Yesterday I received my copy of H.C. Petersen's _Skinboats of Greenland_. One thing no one had ever said about it is what a handsomely produced book it is, with far more photos and drawings than I expected, including a nice color painting on the cover of an umiak and three kayaks painted in the 19th century. The English translation is graceful, though it has occasionally odd terminology. If you are unfamiliar with this work, it is about the kayaks and umiaks of Greenland, their construction, history, and accessories. The author was a high school teacher in Greenland, the son of a man raised as a hunter in the early 20th century. The book is published by a museum in Denmark and is hard to obtain in North America; I ordered my copy from the Quarterdeck bookstore in Vancouver. The section on paddles is rather brief. Petersen illustrates several different types, but unfortunately the East Greenland type, though referred to in a caption, is not included in the illustration. Though he mentions the sliding stroke, he doesn't clearly differentiate between the storm paddle and intermediate length paddles (the longest paddle he mentions is 230 cm). He also gives a brief but interesting defense of unfeathered blades that is rarely discussed -- the fact that having the blades in the same plane makes it possible to use the paddle as a stabilizer by sliding a blade under the deck cords. This obviously wouldn't work if the outboard blade was vertical! Writing on the history of the kayak, he says that a few centuries ago, when kayaks were used only in the summer, kayak ends were relatively low and straight, and that the ends became upturned only when the Greenlanders started paddling in ice. Later, when hunters started using rifles, they found the high bow in the way, and reduced the height of the ends again. He also identifies by name the Greenlanders who developed the fixed skeg in the 19th century, which made it easier to keep the kayak turned toward the prey when using a rifle, and illustrates several different ways of attaching the skeg. Often the Greenland kayak and the baidarka are represented as being the perfect culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of evolution. What I get from reading this book is that the Greenland kayak (and likely the baidarka, as well) was constantly changing to meet changing conditions, and that there never was an ideal kayak, whether traditional or modern. In fact, what we consider to be a "traditional" Greenland kayak is partly a result of the Greenlanders' access to modern tools and lumber over the last 200 years, one of the results of which was a gradual reduction in the number of deck beams and a consequent lightening of the boat. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Chuck wrote; > > Often the Greenland kayak and the baidarka are represented as being the > perfect culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of evolution. What I > get from reading this book is that the Greenland kayak (and likely the > baidarka, as well) was constantly changing to meet changing conditions, and > that there never was an ideal kayak, whether traditional or modern. In > fact, what we consider to be a "traditional" Greenland kayak is partly a > result of the Greenlanders' access to modern tools and lumber over the last > 200 years, one of the results of which was a gradual reduction in the > number of deck beams and a consequent lightening of the boat. > Chuck brings up an interesting point and one that I believe gets overlooked. In my studies of traditional boats I could find nothing that indicated a gradual development of form toward a more perfect boat. Beyond general similarities (single chine, multi-chine, etc.) the boats had few similarities. One could argue that their shapes derived from adapting to specific uses but this constitutes and "argument from ignorance" since we have no way of knowing if these shapes solved a specific problem through intent or resulted from good luck. The absence of a written record doesn't allow much more than speculation. One of the things that puzzles me throughout much of what I have read and heard about traditional boats has to do with the insistence that the Inuit usually had a practical reason (performance related) for any characteristic. I would suggest something different. It seems reasonable that the Inuit had aesthetic values that they expressed in the objects they made. It would seem likely that they might have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye towards what "looked attractive" just like boat builders around the world have done for centuries. In any case, Peterson's observation that the high bows evolved to assist in getting up on the ice and then went away to allow for the gun certainly makes one wonder about the validity of claims that the upturned bows came about for improved seaworthiness and why the form persists in modern boats. Cheers, John Winters Redwing Designs Web site address, http://home.ican.net/~735769 *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
>> One of the things that puzzles me throughout much of what I have read and heard about traditional boats has to do with the insistence that the Inuit usually had a practical reason (performance related) for any characteristic. I would suggest something different. It seems reasonable that the Inuit had aesthetic values that they expressed in the objects they made. It would seem likely that they might have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye towards what "looked attractive" just like boat builders around the world have done for centuries. >> I think there is no doubt that the Inuit had an esthetic sense. That they may have applied that esthetic sense to their kayaks would not be surprising. I'm as yet only a short way into the book, yet is is clear that the Inuit tinkered a lot with the construction and design of their boats. Petersen shows five or six ways just to fasten the bow pieces together, some of which involve notching the pieces so they fit jigsaw fashion. He also mentions that the Inuit kayakers, like people the world over, varied in the amount of care that they gave their equipment. Some were able to make a kayak skin last three years by keeping it well oiled, whereas others, through neglect, had to replace the skin once a year. Likewise, not all Greenland kayakers were equally skilled. I seem to recall that Chapman mentions that in East Greenland in the early 30s, many kayakers could not roll at all, let alone roll in several different ways. This seems to be due at least partly to fatalism. One thing Petersen does stress over and over again is making a kayak that does not creak or a paddle that does not drip and warn the seals away. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Chuck Holst wrote: >Likewise, not > all Greenland kayakers were equally skilled. I seem to recall that Chapman > mentions that in East Greenland in the early 30s, many kayakers could not > roll at all, let alone roll in several different ways. This seems to be due > at least partly to fatalism. When I was talking on the phone with John Heath around the Maligiaq visit to the Big Apple, he mentioned that a high percentage figure (can't remember exactly what it was) of Greenlanders, period (West or East), could not roll at the height of the culture not just later during the period of decline. Seems they relied on others coming to their aid. So what else is new! ralph diaz > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not > to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ > *************************************************************************** -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024 Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com "Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
John wrote: Matt wrote; >> That all said, I think John is wrong when he implies that aesthetics may have >been as important as function in determining the shape of an Eskimo kayak."<< John wrote: >I said " It seems reasonable that the Inuit had aesthetic values that they expressed in the objects they made. It would seem likely that they might have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye towards what "looked attractive" just like boat builders around the world have done for centuries." This is a far cry from "...that aesthetics may have been as important as function in determining the shape of an Eskimo kayak." I "implied" nothing (imply - "To involve by logical necessity") and did not and have not at any time said that aesthetics "...may have been as important as function". In fact, I rarely use the verb "to be" at all any more. I do not know to what degree aesthetics, function, experimentation, tradition, or superstition played in the Inuit builder's design of a specific boat and I rather doubt that Matt knows either. Ship designers have, for centuries melded their aesthetic values with functionality to varying degrees and I speculated that the Inuit did the same. I made no reference to the degree to which they applied either aspect. To emphasize the speculative nature of my comments I used the words "seems" and "might". Looking up the words "Seem" and "May" in a dictionary may help clarify this further.<< No matter how many qualifiers he used, in reading John's original text (that I have included at the end of this post for reference) it seems pretty clear to me that without coming right out and saying so, John is making arguments to cast a "reasonable doubt" in the jurors minds as to the primacy of function in the Eskimo designs (most specifically where it concerns overhang at the bow). I looks to me that John wanted to at the very least, to cast doubt in particular on the "common knowledge" that overhanging bows have some function in making a kayak seaworthy (as exampled in many folks minds by looking to those with the longest history of kayak design). To me the logical conclusion is implied (but never actually stated) and qualified leaving lots of wiggle room for an escape if an attempt is made to pin him down. Could there be some reason why John might have "a bee in his bonnet" about this subject? Could it be that John has to regularly face this "Eskimo bows" objection while trying to sell his designs? Designs, where a major big deal is made in the advertising to show they have some of the least overhang in the industry (complete with a table showing how many other kayaks just don't measure up in this supposedly important area). The table is at http://www.qcckayaks.com/howlong.htm . I'd like to see the numbers on all the PWS kayaks such as the PWS Seal to see if they might knock QCC out of first place on this list because PWS's Lee Moyer is the another kayak designer that shares John's design philosophy regarding overhangs. Couldn't casting doubt on some of the "common knowledge" that your design philosophy doesn't agree with be considered a form of advertising (if ever so subtle)? I think subtle suggestions may be the best form of advertising because it slips into ones mind so unnoticed that one may think it was actually ones own idea. In my response I could have called a spade a spade and pointed out that there should probably have been a disclosure included when one is making an argument that favors ones own business interests. But the offense was subtle and I felt any rebuke I made should be subtle as well. Did anyone else catch the rebuke but John? I was very careful to disclose my "axe to grind" in my response and subtly (I thought) mentioned his undisclosed ax. I figured why overreact and bludgeon a small offense with a club, even if you are dead right you come off as hostile and overreacting. From the response from John it looks to me that I hit a raw nerve. I wish he had let it lay saving me the trouble of having to defend myself here. There is a common defense mechanism known in psychology as "projection". It basically consists of accusing the other party of what it is you have been doing yourself. Projecting, as it were, your own secret offense on to the other person and accusing them of it. Back to what John wrote: >>I find it amusing that Matt has managed to segue this discussion about Inuit boats into a commentary on his boats and his designs. One has to give credit when appropriate. Matt rarely misses an opportunity to promote his boats. What a persistent salesman!<< I would like to point out that I did not bring up the subject of bow overhang. John ran with Chuck's point and I think masterfully guided it down to a specific example that is, coincidentally, one of the most obvious areas where his designs differ from most other kayak designs, bow overhang. Did anyone else see this as a subtle but effective form of advertising, like I did? Personally, I have no objections to designers or anyone else with a kayak related "axe to grind" saying exactly what's on their mind (at least as long as they stick to logical (or illogical) arguments and avoid the repetitiveness, name calling and viciousness that barred sp*ns*n man from this group). Given the rules and ethics of this group I think the terms "self promotion" and "persistent salesman" might qualify as name calling here. If the sense of the group is that I was out of line with what I said in my post (or this one) I will happily and voluntarily exile myself from this group, no hard feelings, I spend way too much time in front of a keyboard as it is. Please let me know how you feel, either publicly or privately. John again: >>I would dearly love to participate further in this delightful discussion but regrettably duty calls. I leave on a week long trip this morning and will not have access to a computer. If you carry on without me please try to read the lines carefully, stay on topic and try to leave the self promotion to your e-mail signature and your web sites. ;-) Cheers, John Winters<< I might add to what John said, that when there is a possible agenda or conflict of interest that it should be clearly stated, especially by those of us who could conceivably be biased for commercial reasons. Yes, read the lines carefully but when one of us with commercial interests is writing, reading between the lines might not be a bad idea either. Even with the best of intentions it is easy to get caught up in discussions one knows a lot about because it is our every day conversation (or a regular sales pitch) for us. It is obvious that a designer is not likely to have a high opinion of something that is the opposite in design than how he thinks it should be. If paddlewisers can't make the points they want to in areas that they know best (because they follow their own beliefs in the designing they do, they really can't help but be promoting their designs if they argue what they believe) I think this group will be the poorer for it. What follows is John's response to Chuck's post that I believe started this thread: Chuck wrote; > > Often the Greenland kayak and the baidarka are represented as being the > perfect culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of evolution. What I > get from reading this book is that the Greenland kayak (and likely the > baidarka, as well) was constantly changing to meet changing conditions, and > that there never was an ideal kayak, whether traditional or modern. In > fact, what we consider to be a "traditional" Greenland kayak is partly a > result of the Greenlanders' access to modern tools and lumber over the last > 200 years, one of the results of which was a gradual reduction in the > number of deck beams and a consequent lightening of the boat. > John responded: Chuck brings up an interesting point and one that I believe gets overlooked. In my studies of traditional boats I could find nothing that indicated a gradual development of form toward a more perfect boat. Beyond general similarities (single chine, multi-chine, etc.) the boats had few similarities. One could argue that their shapes derived from adapting to specific uses but this constitutes and "argument from ignorance" since we have no way of knowing if these shapes solved a specific problem through intent or resulted from good luck. The absence of a written record doesn't allow much more than speculation. One of the things that puzzles me throughout much of what I have read and heard about traditional boats has to do with the insistence that the Inuit usually had a practical reason (performance related) for any characteristic. I would suggest something different. It seems reasonable that the Inuit had aesthetic values that they expressed in the objects they made. It would seem likely that they might have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye towards what "looked attractive" just like boat builders around the world have done for centuries. In any case, Peterson's observation that the high bows evolved to assist in getting up on the ice and then went away to allow for the gun certainly makes one wonder about the validity of claims that the upturned bows came about for improved seaworthiness and why the form persists in modern boats. Cheers, John Winters<<< To me this sure seems to imply that aesthetics might be at least as important as function to the Eskimo designers, especially in bow design. The advertising aspect may not have been intentional at all. I can certainly see how a designer whose kayaks fly in the face of Eskimo designs may need a logical explaination (if only for their own mind) for why that is so. Matt Broze http://www.marinerkayaks.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Matt Broze wrote: [re: conflict between Winters and Broze re: subtle "commercialism"] > If the sense of the group is that I was out of line with what I said in my > post (or this one) I will happily and voluntarily exile myself from this > group, no hard feelings, I spend way too much time in front of a keyboard as > it is. Please let me know how you feel, either publicly or privately. [snip] > Even with the best of intentions it is easy to get caught up in discussions > one knows a lot about because it is our every day conversation (or a regular > sales pitch) for us. It is obvious that a designer is not likely to have a > high opinion of something that is the opposite in design than how he thinks > it should be. If paddlewisers can't make the points they want to in areas > that they know best (because they follow their own beliefs in the designing > they do, they really can't help but be promoting their designs if they argue > what they believe) I think this group will be the poorer for it. Agree completely with your paragraph -- and well stated, to boot. And, no, I did not feel you were out of line. I felt your argument about overhanging bows was a logical extension of the thesis in your post. If it was advertising, it was d**n subtle, and it would have in no way influenced the way I spend my bucks. FWIW, I own and paddle a boat with very little overhang. It paddles just fine. And it has a pleasing sensed of aesthetics. The issue Winters raised seems a minor one. We are all adults, and can recognize that a designer (if he/she feels passionately about his/her designs) can hardly avoid painting his/her school of thought as the "best," just as you say. I hope discussion of this ethical problem dies. This is certainly my only contribution to it. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:12 PDT