Re: Paleo-eskimo were building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago.

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:23:22 +1200

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:59:47 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:38:02 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>> --- snip ----
>>>
>>>>You may remember that all this started when I wrote
>>>>"... whoever was building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago, it
>>>>wasn't the inuit". Had he written 'paleo-eskimo' I would have had no
>>>>objection.
>>>
>>>Nice distortion, ...
>>
>>It's not a distortion as should be obvious from the thread.
>
>What else should we call it, when you quote yourself and make a
>reference to me... but are actually talking about what someone
>else wrote! At the least, you were after obfuscation.

For some reason I confused you with Seppo.

>
>>> ... but in fact I quoted an authoritative source
>>
>>Haah - yes -
>>http://students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.pdf - the
>>"University of Washington Kayak Club" - "Fundamentals of Sea Kayak
>>Design Seminar - Notes".
>>
>>>... on
>>>kayaqs, and it was *their* use of the language that you have the
>>>audacity to question!
>>
>>>There is no doubt about what they meant,
>>>and saying it is wrong because you don't understand common word
>>>usage is just being obnoxious and argumentative on your part.
>>
>>That document only uses the word 'inuit' three times, all on the first
>>page. Here is the relevant text:
>>
>>Begin quote
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>1. No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for
>>centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, from before the time
>>the first Europeans came (1600-1700s). Some archaeological evidence
>>indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old.
>
>Clearly that does not refer to modern Inuit people! It just as
>clearly does not even refer just to Thule people, given the 4000
>years comment.
>
>...
>>4. Greenland paddlers are still among the greatest in the world. Most
>>of the roll, rescue, and paddle techniques we use today come from the
>>Inuit.
>
>It is not clear that this usage is either to only modern Inuit or
>not.
>
>>5. Purpose of kayaking for Inuit: Primary method of subsistence
>>hunting of caribou, seals, sea otters, and whales. Very dangerous.
>>Data in the late 1800s indicated in south Greenland, about 24 males
>>died each year during kayak hunting out of a total population of 5600.
>
>Again, that reference is not clearly only referencing modern Inuit.
>
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>End quote
>>
>>There is NOTHING in that document to justify you citing it as an
>>authority for what you claim.
>
>Sigh. I cited them as an authority on kayaqs, and the fact that
>kayaqs are thought to have been in use on Greenland for 4000
>years. They are in fact an authoritative source.

But I never said that kayaks were not present on Greenland 4000 years
ago. I merely said that inuit were not present on Greenland 4000 years
ago.
>
>They *clearly* did use the term "Inuit" in the sense that meant
>all Eskimo peoples, including those from 4000 years ago. You
>said that their statement about kayaqs was *wrong*, and based it
>on an objection to the word "Inuit" being used. That is just
>Eric engaging in word games!

You are engaging in word games. I actually said "... whoever was
building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago, it wasn't the inuit". That
statement is not a denial of boat building.
>
>My point since then has been that the word is *commonly* used in
>exactly the way that source used it. You are playing word
>games, because we *know* what that author of that statement
>meant the term to mean. (The fact that it is commonly accepted
>to have that meaning isn't even significant in that regard.)

So when I use the term in its more restricted manner you insist I am
wrong?
>
>>>(Maybe I've misnamed something? Should it actually be correctly
>>>called, The Seppo/Eric Word Weasel Game!)
>>>
>>>If you had understood the terminology, you would have had no
>>>objection. They could have said either Paleo-Inuit or
>>>Paleo-Eskimo and been just as correct.
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>If you agree to that, then your previous objection is moot.

But no one said 'paleo' anything.
>
>>>Which is also to say
>>>that using either the term Eskimo or the term Inuit is equally
>>>valid usage.
>>
>>Then why use the prefix 'paleo' if the distinction is not necessary?
>
>Sigh. Don't you understand what "Paleo" means?
>
>Old. Ancient. If we are talking about Inuit from 4000
>years ago, we can call them Paleo-Inuit. If they weren't
>Inuit, we couldn't do that...

They are called 'paleo-inuit' to distinguish their culture from modern
inuit ...
>
>If you agree they were Paleo-Inuit, then you are agreeing
>they were Inuit. 4000 years ago, they were Inuit.
>
>>>The common usage of those terms in that sense has been
>>>demonstrated multiple times and there is no point in your
>>>continued intentionally ignorant responses trying to deny
>>>that it was correct the first time.
>
>And now I've just posted two more demonstrations of that
>fact.
>
>Anybody wanna bet that Eric or Seppo or Inger will learn a
>thing??? I say none of them will...

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages
Quantcast