Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:22:00 GMT
Apparently on date Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:40:14 -0500, kenney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
said:
>In article <9nlpg1h8i3gpiad3afpdce3912pvt5f81p@xxxxxxx>,
>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx () wrote:
>
>> A centre of trade has to exist as a circle of distribution of trade
>> goods of a type that might be transported to the centre of that
>> circle
>
> I have no problem with the idea of Norse iron work proving trade with
>the Inuit. I do have a problem with using it as evidence of where the
>Norse were trading. Other wise we would have evidence of Chinese
>traders in Rome in the reign of Trajan, silk was there. The problem
Well it's not quite the same thing, that. The equivalent is if the Chinese were
setting up a colony in, say, Venice, and then the silk was turning up around
widespread sub-Apine sites. And we know already that the silk road was
essentially a European venture - Marco Polo type thing.
And not to mention, the Chinese*were* in europe in the medieval period.
>with all goods is that there is generally no evidence of how many
>middlemen were involved. Unless you are going to state that various
>Inuit never traded with each other it does not prove much.
I don't say I'm proving anything.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Next by Date: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Previous by thread: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Next by thread: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
