The old carpenters and cabinet makers had anywhere between 20 and 30 different planes. Many were used to shape ogees. I have 2 wooden planes one 8 inches long for little jobs and the other nearly 30 inches. great for doors and other long accurate cuts.
George,
Interesting site. I wonder whether the prices asked on that site are, adjusted for inflation, similar to the price paid by the original owners. They seem pretty reasonable, for the age and type of tools being sold.
Tom McDonald
Wood plane - shave bone. Shave Ice. Mostly Bone. Remember they carve bone into figures and tools. It is their wood and stone item.
Mart> "Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet
Certain items are necessary for the ship and the safe operation of the ship and therefor are NOT by any definition trade goods. "Trade goods" are those items that have been loaded on board a ship for the purpose of trade. EG, glass beads. At least get your terminology right, as a starter.
[..]
Giggle snort. You do understand the reason for my putting quotes around the two words in the text you quote? You are just as pedantically foolish with your European mindset as Inger.
Like I said, *anything* that could be traded for was by definition a "trade item". What they thought was a trade item when they loaded the cargo is one thing; and what they thought was a trade item when they were shipwrecked and planning an overland trek is a different thing. And what was a trade item to the first Eskimo that picked it up off the beach is another thing too!
More over, *none* of these ships were uniquely "traders". They carried explorers, the carried colonists, they carried military, and perhaps other classification.
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.
The fact is that yes I do have a very good idea of exactly what they used them for. And neither you nor Inger has even a hint.
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. Why are *you* posting? Why is Inger posting? Both of you should be *asking* what the meaning of it is, not trying to tell others.
Your lack of ingenuity did not limit what they may have used it for.
You still haven't caught on that wood floats? And wind blows...
Go do some very basic research on Inuit culture. 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!
Here's a quote you'll just love (emphasis added for your benefit):
3d. ... The country looked pleasant, with many berry-bearing plants and bushes. There was, likewise, *plenty* *of* *drift*-*wood* *all* *along* *the* *coast*; *not* *the* *large* *Greenland* *timber*, *but* *small* *trees* *and* *roots*, evidently carried out of the great rivers of the Ungava by the ice. We had, of course, fire- wood enough, without robbing the graves of their superstitious furniture. Our Esquimaux pitchedOnly due to lack of imagination on your part.
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.
Shit happens. The Master's watch might get traded too!
Never walked the Arctic Ocean beach, have you! And you clearly know nothing about Eskimo cultures either.
People on the Arctic coast *don't* burn wood. It's too precious. Do some research on "ship worms". Do some research on "water logged" too, for that matter. (Oh, check out the temperature of water in the Arctic Ocean whilst you learn about ships worms.)
The point however should be clear that you are imagining you know about circumstances that you've never experienced. As I said, I live 400 yards from the Arctic Ocean, and you are a *fool* to tell me there is no drift wood or that people on the Arctic Coast never used wood as a raw material. There of course isn't a tree growing within hundreds of miles of Barrow, but umiaqs and kayaqs here were all built (and still are) with wood frames, just as they were from the Bering Sea all the way to eastern Greenland.
Floyd, you are abusing me. Since you obviously aren't familiar at all with what was common and what wasn't in Scandinavia before 1500 AD, there is no use discussing it with you at all. You simply have no clue. Let's leave it at that and don't continue to abuse me. You ARE the one who hasn't done your homework when you believe that what's common in other parts of the world must be common here in Scandinavia and especially among Scandinavians in Greenland.
Good Night until you done your homework and at least send valid OBS valid contra-argument from Scandinavia and Greenland.
Plonk
Inger E
"Floyd L. Davids> >Floyd L,
Tom, stop continue to abuse me, you are doing so by writing under George abuse without adding that you don't support his abuse. secondly what I, you and George might have or haven't today or our relatives had in 19th-20th century has nothing at all to do with what Scandinavians living on Greenland and in Vinland owned and appreciated as valuable tools in 9th - 15th century. Or are you able to prove otherwise?????
Stop it - snorting is not good for your health besides being illegal!
Are you being "pedantically foolish" by picking on the difference between "item" and "goods" perhaps? If not perhaps you could translate your gibberish into English.
It has already been rejected as nonsense - and it remains nonsense.
So you are suggesting Norse sailors wouldn't know the difference between essential tools and trade goods? Care to provide the proof, or do we just accept it as ignorance on your part?
Something picked up "off the beach" doesn't qualify as "trade goods", you know. It is merely finding lost property.
How do you know that? Which ships are you talking about? WHEN are you referring to? Why wouldn't ships of ANY kind also carry some trade goods - you know gifts, to impress powerful people? Your claims are founded on quicksand!
So after all that dribble you now admit you don't have any idea if they were trade goods or not - and that you have been full of the proverbial all the while!
Oh really..... but you weren't speculating, you were claiming FACTS even in this post - which you state above CANNOT BE as you haven't a clue!
Further more where is the sanity in claiming something cannot be said NOT to have occurred? After all it is much, much simpler to define what CANNOT have occurred and be correct, that what has occurred. After all without a single shred of evidence, not even sound logic, you claimed something as a fact - despite now saying it cannot be done! I think you've got things base over apex - again!
No wood available to Greenland Inuit people! What a hoot. The mainstay of their culture is a pair of skin boats made with wooden frames, and you say they have no use for wood working tools...
Looks like *you* had best be doing some homework.
It *still* hasn't sunk in yet, has it!
3d. ... The country looked pleasant, with many berry-bearing plants and bushes. There was, likewise, *plenty* *of* *drift*-*wood* *all* *along* *the* *coast*; *not* *the* *large* *Greenland* *timber*, *but* *small* *trees* *and* *roots*, evidently carried out of the great rivers of the Ungava by the ice. We had, of course, fire-wood enough, without robbing the graves of their superstitious furniture. Our Esquimaux pitched ...
Oh brother!!! An "ogee" IS a shape, not a thing to BE shaped..... bloody ignorance......
DOORS???? TO make drum doors needs a PLANE? Panel doors are NOT made with 30" planes - it is used for TABLE TOPS! Didn't he learn anything in school?
Certainly Mona George has no idea what the tools are for. The tools he describes are NOT standard issue for "carpenters" they are CABINETMAKERS tools. Nor is a "shipwright" a "carpenter" but far closer to a cabinetmaker compared to a land-lubbers job.
Seppo, it's lucky for Floyd that he wasn't King of England when King Erik of Sweden-Denmark and Norway called for the English to pay for merchansise, cargo they stole or didn't pay trading tax for and all the codfish they after 1418 un-authorized fished south of Greenland and southwest of Iceland...... he has no clue about the trade at all. Thus he doesn't know that the Greenlanders also had butter and hard cheese from cowmilk as well as goats sent on trading ships over to Norway....
I guess much of the totally stupid comments we see here from people who should have done their homework reading how the situation actually was in Scandinavia, Iceland and Greenland from let's say 850 AD to 1490 AD. There obviously are a lot who still try to lean to Icelandic Sagas forgetting all other documents, diplomas, donation length, ships documents and annals.....
Inger E btw. have you any good idea why copper turtle-broaches suddenly became common in Iceland between 9th century to 11th? My thought NA. Your thoughts? IEJ
Inger E "Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@not.com.au...
"Seppo Renfors" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@not.com.au...
And while George was partly right. I do have cabinetmakers not carpenters among my ancestors. I inherited cabinets, sofa, chairs, double-writing-tables and so on made by them the other year. But George doesn't seem to have used a proper carpenter's plain himself especially often. Does he?
Inger E
Rejected by *you*! (Which is clearly bogus by definition...)
Where did I say that?
What I said is that circumstances change, and people adapt.
Shipwrecked sailors, as one example, are *very* creative. While it is true that Europeans in general were known for their hide-bound stubbornness as Arctic adventurers and Norwegians, in particular those in Greenland, seem to have been true to that form, it still doesn't follow that something useful as a trade item is not going to be traded just because when sitting in the home port while the ship was being loaded that item was manifested as a maintenance tool rather than as cargo for trade.
Such limited imagination! It might not have been "trade goods" to the ship from which it came, but that has *nothing* to do with how the person who finds it washed up on the beach classifies it. Perhaps that person, being particularly sharp of eye, has found another tool just like it and therefore has no need for a second one! Bingo, it is "trade goods" in the eye of that particular beholder, and he proceeds very quickly to make a deal to trade for something he does need.
And we don't even know if the beach comber was Norwegian or Inuit! (Nor does it make a bit of difference.)
Your statement is founded on inability to read English. I said none of them were uniquely traders. That says they had other purposes, but in *no way* says that none of them carried trade goods. The only quicksand is that which *you* brought to the discussion and splattered on your pant legs.
You aren't reading well today. I've simply said that claiming it was not and could not be considered "trade goods", and therefore would not have been acquired by that means by Inuit people, is purely fiction. I've *never* said that every wood plane that arrived off the coast of Greenland was there as trade goods. What I've been doing is laughing at *your* suggestions that you know *none* of them ever were. Particularly the idea that it would be so because Eskimos had no use for a wood plane, what with there supposedly being no wood available in Greenland!
As has been pointed out, the entire basis for your statements exists solely in your imagination, and is simply wrong.
Your circular arguments defending that bit of idiocy are just as hilarious.
Oh. Like the facts that Inuit people used wood frames, and therefore 1) had access to wood as a raw material and 2) used wood cutting tools?
Those are the FACTS that I brought to this conversation. *You* are the one making assumptions about what could or not be traded.
Seems pretty sane indeed, when it is clear enough that all of the assumptions used as a basis for that claim are invalid.
But the only evidence anyone has presented here is what I've shown to be true regarding the use of wood in Greenland by Inuit people. You and Inger can claim all you like that wood working tools were of no use to Inuit people, but it just flies in the face of well known facts.
And that is just so significant to this whole discussion! NOT.
Tell us again how there is not a stick of wood to be had in all of Greenland. Tell us again how no Inuit would want to trade for a wood plane, much less would any honorable Scandinavian ever shrink so low as to trade one (because, we must note, not
*every* house in Scandihoovia has one yet!).Now, what was that about "totally stupid comments"? Did you have others to add?
Aha.... and THAT is an outright LIE - this is why:
"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.
Unlike you - I don't make stupid claims about them either.
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?
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?
...and why not?
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!
I see.... and that was the very best you could come up with.... didn't think you had any idea whatsoever.
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.
I asked for EVIDENCE of BOAT BUILDING - not culture. It is up to you to prove your claims.
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"!
[snip mess]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.
Go learn the language!
Go learn English! No point dealing with any more till you do!
[..]
You haven't used a plane much at all have you.
[..]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" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@not.com.au...
Inger,
Then you abuse every person Seppo abuses when you write under his lines. But you won't accept your responsibility for that. Or will you?
I didn't address that at all. Why not take it up with someone who might have?
Or are you able to prove otherwise?????
I have no need to prove a damned thing on this issue.
Tom McDonald
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Seppo, are you literate?
I said in one place that I have a very good idea what the tools were used for, right? You say that contradicts where I said previously that I don't know all the means by which they acquired them????
Can you connect the dots on that?
Oh, no not a bit... just tell me again how there ain't a single stick of wood to be used for making boat frames anywhere in all of Greenland.
Or is your current stupid claim that you didn't really mean that?
You are the one who doesn't seem literate...
Ahhhhh... teak does not float, and therefore Seppo The Great says it is obvious that the wood which does float cannot possibly float to Greenland (despite having read first hand accounts of "large Greenland timber" on the beaches...
In addition to not being literate, you ain't exactly being logical there either, Bubba.
If you would simply do the research, you'd find the evidence. Boat building is part of the culture. You won't find it without looking into the culture...
Liar. You are *not* aware of skin boats using whale bones! You just made it up on the spot, hoping it makes sense. It doesn't. They used primarily wood, though there are some boats that used some whale bone... but more likely the used walrus ribs!
Ah, Seppo The Great, who has spent his entire adult life avoiding Eskimos, knows all about their history, and says they used the odd bit of wood and primarily used whale bone as the frame for kayaks and umiaqs (neither of which you've ever even seen first hand).
The fact is, you've got it backwards. They used the odd bit of bone, but the primary material for making a skin boat frame was (and still is!) wood.
Did you note the reference to the large timbers seen on the beaches of Greenland (in the early 1800's)? Now what does that say about your claim that there is no wood there to use for boats?
You refuse to do any of your own research, which is the exact reason for your demonstrated ignorance. Here's just enough to give you a boot where it counts:
"The light, seaworthy kayak is a canoelike hunting boat made of a wood frame completely covered with sealskin except for a round center opening, where the single occupant sits. In Greenland and Alaska the skin around the hole can be laced tightly around the occupant, making the kayak virtually watertight. The umiak, a larger, open boat about 9 m (about 30 ft) long and 2.4 m (8 ft) wide, and made of a wooden frame covered with walrus skins ..."
"July 18, 1940 We past Upernavich today and are going up the Greenland Coast ... Our Latitude is 74° 51' 30" Longitude (approx.) 58° 01' 15" ... July 20, 1940 The kayaks are made of sealskin pulled tight over bone and a wood frame."
"Origins of Sea Kayaking Greenland No one knows the precise origin of kayaks, but has existed for centuries among the Inuit people of Greenland, ... archaeological evidence indicating kayaks are 4,000 years old. ...
Basic construction: Seal-skin over drift-wood Wood bent into shape after steaming over fire Joints lashed together with seal sinew Seams of seal skin sewn with seal sinew, and sealed with seal blubber." students.washington.edu/~ukc/library/052902-1notes.doc
"The kayak, engineered of driftwood and animal skins, was ideally suited to marine hunting and has been adopted virtually without change in design for modern international sporting competition."
I assume you are not a native speaker of English. I won't pick on your language use.
However, your causual fabrication of facts is unacceptable. The idea that no driftwood exists on the beaches of Greenland and northern Canada is just hilarious. Tying that to the fact that teak does not float is beyond hilarious...
You do realize that there *are* trees growing on Greenland, don't you?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.