Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says in
news:2207g1dmq73eoaolr0l4konbn0jnjmrvu8@xxxxxxx:

> This is where I get confused as to what you are trying to say. A
> distance of 500 miles as their maximum range of operations makes
> no sense to me at all - they're capable of 300 miles in the
> Viking era as a routine "raiding" voyage. They're doing that,
> out of sight of land, to get to Shetland, Faroes and Iceland and
> nobody is disputing they were managing this without any
> difficulty.

To what end would they have traveled farther west, often along
passages blocked by ice?

> To go from Iceland to the eastern settlement they're looking at
> a trip of 700 miles - although they can make a crossing of 200
> miles to the Greenland coast and then down 700 miles. I don't
> know which way they went but airline direct routes are 700 mile
> ones and doubt they do it that well. I'd favour the 700 miles

700 miles is not a problem over a well established route. Obviously
in 1350 when the ice flows headed south they had to travel the longer
routes.

> Then it is 500 miles from the western settlement to Markland,

Where is Markland? Is there a map where Markland has been mapped.

> again an airline distance, they appear to have routinely
> travelled across to there and back, a round trip of 1000 miles
> to fetch wood rather than being re supplied between the trips
> and spending no time turning around.

Surely you can't be serious, this is mythos. The only place wereby we
have a possible location is in labrador and its a few hundred miles
across the straits of St.George.

> And it is 700 miles minimum from the coast of Greenland to
> Vinland,

It is less than 200 miles to baffin island and along the coast south
to labrador no more than 75 miles off of land.

> where they could have re supplied but it seems from
> what I've read that they were largely supporting a trading post
> there rather than it being a self-sustaining settlement.

Trading post, I must have missed that myth.

> Which
> makes a 1,400 mile round trip not something they were struggling
> with, and they were doing this around the year 1000, rather than
> what they could cope with, once they had three centuries more
> experience of the region, currents and sailing technology.

To what end does one travel 2000 miles west from greenland? To get
stuck in an ice flow and waddle home like penguins?

> And these are explicitly trading routes, not extended voyages of
> discovery to find new trade prospects or other lands to settle.
> And the latter can obviously be a lot further as the cargo can
> consist of supplies rather than trade goods.

More mythos.

>>meaningless in that region, to the point if I travel north 858
>>miles from thule, you would not be heading north anymore youir
>>west would become your east and your east would become your
>>west.
>
> Just to clarify this point, I'm not working out distances using
> latitude and longitude. I'm using an "overhead" view with a tool
> that lets me click here, and click there, and tells me the
> circle distance allowing for curvature. From this point of view
> there is nothing special about the north pole, it is just an
> area of sea between Canada and Russia.

Right, covered with solid ice over most years since the LGM and
expanded ice to beyond baffin island during the years after 1350.
Its nothing special except its a very difficult place to travel to or
live on. The next time you are in canada, say on January 31, go
travel up to baffin island and take your little dingy out and tell me
the approximate conditions at sea.

> Well I don't object to Inuit carrying Norse items around inside
> their territory and beyond - I've said so several times. I'm
> saying that some objects may be carried to these locations by
> Norse instead.

The archaeological point of view is can the mythos, let us see what
better evidence shows up, or not.

> I do not entirely accept that the Inuit had a more developed
> open ocean cargo carrying capacity than the Norse - in fact,
> that's more or less my thinking, that the Norse were better at
> doing that and were doing it more.

Inuit had a better capacity to endure cold conditions.


>>greenland extends from 77'N (practically) and the journey from
>>thule along the coast to the cape and around to eastward
>>passage to iceland is >2000 miles, and thus 500 miles is not
>>appreciably out of the range of norse travel. However the
>>principle issue is not this, but did they actually build
>>settlements and encampments that persisted for what length of
>>time, this is the type of evidence that rules in/out the fluff
>>of a coin and trinket discovery.
>
> Right, and I'm *not* saying there are other Norse *settlements*
> or *encampments* as although there might be, that is clearly
> speculation and I have no new evidence or insight to say
> otherwise.
>
> I don't see there is any way to prove that these potential
> settlements did not exist, either. They are merely ignored until
> someone finds one - that's as it should be.
>
>> There is a matter of consistency which I think is germane,
>>when the Norse initially settled greenland during a period of
>>warming there were no founders there and growth of the colony
>>was consistent with uncompetitive growth (holo-culture)
>>relative to a harsh climate. As they ran into competition
>>growth slowed and eventually tapered off, as expected. The
>>attempts to penetrate the continent experienced the same fate
>>as some early attempts by the french (La Salle). By comparison
>>we can examine the anglo-franco penetration of the northern
>>north america and we can see the tenous and slow nature of
>>colonial advancement, indeed during the 150 years after the
>>discovery of the new world and the first settlements by Basque
>>fishermen in NE regions, the mississippi laid largely
>>unexplored, by 200 years they had thrown a few markers along
>>the banks. It is really not until about 250 years of
>>establishing legistical support that anglo-franco explorers
>>began developing the mississippi and red river regions. From
>>the 1750s to 1855 there was a period of exploitation but few
>>permanent settlements. In the specific region of kensington
>>there was a fort road built in 1858 and later moved north with
>>the Fort after a struggle with the natives, officially around
>>1861 the area saw a shift toward developement. One can track
>>the furthest placement of fortifications over time and see
>>that even when western competition is occurring, the progress
>>of colonization is measurable in miles per year. In 1802 the
>>U.S. did not even know if there was a feasable passage to the
>>pacific, and the one that lewis and clark took require 2
>>years, essentially from st. louis to portland oregan and back.
>>This is with legistical support and a branch of a major
>>tributary, St. Louis (about 2/5th the way across the
>>continent). Within 70 years the equivilant trip would take
>>1/20th the time. One can effectively plot the ability for
>>competitors to penetrate the continent versus years before
>>present and one eventually reaches and equilibrium point that
>>reflects the [slow] early progress of penetrative
>>colonization. More importantly the competition during those
>>early periods between westerners was for coastal waterways and
>>portages, and claims into the continent were largely vacuous
>>and unenforcable. Texas for example was claimed by the
>>following from 1530 on.
>
> Yeah, I have no real issue with this. And nor am I proposing
> anything that goes against it. The settlements per se are known
> about and the growth would be halted / slowed by competition
> with other inhabitants.
>
> That's not really the point. Trade is not limited by these other
> inhabitants and is, in many cases, facilitated.

Trade is facilitated by negotiations under pretense of threat and
defense, otherwise trade is theft.

> Where there are
> (1) coastal villages that will trade with you for supplies you
> can travel that much further. Where there are not, you can set
> up your own staging posts (2) for re supply of trade missions.

Likewise the inuit could travel accross the straits of St. George and
trade directly with the Norse. Is it not mentioned in the papal
documents that the Norse had turned to pagan traditions, possibly the
prospect of trade drew them into Inuit culture.

> I'm not suggesting the Norse did the third, but did do the
> first, and that lans is probably an example of the second. there
> may be other examples of that which haven't been found yet.

I am not counterproposing here, the actual solid evidence for trade
of the Norse, norse goods off greenland is sparse to non-existent.
Until that evidence shows up I am enclined to believe that the norse
traded with the Inuit where the inuit and norse lived in close
proximity. The colony on Vinland is only mentioned in the saga
concerning a brief period, it is possible that the Norse did not even
know that baffin island was separate from greenland as they followed
the ice, and may have considered the island as part of greenland, in
which case they simply followed the line down to canada. AFAICT there
is no specific evidence linking the norse to trade on the mainland.
I do know that natives at least in this region had a taste for
metal household goods whenever they were made available, even though
there was general detest by some tribes for whites. They did trade,
however more often they raided and stole. Spanish had the best
horses.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >> distance of 500 miles as their maximum range of operations makes ... >> discovery to find new trade prospects or other lands to settle. ... >> Norse instead. ... >> settlements did not exist, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... > I think that from talking about the norse getting as far ... > baffin island and the labrador coast, ... > Bergen to Shetland - 200 miles ... the journey, travel the coast. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >> I think that from talking about the norse getting as far ... >> Bergen to Shetland - 200 miles ... They had a boat which was smeared with sea oil, ... Then said Biarne: "As the boat ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >> they would rarely achieve their max limit of about 500 miles, ... >> this is totally underestimating the capacity for the Norse to ... >from baffin Island a logical person after reviewing what was to the ... but when you are traveling against a shore ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • RE: HELP !!! SUMIF or SUMPRODUCT
    ... i.e Client X 5th Jan $75,000 300 miles ... miles earned by the client over the trade dates, Not to re-sum all the volume ... Accept the defaults for data range (Excel data in the highlighted ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)