assumptions about what could or not be
traded.

Further more where is the sanity in claiming something cannot be said
NOT to have occurred?

Seems pretty sane indeed, when it is clear enough that all of the
assumptions used as a basis for that claim are invalid.

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

But the only evidence anyone has presented here is what I've
shown to be true regarding the use of wood in Greenland by Inuit
people. You and Inger can claim all you like that wood working
tools were of no use to Inuit people, but it just flies in the
face of well known facts.

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

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

And that is just so significant to this whole discussion! NOT.

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

Tell us again how there is not a stick of wood to be had in all
of Greenland. Tell us again how no Inuit would want to trade
for a wood plane, much less would any honorable Scandinavian
ever shrink so low as to trade one (because, we must note, not
*every* house in Scandihoovia has one yet!).

Now, what was that about "totally stupid comments"? Did you
have others to add?

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