Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says in
news:3qj9g15ecp9j5pc9g80s3h5qnmurrbs1gv@xxxxxxx:

> Philip - as I am mainly posting for other people as I don't
> believe Philip is capable of self-realisation - is claiming the
> Norse were travelling up to 250 miles most of the time and that
> they would rarely achieve their max limit of about 500 miles,
> and would require an established route even to do this. I say
> this is totally underestimating the capacity for the Norse to
> sail long distances.

Once again you missed the point, once you have traveled a route on
numerous occasions you can take a more direct route, as the norse
obviously did, but if you are going to set out in an unknown
direction, what kind of fool goes 2000 miles, particularly in the
harshest of climates. There is no proof that the Norse traveled 2000
miles off greenland to alaska or siberia, simply no proof what so
ever. And _MY POINT_ was that after traveling 250 or 500 miles west
from baffin Island a logical person after reviewing what was to the
left and right of them, would conclude that further expedition was to
what end? More cold intolerable climate with an inability to support
pastoral herding. Do you see an abundance of livestock on the islands
west of baffin island.

> My figures, based on the saga records with references to disko
> bay, baffin island (helluland) and the labrador coast
> (markland), and of course "L'Anse aux Meadows" and the like,
> are:

This is sheer and utter speculation. There is no basis for this, if
you ask 10 different people about where these places were, you will
get 10 different answers, and worse, you know it. This discussions
makes the point Horace is making, you are clueless on what
constitutes a valid premise or claim, and it is unclear to yourself
when you are trying to confuscate the issue with meaningless and
strawman facts. The simple, let me repeat _SIMPLE_ basis of the
arguement is that the sciences can accept any notion with a provision
of a consistent set of facts. Let the facts talk, no archaeologist
can deny that it is possible that some group of kooky norse set out
to cross from baffin to Murmancks, and who knows if climate was
tolerant during some period that might allow such a journey. However,
it is certainly also possible that they traveled to the south pole,
however, improbable that is. What the sciences are looking for is
what physicist would regard a the empartment of some sort of energy,
some evidence that an effort was made to claim a region, or if not,
we assume they find the region of no value to them and they turned
around and left. One aspect of that decision that seems reasonable is
they found as a result of the travels more unfriendlies of the nature
they knew on greenland, people who already knew of them and that
might have been prepared to take them on. This issue takes on
importance as they move into more densely populated regions to the
south.
So let me restate this again, being a bit of a seaman myself and
thinking somewhat the way a seaman thinks. I am in a boat, I take off
from baffin, I travel along the northern continetal coast, I get out
and find marsh, bog and tundra, to the other side the occasional
barren island, I keep going, on, to the front all I see is more of
the same, occasionally I spot an encampment of Inuit, scraping an
existence out of the land, I keep going, more of the same, more
endless wasteland. In the mind of the seaman you look at your
supplies, currents, etc and you estimate the risk of going further
versus the risk of being stranded without food in that wasteland, at
some point you make the decision to return home. When you are
traveling an open temperate sea there is a good risk you will find a
gem unoccupied by no men, but when you are traveling against a shore
on a coast where the dismal prospects are obvious to you, don't have
seas opening up to you, you have limited degrees of freedom and
limited numbers of outcome, your decision is then to return and mark
off what you didn't find. Note, no reports ever of the Norse
returning from greenland from the east. The density of artefacts
interpretable as being Norse drop markedly past baffin island, this
you should take as evidence of what valued to the west. Again, I am
not trying to crap on this line of thinking as impossible or
implausible, but unless you can show me an encampment with evidence
they were exploiting something (musk OX, polar bears, seals, arctic
fish, eskimo dung, whatever) that it is genuinely hard for me to give
credance to the idea that the made a habit out of traveling 1000s of
miles west, and I am not going to rule out the occasional kook that
tried and never to return, after all a whole bunch of western
greenlanders suddenly disappeared. It is obvious from being in this
group that there are no absense of kooks living in Scandinavia that
might try such a thing, the only real archaeological concern is
whether by some latent skill or luck, it turned out to be productive
in some _TANGIBLE_ kind of way. As you will recall Scott tried to
make a trip to the south pole, he did make the trip, however neither
him or his men returned.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >> they would rarely achieve their max limit of about 500 miles, ... Deal with facts, don't play rhetorical games, unless ... >numerous occasions you can take a more direct route, as the norse ... but when you are traveling against a shore ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Polynesian canoes (Re: Rat genes solve mystery of great Pacific odyssey
    ... Also the Norse discovered the new world ... >> explained by someone traveling from the old world to teach them ... >> the atlantic coast and the carribean is chinese, not seminole, ... The Egytpians, Norse, Irish, ...
    (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
    ... >> 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)