Re: Question re. Copper artifact CanadianArcticformerRe:CopperCastingInAmerica (Trevelyan)

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:16:01 GMT

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> >>Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Indeed, but I have NOT made the claims that there was such huge
> >>>quantities that it supported an whole bloody boat building INDUSTRY
> >>>for 4000 years either.
> >>
> >>Seppo,
> >>
> >> What do you understand the word 'industry' to mean in this
> >>context? It doesn't mean that boats were made on a modern
> >>industrial scale.
> >
> >
> > Never suggested it did - but "industry" does suggest a continuous
> > endeavour in a particular place - not a spasmodic (whatever and
> > wherever) on an occasions when need arises. We see this in terms like
> > "lithic industry" and the actual industry sites.
> >
> >
> Seppo,
>
> It may suggest that to you, but to archaeologists an 'industry'
> is the collection of artifacts of the same age found at a site.

You are free to suggest any nonsense you like, but the
misrepresentation has been noted.

> If the site is stratified, and there is more than one period
> of habitation or use, there are several 'industries' present at
> the site.
>
> The term also can be used across a range of sites of the same
> age if the artifact types are the same, or close enough to the same.
>
> When one discusses a 'lithic industry', one is talking about
> the stone tools of a certain time and place. There is no
> requirement in archaeological terminology that the industry be
> intense, prolific or sustained.

WRONG, and you know it - lest you are having trouble with the
language. I have seen this often enough here, that people run away to
hide behind a claim, suggesting pretty well every bloody common term
has a "special meaning" to "archaeologists" when in fact they don't
but they have been caught out telling porkies. There is NO QUESTION
that it has to be sustained to be called an "industry" - isolated
finds do not earn that term, you know that - you yourself indicate as
much. You seem to also which to transfer the meaning of "culture" to
"industry" as exemplified by your "stratified" example.

Further more FLOYD's dishonest claims have implied far more common
contemporary meaning than the practically unintelligibly broad meaning
you are at present attempting to attribute to it to rescue the
miserable lying sod. 

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

Relevant Pages
Loading