Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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. Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why: "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." That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what it was used for. And neither you nor Inger has even a hint. Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either. 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. There we are MORE blatant LIES n- and that is despite you having been informed what a smiliey is about!! So despite that you LIE in the face of evidence to the contrary =- now how stupid is that, eh? Why are *you* posting? Oh, are you delusional as well, and believe yourself to be some kind of Net Nazi too - being able to order who can and can't post here? Why is Inger posting? ....and why not? Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning of it is, not trying to tell others. From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get real will you! 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 see.... and that was the very best you could come up with.... didn't think you had any idea whatsoever. 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... Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well, neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree. 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. I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you to prove your claims. 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! I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of skin boats using whale bones. Nor do I discount boats using the odd bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"! Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your benefit): [snip mess] http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat. 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. Go learn the language! 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! Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do! [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote: Wood plane - shave bone. Shave Ice. Mostly Bone. Remember they carve bone into figures and tools. It is their wood and stone item. You haven't used a plane much at all have you. [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Seppo,
Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what this will lead to in the long run. Inger E "Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet ... "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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. Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why: "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." That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what it was used for. And neither you nor Inger has even a hint. Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either. 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. There we are MORE blatant LIES n- and that is despite you having been informed what a smiliey is about!! So despite that you LIE in the face of evidence to the contrary =- now how stupid is that, eh? Why are *you* posting? Oh, are you delusional as well, and believe yourself to be some kind of Net Nazi too - being able to order who can and can't post here? Why is Inger posting? ...and why not? Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning of it is, not trying to tell others. From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get real will you! 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 see.... and that was the very best you could come up with.... didn't think you had any idea whatsoever. 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... Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well, neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree. 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. I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you to prove your claims. 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! I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of skin boats using whale bones. Nor do I discount boats using the odd bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"! Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your benefit): [snip mess] http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat. 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. Go learn the language! 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! Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do! [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Inger E Johansson wrote:
Tom, stop continue to abuse me, you are doing so by writing under George abuse without adding that you don't support his abuse. Inger, Then you abuse every person Seppo abuses when you write under his lines. But you won't accept your responsibility for that. Or will you? 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. I didn't address that at all. Why not take it up with someone who might have? Or are you able to prove otherwise????? I have no need to prove a damned thing on this issue. Tom McDonald 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 |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: Seppo Renfors wrote: 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. Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why: "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." That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what it was used for. Seppo, are you literate? I said in one place that I have a very good idea what the tools were used for, right? You say that contradicts where I said previously that I don't know all the means by which they acquired them???? Can you connect the dots on that? And neither you nor Inger has even a hint. Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either. Oh, no not a bit... just tell me again how there ain't a single stick of wood to be used for making boat frames anywhere in all of Greenland. Or is your current stupid claim that you didn't really mean that? Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning of it is, not trying to tell others. From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get real will you! You are the one who doesn't seem literate... You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows... Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well, neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree. Ahhhhh... teak does not float, and therefore Seppo The Great says it is obvious that the wood which does float cannot possibly float to Greenland (despite having read first hand accounts of "large Greenland timber" on the beaches... In addition to not being literate, you ain't exactly being logical there either, Bubba. Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture. I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you to prove your claims. If you would simply do the research, you'd find the evidence. Boat building is part of the culture. You won't find it without looking into the 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! I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of skin boats using whale bones. Liar. You are *not* aware of skin boats using whale bones! You just made it up on the spot, hoping it makes sense. It doesn't. They used primarily wood, though there are some boats that used some whale bone... but more likely the used walrus ribs! Nor do I discount boats using the odd bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"! Ah, Seppo The Great, who has spent his entire adult life avoiding Eskimos, knows all about their history, and says they used the odd bit of wood and primarily used whale bone as the frame for kayaks and umiaqs (neither of which you've ever even seen first hand). The fact is, you've got it backwards. They used the odd bit of bone, but the primary material for making a skin boat frame was (and still is!) wood. Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your benefit): [snip mess] http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat. Did you note the reference to the large timbers seen on the beaches of Greenland (in the early 1800's)? Now what does that say about your claim that there is no wood there to use for boats? You refuse to do any of your own research, which is the exact reason for your demonstrated ignorance. Here's just enough to give you a boot where it counts: "The light, seaworthy kayak is a canoelike hunting boat made of a wood frame completely covered with sealskin except for a round center opening, where the single occupant sits. In Greenland and Alaska the skin around the hole can be laced tightly around the occupant, making the kayak virtually watertight. The umiak, a larger, open boat about 9 m (about 30 ft) long and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and made of a wooden frame covered with walrus skins ..." http://encarta.msn.com/text_761561130___7/Inuit.html "Kayak A hunting boat used throughout the Eskimo world, covered with skin stretched over a light wooden frame, ... Umiak A large, open boat, about 10 metres long, covered with skins over a wooden frame and propelled by paddles." http://www.collectionscanada.ca/north/h16-4109-e.html "Umiak A large Eskimoan boat with a wooden frame, usually covered with walrus or bearded seals skins." http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/ar...sary/body.html "Round-bottomed, flat-bottomed or V-hulled, like the Greenland kayak, all the boats Were essentially the same: a wooden frame entirely covered with sealskin except for a hole in the top of the center into which man fits like a cork into a bottle. The frame was made of driftwood or thumb-thick dwarf willow ?trunks?. In regions, where wood was extremely scarce, small pieces were scarfed and pegged together with simple stone or copper tools and infinite patience, and joints in most kayaks were strenghtened with bone or ivory gussets. The boat was cvered with the wet, shaved skin of seals." http://www.greenlandkayak.hu/english/fokaborkajak.php "July 18, 1940 We past Upernavich today and are going up the Greenland Coast ... Our Latitude is 74° 51' 30" Longitude (approx.) 58° 01' 15" ... July 20, 1940 The kayaks are made of sealskin pulled tight over bone and a wood frame." http://www.ernestina.org/history/JPi...rcticTrip.html "Origins of Sea Kayaking Greenland No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Basic construction: Seal-skin over drift-wood Wood bent into shape after steaming over fire Joints lashed together with seal sinew Seams of seal skin sewn with seal sinew, and sealed with seal blubber." students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.doc "The kayak, engineered of driftwood and animal skins, was ideally suited to marine hunting and has been adopted virtually without change in design for modern international sporting competition." http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg8_e.html Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do! I assume you are not a native speaker of English. I won't pick on your language use. However, your causual fabrication of facts is unacceptable. The idea that no driftwood exists on the beaches of Greenland and northern Canada is just hilarious. Tying that to the fact that teak does not float is beyond hilarious... You do realize that there *are* trees growing on Greenland, don't you? -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
Inger E Johansson wrote:
Seppo, Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what this will lead to in the long run. Inger E Inger, Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to stop it. Tom McDonald "Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet ... "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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. Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why: "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." That passage makes it clear YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW with the "all we know...." part. It includes how it got there or why, as well as what it was used for. And neither you nor Inger has even a hint. Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either. 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. There we are MORE blatant LIES n- and that is despite you having been informed what a smiliey is about!! So despite that you LIE in the face of evidence to the contrary =- now how stupid is that, eh? Why are *you* posting? Oh, are you delusional as well, and believe yourself to be some kind of Net Nazi too - being able to order who can and can't post here? Why is Inger posting? ...and why not? Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning of it is, not trying to tell others. From you, who prefers fabrications in favour of facts..... one who doesn't have more than a primary school grasp of the language! Get real will you! 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 see.... and that was the very best you could come up with.... didn't think you had any idea whatsoever. 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... Does it? Have you ever seen a log of teak float, hmmm? No? Well, neither has anyone else - and teak IS a wood, you know. In any event who cares about the odd log or two - or a branch of a tree. 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. I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you to prove your claims. 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! I'll do no such thing. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. I'm aware of skin boats using whale bones. Nor do I discount boats using the odd bit of wood - but I REJECT totally your claim of making boats out of WOOD - which you now try and obfuscate with a lot of snake oil about SKIN BOATS - not "wooden boats"! Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your benefit): [snip mess] http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html What sort of crap is that? There is NIL evidence there of any boat building at the relevant time - not a WORD!! The word "build" doesn't exist in the whole text. Nor does "wooden boat" but this does, "Our skin-boat" - note that SKIN boat. 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. Go learn the language! 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! Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do! [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Tom,
no I am not abusing Floyd who have continued to abuse me from the first mail he sent in this question. I have the right to defend myself especially against abusers and stalkers who continue to spread false information and funny comments about me and my writings! Defending oneself is never a crime. Abusing is. Writing stalking comments as Floyd when asking why I sent the lines, most certainly is a grave abuse and a stalking of me as a person. . Did you really think that I hadn't the right to defend me when attacked????? Inger E |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
Inger E Johansson wrote:
Tom, no I am not abusing Floyd who have continued to abuse me from the first mail he sent in this question. I have the right to defend myself especially against abusers and stalkers who continue to spread false information and funny comments about me and my writings! Defending oneself is never a crime. Abusing is. Writing stalking comments as Floyd when asking why I sent the lines, most certainly is a grave abuse and a stalking of me as a person. . Did you really think that I hadn't the right to defend me when attacked????? Inger E Inger, So by you it's OK to abuse Floyd by agreeing with Seppo's abuse? Tom McDonald |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic formerCopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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? you don't know? OH DEAR..... I suppose we have to opt for the last explanation of why you said it. What I said is that circumstances change, and people adapt. Shipwrecked sailors, as one example, are *very* creative. Nothing at all to do with "trade goods"! 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. You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a dictionary. Something picked up "off the beach" doesn't qualify as "trade goods", you know. It is merely finding lost property. Such limited imagination! No, but a knowledge and understanding of the language - that which I point to you lacking, a demonstrated by your deliberate and continuing misrepresentation of terminology! It might not have been "trade goods" So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the same of heaping **** on other people, hmmm? 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. Of course it does, go learn English!! 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. Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine the language. It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private definitions. [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
(Floyd L. Davidson) says in
: Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond to Seppo on a regular basis. -- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: "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. So where is your proof? You open your mouth wide, but can't back it up. 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... This is the LIE you have been pushing "skin boat" = "wooden boat" - boat building of wood is what YOU have claimed that was part of the Inuit industry for thousands of years - on GREENLAND!! Looks like *you* had best be doing some homework. I have asked you to BACK UP YOUR CLAIM - but you cut and run instead of responding to that request. You all ever heard of drift wood? Get the drift yet? It *still* hasn't sunk in yet, has it! Not with misrepresentation like the garbage below. 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 ... Note the wording; "not the large Greenland timber" - as at best Greenland has had stunted small trees very sparsely even then. In comparison the "driftwood" they must be something not much bigger than TWIGS! Note also the reference to "We had, of course, fire-wood enough" - THAT is your "drift wood"!! http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html You already tried to get away with the BOGUS article - one that does NOT deal (A) with boat building as you have claimed - (B) is NOT about the relevant time (C) proves NOTHING about timber on GREENLAND! It is BULL**** and totally DISHONEST of you to even pretend that crap has any application at all here. Try this instead: http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/vinland_h.htm http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin....t01-1-00315.x "...we suggest that these plant remains represent a pioneer vegetation entirely without woody plants." Unless of course you refer to the "Giant Sequoia" of the Cenozoic era, of some sixty-five million years ago where evidence of them having existed on Greenland and Iceland exists...... -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
Tom McDonald wrote: Inger E Johansson wrote: Seppo, Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what this will lead to in the long run. Inger E Inger, Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to stop it. See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME! But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article. Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort at getting to Inger!! [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingInAmerica (Trevelyan)
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote: Inger E Johansson wrote: Seppo, Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what this will lead to in the long run. Inger E Inger, Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to stop it. See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME! But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article. Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort at getting to Inger!! [..] Seppo, Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her. I then asked her if she would refrain from abusing others by berating *your* abuse of other posters when she replied to you. She didn't answer directly, but did answer indirectly. She replied to a post of yours which abused another poster without telling you to stop your abuse of the other poster. Therefore, she also abused him. By her own definition. She clearly does not believe that the rules she insists upon for others do not apply to her. The Teflon Swede? You seem to be under the delusion that you get to judge whether your words are abusive or not. That's not the case, and you know it. You've made it abundantly clear that the writer's own meaning is irrelevant; it's the reader's reaction that determines whether abuse exists or not. I saw your post as abusive, and Inger did nothing to check your venom. Therefore she is guilty, and should be held to account. This isn't my invention, Seppo. You and Inger have defined the playing field, and you have been found guilty of gratuitous abuse of others, both directly and, equally culpably, indirectly. Stop abusing me and others. Tom McDonald |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: No wood available to Greenland Inuit people! What a hoot. So where is your proof? You open your mouth wide, but can't back it up. Are you still being silly enough to claim there was no wood available to Greenland Inuit? And what do you mean "where is your proof". I've posted enough proof of that to swamp *your* boat! (And have added it, with notations, to the end of this article too.) 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... This is the LIE you have been pushing "skin boat" = "wooden boat" - boat building of wood is what YOU have claimed that was part of the Inuit industry for thousands of years - on GREENLAND!! Actually, for more than 1000 years and maybe for as much as 4000 years, on GREENLAND. (See repeated cite at the end of this article.) Looks like *you* had best be doing some homework. I have asked you to BACK UP YOUR CLAIM - but you cut and run instead of responding to that request. What, where've I run to Seppo? I'm right here, and I'm ready to repeat it again and again if you need to see it again and again. You all ever heard of drift wood? Get the drift yet? It *still* hasn't sunk in yet, has it! Not with misrepresentation like the garbage below. Ah, first hand accounts that there is indeed driftwood on the beaches of Greenland and was in times past, don't influence you? What would? Just how thick skulled are you? 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 ... Note the wording; "not the large Greenland timber" - as at best Greenland has had stunted small trees very sparsely even then. In comparison the "driftwood" they must be something not much bigger than TWIGS! Note also the reference to "We had, of course, fire-wood enough" - THAT is your "drift wood"!! I'm sorry that English is so difficult for you. That is *not* saying that large timber were growing on Greenland. It merely says that on the ocean beaches of Greenland there were "large" timbers. If you had a clue about ocean currents, and took a look at a map to see the comparison between which areas the statement was referencing, it would be obvious why the difference existed as described. (And note that the same difference applies here at Barrow, where there is *significantly* less driftwood than on Greenland's shores, for identical reasons.) http://www.mun.ca/rels/morav/texts/ungava/chapter8.html You already tried to get away with the BOGUS article - one that does NOT deal (A) with boat building as you have claimed - (B) is NOT about the relevant time (C) proves NOTHING about timber on GREENLAND! It is BULL**** and totally DISHONEST of you to even pretend that crap has any application at all here. Now now Seppo, just because you can't read English nor can you logically add two and two, that doesn't mean that the article is "BOGUS". The article is quite genuine. It proves that there was indeed wood available to Greenland Inuit. Logically if that was true in the early 1800's we /can/ assume that it has been true for several thousands of years. Or do you know of some change in the wind and ocean currents that would have made it different? The only thing dishonest is your blind eyed refusal to learn from what has been handed to you. Try this instead: http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/vinland_h.htm http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin....t01-1-00315.x "...we suggest that these plant remains represent a pioneer vegetation entirely without woody plants." So? You cannot stretch that into some kind of proof that there was no wood available for building boat frames. All it does suggest is that none of the available wood is likely to have actually been grown on Greenland itself... (And in fact I have previously cited references which specifically say that is not true either.) Whatever, let me just repeat a bit of real proof that does indicate that Inuit people on Greenland did in fact make skin boat frames from driftwood, just as did Canadian, Alaskan, and Siberian Eskimos, many of whom lived where there were no trees growing. Indeed, you do realize that there are no trees growing within a couple hundred miles of Barrow! Yet people here used wood for not only boat frames but also as structural parts of their houses, and for a variety of other uses (tools, sleds, etc.). (And yes we have excavations of 800 year old houses to prove it.) Driftwood is *far* more scarce here than it is on the ocean shores of Greenland! That is a simple given, due to ocean currents. Whatever, one more time, here are a few references for you to read. This time I've added emphasis so that you won't miss the important parts again. And I've put a few notes at various points too. "The light, seaworthy kayak is a canoelike hunting boat made of a *wood frame* completely covered with sealskin except for a round center opening, where the single occupant sits. In *Greenland* and Alaska the skin around the hole can be laced tightly around the occupant, making the kayak virtually watertight. The umiak, a larger, open boat about 9 m (about 30 ft) long and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and made of a *wooden frame* covered with walrus skins ..." http://encarta.msn.com/text_761561130___7/Inuit.html Note that the differences between Greenland construction and other locations is specified, and does not include any statement that wood was not used there. "Kayak A hunting boat used *throughout the Eskimo world*, covered with skin stretched over a light *wooden frame*, ... Umiak A large, open boat, about 10 metres long, covered with skins over a *wooden frame* and propelled by paddles." http://www.collectionscanada.ca/north/h16-4109-e.html All across Canada and Greenland, the specific places where you and Inger think there was no wood, it seems that they made wood framed skin boats... "Umiak A large Eskimoan boat with a wooden frame, usually covered with walrus or bearded seals skins." http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/ar...sary/body.html Again, note the definition from a Canadian source and that no exception is made to say that in some areas there was no wood available. In fact, there was wood available... "Round-bottomed, flat-bottomed or V-hulled, like the *Greenland kayak*, all the boats Were *essentially the same*: a *wooden frame* entirely covered with sealskin except for a hole in the top of the center into which man fits like a cork into a bottle. The frame was made of *driftwood* or *thumb-thick dwarf willow* ?trunks?. In regions, where wood was extremely scarce, small pieces were scarfed and pegged together with simple stone or copper tools and infinite patience, and joints in most kayaks were strenghtened with bone or ivory gussets. The boat was cvered with the wet, shaved skin of seals." http://www.greenlandkayak.hu/english/fokaborkajak.php A source that specifically discusses Greenland boats. Once again, it specifies wood frames as universal. They even go into detail about the use not only of driftwood, but also of the locally grown willow! "July 18, 1940 We past Upernavich today and are going up the *Greenland* Coast ... Our Latitude is 74° 51' 30" Longitude (approx.) 58° 01' 15" ... July 20, 1940 The kayaks are made of sealskin pulled tight over bone and a *wood frame*." http://www.ernestina.org/history/JPi...rcticTrip.html Another observation that traditional Inuit skin boats were made with a wood frame. "Origins of Sea Kayaking Greenland No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Basic construction: Seal-skin over *drift-wood* Wood bent into shape after steaming over fire Joints lashed together with seal sinew Seams of seal skin sewn with seal sinew, and sealed with seal blubber." students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.doc Well well, imagine that, these Greenland skin boats are made just like other Eskimo skin boats... with wooden frames! "The kayak, engineered of *driftwood* and animal skins, was ideally suited to marine hunting and has been adopted virtually without change in design for modern international sporting competition." http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg8_e.html Pretty good technology, eh? You don't need to apologize for your lies and insults Seppo, but it would be a very good idea if you stopped saying things that you cannot support. The fact is that I can and have provided proof for exactly what I said, and *you* haven't. -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
Seppo Renfors wrote:
See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME! He posted it in a public forum, which makes the above statement somewhat amusing (for English speakers). It wasn't "behind" anyone's back. But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article. Abuse? Isn't that when you do things like make up false quotes ("timber boat building on greenland") and claiming it was something another person said or supported, when they *didn't*. I'll pass on your strange idea of the English language... but you really should stop the fabrications and claims that other people are doing things that only *you* are doing. -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:40:01 GMT, Philip Deitiker
wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) says in : Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond to Seppo on a regular basis. Hmmm .... :-( Eric Stevens |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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. You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a dictionary. In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items. It might not have been "trade goods" So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the same of heaping **** on other people, hmmm? 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. Of course it does, go learn English!! Apparently I have, and you seem to be both dishonest (see the first above comment, which entirely ignores the context of the entire sentence) and obtuse (the idea that a ship's manifest is what determines whether a salvaged item can sold or not). Amusing. Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine the language. It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private definitions. Lets see you cite a dictionary which supports *your* definition over mine! trade goods n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods] Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. Your restricted definition is merely the false assumption that something which is once labeled as a commodity is always a commodity, and something *not* labeled as such at one point can never be called that at a later time. Simply put, your English and your logic are both invalid. -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
|
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian ArcticformerCopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: Seppo Renfors wrote: "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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. You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a dictionary. In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items. Wrong again. While salvaged good can be and probably are traded internally within a particular people, they do NOT become "trade goods" no matter what. Further to that INTERNAL trade between individuals of the same people, eg Thule people, isn't considered "trade" when discussing trade between different ethnic groups and cultures. You really need to learn the correct meaning of words - you cannot communicate with your private secret definitions of terms! So far you have wasted the majority of time attempting to "justify" your abuse of others via these PRIVATE non standard, and unknown definitions. It might not have been "trade goods" So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the same of heaping **** on other people, hmmm? 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. Of course it does, go learn English!! Apparently I have, More bull****.... you demonstrate you inability to grasp it above - AGAIN! and you seem to be both dishonest (see the first above comment, which entirely ignores the context of the entire sentence) and obtuse (the idea that a ship's manifest is what determines whether a salvaged item can sold or not). Bull**** won't even get you there - and THAT lot is BULL****! Amusing. Go learn the language! Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine the language. It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private definitions. Lets see you cite a dictionary which supports *your* definition over mine! It isn't needed - only COMMON SENSE is, and that is something you are lacking. trade goods n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods] Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. You just show you bloody ignorance more clearly, nothing more! It is only so IF it has been INTENDED to be "trade goods" in the first place, dufus! THAT is what your dictionary is telling you - IF you could understand it! You speak about "salvage" - you ignore that the different people are talked about as a single entity and the TRADE is BETWEEN the different people groups. Wriggle for all it is worth, it won't alter anything. Your restricted definition is merely the false assumption that something which is once labeled as a commodity is always a commodity, and something *not* labeled as such at one point can never be called that at a later time. Simply put, your English and your logic are both invalid. You bull**** is noted - and your reason is noted, to DEFEND and JUSTIFY harassing others using misrepresentations. THAT is what this is about!! -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian ArcticformerCopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: Seppo Renfors wrote: "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: 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. You have to learn the language, you still demonstrate your inability to grasp it. SALVAGE is not "trade items" you know. Look it up in a dictionary. In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items. Wrong again. While salvaged good can be and probably are traded internally within a particular people, they do NOT become "trade goods" no matter what. Further to that INTERNAL trade between individuals of the same people, eg Thule people, isn't considered "trade" when discussing trade between different ethnic groups and cultures. You really need to learn the correct meaning of words - you cannot communicate with your private secret definitions of terms! So far you have wasted the majority of time attempting to "justify" your abuse of others via these PRIVATE non standard, and unknown definitions. It might not have been "trade goods" So what the bloody hell did you INSIST it was? Was that just for the same of heaping **** on other people, hmmm? 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. Of course it does, go learn English!! Apparently I have, More bull****.... you demonstrate you inability to grasp it above - AGAIN! and you seem to be both dishonest (see the first above comment, which entirely ignores the context of the entire sentence) and obtuse (the idea that a ship's manifest is what determines whether a salvaged item can sold or not). Bull**** won't even get you there - and THAT lot is BULL****! Amusing. Go learn the language! Go learn the language! How often does one have to say that before it sinks in? You attempting to justify your rubbish claims only puts your own credibility in question. The term "trade goods" has a VERY specific meaning and cannot be applied to salvage, or lost property which also have very specific meanings. If it wasn't so, then those terms wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. Stop trying to redefine the language. It really is no point in dealing with the rest UNTIL you start using English properly - NOT with stacks of your personal private definitions. Lets see you cite a dictionary which supports *your* definition over mine! It isn't needed - only COMMON SENSE is, and that is something you are lacking. trade goods n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods] Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. You just show you bloody ignorance more clearly, nothing more! It is only so IF it has been INTENDED to be "trade goods" in the first place, dufus! THAT is what your dictionary is telling you - IF you could understand it! You speak about "salvage" - you ignore that the different people are talked about as a single entity and the TRADE is BETWEEN the different people groups. Wriggle for all it is worth, it won't alter anything. Your restricted definition is merely the false assumption that something which is once labeled as a commodity is always a commodity, and something *not* labeled as such at one point can never be called that at a later time. Simply put, your English and your logic are both invalid. You bull**** is noted - and your reason is noted, to DEFEND and JUSTIFY harassing others using misrepresentations. THAT is what this is about!! Seppo, Are you facing me? I wouldn't want to say this to your ass. Or your arse (just in case you are monolingual in English). OK. You're always funny; but this is really wonderful comedy. Don't ever change. Tom McDonald |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian ArcticformerCopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Seppo,
it's funny :-) the way some still can't grasp the word trade-goods..... anyhow I wonder who in their ...... mind can believe that a cabinett-maker would have traded his working tool for anything the Inuits, Thule, Dorset etc could have given in return. Neither of those groups were the Ojibwas with which the Greenlanders definitly traded copper and silver items....... nor did any of the three groups live in a land of woods! As for the other funny comments some tried to imply drift-wood. I would like to see any of the suggesters trying to use a plane on wood that have been drifting in water....... that type of wood and the steel in the plane doesn't go well together.... Inger E |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
Tom McDonald wrote: Seppo Renfors wrote: Tom McDonald wrote: Inger E Johansson wrote: Seppo, Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what this will lead to in the long run. Inger E Inger, Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to stop it. See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME! But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article. Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort at getting to Inger!! [..] Seppo, Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her. That isn't even true. It was for NOT deleting the abuse, and posting an apparent "me too" message in support of the abuser, is the reason she said what se did. Deal with that as that is your issue! If you have a beef with Inger, take it up with her, DON'T use her as a vehicle for gratuitous abuse of ME. If you have a beef about something I say, ADDRESS ME - if you are man enough. [..] -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingInAmerica(Trevelyan)
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote: Seppo Renfors wrote: Tom McDonald wrote: Inger E Johansson wrote: Seppo, Floyd asked why I am posting. Had he read and comprehended the article, he would have had hard not realising the impact that have in the light of King Hakon's warfleet mentioned by Olaus Magnus and the maps we discussed re. the Northwest Passage, then he needn't be so surprised. Now he missed more than usual or forgotten that one needs to look at all cards in the opponents hand not only those one believe him or her to have. Thus he doesn't know what this will lead to in the long run. Inger E Inger, Not only are you abusing Floyd yourself, but you are abusing him because you replied to Seppo's abuse without telling him to stop it. See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME! But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article. Sure I can see it being "abuse" to you...... it shows how BOGUS the attacks are being made on Inger and that doesn't go down well with you. Therefor you are quite prepared to malign another in your effort at getting to Inger!! [..] Seppo, Inger said that I 'abused' her when I replied to another poster who had somehow offended her; and that my 'abuse' of her consisted of my not berating him for his 'abuse' of her. That isn't even true. It was for NOT deleting the abuse, and posting an apparent "me too" message in support of the abuser, is the reason she said what se did. Deal with that as that is your issue! If you have a beef with Inger, take it up with her, DON'T use her as a vehicle for gratuitous abuse of ME. If you have a beef about something I say, ADDRESS ME - if you are man enough. [..] Oh, Seppo. I'm a man, and don't have to prove it. Sorry about your little ego. Tom McDonald |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: Seppo Renfors wrote: See there you go again!! Resorting to abusing people behind their back! If you have something to say to me, be a MAN and say it TO ME! He posted it in a public forum, which makes the above statement somewhat amusing (for English speakers). It wasn't "behind" anyone's back. We have seen your "skills" in the language - they are lacking! As it is a "public forum", are you implying that it is only "public" for SOME people and others are not allowed to take issue with what is said? But let me analyse your your claim of "abuse" you say I have engaged in. It is exposing Floyd having used private definitions of terms contrary to the meaning in English as well as lies. Of posting misrepresented articles, claiming "timber boat building on greenland" that has nothing to do with the article. Abuse? Sure, I have seen it! Isn't that when you do things like make up false quotes ("timber boat building on greenland") and claiming it was something another person said or supported, when they *didn't*. You are the one who suggested quotation marks can be used in more ways than one, remember - further to that it is paraphrasing your claim and quite legitimate to use "quotes" for. You have NOT denied it has been your claim, despite numerous opportunities - nor have you provided the evidence of your claim! NOW you are resorting to a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the claim you have made! I'll pass on your strange idea of the English language... You have to first learn it before you will pass - so much is true. but you really should stop the fabrications and claims that other people are doing things that only *you* are doing. There we are again - more LIES from you. *I* don't NEED to lie, you have been shown to NOT be able to support your claims - and shown to LIE about others, just remember that, *I* don't NEED to lie! -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
Philip Deitiker wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) says in : Not that you deserve a heads up floyd, but it is generally agreed that Seppo is killfile fodder, only those who have an insatiable need to argue with delusional moronic idiots respond to Seppo on a regular basis. This is brought to you by the bottle washer and STALKER who's aim is to CENSOR those who do not think of Dopey Deitiker as a GOD! Please killfile Dopey Deitiker to reduce NOISE! It only says crazy things anyway! -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
|
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:26:26 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: --- snip ---- "Origins of Sea Kayaking Greenland No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, Where should we draw the line between skin boats like kyaks and coracles, birch bark canoes, plank canoes, and boats that are essentially the same dimensions like piroutes, dories, longboats and wheries but are designed to be poled rowed or sculled rather than paddled or those that could fall in either of the preceeding categories but are rigged for a sail. To my eye the type of craft has more to do with the methods of construction and its seaworthiness, draft, and usage than the materials used. I could easily imagine a kyack, canoe or coracle having a hull made out of the leather from a walrus instead of a bull and being framed with whalebone instead of wood. I'm not sure whether the first people to reach the Americas sailed here, rowed or paddled but its a pretty good bet they didn't walk across all of North America to reach New England by c 10,600 BP when they had only just arrived in the Aleutians c 11,700 BP "Museum documentation indicates that these human remains (Berry Collection number 4256) are of a cremated individual from a grave with ocher-stained soil that was exposed by WPA workers in the 1930s during road construction on a terrace above the Merrimack River in Manchester, NH. The radiocarbon date from associated charcoal is 8490 +/- 60 B.P." "The Debert site in Nova Scotia, dating back 10,600 years and Bull Brook, in Ipswich, Massachusetts, dating back 9,000 years are among the Gulf of Maine's largest and earliest human encampments on land. Both sites contained similar signs of Paleo-Indian cultures. " http://www.gulfofmaine.org/times/fal...arrowheads.htm http://aurora.ak.blm.gov/arctic/cultural/mesa3.htm regards, steve Eric Stevens |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"stevewhittet" skrev i meddelandet ... "Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:26:26 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: --- snip ---- "Origins of Sea Kayaking Greenland No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, Where should we draw the line between skin boats like kyaks and coracles, birch bark canoes, plank canoes, I thought everyone knew that you are talking about two ethnic groups when you speak of Pre-Columbian kyaks and coracles on one side and birch bark canoes and plank canoes on the other. The former used in Arctic areas by the Arctic people Inuits and other, the later from NA south of the Arctic and always Indians. Inger E |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact. Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland) Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland) Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland) Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland) Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.) Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.) Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland) You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with which the Norse had significant contact. -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
|
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian
Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: In fact, a great deal of salvage soon becomes trade items. Wrong again. While salvaged good can be and probably are traded internally within a particular people, they do NOT become "trade goods" no matter what. Nothing you have to say following a premise as dumb as that one is worth listening to. Of course then you follow it up with what has to be the most abjectly *stupid* statement you've made yet: Further to that INTERNAL trade between individuals of the same people, eg Thule people, isn't considered "trade" when discussing trade between different ethnic groups and cultures. Trade between Inuit people isn't trade. Hmmm... You really need to learn the correct meaning of words - you cannot communicate with your private secret definitions of terms! So far you have wasted the majority of time attempting to "justify" your abuse of others via these PRIVATE non standard, and unknown definitions. Nice projection Seppo, but nobody is missing the fact that you are the one with a private dictionary. trade goods n : articles of commerce [syn: commodity, goods] Which is *exactly* the way that I've used the term. You just show you bloody ignorance more clearly, nothing more! It is only so IF it has been INTENDED to be "trade goods" in the first place, dufus! THAT is what your dictionary is telling you - IF you could understand it! Sorry Seppo, but while your private dictionary might say that, there is no other dictionary of the English language which does. The fact is that when goods enter into commerce, they are by definition "trade goods". What they were considered at previous times is irrelevant. -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
|
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact. I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset. That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow. In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is a red herring. So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are not the same? (I'll point out that the only reason you even know there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.) Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word "Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit" means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language, and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common usage). Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe *everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in that sense. In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos, not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group. Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland) You can make a febble argument that Independence I was Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but you can try it. Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland) From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble argument is possible. Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland) Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland) Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.) Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.) Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland) You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with which the Norse had significant contact. There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here. You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world, I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point you should have learned a long time back Eric. -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCastingIn America (Trevelyan)
|
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former
(MIB529) wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in message ... Hey, Floyd! Where were you on alt.native when I needed you to school Red Cloud? Leo Lee in disguise? A waste of time who is even worse that Seppo. He had a whole thread about Eskimos a couple months ago. Here's the best Engrish I've seen in ages: "Brother! You surely need more foots :-))" Truly, all his base are belong to us. yeah yeah, that's just like Seppo too! Except instead of mangling the words he writes, Seppo mangles the words others write. Chuckle. Nothing like Usenet kooks... -- FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:45:20 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact. I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset. That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow. Where either of live has diddly squat to do with who knows what about the ancient peoples of GREENLAND. I thought it was generally known that the Thule/inuit entered Greenland and displaced the Dorset at about the same time (give or take a century) that the norse were arriving in the south. See, for example: http://teacher.scholastic.com/resear...ic/history.htm "Between A.D. 900–1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture, migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands and eastward as far as northwestern Greenland. Highly dependent on the bowhead whale, remnants of whale bones can still be found on the sites of old camps. Villages of six to thirty houses made of stone slabs, whale bone and sod were common. Snow houses were used as temporary dwellings in the winter. This culture of "Eskimo" survived until about A.D. 1750 when the "little ice age" forced many people to withdraw from villages in the Arctic islands. The cooling climate covered the seas with ice, limiting the range of the bowhead whale. A more nomadic way of life evolved with small groups hunting seal and walrus. This change marked the end of the Thule culture and the beginning of the modern Inuit culture." .... which is why I say that whoever was building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago, it wasn't the inuit. In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is a red herring. So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are not the same? No, the terms are not the same. (I'll point out that the only reason you even know there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.) That's humility for you. Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word "Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit" means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language, and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common usage). Youv'e also been interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for Greenland. All I've been doing is pointing out that it is wrong to claim that the inuit were doing anything in Greenland 4000 years ago. I don't know why you want to argue with that. Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe *everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in that sense. What you believe is irrelevant. This is a 'sci' news group where precise usage takes precedence. In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos, not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group. I'm not sure what source you are referring to but the best that I can see refers to the 'Thule inuit' and a date of 1050. Which source did you mean? Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland) You can make a febble argument that Independence I was Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but you can try it. I wouldn't even consider it. I would refer to it as the 'independence' culture and express the uncertainty as to whether it was an intermediary stage between Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset or an Early Dorset phase. See http://www.sila.dk/History/Independe...ndence_II.html Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland) From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble argument is possible. Both the meaning of the word 'Eskimo' and your usage of it is uncertain. See http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Eskimo+(Esquimaux) Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland) Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland) Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.) Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.) Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland) You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with which the Norse had significant contact. There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here. You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world, I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point you should have learned a long time back Eric. So, you are still saying inuit were making wood-framed kayaks 4000 years ago in Greenland. Eric Stevens |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:45:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ... Yikes, imagine that... wood framed boats in use by Inuit people for perhaps 4000 years! (Did you misread that the first time? 4000 years qualifies as "thousands", right?) Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact. I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset. That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow. Where either of live has diddly squat to do with who knows what about the ancient peoples of GREENLAND. I thought it was generally known that the Thule/inuit entered Greenland and displaced the Dorset at about the same time (give or take a century) that the norse were arriving in the south. See, for example: http://teacher.scholastic.com/resear...ctic/history.h tm "Between A.D. 900-1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture, migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands and eastward as far as northwestern Greenland. Highly dependent on the bowhead whale, remnants of whale bones can still be found on the sites of old camps. Villages of six to thirty houses made of stone slabs, whale bone and sod were common. Snow houses were used as temporary dwellings in the winter. This culture of "Eskimo" survived until about A.D. 1750 when the "little ice age" forced many people to withdraw from villages in the Arctic islands. The cooling climate covered the seas with ice, limiting the range of the bowhead whale. A more nomadic way of life evolved with small groups hunting seal and walrus. This change marked the end of the Thule culture and the beginning of the modern Inuit culture." ... which is why I say that whoever was building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago, it wasn't the inuit. In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is a red herring. So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are not the same? No, the terms are not the same. (I'll point out that the only reason you even know there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.) That's humility for you. Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word "Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit" means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language, and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common usage). Youv'e also been interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for Greenland. All I've been doing is pointing out that it is wrong to claim that the inuit were doing anything in Greenland 4000 years ago. I don't know why you want to argue with that. Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe *everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in that sense. What you believe is irrelevant. This is a 'sci' news group where precise usage takes precedence. In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos, not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group. I'm not sure what source you are referring to but the best that I can see refers to the 'Thule inuit' and a date of 1050. Which source did you mean? Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland) You can make a febble argument that Independence I was Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but you can try it. I wouldn't even consider it. I would refer to it as the 'independence' culture and express the uncertainty as to whether it was an intermediary stage between Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset or an Early Dorset phase. See http://www.sila.dk/History/Independe...ndence_II.html Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland) From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble argument is possible. Both the meaning of the word 'Eskimo' and your usage of it is uncertain. See http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en...=define:Eskimo +(Esquimaux) Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland) Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland) Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.) Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.) Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland) You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with which the Norse had significant contact. There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here. You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world, I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point you should have learned a long time back Eric. So, you are still saying inuit were making wood-framed kayaks 4000 years ago in Greenland. I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone, or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk. 4,000 years ago or c 2000 BC before any of them were around there were people living on Monhegan Island engaged in Bluewater fishing as evidenced by the swordfish bones and copper tools in their middens and they had been there for millenia. http://www.civilization.ca/archeo/hnpc/npvol14e.html Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife handles and butt stocks for rifles or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue? Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle someplace where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't? As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo, Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact. Haven't you all agreed on that yet? The names for the cultures depend on who studied what, where and when and should not be assumed to mean the cultures themselves and their traditions were unrelated. http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage...nd/archeo.html Eric Stevens regards, steve |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"stevewhittet" wrote in
: [big snip] Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife handles and butt stocks for rifles or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue? Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle someplace where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't? As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo, Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact. Haven't you all agreed on that yet? You may have missed the beginning of this thread. Quick synopsis is that Seppo or Inger (I'm not sure which - but they're pretty much interchangeable when it comes to posting drek here) said that Greenland Inuit would not have a use for a wood plane because "they had no wood." Floyd (and others - but Floyd's supplied some of the most interesting info, what with actually _living_ in the Arctic and all) then proceeded to show that, yes, they _did_ have and _use_ wood. At which point Seppo tried to pretend that all those nice wooden frames for kayaks (which were one of the examples of wood use - not the only ones, of course, but in typical Seppo/Inger fashion, he feels if he can "disprove" one example, he's "disproved" all of them) were _actually_ whale bone. This in spite of the fact that Floyd could _walk_ about ten minutes from his home and _see_ the example Seps tried to use the picture of to "prove" it was bone - and see that, yes, it was _wood_. Or, IOW, this has been a typical Inger/Seppo-class fudging so that they can pretend they didn't make (yet) a(nother) mistake. David -- __________________________________________________ _____________________ David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan "You're a loony, you are!" "They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..." "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!" |
Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)
"David Johnson" wrote in message . 125.204... "stevewhittet" wrote in : [big snip] Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife handles and butt stocks for rifles or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue? Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle someplace where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't? As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo, Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact. Haven't you all agreed on that yet? You may have missed the beginning of this thread. Nah, I was there for the beginning of it. I have been seeing it in one form or another since before the end of the last millenium. It started about ninety and four I think. Every couple of years I pop in to see if its still going on and who the latest players to take it up are. Quick synopsis is that Seppo or Inger (I'm not sure which - but they're pretty much interchangeable when it comes to posting drek here) said that Greenland Inuit would not have a use for a wood plane because "they had no wood." There was a little more to it than that, and of course they are just the latest to join in. They wouldn't member the way it was in the day. Floyd (and others - but Floyd's supplied some of the most interesting info, what with actually _living_ in the Arctic and all) then proceeded to show that, yes, they _did_ have and _use_ wood. Yeah, although its interesting that they moved from an area where wood was plentiful because subsistence was easier where they could fish for swordfish, whales and seals. Swordfish tend to be a bluewater species. At which point Seppo tried to pretend that all those nice wooden frames for kayaks (which were one of the examples of wood use - not the only ones, of course, but in typical Seppo/Inger fashion, he feels if he can "disprove" one example, he's "disproved" all of them) were _actually_ whale bone. Some kayaks used whale bone, some used wood, what does that prove? This in spite of the fact that Floyd could _walk_ about ten minutes from his home and _see_ the example Seps tried to use the picture of to "prove" it was bone - and see that, yes, it was _wood_. You have to realise that the rules of this group prohibit you from arguing that what the other guy is saying is counter to fact. That is to say I'm sure that if there were a FAQ that rule would be in there. Everybody in here spins their ass off all the time. Or, IOW, this has been a typical Inger/Seppo-class fudging so that they can pretend they didn't make (yet) a(nother) mistake. Why respond and encourage them? David -- __________________________________________________ _____________________ David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan "You're a loony, you are!" "They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..." "Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!" regards, steve |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter