Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)

Eric, are you playing little boy games, or are you really this dense?

First you say there were not Inuit people until the Thule Technology appeared. Now you've finally gotten it through your thick skull that Dorset technology was *also* Inuit people! Wonderful... so you pull the same stupid stunt and say therefore the first Inuit were Dorset.

Dorset was not the first.

If you read that site from one end to the other, and *remember* what it says on each page, you'll find that the first Eskimos on Greenland may have been either the Saqqaq or the Independence I cultures. At present they have older Saqqaq artifacts than Independence I, but they were clearly very close together. And the oldest dates appear to put them there 4500 years ago.

Are they Eskimos???

"A few artefacts [sic] found in the area proves the existence of older Palaeo-Eskimo [sic] groups, but it is unknown whether they should be attributed to Independence I or to the northern parts of the East Greenland Saqqaq culture."

Pretty much makes it clear that they are *both* identified as such. And that particular web page says the Independence I artifacts date to 2400 BC, and the Saqqaq artifacts to 2500 BC.

What the Hell are you talking about? *Nobody* believes they never met! They lived in adjacent villages for hundreds of years. How could a *very* mobile people, who traded with their neighbors for hundreds of miles in every direction, not meet?

That web site says the Dorset culture continued be used by some Inuit on Greenland until 1500 AD, or 300 years after they say the Thule culture first arrived.

The idea that they never met is just another example of you reading things into it that are not there. And worse yet you ignore what they do tell you:

"The Eskimos of the Thule culture travelled [sic] throughout the length of Greenland's coast."

Which is to say, over the 300 or so years when both Dorset and Thule culture existed on Greenland, they *had* to have cross paths not just occasionally, but with regularity.

(Esquimaux)>>>

Having invoked Goddard you should read

"In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media, largely in response to demands from Eskimo political associations.

But then, in the context of Mailhot, you should read

and follow the link to which says

"Inuit (singular, Inuk; also, generally vulgarly, Eskimo) is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples of the Arctic who descended from the Thule. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference defines its constitutency to include Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Greenland's Kalaallit people, Alaska's Inupiat and Yupik people, and Russian Yupik".

The first link cites a politically derived definition (who was it cited Godwin's law?) of inuit and the second confines itself to "culturally similar indigenous peoples of the Arctic who descended from the Thule".

Now what was it we were arguing about? How did I define Inuit in the very first place? It was in terms of people descended from the Thule.

Eric Stevens

One of us is. :-)

How do you derive from the above that I equate Dorset and Inuit in Greenland?

But in Greenland?

Eric Stevens

So now you say you were not referring to the Dorset with that statement? You quoted text about the Dorset, so what did you expect readers to associate it with?

You do realize that is what that quoted text is about, right?

If you *don't*, then you are still to ignorant too even talk about this subject!

When are you going to get it figured out?

Of course in Greenland. Did you *read* what that site says? They've found artifacts from Thule culture people all along the entire coast of Greenland.

What part of that did you misunderstand? Or do you just intend on making sure you misunderstand *everything*.

I have a really hard time believing you can actually type and still use the logic you do. Who puts your clothes on for you?

The Dorset people lived in one particular area for 300 years while the Thule people (using Umiaqs had greater mobility) were traveling the entire length of Greenland's coast, including where the Dorset lived. Just how do you think they did that for 300 years without stopping by for coffee and trading a few Norse tools? ;-)

In Greenland. We aren't taking about raiding the English coast.

Which contradicts *everything* you've been claiming about usage of the term Inuit. I notice you are not against a little creative editing either... you left off the last part of that text.

"The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."

Note it does *not* say "all Eskimo descended from Thule culture", but *all* Eskimos, period. That includes (for those scientific publications) their ancestors too.

Of course, while I can find a lot of references which say that the 1977 ICC passed such a resolution, I can't find that it ever actually happened!

Read through the resolutions actually passed in that first ICC, and you won't find it. It *is* clear that they agreed to use that term for the purposes of that conference though.

And, in fact that is exactly what they did. This is from the _Charter_ adopted for the ICC. It is not a resolution, it is not and was never meant to apply to anything other than the documents produced by the ICC, principally the Charter itself!

But it does provide a good example of how things become distorted by others looking to grind an axe.

ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITIONS

1. "Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and shall include the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia).
2. "Inuit homeland" means those arctic and sub-arctic areas where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have Aboriginal rights and interests.

Whatever, not that paragraph 7 basically includes *all* traditionally Eskimo cultures. Hence it clear includes Dorset and Arctic Small Tools Tradition cultures...

What has that link go to do with anything? Did you actually read it? Or are you so confused that you don't realize they are talking about an Indian tribe, not Eskimos.

If you mean the first link to the

site, it does not cite *any* definition of Inuit. When are you going to learn to read. If you are talking about the one above that and think it is unique in citing a "politically derived definition", you are still wrong.

So? *All* existing Eskimo cultures today *are* in fact descended directly from the Thule people. They are also descended from the predecessors of the Thule people. That would be the Dorset. And they are all descended from the Arctic Small Tools tradition culture too, which preceded the Dorset culture. We are talking a continuous line of descent, not a new migration from Asia or the Pacific Island or from where ever. One line of people, though it does have multiple branches.

All of those people have traditionally been called "Eskimo", and what the Canadians and Greenlanders wanted to stop was the common use of that term because of the racist undertone it had taken on in Canada and to a lesser degree in Greenland.

In fact the site you are quoting is not correct (and is also in no way authoritative either, so you aren't making points by quoting it) in what it says. And you are adding to the inaccuracy. And, you are also trying to relate the cite you give to the authoritative sources that I mentioned. But of course none of the text at that site comes from either Goddard or Mailhot.

You do understand that when someone says that I am a direct descendant of my father, that does not mean I am not also a descendant of my grandfathers, and my great-grandfathers??? That is the argument you are making. It is logically flawed.

And then you claimed that it does *not* apply to their ancestors. You are wrong.

You know, this is a lot of argument from you just to support the

*clearly* false notion that nobody was building wood framed kayaqs on Greenland 4000 years ago. The claim that there was no wood is false. The claim that there were no Inuit is false. The claim that they used only whale bone is false. The claim that they would have no use for a wood plane is just as false. The claim that no Norseman would think of trading his trusty plane is not just false, it's so damned funny as to be insane.

You, Seppo, and Inger... what a group!

Of course its about right!

Whats more it makes rubbish of your claim that Dorset/inuit were building boats in Greenland 4000 years ago. Can't you do arithmetic?

I am getting annoyed. I have spent all this time **carefully** differentiating between Dorset and Inuit/Thule culture in Greenland and you still keep on pretending you don't understand what I say.

Oh good. There are also radar domes. Does that mean the Dorset culture was familiar with radar domes?

Eric Stevens

'Creative editing' yourself. I at least quoted a coherent body of text and did not make a selective quote from elsewhere.

On top of that you have completely changed what I was saying by entirely separating the first part of my argument from the second part commencing with 'But'.

What scientific purposes? That was a political conference.

But that was a political conference with, as you have pointed out, no great direct impact.

Aah --- here is where I continued from my opening remark

It is merely the place from which you should follow the link ...

It was the first link in my article when I wrote it. But you have generated such a cloud of words that the simple thread of my argument is obscured.

Its all one great mish-mash according to you.

You are turning this into an argument from authority.

Nor does it mean that you are a descendednt of you great-grandfather's neighbours.

I have always been talking about inuit in Greenland.

The claim that I have been arguing that is nonsense.

Not if you use the term in strict sense and confine your discussion to Greenland.

Not as insane as a carpenter who would deliberately trade away his carefully crafted tools with no immediate prospect of replacing them.

Eric Stevens

Selective quote from "elsewhere"? It was last (of only three) sentences in the paragraph. You quoted only the part that appears to support what you say, and left out the part that doesn't. That's creative. It just isn't honest.

Oh, my goodness. Can you imagine that! I interspersed my comments where they are pertinent. Amazing! You don't seem to understand that *your* article was your statement. It either made your case or it didn't. *My* article is my statement. The only part of your comment that I need to leave in place is that portion which provides sufficient context that a reader can understand what my point is. You've already made your point.

Regardless, you've basically forfeited with this article, and aren't even trying to argue your points. Instead it's nothing but a whine about how your illogic has been exposed.

Stuff like that. *You* quoted something which said "in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media", and then whine because I make reference to it.

You posted a link that has nothing to do with anything, and call it a place holder??? Oooohh. That's wonderful logic.

(I don't believe you, BTW. I suspect you didn't know or notice that Innu are not Inuit.)

There is *no* point in posting non-authoritative cites.

Jeeze, we could post references to the bullshit you and Seppo have posted and claim that means something using your criteria for the usefulness of a cite.

I believe I've already pointed out that the vast majority of information on the Internet about Eskimo/Inuit people is just a faulty as everything you and Seppo have claimed.

Why do you continue to inject irrelevant points like that? We are *not* talking about great-granddad's neighbors (that would be the Norse and other Europeans, or the Innu that you posted a link to above as a place keeper for confusion.

The Dorset were the ancestors of the Thule people, and the Saqqaq and Independence I were the ancestors of the Dorset.

They were all what can be called Eskimos or Inuit, and the ones who were there 4000 years ago were making wood framed skin boats.

You can bullshit all you like, but the quote which said there was evidence of Inuit making wood framed kayaqs 4000 years ago in Greenland was *exactly* correct.

The claims that there was no wood or that the people there were not Eskimo/Inuit people have been thoroughly demonstrate as false.

Yet here you are insisting that any use of a term that isn't exactly the same means that half of what is in the dictionary is wrong.

Your logic is faulty. Your facts are no better.

And you have been denying that they had ancestors, who were also Eskimo/Inuit, in Greenland going back 4000 years.

Seppo and Inger claimed there was no wood. You claimed there were no Inuit people. You are all three logically impaired.

The quote that I provided was not from someone who didn't understand the words. You don't understand, but the author of the quote did. The quote was correct. There were Eskimo/Inuit people in Greenland 4000 years ago, and they were building wood framed skin boats.

Now, I understand that there are other possible ways to use a number of the words which appeared in that quote, including the word Inuit. But the question is not how do we intentionally misconstrue what the author had to say. That seems to be your one and only real purpose. The fact is, the author was correct in the message that was intended to be conveyed, and the word usage is indeed common usage. Nobody with half a brain is likely to misunderstand what was said.

That is simply not true. Any carpenter faced with starvation would do that in an instant *if* he could not see where the tools were going to be his salvation and something for which he could trade would indeed be beneficial.

Stop making up false scenarios that are not universally valid and claiming they fit universally. They don't.

Where have I *ever* said that *Dorset* people where there 4000 years ago? Can't you follow a thread that extends past anything within the last 10 lines you've read? The reference to the Dorset was to demonstrate that your claims about the Thule and Dorset people not being there at the same time are *clearly*, according to *your* cite, wrong.

And from the same web site, if you could remember anything longer than a few minutes, it also says the ancestors of the Dorset were there 4500 years ago (the Independence I and Saqqaq peoples, who appear to date back at least to 2500 BC).

You do the arithmetic, Eric. Last time I tried it 4500 year ago was significantly more than 4000 years ago.

And you've had it explained to you over and over that the Inuit and the Eskimo terms are equivalent *group* identifiers, and the subgroups within those two major categories are... Saqqaq, Independence I and II, Dorset, Thule, and Modern. Or at least that is the most common terminology used for those groups in Greenland. If you look even briefly you'll clearly find each of those is broken down into sub-groups too. If you look hard enough you'll also find other names and classifications for the same cultures. You will also find that each sub-group overlapped the following group by several hundreds of years. The transitions between them were *not* clear cut, did not involve an influx of new people, and did not change the gene pool.

Let see, 300 years of dated artifacts intermixed geographically, and you don't think the people met? How can you justify that?

The little problem with the radar is that it wasn't there when the Dorset were. But what you are saying is that the Inuit of today wouldn't know what a radar dome is, because the time lapse has only been 50 years. The radar and the Inuit will have to be there together for another 250 years at least before the Inuit notice it????

That is absurd. The Thule and the Dorset cultures were in the same areas for 300 years and suggesting they never met is just insane.

I'm trying to stick with my original point to which you took exception.

I'm suggesting that the while the mixed artifacts show that the Thule and the Dorset had both been in the same places, that is not evidence that they had been there at the same time. The information given on the Greenland National Museum site about the Thule

and about the Late Dorset leaves open the question of whether or not there was any significant meeting of the two in Greenland. Examination of the maps (click on them) on each of those sites is interesting in this respect. There is only the one region where they may have met and of that the Greenland Museum states "No sites have been found in the northernmost part of the country except from a few shelters". It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty intermingling.

Eric Stevens

If you look at the page you will see that I clicked one link too high in the list. I should have hit

So you are arguing that that the Saqqaq, the Early Dorset, the Late Dorset, the two different streams of the Independence people and the Thule people were just one large happy family? I'm suggesting they were different and often competing cultural groups and for the most part went their independent ways.

Only with your broad definition of Inuit.

The inuit in Greenland are descended from the Thule people who migrated from Alaska over a period of centuries. Are you saying the Alaskan Thule are descended from earlier inhabitants of Greenland.

As we both know, it all depends on how you define 'inuit'. I was using what I believe to be the correct terminology which distinguishes the current inhabitants from those earlier cultures which lived in Greenland.

I've never said there were no wood framed boats being built in Greenland 4000 years ago.

You would have me wrong for employing the word 'inuit' in what I believe to be its correct anthropological usage rather than in the broader popular usage.

You may well be right on this and I may be wrong. However, as I have already said, I have sent out an enquiry on this and I will hold off until I receive a reply.

But then that doesn't come under the heading of 'trade goods' as it was originally discussed.

There is always an exception.

Eric Stevens

The point is that while they each had distinct differences, they were *all* similar in the ways that we use to define what is Eskimo/Inuit culture. They were not Innu. They were not Aleut. They *were* *all* Eskimo/Inuit.

It is not as if there was one unique and very distinct thing that is "Early Dorset" that is and always was different than an equally distinct and very different thing called "Saqqaq" or another one called "Late Dorset". In fact there was a continuum of culture without any break, without gaps and definitely with links to each other.

During the times when these cultures overlapped each other you can be assured the people both spoke the same language, they traded with each other in every way we can imagine, and individuals would have sometimes moved from one to the other.

As I mentioned previously, this is not much different than what we have today with Yupik and Inupiat villages in Alaska today. Or what we have with the cultural split between coastal, riverine, and inland Eskimo villages.

And just as it was then, the different Eskimo/Inuit cultures of today are still Eskimo/Inuit. Yet an anthropologist would definitely want to put different names on each in order to distinguish the differences.

You do realize, for example, that in say 1800 only about half of the Eskimo people in Alaska would have ever seen an Umiaq. And if we dig up the remains of various villages and try to classify them, there would necessarily *have* to be at least two labels, one for places where Umiaqs were used and one for where there were none. But we also know that even Eskimo people who had never seen an Umiaq were still just as much Eskimo as those who used Umiaqs. (Riverine and inland Eskimos didn't use Umiaqs.)

The definition does not belong to me. It is the most commonly used one. Your narrow definition, except when you sometimes restrict it in ways that virtually nobody else does, is just as correct. But *you* are absolutely wrong in the way you interpret what the significance is.

First, the people from Alaska first migrated to Greenland about

2500 BC. There are descendants of those people living in Greenland today. That does not exclude the possibility that more Alaskans migrated to Greenland over the next 4500 years; but equally the additional migration does not exclude the continuous presence of descendants from the earliest migrations.

These are *all* one basic group of people. The same gene pool. The same evolving cultures.

You still haven't gotten is settled in your head that Thule

*Technology* is what migrated to Greenland in 1200 AD. There was *no* wave of people who were different than the ones already there. It may not even have been *any* new people at all.

They were *all* related, genetically and culturally. That means not just Greenlandic variations of that culture group, but the ones from Canada, Alaska and Siberia.

You have had it explained to you a dozen times or so that you are making up something which doesn't exist, and then fabricating an entire world to match what you have imagined.

Your terminology is *wrong*. It does *not* distinguish the current inhabitants from those of earlier cultures in the manner you are assuming. And that is exactly what makes it wrong.

There is *no question* but those peoples were essentially one gene pool who over a 4500 year period continuously evolved their culture, and we can identify differences over 1000 year intervals. You want to use the distinct nomenclature applied to these periods of evolution as the basis to claim that the people's genes were as different as the letters in the words used to label them.

That is just nothing but nonsense.

I know. You think there was a lost race of Martians building boats, and when the fleet was large enough, they sailed home and we are left with nothing but strange artifacts.

The boats being built there 4000 years ago were being built by the ancestors of today's Greenlanders. There weren't from Mars.

No, you are wrong for thinking that two definitions of "inuit" means *you* can decide which one other people are using. You claimed the statement that Inuit were making wood framed boats in Greenland 4000 years ago was wrong. Clearly it is not wrong.

You might not want to say it that way, but when someone else does they are still 100% correct.

Clearly you are unable to read what the author was saying, because you want to use *your* definition regardless of which definition the author used.

You've done it with the word "inuit", and you've done the same thing with other words too. It is an obnoxious habit befitting a 12 year old (that is about the age when most kids figure out how to play that game, but they usually learn better by 15).

I can remember when my children went through that stage. I always let them pull one of those word swap games on me just once. And when they popped the punch line, I'd laugh just as loud as them. Then I'd get very serious and explain just how dishonest it was. You see, in my house there was only one really serious offense. We can work out *anything*, unless somebody lies to me. And that word game *is* just another form of telling lies.

You are an adult, and we should be able to expect more integrity from you.

I've given you several replies. It makes no difference what enquiry you've sent, or who provides an answer. The correctness of my statements has been *extremely* well documented.

Playing the Seppo The Word Weasel Game again? Nobody cares how cute it is when you swap definitions. It's just a gross display of no integrity.

Exactly! Stop claiming there are none when they are common.

Then don't be dishonest. Playing your Seppo The Word Weasel Game is not appropriate behavior for adults.

That is absurd. Over a *300* year period! Stop being silly.

The artifacts that have been found indicate that Dorset people, typical of all Eskimo cultures, were fairly mobile. They move around. But their technology only allowed them to survive where certain game was available. They were not able to hunt the larger sea mammals, for example.

The advantage that Thule Technology had, which is the main reason it spread so fast among Eskimo people, was that it allowed them to subsist in places where they had not been able to before; and in traditional places it gave them a fantasticly higher rate of food production.

One example of the effect is that a place like Point Barrow, here in Alaska, which previously was barely habitable suddenly became the *most* productive location. Point Hope is an example where a traditionally productive location became an overwhelmingly better location.

One of the side effects of Thule Technology was a significant increase in mobility. The Umiaq was introduced, which meant entire families could travel and transport *tons* of goods for long distances. Consider that and the above paragraph in relation to why this Thule Technology spread so fast across the Arctic Ocean coast, and how it apparently took with it what had been a rather isolated dialect of Proto-Eskimo that suddenly became the widest spread dialect!

And travel they did. The idea that for 300 years the Thule folks roamed the entire coast line of Greenland without ever meeting up with the somewhat less mobile Dorset people is just too much to accept.

So if that one site doesn't specifically say that they met in January of 1309 to have the 40th Annual Arctic Winter Games, you can't believe they ever met? (Do I really need to tell you what that says, logically?)

I'm sorry, but your lack of familiarity with Eskimo culture does not inhibit me from understanding what that web page is saying. They are *clearly* describing one continuum of culture that evolved from one specifically identified as Dorset to one specifically identified as Thule. What you are missing is that in the between times, they were each other. One and the same people. (In order for there to have been a significant number of Thule people... they not only had to have met, but they clearly did a lot of other things too. Procreation, just for starters.)

Eric, what were the "few shelters" doing there? And how did you miss the significance of what they said (I'm not going to go get quotes). The two groups had *permanent* settlements in different areas. The more mobile of the two *clearly* traveled the entire coast of Greenland and clearly made regular expeditions into the areas where the less mobile group lived. They were doing that for 300 years! How would they not meet?

You are hot on making these statements but very weak on supporting them. How about trying to spell out exactly why you think I am wrong, and why?

I presume you have seen my other post on this subject in which I deal with time and place?

It doesn't specifically say they met and leaves open the possibility that they hardly ever met.

I'm not saying the odd traveller did not meet (rather like the occasional Irish monk in 6th century Colorado). As I said in a slightly exageratted way " It doesn't sound like a recipe for hearty intermingling".

Eric Stevens

Are you actually claiming that you don't remember *any* of the now dozens of articles that I've posted on this topic. It has been

*repeatedly* pointed out to you *exactly* were you are wrong, and additionally where this type of dishonest response where you claim not to know something that been stated 14 time.

Look at the above.

1) A. You say "your claim than Dorset/inuit were". B. I've never said that Dorset/inuit were. 2) A. You said "can't you do the arithmetic". B. The right numbers plugged in add up to more than 4000 years. You plug in what are *clearly* the wrong numbers to get less. 3) A. You make a statement that the Dorset and Thule were not contemporaries. B. I pointed out that your cited source says they were. C. Instead of applying that response to the referenced statements you made, you apply them to a totally different part of the discussion, to which they do not match, and say it doesn't prove what it was not meant to prove! 4) Now you claim I've not supported my statement that you are being dishonest... and say that while quoting the text that outlines the above 3 major points of dishonesty on your part.

Looks like your claim that the support is weak, is just one more dishonesty on your part. Which obviously is supported by some exceedingly strong evidence.

I haven't seen you deal with time and place yet. Every time we wait 10 minutes between statements, you become thoroughly confused about everything that has taken place.

The *facts* are that the two cultures co-existed with each other for at least 300 years on Greenland. That doesn't happen to be unusual, because they also coexisted in Canada for an even longer period of time.

Does your birth certificate specifically say that they checked and found you had a brain? If not, are we able to surmise that it is possible that you hardly have any brain?

Do you see where your logic leads? You are claiming that one site to be the total definition of what was or was not existing on Greenland 800 years ago. Anything not specifically stated, couldn't be. That is absurd. (You do a *lot* of absurd thinking!) Regardless, the site *does* say they met, in so many words that I can't imagine how you miss it. *Three hundred years* worth of "intermingling"!

And I notice that you are about two move the goal posts again too. Now you aren't saying "never" met, but "hardly ever met". How do you define "hardly ever". I bet the Weasel's Dictionary says that means "less than he says, whatever he says".

It *does* sound like a recipe for *very hearty* intermingling.