Re: Question re. Copper artifact Canadian Arctic former Re:CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

From: Inger E Johansson (inger_e.johansson_at_notelia.com)
Date: 07/15/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:28:05 GMT

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" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:40F68C39.FEE2DBC@not.com.au...
>
>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors <Renfors@not.com.au> 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:
>
> <87oemhkg8l.fld@barrow.com>
> "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.
> > >
> > >Bullshit! 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?
> >
> > Shit 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Pages