Talk:Norse colonization of the Americas

cleanup

I cleaned up this page, but it seems to me that it could definitely be fleshed out more. Surely there is data both from the Sagas and from the site in Newfoundland that could be added. Also, the page is mum on Greenland, which is generally considered to be part of the Americas. Anyway, I'll try to do some research to add these details, but if any expert on the subject comes along here their help would be appreciated!

--Jfruh 15:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Norwegian colonisation of the Americas is a more appropriate term for this, since the settlers were of Norwegian origin. It is not right to give proper names to the Danish and Swedish colonists but not the Norwegians. It is as if this encyclopedia is stuck in latin Catholic Church writings from the Middle Ages. They have a nationality and are a people, then and now. Please rectify this ignorance with a rewrite. Thank you.

I decided to do so, because the Norwegian country technically included all these settlements. Norway was not subsumed within Denmark for a while yet, with "Viking" too broad a term to use. I hope it satisfies other people and encouarages them to be educated about Scandinavia.

I think "Norse" would be a better title. Many of the people were of Norwegian origin, but again, as many appear to have been born in Iceland. MacRusgail 21:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian is a better name. The settlers were Norwegian. Some had "stopovers" on Iceland and some were born on Iceland and had parents born in Norway, but Iceland was considered part of Norway (yes I know the degree of Norwegian control over Iceland varied). Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes were Norwegian until 1814/15. Leif Ericson served under the King of Norway. Norse includes Swedes and Danes. Norwegian does not exclude the Norwegian lands of the time. Inge 13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Iceland and Greenland were independent at the time and did not have allegiance to the Norwegian king. But I do think this page should be renamed - to Norse exploration of North America. - Haukur 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Blond Eskimo theory

Awhile back I read an article about a far northern tribe of Eskimos that had some blonds in it. It was supposedly found during the early colonization of America. The writer of the article theorized that this may have been the result Viking native interactions. I have never found any more info on the matter but if anyone knows anything about it, it should probably be mentioned.

Leon Evelake 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I remember reading in a book (quite a few years ago, sadly) about an account by colonists of the North Americas who encountered a tribe of Native Americans whose language was described as unlike the other native dialects and was said to be very close to Gaelic. The book made the argument that the tribe was descended from Irish or Scottish slaves brought over by Norse colonists and had remained, adapting to the environment in the Americas. However, like os many tribes, this group was wiped out by smallpox. I wish I could find that book again. Anyone else know anything about this story? Renquist 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the article

Hello. I was wondering if it was alright if I add some information from these two books I got from my library. I'm asking because I'm probably going to make a section on the encounters between the Natives and the Norsemen. InternetHero (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as your additions have references to go with them, there should be no problem. Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had problems with this before from not introducing myself to the group. I'm having a problem right now on the telescope article and its sub-articles, but i think I'm gonig to get an admin since the gus reverts my edits without the dispute resolution. InternetHero (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New lead section

Hello. Whatever we do, we should adhere to the clauses entitled:

Preserve information

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

rephrase correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content move text within an article or to another article (existing or new) add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced request a citation by adding the tag

Exceptions include:

original research duplication or redundancy irrelevancy patent nonsense copyright violations inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)

unsourced controversial claims about living persons

Nevertheless, the lead section was probably formed out of a consensus so I think we should have a discussion before editing such an inherent part of the article. Personally, I liked it the way it was before since it was more readable. Discuss. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not 'new'; as with all Wikipedia documents, it is evolving.

The lead section is not the place to pose or resolve arguments- unless controversy is the very subject of the article. Issues of naming accuracy and national identity of historical figures, such as these, are more appropriately addressed on the talk page. Nor is it a place to summarize common misconceptions- a highly subjective task that is at odds with the purpose of the article: to concisely and succinctly present information pertinent to the subject.

The 'Skrælings' reference is also extraneous to the lead, which would be better were it to find another home; however, I am reticent to remove it. Perhaps it could be worked into the body of the article. As is, it unnecessarily burdens the lead.

Considering that the lead section contained two items of potential contention -Naming Convention and Legacy- discussion here would have been wise considering the personal investment some might have in those positions -regardless of appropriateness to the lead. However, the article must not represent every minority view, and, in the lead, only the pertinent and majority held positions should be represented -lest it not serve it's function.

If the Naming Convention and Legacy issues concern you, develop them in an appropriate section -or article.

The lead was a contorted ramble; its function has been improved by the edits.Mavigogun (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT. InternetHero (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

The following:

While sailing from Iceland to Greenland with a migration fleet consisting of 3,000 settlers and 25 other ships (14 of which made it without turning back), a merchant named Bjarni Herjólfsson was blown off course and sighted land west of the fleet.

The sentence implies that there were 26 ships: is this the case? If not, the word 'other' should be dropped. Anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavigogun (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The saga (using the translation referenced by that topic) refers to 35 ships, says 14 turned back, does not mention the number of settlers. It would be nice to have a reliable source for the number (the Time/Life book is probably not a reliable source, though it may refer to one). Tedickey (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Time-Life Books, while notorious for publishing 'truthy' entertainment, occasionally put out something substantial; any opinions on this one?; can anyone substantiate the reference (read and qualified, not a blanket opinion on typical source quality) for the population statement?

I'll reword to reflect the 35 ship number, removing the word 'other'.Mavigogun (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of my books say 26 ships in total. 14 of which turned back. I asked an admin once about this dilemma and he said that we should add both numbers (ie. ",but another source states the total number of ships at 35"). Mavigogun, I know you're new to Wikipedia but you should try and sign your posts. It is seen as good etiquette, and Wikipedia relies on the community. InternetHero (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Will you qualify those sources for us (context, source, reason for lending credibility to one figure over another)? The cited material should reflect this. If a reason can not be discerned to credit one over the other, we may not do so.

The edit to the bracketed text removed an idiom and replaced it with precise and succinct wording: 'made it' > 'completed the journey'. What is your justification for favoring the idiom? Idioms are not appropriate in this context.

The word other should be removed and the ship count changed to 26, if accurate.Mavigogun (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

TTT. InternetHero (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New additions by Hordaland

I don't see how they were constructive in any way. InternetHero (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Disussion from ClovisPT's talk-page

Hi,

Could you help me out a bit on that page. A user named Hordaland has reverted a lot of my edits. I don't understand. I think I'm a lot better at grammar than him so I would appreciated some comments (if you can). For example: "Unlike Greenland: which has been occupied for 500 years," is completely right: the listing of space (GreenL) is the ultimate placeholder---500 years is of space (just a reaction--indeed, you probably know the big bang theory), etc,. Last time I checked, units (500 years) can be listed. The guy might be racist coz he took the bolded part out in this sentence labeled: "who picked up the sword of a norse that had been killed by a flat stone to the head and charged the natives". He also took out my description of Eirik the Red. A heathen can be compared to Norse paganism. He deleted the story of how Eirik tried to join Leif. I don't understand where this guy/girl is coming from. InternetHero (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC

I don't see how using colons just because you can is a particularly good reason. It's more important to write something which is readable. And random accusations of racism (or was that supposed to be funny?) doesn't really add weight to your arguments. I think some of your other edits are fine, though. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, you're right. I just hate using commas too much. The racist thing should probably stop. InternetHero (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Vikings

Hi shouldn't we add the Vikings to the list for the 'Europoean colonization of the Americas'? I went there earlier and they don't mention them. Did they try to colonize here?? Mister721972 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably. InternetHero (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't Vikings, they were Norsemen! TheLastNinja (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Last version of the Article

As early as the 10th century Norse sailors (often referred to as Viking) explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including the northeast fringes of North America—a prelude to wide-scale European settlement of the Americas.

Unlike Greenland, which the Norse occupied for almost 500 years, the continental North American settlements were small and never fully developed into permanent colonies, in part due to hostile relations with the Native Americans (referred to as Skrælings by the Norse). Settlements in continental North America aimed to exploit natural resources such as furs and, in particular, lumber, which were in short supply in Norse Greenland due to deforestation. Despite the later voyages, there is little supporting evidence of enduring Viking colonies in North America.

Greenland

Main article: History of Greenland

Territories and voyages of the Vikings

According to the Sagas of Icelanders, Vikings from Iceland first discovered Greenland in the 980s. Erik the Red led a settlement expedition there in 982, sailing 450 miles. He was banished from Iceland for three years because he had killed two sons of a farmer named Thorgost, after an argument about some 'stolen' lumber. The settlement Erik led was springy with moss and wild thyme grew almost everywhere. He named the land "Eiriksfjord" and as an act of leadership, Erik took the best land for himself and issued tracts of land to his followers. At its peak, the colony consisted of two settlements, the Eastern Settlement and the Western Settlement, containing a total population of between 3000 and 5000; at least 400 farms have been identified by archaeologists.

At its height, Viking Greenland had a bishopric (at Garðar) and exported walrus ivory, furs, rope, sheep, whale or seal blubber, live animals such as polar bears, and cattle hides. In 1261, the population accepted the overlordship of the Norwegian King although it continued to have its own law. In 1380, the Norwegian Kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark.

The colony began to decline in the 1300s. The Western Settlement was abandoned around 1350 and by 1378, there was no longer a bishop at Garðar. After a marriage was recorded in 1408, no written records mention the settlers. It is probable that the Eastern Settlement was defunct by the late 1400s, although no exact date has been established. The most recent radiocarbon date found in Norse settlements as of 2002 was 1430 (+/- 15 years). Several theories have been advanced about the reasons for the decline. The Little Ice Age of this period would have made it harder to travel between Greenland and Europe, as well as making it more difficult for the Greenlanders to farm; in addition, Greenlandic ivory may have been supplanted in European markets by cheaper ivory from Africa.

Despite the loss of contact with the Greenlanders, the Norwegian-Danish crown continued to consider Greenland a possession and the existence of the island was not forgotten by European geographers. It is also possible that the lands west of Greenland were remembered.

Not knowing whether the old Norse civilization remained in Greenland or not—and worried that if it did, it would still be Catholic 200 years after the rest of Scandinavia had experienced the Reformation—a joint merchant-clerical expedition led by Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland in 1721. Though this expedition found no surviving Europeans, it marked the beginning of Denmark's assertion of sovereignty over the island; see Danish colonization of the Americas.

Vinland and L'Anse aux Meadows

Main article: Vinland

Main article: L'Anse aux Meadows

According to the Icelandic sagas ("Eirik the Red's Saga" and the "Saga of the Greenlanders"—chapters of the Hauksbók and the Flatey Book), the Vikings started to explore lands to the west of Greenland only a few years after the Greenland settlements were established. In 985 while sailing from Iceland to Greenland with a migration fleet consisting of 3,000 settlers and 25 other ships (14 of which completed the journey), a merchant named Bjarni Herjólfsson was blown off course and after three days sailing he sighted land west of the fleet. Bjarni was only interested in finding his father's farm, but he described his discovery to Leif Ericson who explored the area in more detail and planted a small settlement fifteen years later.

The sagas describe three separate areas discovered during this exploration: Helluland, which means "land of the flat stones"; Markland, "the land of forests" (something of definite interest to the settlers in Greenland, which had few trees) and Vinland, which recent linguistic evidence identifies as "the land of meadows", south of Markland. It was in Vinland where the settlement described in the sagas was planted.

Leif's winter camp

Leif Ericson was a big, strapping, bold man always looking for an adventure. Using the routes, landmarks, currents, rocks, and winds Bjarni had described to him Leif sailed an exploration mission with a crew of 35, using the same knarr Bjarni had used to make the voyage. He described Baffin Island as, "level and wooded, with broad white beaches wherever they went and a gently sloping shoreline."

It was probably at Cape Bauld, Newfoundland, that Leif wintered in 986. It was during this winter that his foster father Tyrkir was found drunk by what the saga describes as "wine". There are varying explanations for Leif describing fermented berries as "wine". In Old Norse, there could be two different meanings for the word "vin" depending on whether a short i or long í is used. A long í in the word "vin" could mean "wine", while a short i could mean "pasture". Leif could have confused squashberries, gooseberries and cranberries, all of which grew wild in that area. Leif spent another winter at "Leifsbodarna" without conflict, and sailed back to Brattahlid in Greenland to assume filial duties for his father.

Thorvald's voyage

In 1004, Leif's brother Thorvald Ericson led another crew of 30 men on a voyage back to Newfoundland and spent the following winter at Leif's camp. In the spring, Leif attacked nine Native Americans sleeping under three skin-covered canoes. The ninth victim managed to escape and soon came back to the Norse camp with a force. Thorvald himself was hit in the armpit by an arrow. Although brief hostilities ensued, the Norse explorers stayed another winter and left the following spring. Another Norse, Thorstein, attempted a voyage back to the New World and succeeded in retrieving his dead brother's body, but he only stayed for one summer.

Karlsefni's expedition

It was in 1009 that Thorfinn Karlsefni, also known as "Thorfinn the Valient", managed to supply three ships with livestock and 160 settlers (although another source cites the number of settlers at 250), including some women. After a cruel winter, he headed south and landed at "Straumfjord", but later moved to "Straumsöy" since the current was stronger there. It was in that small landlocked bay that the first known sign of peaceful relations between Native Americans and the Norsemen are noted. The two sides bartered with furs and gray squirrel skins for milk and red cloth, which the natives tied around their heads as a sort of headdress. There are conflicting stories but one account states that a group of oxen belonging to the Norsemen came storming out of the camp, so frightening the natives that they soon came back with increased numbers. They used "a pole with a huge knob (wet leather) on the end, black in color and about the size of a sheep's belly, which flew over the heads of the men and made a frightening noise when it fell." The situation seemed desperate were it not for Leif Ericson's half-sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir, who seized the sword belonging to a man who had been killed and turned to face the natives. She ripped open her bodice, as if infusing it with some god-like powers and drove the attackers off. As noted, the contacts between the two civilizations were not always hostile. Different types of Norse materials have been excavated in several Inuit communities.

Supply voyages

Evidence suggests that sporadic voyages to Markland for forages, timber, and trade with the locals may have continued over the next 400 years. Evidence of continuing trips includes 1) the Main Penny, a Norwegian coin from King Olaf Kyrre's reign (1066-80) found in a Native American archaeological site in Maine, United States, suggesting an exchange between the Vikings and the Native Americans late in or after the 11th century; and 2) an entry in the Icelandic Annals from 1347 which refers to a small Greenlandic vessel with a crew of eighteen that arrived in Iceland while attempting to return to Greenland from Markland with a load of timber.

In the 1960s, a Viking settlement was excavated at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland by Helge Ingstad and his wife. The location of the various lands described in the sagas is still unclear, however. Many historians identify Helluland with Baffin Island and Markland with Labrador. The location of Vinland is a thornier question. Most believe that the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement is the Vinland settlement described in the sagas; others argue that the sagas depict Vinland as being warmer than Newfoundland and that it therefore lay further south. There are still many questions remaining and only new archaeological findings can supply more information.

Aftermath

For some centuries after Christopher Columbus' voyages opened the Americas to large-scale colonization by Europeans, it was unclear whether these stories represented real voyages by the Vikings to North America. The sagas were first taken seriously when in 1837 the archaeologist Carl Christian Rafn pointed out the possibility for a Norse settlement in or voyages to North America.

Adam of Bremen is the first historian in the Old World that referred to the Americas (by the name Vinland). The Icelandic Sagas remain the most important written sources about the early Norse activities in America. Purported runestones have been found in North America (e.g. the Kensington Runestone, the Newport Tower, and Heavener Runestone) that are thought by some to be artifacts from further Viking exploration. However, these runestones are generally considered to be forgeries. There is a map depicting North America (the Vinland map) that some believe is related to Norse exploration, though it is almost certainly a hoax.

---

I didn't change much: mostly the grammar and lost info. Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik's injury

Changed to: "Leif and others had wanted his father, Erik the Red , to lead this expedition and talked him into it. However as Erik attempted to join his son Leif on the voyage towards the continent of North America, his horse slipped on the wet rocks near the shoreline and he was injured and thus stayed behind."

The sagas agree that Leif and others had to talk Erik into leading the expedition and they agree about the injury involving the horse just before sailing. However, the one saga says he broke a rib and dislocated his shoulder and the other says he "hurt his foot". The word "injured" covers both possibilities without going into great detail. --Hordaland (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)\

Looks good. InternetHero (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

They don't appear to match any of the previous sources, appear to be introducing the editor's personal opinions in place of facts Tedickey (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how thats possible. I may have misplaced the dates, but everything else is almost all accurate. InternetHero (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Leifsbudir

1. I don't like this heading (Leifsbudir) because most people don't read Icelandic/Norse, and as far as I know it's not a name commonly used about the location. It would be better to rename it back Leif's winter camp.
2. The article currently says: "It was probably at Cape Bauld, Newfoundland, where Leif wintered in 986". However, two paragraphs earlier it says that Leif didn't go to the American mainland until 1000AD (985 + 15).

TheLastNinja (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Most people don't know what "Ottawa" or "Quebec" mean either. That is what Leif called his camp. The Norse commonly named stuff after them (i.e., Eiriksfjord, Kjalarne/Keelness).
2. Ya, you're right. Bjarni told him, bt it was 15 years before he actually went. Good find. InternetHero (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

POV and Cleanup tags

Take a look at what the article used to to look like. I added a lot of flavour to the article and I don't see how my sources can conflict with other sources that had absolutely no info in respect to my additions. I added relevent info thats as accurate as possible from my perspective. I'll get another book later. I think there is only one more available now, though. InternetHero (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Flavor" is one way to express it. Factual is not. Tedickey (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lets all edit the same way people!! That way we can become like robots. InternetHero (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)