donald raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. No timber is going to make it back home on a
> sinking boat. Your speculation about wood NEAR
> (that is relative) lanse meadows is just that.
> lanse meadows may be many things but wood is not
> one I would put down as an attraction. Further
> down the river that is much more likeley.
Which river? The creek by the site would have had SOME timber all along it's length. "Further down" it would have been right on the shoreline.... NOT a good site to build. Perhaps you meant "further UP" the creek.... but this wouldn't have had as good a lookout, and would have been further from their ship and from pasturage.
And 2 miles away is NOT particularly "relative", it's "near", pure and simple. For that matter, just how much timber could a ship (even towing a raft) have carried back.... they might even have been able to harvest all the timber they needed right from the site (old growth, that never got a chance to become more than scattered scrub, between the worsening of the climate and the arrival of MORE Whites in the 1600's. This is a cold climate, remember, timber grows slowly here).
> My opinion is the same as your wood speculation
> (choose your box of chocolates).
Nope, I provided evidence of local wood exploitation (whether boat repair alone, or timber harvest for export) being a major facet of the site, AND showed that large stands of timber were nearby & easily accessible. You just falsely said there was no timber & speculated without any evidence.
> That and the
> work at the site suggests the same. It does NOT
> suggest clear cutting and wood transport as its
> main purpose.
>
> Boat repair is not an industry but a necessity
> unless you like one way trips. the North Atlantic
> has never been friendly.
Yup, so ANY settlement or camp would have had a boat repair facility.... it was a necessity.
> The real issue here and why the original post
> (Vinland map again). A long term settlement at
> lanse meadows
There is NO evidence of this. The archaeological record DOESN'T show it, the MAP doesn't show the site, and so on.
> and other sites suggested by the
> regional map (vinland) gives avery different
> picture of the Norse
The only "different picture" suggested is that the Norse might have made maps at all!
> as well as the world of Columbus (knowledge)
There is only ONE known copy of the "vinland map".... so even if it's NOT the forgery it seems to be, the "knowledge" it contained was NOT widespread.
> compared to the view of a
> asterix in human history that only lives for
> future argument. THAT view is not settled.
>
> To date other than coins found (Maine-CT) etc.
> There is NO evidence of the fabled Vinland. It
> may not exist and the present assterix approach
> may turn out to be all that there is. But right
> now that is not something that can be taken to the
> bank.
Au contraire, right now that IS the bank. The "large scale, longer settlement" claim is what a bank loan officer would laugh at.
Kenuchelover.