Monstrous.
Quote
Discovery Could Rewrite History of Vikings in New World
Guided by ancient Norse sagas and modern satellite images, searchers discover what may be North America's second Viking site.
By Mark Strauss
PUBLISHED MARCH 31, 2016
POINT ROSEE, CANADA - It's a two-mile trudge through forested, swampy ground to reach Point Rosee, a narrow, windswept peninsula stretching from southern Newfoundland into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Last June, a team of archaeologists was drawn to this remote part of Canada by a modern-day treasure map: satellite imagery revealing ground features that could be evidence of past human activity.
The treasure they discovered here—a stone hearth used for working iron—could rewrite the early history of North America and aid the search for lost Viking settlements described in Norse sagas centuries ago.
To date, the only confirmed Viking site in the New World is L'Anse aux Meadows, a thousand-year-old way station discovered in 1960 on the northern tip of Newfoundland. It was a temporary settlement, abandoned after just a few years, and archaeologists have spent the past half-century searching for elusive signs of other Norse expeditions.
"The sagas suggest a short period of activity and a very brief and failed colonization attempt," says Douglas Bolender, an archaeologist specializing in Norse settlements. "L'Anse aux Meadows fits well with that story but is only one site. Point Rosee could reinforce that story or completely change it if the dating is different from L'Anse aux Meadows. We could end up with a much longer period of Norse activity in the New World."
The site of the discovery, hundreds of miles south of L'Anse aux Meadows, was located by archaeologist Sarah Parcak, a National Geographic Fellow and "space archaeologist" who has used satellite imagery to locate lost Egyptian cities, temples, and tombs.
Last November, TED awarded Parcak a $1 million prize to develop a project to discover and monitor ancient sites. This latest discovery in Newfoundland—supported, in part, by a grant from the National Geographic Society—demonstrates that her space-based surveillance can not only spy out artifacts in barren desert landscapes, but also in regions covered by tall grasses and other plant life.
Parcak led a team of archaeologists to Point Rosee last summer to conduct a "test excavation," a small-scale dig to search for initial evidence that the site merits further study. The scientists unearthed an iron-working hearth partially surrounded by the remains of what appears to have been a turf wall.
The archaeologists don't yet have enough evidence to confirm that Vikings built the hearth. Other peoples lived in Newfoundland centuries ago, including Native Americans and Basque fisherman. But experts are cautiously optimistic.
"A site like Point Rosee has the potential to reveal what that initial wave of Norse colonization looked like not only for Newfoundland but for the rest of the North Atlantic," says Bolender.
Location, Location, Location
"Who's your daddy?!?" Parcak shouts at the ground as her muddy boot pushes down on a shovel, cutting its way through thick turf to the soil beneath. It's a joyous sound, the primal yell of an archaeologist in her natural habitat, doing fieldwork. "Digging makes us better people," she tells me.
Parcak is far afield of her usual stomping grounds in Egypt. But this project has clearly captivated her imagination, drawing her into Viking history and lore.
One afternoon, we cautiously make our way down a steep path—created by a small landslide and gully—to a narrow beach. As we stroll along the shoreline, Parcak speculates on why this tiny peninsula would have made an ideal Norse outpost.
"They were quite nervous about their safety, threats by locals," she says. "They needed to be in a place where they could have good access to the beaches but also a good vantage point. This spot is ideally situated—you can see to the north, west, and south."
After studying the area and researching prior land surveys, the archaeologists have identified other characteristics that would have made Point Rosee an optimum site for Norse settlers: The southern coastline of the peninsula has relatively few submerged rocks, allowing for anchoring or even beaching ships; the climate and soil in the region is especially well-suited for growing crops; there's ample fishing on the coast and game animals inland; and there are lots of useful natural resources, such as chert for making stone tools and turf for building housing.
Iron Men
And then, of course, there was the most valuable resource of all: bog iron. It's a type of ore that forms when rivers carry dissolved particles of iron down from mountains and into wetlands, where bacteria leach the iron from the water, leaving behind metal deposits.
The Norse didn't do much mining. Most of their iron was harvested from peat bogs, and their very way of life depended upon it. Metal nails held their ships together as they sailed west—expanding their realm across the North Atlantic—and south, establishing trade routes throughout Europe and the Far East. A modern-day reconstruction of a Norse longship, built by the Viking Ship Museum in Denmark, required 7,000 nails made from 880 pounds (400 kg) of iron—which means that a blacksmith would have had to heat and process 30 tons of raw bog iron ore.
Bog iron prospectors knew what telltale signs to look for, such as an oily looking microbial slick on the surface of stagnant water. In fact, three historians authored a study making the case that iron was a prerequisite for Viking settlements. L'Anse aux Meadows, they observe, was a site used for iron production and ship maintenance, providing evidence "that the explorers, knowing their ships needed repair, actively sought out a location where they could acquire bog iron and produce new nails."
Searching For Signs
Up until now, Parcak has predominantly used her eyes in the sky to gaze upon Egypt, where she has been able to spot geological anomalies that indicate the presence of ruins beneath the barren, mostly undisturbed sands.
But, whereas the ancient Egyptians left behind stone edifices that have endured for thousands of years, Viking structures were hewn mostly from wood and earth. So when Parcak uses satellite imagery to search for signs of Norse settlers, she's not looking for actual ruins. Instead, she's scrutinizing the plant life.
The remnants of structures buried at Point Rosee alter the surrounding soil, changing the amount of moisture it retains. This, in turn, affects the vegetation growing directly over it. Using remote sensing, variations in plant growth form a spectral outline of what was there centuries earlier. The Point Rosee images were taken during the fall, when the grasses in the area were particularly high, making it easier to see which plants were healthier, drinking more water from the soil.
The archaeologists found 28 pounds of slag in a hearth that they believe was used to roast iron ore prior to smelting it in a furnace.
In one area, a magnetometer survey reveals a hot spot that, according to the satellite imagery, is partially surrounded by straight lines indicating the possible ruins of a small structure. Excavation reveals the remains of what appear to be turf walls and an iron-working hearth.
To an untrained eye, the hearth doesn't look like much: a boulder in front of a shallow pit, surrounded by smaller stones. But traces of charcoal and 28 pounds of slag found in the pit suggest to the archaeologists that this hearth was used for roasting ore.
This was the first step in the iron-working process. Before the metal could be smelted and forged by a blacksmith, the ore needed to be dried out—otherwise, it would explode when placed inside a furnace. The roasting process also removed some of the impurities, in the form of discarded metal slag.
The discovery of this hearth makes Point Rosee the southernmost and westernmost known iron-working site in pre-Columbian North America.
The Stuff of Legends
Was Point Rosee a Viking outpost a thousand or so years ago? The evidence thus far is promising. The turf structure that partially surrounds the hearth is nothing like the shelters built by indigenous peoples who lived in Newfoundland at the time, nor by Basque fishermen and whalers who arrived in the 16th century. And, while iron slag may be fairly generic, "there aren't any known cultures—prehistoric or modern—that would have been mining and roasting bog iron ore in Newfoundland other than the Norse," says Bolender.
Very few artifacts have been found at Point Rosee, but that's actually a good sign. Most Norse possessions haven't preserved well; they were typically made from wood, which decayed, or iron, which either decayed or was melted down to make something else. Archaeologists conducted seven excavations at L'Anse aux Meadows, from 1961 to 1968, before they had sufficient evidence to confirm it was a Norse outpost. And even then they found only a handful of personal items, such as a bronze pin, a needle hone, and a stone lamp. If the archaeologists had found many artifacts at Point Rosee, then it probably wouldn't be a Viking site.
Archaeologists conducted a "test excavation" in Newfoundland—a small-scale dig to search for initial evidence that the site merits further study. They were successful.
One theory is that Point Rosee was primarily an iron-working camp, a temporary facility supporting exploration and exploitation of resources within the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Bolender, however, believes it might have been part of a more substantial settlement somewhere in the vicinity.
If so, then how does this discovery fit into history's bigger picture?
Much of what we know about the Norse exploration of North America is gleaned from the Viking sagas, oral stories passed down across generations that were eventually transcribed.
"We're looking here because of the sagas," says Bolender. "Nobody would have ever found L'Anse aux Meadows if it weren't for the sagas. But, the flipside is that we have no idea how reliable they are."
Archaeologists have found sporadic evidence suggestive of Viking explorers who traveled beyond their settlements in Greenland. Artifacts from the 11th century, including a copper coin, were discovered in Maine, possibly obtained by Native Americans who traded with the Norse. Canadian archaeologist Patricia Sutherland has found ruins on Baffin Island, far above the Arctic Circle, which she claims were a trading outpost—though the evidence remains inconclusive. (Read about Sutherland's discovery.)
The confirmed discovery of a Norse camp at L'Anse aux Meadows proved that the Viking sagas weren't entirely fiction. A second settlement at Point Rosee would suggest that the Norse exploration of the region wasn't a limited undertaking, and that archaeologists should expand their search for evidence of other settlements, built 500 years before the arrival of Christopher Columbus.
"For a long time, serious North Atlantic archaeologists have largely ignored the idea of looking for Norse sites in coastal Canada because there was no real method for doing so," says Bolender. "If Sarah Parcak can find one Norse site using satellites, then there's a reasonable chance that you can use the same method to find more, if they exist. If Point Rosee is Norse, it may open up coastal Canada to a whole new era of research."
"Vikings Unearthed" premiers on Monday, April 4, on BBC One (at 8:30 p.m. in the U.K.) and streams online at 3:30 p.m. ET at pbs.org/nova.
Follow Mark Strauss on Twitter
Yeah, he blocked me from that account as well.
Still in Canada. :(
Columbus Day should be removed as an official holiday in the United States.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 01, 2016, 02:08:25 AM
Columbus Day should be removed as an official holiday in the United States.
Rename it Ragnar day! Or Erik the Red day!
Quote from: Phillip V on April 01, 2016, 02:08:25 AM
Columbus Day should be removed as an official holiday in the United States.
Nah. I like the fact it gets people discussing history. Also reveals that Columbus was a weirdo and psycho.
Besides Columbus discovering America (for the Spanish who didn't know about it before because discovering something does not imply nobody else knew about it in the history of the world) was an incredibly important event in world history. The Vikings stopping by impacted nothing. Sort of like how we credit Benjamin Franklin for proving electricity existed as a very important event even though electric batteries had been made in ancient times...because ancient people did not go on to invent the internet.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 09:47:36 AM
Nah. I like the fact it gets people discussing history. Also reveals that Columbus was a weirdo and psycho.
Weirdo, ok, but why psycho?
Quote
The Vikings stopping by impacted nothing.
You mean people related to people that would eventually settle in a place and intermingle with a people that would eventually produce my ancestors and partly colonize my nation impacted to nothing?!
How dare you! :angry:
:P
Quote
Sort of like how we credit Benjamin Franklin for proving electricity existed as a very important event even though electric batteries had been made in ancient times...
I thought that has been disproved?
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
Weirdo, ok, but why psycho?
Well he was like 'the conversion of all these people to Christianity make me, like, bigger than the Saints! Oh but I need to show how my expedition was profitable so let's enslave them all!' was kind of a weird leap of logic :P
I just love that every year at Columbus Day everybody starts talking about Columbus and how bad of a guy/how big of a hero he was. It does my heart good. Very few holidays actually produce interest in the supposed point of the holiday.
Quote
You mean people related to people that would eventually settle in a place and intermingle with a people that would eventually produce my ancestors and partly colonize my nation impacted to nothing?!
How dare you! :angry:
:P
That is exactly what I am saying...wait...what are you saying exactly? :hmm:
Quote
I thought that has been disproved?
Maybe. But for sake of argument let's say it was true. Still did not impact anything.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 09:47:36 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 01, 2016, 02:08:25 AM
Columbus Day should be removed as an official holiday in the United States.
Nah. I like the fact it gets people discussing history. Also reveals that Columbus was a weirdo and psycho.
I did not know that. In my social and professional bubble, there is no discussion. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on April 01, 2016, 10:22:55 AM
I did not know that. In my social and professional bubble, there is no discussion. :(
Nah man left wing people are crawling over themselves demanding it be renamed 'Native Peoples Day' and trying to rip down all his statues. It gets all these debates going. It is great.
Of course if the left wing people ever succeed it will ruin everything because 'Native Peoples Day' would generate no interest at all.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 10:28:44 AM
Of course if the left wing people ever succeed it will ruin everything because 'Native Peoples Day' would generate no interest at all.
:(
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 09:47:36 AM
Nah. I like the fact it gets people discussing history. Also reveals that Columbus was a weirdo and psycho.
Weirdo, ok, but why psycho?
Well, he *was* dragged back to Spain in chains for the nasty shit he'd pulled, together with his allegedly-psycho brother, in the colony he was running, and some of it was pretty bad, even by Spanish standards - like approving of his brother sexually humiliating and then mutilating some poor woman for insulting his lowly birth. :hmm:
QuoteBobadilla, who ruled as governor from 1500 until his death in a storm in 1502, had also been tasked by the Court with investigating the accusations of brutality made against Columbus. Arriving in Santo Domingo while Columbus was away in the explorations of his Third voyage, Bobadilla was immediately met with complaints about all three Columbus brothers: Christopher, Bartolomé, and Diego. A recently discovered report by de Bobadilla alleges that Columbus regularly used torture and mutilation to govern Hispaniola. The 48-page report, found in 2006 in the state archive in the Spanish city of Valladolid, contains testimonies from 23 people, including both enemies and supporters of Columbus, about Columbus and his brothers' treatment of colonial subjects during his seven-year rule.[80]
According to the report, Columbus once punished a man found guilty of stealing corn by having his ears and nose cut off and then selling him into slavery. Testimony recorded in the report claims that Columbus congratulated his brother Bartolomé on "defending the family" when the latter ordered a woman paraded naked through the streets and then had her tongue cut out for suggesting that Columbus was of lowly birth.[80]
The document also describes how Columbus put down native unrest and revolt; he first ordered a brutal crackdown in which many natives were killed and then paraded their dismembered bodies through the streets in an attempt to discourage further rebellion.[81]
"Columbus's government was characterised by a form of tyranny," Consuelo Varela, a Spanish historian who has seen the document, told journalists.[80] "Even those who loved him [Columbus] had to admit the atrocities that had taken place."[80]
Because of their gross mismanagement of governance, Columbus and his brothers were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to Spain from the third voyage. They lingered in jail for six weeks before busy King Ferdinand ordered their release. Not long after, the king and queen summoned the Columbus brothers to the Alhambra palace in Granada. There the royal couple heard the brothers' pleas; restored their freedom and wealth; and, after much persuasion, agreed to fund Columbus's fourth voyage. But the door was firmly shut on Columbus's role as governor. Henceforth Nicolás de Ovando y Cáceres was to be the new governor of the West Indies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_during_governorship
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
Well he was like 'the conversion of all these people to Christianity make me, like, bigger than the Saints! Oh but I need to show how my expedition was profitable so let's enslave them all!' was kind of a weird leap of logic :P
Not at all :)
Early Christians reputedly regarded slaves who converted to Christianity as freedmen, brothers in Christ, and included in Christ's kingdom inheritance.[9] However, this regard apparently had no legal power. These slaves were told to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ, with honesty, faithfulness and respect (Ephesians 6:5-8 KJV).[9] Slaves may have been encouraged by Paul the Apostle in the first Corinthian Epistle to seek or purchase their freedom whenever possible. (I Corinthians 7:21 KJV).[9] See, it is perfectly ok for Christians to have slaves, so long as they themselves seek to purchase their freedom. Not my problem if they don't know how :P
Quote
I just love that every year at Columbus Day everybody starts talking about Columbus and how bad of a guy/how big of a hero he was. It does my heart good. Very few holidays actually produce interest in the supposed point of the holiday.
That is true, but it's more a distant debate to me, something that happens in the medias :)
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2016, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 10:28:44 AM
Of course if the left wing people ever succeed it will ruin everything because 'Native Peoples Day' would generate no interest at all.
:(
It would be ok. Just another day off at that point. Hey you know how difficult it is to generate discussion of black history during black history month.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 10:36:04 AM
See, it is perfectly ok for Christians to have slaves, so long as they themselves seek to purchase their freedom. Not my problem if they don't know how :P
Yet the Church had done a lot of work to outlaw slavery throughout Europe just a few centuries before.
QuoteThat is true, but it's more a distant debate to me, something that happens in the medias :)
Still, hey the media talking about history!
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
Nah. I like the fact it gets people discussing history. Also reveals that Columbus was a weirdo and psycho.
Everyone was a weirdo back then by modern standards. I don't understand why Columbus gets singled out.
Anyway it's considered the ethnic holiday for Eyetalian-Americans. Let it stay.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2016, 10:39:05 AM
I don't understand why Columbus gets singled out.
No you do not understand. This is not my opinion looking back. He was weird IN HIS TIME. This is not a modern opinion. There is a reason why the Portuguese thought he was a nutcase and the Spanish eventually had him arrested. He was just a weird dude who had a hard time getting along with everybody.
QuoteAnyway it's considered the ethnic holiday for Eyetalian-Americans. Let it stay.
I have no problem with it. There is no reason why we cannot have a Holiday but also talk about who Columbus was and the meaning of his achievements.
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Accusations_of_tyranny_during_governorship
I should have looked to Wikipedia :)
Well, thanks, I was unaware of these accusations. I mean, I knew he was brutal, but no more than the average Spanish of the time.
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
Well, he *was* dragged back to Spain in chains for the nasty shit he'd pulled, together with his allegedly-psycho brother, in the colony he was running, and some of it was pretty bad, even by Spanish standards - like approving of his brother sexually humiliating and then mutilating some poor woman for insulting his lowly birth. :hmm:
It took awhile for the Spanish government to reconcile itself with the brutality of its colonies. For awhile it kept trying to treat the Native Americans as if they were just another Old World nation and it just didn't work. In the end they just needed the money. I find the process pretty fascinating actually. They tried, they really tried to do the right things at times but the dynamics at play in the New World were irresistible for whatever reason.
I found it fascinating they put Coronado on trial for murder. It turned out to be a farce but hey, they really tried to make it illegal to kill natives. But the Native Americans had no lobbyists or important faction backing them up. Eerily like the dynamics of those who tried to defend the rights of the Native Americans in the 19th century USA.
The evolution of European colonialism. The Spanish set all the precedents. Not the legacy the Most Catholic Monarchy would like to have left I am sure.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 10:51:43 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
Well, he *was* dragged back to Spain in chains for the nasty shit he'd pulled, together with his allegedly-psycho brother, in the colony he was running, and some of it was pretty bad, even by Spanish standards - like approving of his brother sexually humiliating and then mutilating some poor woman for insulting his lowly birth. :hmm:
It took awhile for the Spanish government to reconcile itself with the brutality of its colonies. For awhile it kept trying to treat the Native Americans as if they were just another Old World nation and it just didn't work. In the end they just needed the money. I find the process pretty fascinating actually. They tried, they really tried to do the right things at times but the dynamics at play in the New World were irresistible for whatever reason.
I found it fascinating they put Coronado on trial for murder. It turned out to be a farce but hey, they really tried to make it illegal to kill natives. But the Native Americans had no lobbyists or important faction backing them up. Eerily like the dynamics of those who tried to defend the rights of the Native Americans in the 19th century USA.
The evolution of European colonialism. The Spanish set all the precedents. Not the legacy the Most Catholic Monarchy would like to have left I am sure.
What really got Columbus and bro. in trouble though was not brutality towards natives alone, but rather brutality towards
Spanish colonists. No doubt particularly galling, as they weren't even Spanish! :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:55:22 AM
What really got Columbus and bro. in trouble though was not brutality towards natives alone, but rather brutality towards Spanish colonists. No doubt particularly galling, as they weren't even Spanish! :D
As I said, Columbus got along well with nobody :P
But the natives of Hispaniola didn't have somebody reporting the abuses to the Crown on their behalf.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 10:56:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:55:22 AM
What really got Columbus and bro. in trouble though was not brutality towards natives alone, but rather brutality towards Spanish colonists. No doubt particularly galling, as they weren't even Spanish! :D
As I said, Columbus got along well with nobody :P
But the natives of Hispaniola didn't have somebody reporting the abuses to the Crown on their behalf.
IIRC, the natives' main lobbyists were the Jesuits.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2016, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 01, 2016, 11:04:47 AM
Jesuits.
:bleeding:
What's wrong with the Society of Jesus? :yeahright:
That being said since the Jesuits weren't founded until 1540 they were certainly not involved when Columbus was running around.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2016, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2016, 11:05:11 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on April 01, 2016, 11:04:47 AM
Jesuits.
:bleeding:
What's wrong with the Society of Jesus? :yeahright:
That being said since the Jesuits weren't founded until 1540 they were certainly not involved when Columbus was running around.
Ah, it was the Dominican friars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2016, 02:02:08 PM
Elaborate.
Highly educated and skilled at rhetoric.
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2016, 02:02:08 PM
Elaborate.
Highly educated and skilled at rhetoric.
Sometimes in favour of liberal principles and the interests of the poor.
Also many scientists in their ranks.
Languish delivers. :D
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2016, 10:39:05 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
Nah. I like the fact it gets people discussing history. Also reveals that Columbus was a weirdo and psycho.
Everyone was a weirdo back then by modern standards. I don't understand why Columbus gets singled out.
Anyway it's considered the ethnic holiday for Eyetalian-Americans. Let it stay.
It's also Spain's national day. I admit it was a bit of a shock to see all the Italian flags parading around New York - in my first year there - in what back home is Spain's big one. :D
If I had to choose a religion, it'd be Catholicism. Francis is a rockstar. And it has confession.
Also, pancakes.
Is there a low-carb church?
Quote from: Jacob on April 01, 2016, 02:07:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2016, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2016, 02:02:08 PM
Elaborate.
Highly educated and skilled at rhetoric.
Sometimes in favour of liberal principles and the interests of the poor.
Socialist revolutionaries, to be more precise.
Quote from: celedhring on April 01, 2016, 02:37:35 PM
It's also Spain's national day. I admit it was a bit of a shock to see all the Italian flags parading around New York - in my first year there - in what back home is Spain's big one. :D
If we had had a large Spanish migration here (and now that I think of it, too bad we didn't-- there is a distinct lack of Spanish restaurants in the US) it would have been interesting to see the Guidos and Spaniards fighting over the holiday.
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2016, 03:29:04 PM
If I had to choose a religion, it'd be Catholicism. Francis is a rockstar. And it has confession.
You mean he's a douche?
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2016, 11:22:31 AM
What's wrong with the Society of Jesus? :yeahright:
The same thing that's wrong with you, Malthus, and Martinus. :P
Wasn't this thread about vikings or something?
Probably. But they weren't vikings.
"Going viking" was going to plunder and pillage.
The rather huge population growth in the Nordic countries after 700 led to a huge hunger for new land, so Norse people of various countries that exist nowadays went to find new places to live. Lots of Norse from what is now Sweden went east to the areas around Novgorod and founded Holmgard, and further down the Don river to Kiev.
The ones from what is Denmark today went west and really made the land now known as England suffer.
The Norse in Norway colonised the isles in the North Sea, parts of Ireland, settled Iceland. And probably either inter-married or genocided whatever people found on those desolate isles.
The expeditions westwards towards Greenland and North America were made by Norse settlers in Iceland and then Greenland.
While the planet was making agriculture possible on Greenland in the 12th century and onwards, there was still not enough arable land, so I find it likely that settlers carried on westwards even after New Foundland.
The Norse settlers on Greenland were like most Norse; proud. So having cows unsuitable for grassing on what little grassland there was, was much more honourable than having sheep or goats, which would have been far more suitable.
Settlements in North America probably died out due to three possible explanations:
1) Massacres by the natives. Not unlikely, but the Norse were good at co-opting local customs. The more likely scenario is that they just became part of the native Americans after a while.
2) Trying to find fields for cows. New Foundland, while I have never been there, looks like a poor place to raise cattle. I am sure they raised pigs, but pigs, like humans eat anything. Meat was important in certain settings for the Norse.
3) Disease. It's possible they all just succumbed to scurvy or something.
Strange they never managed to occupy the Irish countryside then. The island can support something like 1 cow per acre.
They settled around where Dublin is today and further south.
In Ireland, they met Celts ready to fight.
I always wondered why didn't the norse kept sailing south along the new england coast all the way to the Caribbean.
I am sure they would have an easier time dominating the local taine, siboney, arawak, and carib tribes, than dealing with the Iroquois federation.
Couldn't norse ship just keep sailing all the way south with minimal maintenance along the coast? The knarr seems like a simple enough ship to maintain.
Quote from: Norgy on April 02, 2016, 08:05:49 PM
They settled around where Dublin is today and further south.
In Ireland, they met Celts ready to fight.
And they fought each other. And the Celts all fought other Celts. It was a big mess.
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2016, 08:53:28 PM
I always wondered why didn't the norse kept sailing south along the new england coast all the way to the Caribbean.
I am sure they would have an easier time dominating the local taine, siboney, arawak, and carib tribes, than dealing with the Iroquois federation.
Couldn't norse ship just keep sailing all the way south with minimal maintenance along the coast? The knarr seems like a simple enough ship to maintain.
One ship wasn't going to dominate no matter how far they went. Unlike the Spanish, they didn't have cannons or gunpowder.
The Spanish didn't really use their guns to dominate much early on. 15th and 16th century guns were not all that. Their armor and steel weapons and horses though...
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2016, 09:55:51 PM
The Spanish didn't really use their guns to dominate much early on. 15th and 16th century guns were not all that. Their armor and steel weapons and horses though...
Scoff all you want, the Vikings didn't have the numbers or a great enough technological edge to form an empire in the New World, they were either killed or assimilated by the natives.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 02, 2016, 09:48:11 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2016, 08:53:28 PM
I always wondered why didn't the norse kept sailing south along the new england coast all the way to the Caribbean.
I am sure they would have an easier time dominating the local taine, siboney, arawak, and carib tribes, than dealing with the Iroquois federation.
Couldn't norse ship just keep sailing all the way south with minimal maintenance along the coast? The knarr seems like a simple enough ship to maintain.
One ship wasn't going to dominate no matter how far they went. Unlike the Spanish, they didn't have cannons or gunpowder.
They also had much smaller, less seaworthy ships. And were less organized, and had far fewer resources. Or map making knowledge. Or even knew there was a Carribean. Not to mention the difficulty in maintaining lines of communication all along the Eastern seaboard.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2016, 09:55:51 PM
The Spanish didn't really use their guns to dominate much early on. 15th and 16th century guns were not all that. Their armor and steel weapons and horses though...
And found natives that were fighting other natives, too. The Spanish never brought the kind of numbers to do it alone. Not by a long shot.
I'm into vikings right now. Went to see the viking stuff at the Historical Museum in Stockholm again, and bought and read a nice book, Vikingar i krig, written by Norwegians (sic).
Quote from: The Brain on April 03, 2016, 02:47:19 AM
written by Norwegians (sic).
What should they be called?
Have anything specific to distinguish the subhumans from Norway with subhumans from the rest of the world?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 03:18:43 AM
Have anything specific to distinguish the subhumans from Norway with subhumans from the rest of the world?
Nope. I can't see any difference between Norwegian muslims and muslims from the rest of the world.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 03:18:43 AM
Have anything specific to distinguish the subhumans from Norway with subhumans from the rest of the world?
Fishy smell maybe?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2016, 12:42:17 AM
Scoff all you want, the Vikings didn't have the numbers or a great enough technological edge to form an empire in the New World, they were either killed or assimilated by the natives.
True. The technological "edge" was the longship. The numbers is the real issue; even before the Black Plague there was less than a million people living in all of the Kingdom of Norway. Probably around 500 000 at best.
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2016, 08:53:28 PM
I always wondered why didn't the norse kept sailing south along the new england coast all the way to the Caribbean.
I am sure they would have an easier time dominating the local taine, siboney, arawak, and carib tribes, than dealing with the Iroquois federation.
Couldn't norse ship just keep sailing all the way south with minimal maintenance along the coast? The knarr seems like a simple enough ship to maintain.
They'd have been served for lunch and supper by the Caribs.
Also, the winds are worse around the Caribbean, and I am not entirely sure the longships could survive that. Longships, while mainly propelled by sail on high seas, were built mainly as coastal vessels still. The "knarr" which was one of the bigger longship types still relied on rowers. The word "Cox" comes from old Norse, I am told. It was the one shouting the rhythm the rowers should follow.
In an era when the English were handing out silver like candy there was little reason for hundreds of vikings to sail all the way to America. They'd need critical mass to achieve local military domination, and that just wasn't forthcoming.
Well and then the other reason they dominated: the unintentional devastating use of biological warfare.
Quote from: Norgy on April 02, 2016, 07:41:56 PM
Settlements in North America probably died out due to three possible explanations:
1) Massacres by the natives. Not unlikely, but the Norse were good at co-opting local customs. The more likely scenario is that they just became part of the native Americans after a while.
2) Trying to find fields for cows. New Foundland, while I have never been there, looks like a poor place to raise cattle. I am sure they raised pigs, but pigs, like humans eat anything. Meat was important in certain settings for the Norse.
3) Disease. It's possible they all just succumbed to scurvy or something.
I think it's a combination of the 3. There were conflicts with the natives, that's a given. Late Europeans entered in conflict with the natives due to their colonization effort, but they won due to superior firepower and eventually diseases that decimated the locals. The Vikings were a little too clean, apparently ;) , so no diseases. While iron&steel weapons would give them a definite advantage over the stone weapons used by the indians, they had numbers, lots of people compared to a few settlers who might also not have been all fighters in their prime age. If you have 1000 people, 800 of which are really fit for combat and the natives can eventually rally 10 000 to oppose you, even though your weapons won't break on their shields, unless you can squeeze them 300 style, you'll be overrun, it's just a matter of time.
And I suspect that's what happenned. A few shots here and there, a few injured/dead at a time, eventually there's only an handful of settlers left and they are either killed or assimilated into the tribe as slaves. Or they packed and left to where they came back trying their luck at something else, if that was an option.
In places like Newfoundland and Greenland, as the Earth cooled itself, these places would have become less hospitable to agriculture of any kind. They would have to rely on a nomadic lifestyle like the Innus, hunting whales&sharks and seals close to shore, hunting cariboux where they could (Labrador) and fishing. Staying in the same place for too long would have depleted the resources. Traveling around, they would enter in conflict with other tribes too.
The later European colonies only survived because they received outside help. I think one of the first virginian settlement totally disapeared due to lack of support from England, and the later ones would have starved without indian help. The French under Cartier nearly died their first winter in Quebec, surviving only because the indian showed them a remedy to scurvy and they eventually had to abandon their first settlement because it was too cold and they did not have external support.
Champlain's first settlement attempt in Maine/New-Brunswick failed because it was too cold, he came back later to Quebec city and it worked because he was able to form an alliance with the Hurons and Montagnais against the Iroquois + he receive financial support from France.
Without any of this, it's easy to see why the first norse settlements failed. They could not count on a friendly "norse" governement to send them supplies after a rough winter, the conditions they were used to in Europe would have been warmer than what you'd find in Greenland/Newfoundland/Labrador and without firearms, it was harder to impress/terrify indians and form local alliances. Plus the disadvantage in numbers.
Yeah it was called 'seasoning' for a reason. You had to get past your first winter. The Europeans paid a pretty stiff price in human lives for their empires.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 01:25:26 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 02, 2016, 07:41:56 PM
Settlements in North America probably died out due to three possible explanations:
1) Massacres by the natives. Not unlikely, but the Norse were good at co-opting local customs. The more likely scenario is that they just became part of the native Americans after a while.
2) Trying to find fields for cows. New Foundland, while I have never been there, looks like a poor place to raise cattle. I am sure they raised pigs, but pigs, like humans eat anything. Meat was important in certain settings for the Norse.
3) Disease. It's possible they all just succumbed to scurvy or something.
I think it's a combination of the 3. There were conflicts with the natives, that's a given. Late Europeans entered in conflict with the natives due to their colonization effort, but they won due to superior firepower and eventually diseases that decimated the locals. The Vikings were a little too clean, apparently ;) , so no diseases. While iron&steel weapons would give them a definite advantage over the stone weapons used by the indians, they had numbers, lots of people compared to a few settlers who might also not have been all fighters in their prime age. If you have 1000 people, 800 of which are really fit for combat and the natives can eventually rally 10 000 to oppose you, even though your weapons won't break on their shields, unless you can squeeze them 300 style, you'll be overrun, it's just a matter of time.
And I suspect that's what happenned. A few shots here and there, a few injured/dead at a time, eventually there's only an handful of settlers left and they are either killed or assimilated into the tribe as slaves. Or they packed and left to where they came back trying their luck at something else, if that was an option.
In places like Newfoundland and Greenland, as the Earth cooled itself, these places would have become less hospitable to agriculture of any kind. They would have to rely on a nomadic lifestyle like the Innus, hunting whales&sharks and seals close to shore, hunting cariboux where they could (Labrador) and fishing. Staying in the same place for too long would have depleted the resources. Traveling around, they would enter in conflict with other tribes too.
The later European colonies only survived because they received outside help. I think one of the first virginian settlement totally disapeared due to lack of support from England, and the later ones would have starved without indian help. The French under Cartier nearly died their first winter in Quebec, surviving only because the indian showed them a remedy to scurvy and they eventually had to abandon their first settlement because it was too cold and they did not have external support.
Champlain's first settlement attempt in Maine/New-Brunswick failed because it was too cold, he came back later to Quebec city and it worked because he was able to form an alliance with the Hurons and Montagnais against the Iroquois + he receive financial support from France.
Without any of this, it's easy to see why the first norse settlements failed. They could not count on a friendly "norse" governement to send them supplies after a rough winter, the conditions they were used to in Europe would have been warmer than what you'd find in Greenland/Newfoundland/Labrador and without firearms, it was harder to impress/terrify indians and form local alliances. Plus the disadvantage in numbers.
All good points.
But you forget one thing - Norse pride. While assimilating easily elsewhere, the Greenlanders built the biggest fucking cathedral outside of mainland Norway in the Norwegian kingdom. And they imported stone to do it.
I began writing a novel about Greenlanders going south, and while researching it, I found lots of interesting stuff about Greenland, like that there were little to no woods, so if they were to sail further south, they'd have to import wood to build them themselves. Or buy ships. While walrus teeth for chess pieces and various small sculptures of saints were in high demand, I'd say Greenland was rather a poor base for further exploration. And at it's height, Norse settlements around Eriksfjord numbered maybe 5 000 at best.
If they had pigs there with them, then how come none ever went feral? That seems peculiar
The hilarious thing about the Norsemen colonizing the new world was that, as absurdly marginal and small-scale as that attempt was, they still managed to end up massacring ... each other. :lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freyd%C3%ADs_Eir%C3%ADksd%C3%B3ttir
QuoteFreydís is described as Leif Erikson's full sister. This was the first saga written in the late twelfth century and is a crude version of the accounts that happened in Vinland. Freydís is mentioned only once in this saga. This is the most famous account we have of Freydís.
After expeditions to Vinland led by Leif Erikson, Þorvaldr Eiríksson and Þorfinnr Karlsefni met with some success, Freydís wants the prestige and wealth associated with a Vinland journey. She makes a deal with two Icelandic men, Helgi and Finnbogi, that they should go together to Vinland and share all profits half-and-half. Freydis asks her brother Leifr Eiríksson to use the homes and stables that he has built in Vinland. He agrees that they all can use the houses. Helgi and Finnbogi agree that they will bring the same number of men and supplies, but Freydis ends up leaving after the brothers because she had smuggled more men into her ship. Helgi and Finnbogi, arriving early, take refuge in the houses until Freydís appears and orders the brothers to move, as the houses were her brothers and meant for her. This is one of the many disagreements that would happen in the time they are there.
In Vinland, there was tension between the two groups. Helgi and Finnbogi set up a settlement separate from Freydis and her crew. Freydis eventually went to the brothers' hut and asked how they were faring. "Well," responded the brothers, "but we do not like this ill-feeling that has sprung up between us." The two sides made peace.
Freydis, once outside, beat herself so that it would appear as if she had been ill-treated. When she returned to her husband, he asked who had beaten her. Freydis claimed Helgi and Finnbogi were the culprits, and, calling him a coward, demanded that he exact revenge on her behalf, or else she would divorce him. He gathered his men and killed Helgi and Finnbogi as well as the men in their camp when they were sleeping. When he refused to kill the women, Freydis herself picked up an axe and massacred them.
Freydís wanted to conceal her treachery and threatened death to anyone who would tell of the killings. She went back to Greenland after a year's stay and told her brother Leif Eiriksson that Helgi and Finnbogi had decided to stay in Vinland. However, word of the killings eventually reached the ears of Leif. He had three men from Freydís's expedition tortured until they confessed the whole occurrence. Thinking ill of the deeds, Leif still did not want "to do that to Freydís, my sister, which she has deserved".
I liked the story about Freydis pulling her tits out and scaring the skraelings with them. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 05, 2016, 12:21:38 PM
I liked the story about Freydis pulling her tits out and scaring the skraelings with them. :)
No surprise there. :P
Quote from: Tyr on April 05, 2016, 04:57:12 AM
If they had pigs there with them, then how come none ever went feral? That seems peculiar
If they had pigs in Greenland and the temperature dropped after a while, it's likely the pigs did not survived. They might have been eaten by polar bears and/or froze to death later on. They can resist winter, but maybe not Greenland winter since the summers were probably too short for them to accumulate the necessary grease to survive the cold.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2016, 09:55:51 PM
The Spanish didn't really use their guns to dominate much early on. 15th and 16th century guns were not all that. Their armor and steel weapons and horses though...
And small pox and measles.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2016, 06:35:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2016, 09:55:51 PM
The Spanish didn't really use their guns to dominate much early on. 15th and 16th century guns were not all that. Their armor and steel weapons and horses though...
And small pox and measles.
Yes I mentioned that a few posts later. But I was talking only about their military advantages here.
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 03:09:16 PM
I began writing a novel about Greenlanders going south, and while researching it, I found lots of interesting stuff about Greenland, like that there were little to no woods, so if they were to sail further south, they'd have to import wood to build them themselves.
You probably know this since you're obviously very interested in the subject, but for those that are less so, the Greenlanders are known to have sailed to Markland to harvest timber. Markland was probably Labrador or possibly Eastern Quebec.