Re: Question re. Copper artifact CanadianArcticformerRe:CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:33:54 +1200

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:04:26 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>I generally agree with all that you wrote.
>>
>>I haven't been following the argument too closely between Floyd and
>>Seppo but it seems to be centred on whether whalebone was **ever**
>>used for the construction of kayaks. I don't think that Seppo was
>>taking the extreme position that all kayaks used whalebone but Floyd
>>seemed to be taking the opposite extreme that kayaks **never** used
>>whalebone. So, I looked it up.
>
>Neither you nor Seppo seems to be able to write an article with any
>integrity at all.

I think you are getting unduly wound up.

I clearly said in my opening sentence "I haven't been following the
argument too closely between Floyd and Seppo ... " and then went on to
give my impression of what it seemed to be about. OK, I got it wrong
but there is no need to attribute my error to lack of integrity on my
part.

Have you considered the possibility that your practice of
surreptitiously removing sections of the text written by other people
may have played a part? In any case, I'm not going to go back and try
and reconstruct who actually said what from the artistically mangled
remains which has made its way down the thread.
>
>The first statement I made regarding use of bones was
>
> "They used primarily wood, though there are some boats that
> used some whale bone... but more likely the used walrus ribs!"
> Message-ID: <87y8llgppr.fld@barrow.com>, July 15, 2004
>
>Farther down in the same message I said,
>
> "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."

Good for you. That's my understanding also.
>
>And then I quoted this reference,
>
> "... 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
>
>
>I've posted other similar statements too, and other similar
>references. Seppo has claimed there are skin boats made with
>whale bone frames and no wood. His only proof of that are
>pictures of huge whale bone arches, some of which were next to
>wood frame umiaqs. (What a wonderful leap of logic that is!)

I bet the boats were on a beach. You could extend Seppo's reasoning to
claim the boats were made of masonery or concrete.
>
>>I found that Seppo was not alone in his belief that whalebone has been
>>used in the past. That was my point.
>
>But you too will *not* be finding any proof that any Inuit skin
>boat was ever made without the use of wood for the majority of
>the frame.

I already said that.
>
>Not that it could not or might not have happened, but if it did
>it would be so rare as to be impossible to find one.
>
>>Having said that, I am not aware of any direct evidence that whalebone
>>was used in the past and all of the surviving examples of ancient
>>kayaks are made of wood as far as I know. But that does not mean that
>>whalebone was never used.
>
>Certainly does make it a bit suspicious though, eh? And the
>claim that they were commonly made without wood is pure fiction
>that you and the word weasel enjoy spamming this thread with.

I now have to question either your integrity or your ability to read
for meaning. You have just attributed to me a belief which is directly
contrary to what I have just written. Why are you so determined to
create an argument where none exists.
>
>>I would like to know the basis for the belief that whale bone was used
>>in some cases.
>
>Whiteman's imagination... it just sounds wonderfully *crude*
>and yet creative! Befitting a Noble Savage. It's much the same
>as claims that "Eskimo" means eaters of raw meat and is
>insulting, that Eskimos killed their elders, or that they
>offered their wives to strangers.
>
>You just have to remember that the vast majority of everything
>you ever read about Eskimos is the figment of a European mind.

Its a product of European writing. Not quite the same thing.

Eric Stevens

Quantcast