Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)

Note that the quote says, specifically, that in *Greenland* there is some evidence indicating that kayaks are 4,000 years old. Obviously if that is true (and it is), then Eskimos were in Greenland thousands of years before the Vikings. And that is a *well* established fact.

Independence I 2400 BC to 1800 BC (north & northeast Greenland)

Saqqaq 2400 BC to 800 BC (west & southeast Greenland)

Independence II 800 BC to 200 BC (Peary Land & east Greenland)

Early Dorset 700 BC to 200 AD (entire coast of Greenland)

Late Dorset 1100 AD to 1300 AD (northeast and northwest G.)

Norse 985 AD to ~1450 AD (west and southeast G.)

Thule 1200 AD to modern (entire coast of Greenland)

You've clearly confused the time period of the Thule Eskimo culture as the only Eskimo culture in Greenland. They were merely 1) the most recent neo-Eskimo culture in Greenland, and 2) the one with which the Norse had significant contact.

Leo Lee in disguise?

A waste of time who is even worse that Seppo.

I think we are about to start arguing about who were/are the eskimo and who were/are the inuit. Then there are the dorset.

In any case, the discussion up to now has been about the inuit so your introduction of the word 'eskimo' and its accompanying definitions is a red herring.

Eric Stevens

That probably would not be a smart argument for a fellow from New Zealand to get into with an old Alaskan who lives in Barrow.

So you are going to say that in *your* vocabulary the terms are not the same? (I'll point out that the only reason you even know there is a difference is from reading what I've posted to Usenet.)

Regardless, you'll note that I've been interchanging the word "Eskimo" with "Inuit" in this thread with regularity right from the start. That is being done specifically to ward off some nitwit who wants to argue that everyone using the word "Inuit" means *only* the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture or language, and does not intend it to mean all Eskimos (which may not be technically a correct usage, but never the less if a very common usage).

Generally most people who reference Greenland "Inuit" believe that is a proper synonym for the term "Eskimo". I believe

*everyone* engaged in this conversation has used the terms in that sense.

In the case of the 4000 year history, the source that I cited used the word "Inuit", and there is *no question* that they meant Eskimos, not the Inuit branch of the Eskimo culture group.

You can make a febble argument that Independence I was Pre-Eskimo and not genuinely Eskimo. You'll get laughed at, but you can try it.

From the Saqqaq on down the list, it may not have always been clearly agreed that they were indeed "Eskimo", but today there is virtually total agreement that they in fact were. Hence, not even a feeble argument is possible.

There really is no need for you to pull an Inger-Seppo move here. You made a simple mistake because that information just is not something which you would or should be expected to know. If it was a mistake that I made, it would indeed be significant. Of course, it's a fact that if I wanted to know about the history of your part of the world, I'd be asking you rather than telling you about it. Probably a point you should have learned a long time back Eric.

He had a whole thread about Eskimos a couple months ago. Here's the best Engrish I've seen in ages:

"Brother! You surely need more foots :-))"

Truly, all his base are belong to us.

yeah yeah, that's just like Seppo too! Except instead of mangling the words he writes, Seppo mangles the words others write.

Chuckle. Nothing like Usenet kooks...

Where either of live has diddly squat to do with who knows what about the ancient peoples of GREENLAND. I thought it was generally known that the Thule/inuit entered Greenland and displaced the Dorset at about the same time (give or take a century) that the norse were arriving in the south.

See, for example:

"Between A.D. 900?1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture, migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands and eastward as far as northwestern Greenland. Highly dependent on the bowhead whale, remnants of whale bones can still be found on the sites of old camps. Villages of six to thirty houses made of stone slabs, whale bone and sod were common. Snow houses were used as temporary dwellings in the winter. This culture of "Eskimo" survived until about A.D. 1750 when the "little ice age" forced many people to withdraw from villages in the Arctic islands. The cooling climate covered the seas with ice, limiting the range of the bowhead whale. A more nomadic way of life evolved with small groups hunting seal and walrus. This change marked the end of the Thule culture and the beginning of the modern Inuit culture."

... which is why I say that whoever was building boats in Greenland

4000 years ago, it wasn't the inuit.

No, the terms are not the same.

That's humility for you.

Youv'e also been interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for Greenland. All I've been doing is pointing out that it is wrong to claim that the inuit were doing anything in Greenland 4000 years ago. I don't know why you want to argue with that.

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a 'sci' news group where precise usage takes precedence.

I'm not sure what source you are referring to but the best that I can see refers to the 'Thule inuit' and a date of 1050. Which source did you mean?

I wouldn't even consider it. I would refer to it as the 'independence' culture and express the uncertainty as to whether it was an intermediary stage between Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset or an Early Dorset phase. See

Both the meaning of the word 'Eskimo' and your usage of it is uncertain. See

(Esquimaux)>

So, you are still saying inuit were making wood-framed kayaks 4000 years ago in Greenland.

Eric Stevens

(Esquimaux)

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the frames were wood or bone, or the people in question were Dorset, Thule, Eskimo, Inuit or Beothuk.

4,000 years ago or c 2000 BC before any of them were around there were people living on Monhegan Island engaged in Bluewater fishing as evidenced by the swordfish bones and copper tools in their middens and they had been there for millenia.

Why would the northern maritimes boats being wood framed using something like artic birch which grows large enough to make knife handles and butt stocks for rifles or made of whalebone which is just as strong be raised as an issue?

Are you thinking that you can't use a metal plane on bone or settle someplace where there is wood and fish someplace where there isn't?

As to the artic small tool tradition extending from Norway across Siberia to Alaska and Greenland thats a fact. The Paleo Eskimo, Dorset, Thule, Pacific Eskimo, Inuit, Dene and other early peoples who lived on the mainland as archaic or paleo indians interfaced with the maritime cultures as far south as England on one side of the Atlantic and New England on the other for thousands of years and that's a fact.

Haven't you all agreed on that yet?

The names for the cultures depend on who studied what, where and when and should not be assumed to mean the cultures themselves and their traditions were unrelated.

regards,

steve

"stevewhittet" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com:

[big snip]

You may have missed the beginning of this thread.

Quick synopsis is that Seppo or Inger (I'm not sure which - but they're pretty much interchangeable when it comes to posting drek here) said that Greenland Inuit would not have a use for a wood plane because "they had no wood."

Floyd (and others - but Floyd's supplied some of the most interesting info, what with actually _living_ in the Arctic and all) then proceeded to show that, yes, they _did_ have and _use_ wood.

At which point Seppo tried to pretend that all those nice wooden frames for kayaks (which were one of the examples of wood use - not the only ones, of course, but in typical Seppo/Inger fashion, he feels if he can "disprove" one example, he's "disproved" all of them) were _actually_ whale bone. This in spite of the fact that Floyd could _walk_ about ten minutes from his home and _see_ the example Seps tried to use the picture of to "prove" it was bone - and see that, yes, it was _wood_.

Or, IOW, this has been a typical Inger/Seppo-class fudging so that they can pretend they didn't make (yet) a(nother) mistake.

David

Nah, I was there for the beginning of it.

I have been seeing it in one form or another since before the end of the last millenium. It started about ninety and four I think. Every couple of years I pop in to see if its still going on and who the latest players to take it up are.

There was a little more to it than that, and of course they are just the latest to join in. They wouldn't member the way it was in the day.

Yeah, although its interesting that they moved from an area where wood was plentiful because subsistence was easier where they could fish for swordfish, whales and seals. Swordfish tend to be a bluewater species.

Some kayaks used whale bone, some used wood, what does that prove?

You have to realise that the rules of this group prohibit you from arguing that what the other guy is saying is counter to fact. That is to say I'm sure that if there were a FAQ that rule would be in there. Everybody in here spins their ass off all the time.

Why respond and encourage them?

regards,

steve

I'm not arguing about the framing of boats. All I'm concerned with is whether or not there were any inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago. By definition, there weren't.

Eric Stevens

What an absurd thing to say. You have admitted that you are well aware that for many people (and particularly those in Greenland) the terms "Inuit" and "Eskimo" are interchangeable, with the former preferred.

The quote that I referenced was this:

II. Origins of Sea Kayaking A. Greenland 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.

I *am* saying, clearly, that Eskimo people existed on Greenland

4000 years ago and were using wood to make kayaks. (And that using the word Inuit to describe them is all of common, useful, and acceptable.)

If you want to be asinine and argue that we are writing technical documents here (which we are *not*) and therefore should make the technical distinction between Eskimos in general and Inuit Eskimos in specific, you can go right ahead. But it will merely demonstrate the depth of your asininity, and not add to any understanding of why Inuit people on Greenland during the Norse period of colonization would indeed have been likely to trade for a carpenter's plane.

Which is to say, go right ahead and line yourself up with Inger and Seppo again. They *need* company. So do you.

Complete and utter nonsense on your part. I'm arguing for precision in the use of these terms and you claim I'm all for a woolly-thinking blur.

... and totally innapropriate in a sci. newsgroup. It might be OK in your local bar or while discussing things at the bus stop.

Mind you, you are quoting from 'Fundamentals of Sea Kayak Design Seminar - Notes, May 29, 2002 University of Washington Kayak Club'. This is hardly an authoritative source about the history of the inuit.

Thank you. I would go right ahead anyway. If you can't bring yourself to use accurate terminology you should take yourself elswhere. You certainly shouldn't take issue with anyone who wants to point out your error, especially when they did not do it in malice.

Which continues to have nothing to do with what I think originally was Seppo's claim that inuit had been building kayak in Greenland for 4000 years. No matter who made that claim, its nonsense.

Eric Stevens

You are arguing that we should play word games with other people's statements. I am saying that we need to read it for what they *meant* *to* *say*, and not pretend that there are no variations in word meaning.

That is particularly true if you want to discuss Greenland, where the accepted term is in fact "Inuit", not "Eskimo".

This *is* a local bar, and not one with the best of clientele either. Aim your conceited nose a bit closer to the ground.

Incidentally, if you want to set standards for cites, you will also have to follow them. Here's one that you used, which is unsuitable using any standard, simply because it is *wrong*:

"Between A.D. 900--1300, a wave of people from Alaska displaced the Dorset peoples. These newcomers, known as the Thule culture, migrated along the Arctic coast, through the High Arctic islands

There is of course no evidence at all of any "wave of people from Alaska displacing Dorset peoples". There is evidence that a *dramatic* change in the culture of existing people took place... It appears to have been a migration of technology, not people. You should be more careful about choosing who and what you quote.

It was quoted as an authoritative source on kayaks. It is.

The terminology that I used through out this thread was specifically selected, and is technically quite correct. You are proving it. As noted, I switched back and forth between the two terms *intentionally* (and more than once even noted the difference) just to provide a basis to refute some jerk that comes along and claims one or the other of those terms means something other than what it was being used to mean.

There is no question that they *can* be used differently. That is not the point. The point is that when we mix discussions of Greenland, Canada and Alaska there *is* going to be the interchangeable use of those terms, and anyone who wants to differentiate them has to do so specifically.

And your previous claim that "Youv'e [sic] also been interchanging the words Canada, Alaska, and Siberia for Greenland" is more nonsense. Perhaps you actually can't tell when I'm switching between them, but I doubt that is the case. You are just playing word games and being obstinate simply because you have to face the fact that I've been *precisely* correct in this discussion all along, and it is pretty much obvious to everyone who has read it.

Look at the direction it has taken! Poor Seppo was reduced to changing words in hopes to confuse issues. And now we have Eric too, equally unable to make reasonable statements about the topic of discussion, so he also tries to pick a fight over terminology.

Just like Seppo choosing pictures of wood frames that are within walking distance of where I sit, you've taken a flying leap off a cliff too. It is fairly well known that I am about the most pedantic poster on Usenet when it comes to correct usage of the terms Inuit and Eskimo.

Only if you have some very poor communications skills, speak English as second language, or have your head where the sun don't shine.

But lets go look at quotes... like one from *you*, where you started this nonsense:

"Wood framed boats may or may not have been used by the inuit for 4000 years but certainly not in Greenland. The inuit arrived in the north of Greenland about the same time the Viking were arriving in the south, ..."

There were Eskimos 4000 years ago, but *none* of them were Inuit Eskimos as a specific branch of Eskimos. Clearly then, if the first sentence is correct, "inuit" references /Eskimos/ 4000 years ago.

Just as clearly you are confused in the second sentence, because there were Eskimos in Greenland 4000 years ago.

(Or do we reverse the order, where we would have to determine you were confused in the first sentence and didn't realize the Inuit branch didn't exist 4000 years ago anywhere.)

The fact is, you were just greatly confused to begin with, and now you are pulling a Seppo The Word Weasel act to get out of it.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged...... People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...."

Doesn't matter if it came from Peter Pan, it is either correct or it isn't.

If that is a criteria, why are you still here?

You have set such a high standards for Floyd that you are unable to live up to them yourself. "I think...no matter who...nonsense..." are "accurate terminology" on your ideal sci.group? Not only did you not give a bad reference for your claim, but didn't give one at all. In short, you are doing even less than what you are accusing others of. Since you are so good at giving out advice to others and so poor at following your own, I assume you will be voluntarily removing yourself from this newsgroup and taking yourself elsewhere.

Which is why I have never used the term 'eskimo'. I'm also aware that the inuit are assigned to a particular period in Greenland history and that before them were the people known as 'dorset'.

Good. I take your point. I'm glad I woke you up. :-)

I don't know anything much about it but I would question whether the new culture was just a modification of the old or whether it supplanted it at all levels. If it was just a modification, it could be as you say, just a migration of technology. If it was more than that I would suggest that it was a physical migration of people bringing their new technology and culture with them.

Agreed. But not on the history of the inuit.

Which I did when I took issue with the original reference to inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago.

That was a direct quote from you.

Then why are you spending so much time objecting to me pointing out that there were NO inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago?

I wasn't picking a fight. Mind you, I'm not surprised that one should emerge.

Your halo seems to have slipped. :-)

Thank you. That was my point. Why has it taken so long for you to acknowledge it?

But I said nothing about 'eskimos'. My remark only addressed 'inuit'.

Haw! :-)

Eric Stevens

Then you are not using the correct terminology Eric. You are the one who insisted that *I* should be using technically correct terminology, and here you admit that *you* don't! What a hoot!

The Thule Eskimo people were *not* Inuit. Or, at least if you want to distinguish the Dorset Eskimo people as not being Inuit, you'll have to be consistent and do the same for the Thule culture.

The Thule people are the ancestors of "Modern Inuit" culture, but they are *not* the identical people.

Hence, using your logic (if we could call it that), the Norse colonists met perhaps Dorset people and perhaps Thule people, and *you* can go to Greenland today and meet Inuit people.

Using sane logic, however, it *is* appropriate to reference

*any* of those people as either Inuit or as Eskimo.

You are admitting that you have, as others have pointed out, set standards that you cannot and do not follow. It seems that the one who needs to wake up, is Eric.

Then cease making silly pompous statements in response to someone who does.

There is no physical evidence sufficient to demonstrate any "wave of people". There is likewise no physical evidence to demonstrate that there was no wave of people! So everyone uses the common example of how Europeans typically changed their culture: through violence marked by waves of people.

However in this case there is very good reason to reject that model. There is a great deal of evidence that Thule and Dorset cultures existed in the same areas at the same times. Adjacent villages in various areas used different technologies and co-existed for hundreds of years. That does suggest a number of things. That they spoke the same language, had the same religious beliefs and shared many other culture traits. It also suggests that they almost certainly intermixed genetically, and were probably a single genetic pool.

In fact, it appears to there would have been less distinction between them than there was at the point when European contact first occurred between Yupik and Inupiat cultures, and between coastal and riverine and inland cultures of either Yupik or Inupiat stock.

It also appears that the direct cause for the technological changes that took place, not just from Dorset to Thule, but for virtually all recognized changes beginning with the migration of Small Tools Tradition people into Alaska and eventually all the way to Greenland, are climate based. Every time there was a major warming or cooling trend in the climate over a period of

500 or so years, the Eskimo people (and their ancestors) very quickly adapted by developing a new and more appropriate technology to deal with their environment.

And as an authoritative source on kayaks, it *clearly* said that there are authoritative sources on the history of Inuit people which say there is evidence of Inuit kayaks going back

4000 years in Greenland.

Get your head out where the sun shines. It is a *fine* cite!

I'm sorry, I don't seem to have made myself clear. I meant to say that if *you* want to make a statement and make it distinct that by "inuit" you mean the modern branch of Eskimo culture known as Inuit, *you* will necessarily have to specifically note that as your meaning. Otherwise you will be mis-understood.

Taking issue with someone who is using the terms otherwise is

*not* the same. It is just being asinine.

No, that is a direct quote from *you*:

Message-ID:

Please do not claim I generated the nonsense you post.

Because that is a word game. You can't argue facts (you don't seem to have any), you can't argue theories (which you don't understand, you can't argue the point (without missing it). Instead you want to pretend that it is incorrect to refer to Dorset people as Inuit.

You are wrong. What else is there to say?

I'll agree that compared to you and Seppo I might appear to have a halo. Seems like you would make just about anyone seem to have one...

And I could equally say, and still be equally correct, that there absolutely were Inuit in Greenland 4000 years ago.

Now quite playing word games...

When you speak of Greenland, there is no difference... comprende?

Yeah, I think it's pretty funny too!

By the way, interesting that you can respond to a "go left" command for a mule. Did your mother train you with Gee and Haw?

(And *you* thought word games would be fun... ;-)

Do you want to place a bet on that? ;)

When I lose, will you take a check?