Talk:Vinland

Leif Ericsson

Also, the name of the leader very probably wasn't Leif Ericsson, but I'll have to look the name up. --Pinkunicorn

Now his name is spelled multiple ways in the article --24.113.138.172 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed all instances to "Leifr" in accordance with the O.N. spelling on page "Leif Ericson"--66.54.184.41 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Vin'

The word Vinland doesn't necessarily mean 'wineland'. The word 'vin' could also mean .. how to say it in english .. 'large open land usable for agriculture'. --anonymous

I will give this some attention: anonymous, you are quite correct: vin/viin is the subject of much scholarly contention. user:sjc

Also, beyond that, the article on global warming states that in Leif's time the climate of Greenland and Newfoundland was substantially warmer than today - making vines possible. Vines do grow in Nova Scotia, which isn't much further south, today, although they're not so commercially viable as other places, they DO grow.

Regardless, "vine" was never a word describing the viniferis plant associated with wine and grapes in Old Norse. It is a reference to the vanes of grass, alluding to the pastureland. --anonymous

På Island, liksom i Norge och Danmark, hade det visserligen i flere århundraden varit väl bekant, att nordmän långt i sydväst från Grönland upptäckt ett stort land, som de af den där vildt växande vinrankan gifvit namnet Vinland. Men traditionen härom hade småningom dött ut, och de gamla handskrifter som förtäljde därom lågo förgätna i de isländska torfstugornas undangömda vrår. (Source: "Amerika, dess upptäckt, eröfring och fyrahundraåriga utveckling" Vol. 1 ("Amerikas upptäckt af isländarne. Vinland"), 1892)

Although on Iceland, as well in Norway and Denmark, it had been well known for multiple of centuries that norsemen from the far south-west relative Greenland had discovered a great land, that they from the wild growing "vinranks" (=vitis vinifera) gave the title Vinland. But this tradition had nowadays vanished, and the old manuscripts that told the true story was lying hidden in various corners of Icelanding peat-cottages.

// Rogper 23:40, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

What I can simply not understand in this debate is WHY Vinland cannot derive from the explanation given in the saga itself - namely from WINE. Doesn't Occham's Razor apply to this kinds of dabate?

Propaganda

A-ha, just like how Yngvi-Freyr was king of the Turks? That Thrudheim(Thor's home) is Troy? Give me a break! There are so many lies written to impress the Mediterranean cultures I am nauseated!. Just like how Hitler called the Nordic man "Aryan"(Iranian). I do not condone upholding lies to "improve" the social status of the Nordic people. I am Nordic myself, and that is insulting to me, to think I would embrace blatently fake propaganda and shift my cultural allegiance to please those who would outright meanly call my ancestors barbarians as a way to get people to feel inferior, just because they weren't Mediterranean! --anonymous

You also wreak of User:Mic's B.S. like when he went and latinised all manner of provincial placenames in Sverige just because the Catholics did after St Ansgar came. The agenda is misleading and dangerous, not populist in the least, except after people have given up complaint, and their feelings are over-rided. I do not have to tell you again. STOP IT! The Nordic peoples deserve their Germanic characterisations, regardless of what some POV Mediterranean scholastic pushers believe otherwise, fascist! --anonymous

Hey Kenneth

Hey Kenneth, at it again, I see. I've just de-Kennethized your additions to this page. Some of it was interesting, but as usual instead of adding you overwrite in an unsubtle manner with any theory you are personally convinced of. Could you please cut that out in the future? Thanks. Martijn faassen 22:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I will not bow to you. Do not stalk me like a plague. You do anything to discredit me, troll! Lord Kenne<eth> 07:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The meaning of Vinland

I can't understand what an editor is trying to say with "hull-land" and the etymolgi of "vinland", that it has something to do with cereal grass. Are you trying to say that hull is the same as häll (="flat rock")? Can you describe your aims in Swedish? // Rogper 19:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Hull is a protective outer shield, and that is what Baffin is to the southwest of Nunavut including Hudson Bay; there is remarkably low salt content to the calmer waters beyond Baffin as opposed to those outside of the archipelago in the Davis Strait. The Faeroyska, Islenska, Groenlanders and intended settlers of Vinland counted animal husbandry as their economical mainstay with fishing a compliment to this. Good pasture was like maize for the Virginia "Planters"--a very wealthy local crop! Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 01:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you left in the 'vane of grass' theory as the main theory for the name of 'vinland'. Is this now commonly accepted as the main theory as opposed to the one involving wine? In my sources it is mentioned briefly as an unconvincing theory and the wine theory is favored.

Anyway, the section on etymology is a bit of jumble right now and needs editing. Martijn faassen 20:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just edited the etymology section to include a number of theories. I hope everybody (including Kenneth) likes it.

Wine is not a native term to Norse speakers nor is it a native plant to the actual Norse settlements discovered in all the time of colonisation in New England and Nova Scotia; the encroachment of civilisation hasn't upturned any new rocks. I had lived in New England for 19 years to not hear a single local tale of that BS about Vinland being south of Newfoundland, and the people who would have talked would be the whalers and fishermen who never bragged such damned rubbish, amongst other wild tales! I have grudgingly watched the tabloid American History Channel on TV where many Mediterranean POV histories and crypto-zoological type pseudoscience about ghosts and Judeo-Christian tales of the Bible with slants on the Middle East conflict, predominating as "facts". One of their bogus programs is the "Irish in America before Columbus" story which has them supposedly built a stone settlement in northeastern New England. I was like ?WTF? I am part Irish but I am not stupid to fall for that, nor the St. Brendan crossing over either, such falsified and fallacious claims only serve to make those people look like asses! It's most assuredly native American or by the Pilgrims. Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 01:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

'viin' as wine seems to be accepted by most researchers. Therefore this theory deserves mention. The rest of your rant seems to be an irrelevant exposition of your world view. Martijn faassen 09:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

That is because their tendencies are POV in favour of Mediterranean sources for linguistics. It is extremely common to base research on Latin Catholic ideas, at least in Western Europe where much cultural interplay and domination was achieved by the religious faction with their tongue and etymologies. You say you have no part to play in other people's games/agendas, but you are clearly falling into place just as I described. Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 10:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted to my last edit, because I thought Kenneth only introduced POV in what was a NPOV exposition of competing theories. If Kenneth wants to introduce things in that section I suggest we debate this in the talk page first. Private psychological theories about why certain theories developed do not belong in the article, nor do private etymological theories. Martijn faassen 09:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Aha, it is the responsibility of the editor to judge the credibility of his sources by examining the data; that is at least a common way of doing things, unlike in Soviet Russia where you shouldn't have judged the communist motives of people, much less thought of it. I will not add data to an article if it is partisan POV, which you have allowed to predominate as the question. In the Northern lands, placenames had always been Germanic terms at least to that time period, so I suggest you kick your sorry arse out of here and stop whining! You only help people to be confused! That is a bad article! Pretending we know nothing definitive about an article doesn't educate! It doesn't teach people the central issues to the article. For instance, there is no mention in this article of Hop being a chief's settlement, as we would typically identify a colony or nation's capital. Most people would percieve the writings as little to nil actual substance, or meat to the article, using the confusion you adhere to as a filler, like fat, salt and sugar. Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 10:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Vinland is spelled "Vínland" in modern Icelandic with the "Vín" in it meaning either wine which in it's standalone form is "Vín" or alternatively "Vínviður" which is Grapevine, and "land" being just "land". The danish article however defines it as: "græsland, tundra." or a "grassland" or "tundra". -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:25, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Edit summary

Since otherwise we'll be trapped in a revert war, I've done an edit of Kenneth's contributions.

Restore Helluland as flatstone land. Can you specify a source for the "hull" etymology?

Restore balanced view of etymology of Vinland in main text (outside etymology section). This mentions wineland (which is still a commonly accepted explanation) as well as the pasture land theory and defers further discussion to the etymology section.

Tightened up and NPOV-ed section on why those who advocate Newfoundland based Vinland consider it unlikely the settlement could be further south. Attributed it to particular advocates instead of saying 'most'. Left out detailed explanation of early English settlement as irrelevant to this article (perhaps a link to an article about this topic can be added?). Left out discussion about why the various native americans made this futile to even try for security reasons. This is rather speculative, and the vikings might not have reasoned that way at all. Vikings settled distant areas with a far higher native population density with a lot higher technology in Europe, such as Normandy and various places in the Mediterranean. They even attacked Constantinople.

I've since found arguments along these lines. Far from supply lines battle with the natives can't have been very easy, of course. I still think the supply lines are the main reason, not the ferocity of the natives, but I'll add back a bit of text about this. Martijn faassen 18:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Turned Olav Magnusson and Olaf the White into "Olaf Skyrre", for which I can find many google hits. I can't find any in connection with the penny for the others.

Spun discussion of Maine Penny into separate article.

Turned "Svend Estridson" (which didn't have a link) back into linked Sweyn Estridson. Researched it; this is the same king (same date of death, for instance), just under another name. Svend Estridson in fact redirects to this page.

Yes, that's right. Sweyn Estridson in English, Svend Estridson i Danish, and Sven Estridsson in Swedish. // Rogper 13:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Much tightened arguments in main text to defend short-i 'vinland' (grassland) interpretation. Shortened versions of these arguments are still in the main text. Removed psychological theory about how men kept up the king's wording to retain his credibility. These sagas were written much later. We don't need to edit this listing of theories so that one favorite stands out way stronger than the other, like Kenneth has been trying to do, obviously favoring the pastureland theory.

Got rid verbiage by Kenneth arguing against the wendland theory, and clarified it a bit. Added the word 'even' to make it appropriately speculative. The theory is that Wendland was referred to by the king in an earlier discussion, and Adam later confused this early discussion (about grapes) with a later discussion about Vinland. I found this theory in a rather obscure posting though, so I'll gladly remove it entirely if we can't find some backup by others.

Got rid of "more fanciful" as a description of the vinland is further south theory; this is definitely POV. Many scholars have and do search vinland further south; it's not wikipedia's job to declare them all fanciful.

I have added a separate on how romantic view could influence the desire to place Vinland further south. Martijn faassen 19:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Remove psychology theory as to the roots of this theory. Again, we want to present the competing theories, not explain why the people who hold a theory is wishfulfillment, certainly not as a definite statement.

I don't understand why "longer" was changed into "unchartered". Unchartered by who? I changed it back to longer.

I've moved the line saying: "Straumfjord was the name of the northern settlement and Hóp the name of the southern settlement", which was sitting there all alone, up into the third paragraph of the article. I hope they are right there; I don't know the details about these names.

I suggest that the mention of Straumfjord (=Kangerlussuaq?) and Hop be removed and put into own articles about Thorfinn Karlsefni and Snorri Thorbrandsson, because there are plenty of other names too. [1]. // Rogper 13:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Could you do this? I don't know enough yet about these topics to make sense. Martijn faassen 18:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Martijn faassen 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Big restructuring

I've restructured the article quite a bit, moving things quite drastically, and making the sections more coherent (though bigger). Someone please read over it to see whether the ordering is all right. I've also spun off some non-Vinland material into Adam of Bremen, which I also restructured. Martijn faassen 23:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Restructuring?

Perhaps some of the text should be put into their origin sagas and Viking colonization of the Americas, and not Vinland? There is currently a redirect of the former to the latter. Comments? // Rogper 23:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I think at present it'd be too difficult to unstangle the topics into two coherent stories? Where'd the localization debate go? Both articles would have to say something about it. I don't think the article is long enough yet to make a split worthwhile. Note that I have been able to split off material into the Maine penny article (entirely new) and Adam of Bremen articles (big edits). If other subtopics arise that could stand on their own as their own page, we could split them off. Martijn faassen 23:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Why not put Vinland in the context of Newfoundland?

Why not put Vinland in the context of Newfoundland, as MOST scientists advocate, even if they aren't sure of any other sites or excursions, they are VERY certain of the settlement in L'anse aux Meadows, just as it is in the saga, further past Groenland. We have no other site found. Put the facts and the fantasy together and grow some balls, for crying out loud! No need to feel less acknowledging of our viking relatives just because they didn't go very far as the later explorers and merchants did on voyages financed by wealthy royalty, with better tech. No need to see the vikings weak for only going so far. They were poor and in inclement weather. Just think, if the Groenland settlements died out, how profitable could further ventures have been? I propose to include this as the early history and founding of Newfoundland's European society. Their business in the sagas reflects the geography and natural resources.

I don't suggest to do that, because "Vinland" is a place orignially written in the Icelandic sagas, and only a modern scarcer excavitation has suggest its place. But we can write "in recent time, the interest of identifying Vinland with North America and deduce the truefullness in the sagas have increased, but there are much archeological work still to do." // Rogper 13:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

That's not fair! They did it for Heinreich Schliemann when he found "Troy" in Anatolia! No way, Rogper, we have to change things to be a bit more fair! We can't just let the Mediterraneans always win out and minimise our accomplishments for their ego! Lord Kenneð Alansson 21:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rogper in that this article is about Vinland. We have reasonable indications that this is in Newfoundland and not everybody agrees. There is also an interesting history behind it; at first it was thought it was just a myth, later it turned out the Norse did reach North America in fact. We could add a few lines to the Newfoundland article that this is considered by many the most likely place of Vinland perhaps, and link back to here (if such a thing is not already there). Martijn faassen 18:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. We must note that most ideals that DO seem controvertible to the Newfoundland case were begun long before Ingstad found the settlements at L'Anse aux Meadows. To me, it seemed like there were too many hurt prides running around that refused to admit they had chosen a less illustrious place to emigrate from the Nordic countries. It seems like they just became stubborn about their ignorance to hold up their own credibility and wishfulness they could have Vinland in the Midwest. For the English, it would seem they like the idea of getting more tourists out in New England, not giving a crap for dinky Newfie-land. I know how the tourism industry works. They lie and encourage lies to make a living off of it. I'm not into that, even though my birthplace can be found right smack dab in Yankee-land. I don't want the lies flourishing. Self delusive fantasy is interesting sometimes, which is why I will sit through a Hollywood rendition of Jean D'Arc, fully discounting Jean but still be on the French side when my forefathers were on their enemy's taxed soil. My point is, the painted picture is fantastic, and inspiring, like how the French defeated the English based on Jean's craze, but wholly ignorant of the truth.

When I first saw the map of the vikings going through the Hudson to the Great Lakes, I was thrilled at the idea, but all the evidence reeked of Newfoundland, and again, I'll say the same for New England, they both were most industrious sites of Northern European extraction in the New World. Both the British Isles and Scandinavia, including the Low Countries and English Channel have markedly high amounts of viking heritage. It would be foolish to let the guard down in editing to not note that when seeing some interpretations that seem ethno-patriotic fantasy. Even in Quebec, some have conjured that Saguenay-Lac St. Jean are the remains of some viking kingdom, but the history on that is in error and inextricable tied to the French monarchy. On another note, it would seem that some ex-Confederate oriented Dixie-landers of Celtic blood want to say that the Welsh Prince Madog visited South Carolina to get the native tribes blue eyes and lighter hair. This is all fanciful as it is chiefly aimed at converting ignorant people into fools for the fantasy that they had such "ancient" origins that are their singular pride. It seems maddening, but that's the newer version of "white power/pride" out there. Of course, the same with Irish Saint Brendan, who is immortalised on the grounds that he supposedly found America before anybody as well, but his Christian achievements seem to go unnoticed, what he was actually canonised for. Lord Kenneð Alansson 01:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I check here for updates from time to time. I've been reluctant to join in because it is so hard to keep ahead of things these days. The last thing I want to do is appear to be disagreeable, but most scientists DO NOT believe Vinland was located in Newfoundland. Most scholars who have studied this controversy in detail have endorsed, to one degree or another, the theory that Vinland was in Southern New England. Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson sketched this out in their 1964 book “The Vinland Sagas.” Things have not changed at all since then. The case for Southern New England has only gotten stronger. See comment # 2753 at http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/comments/2669-2818.pdf

Quotes from Magnusson and Palsson; "Every one of the theories put forward has had to disregard one or more inconsistencies between the two sagas or even within the sagas themselves; but, generally speaking, the most acceptable interpretation of the elusive information in the sagas suggest that Vinland was somewhere in the New England region, and the majority of scholars have inclined to this view.” Page 8

“…in the end it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Vinland cannot have lain very far from New England.” page 42

In 1964 Norwegian Johannes Kr. Tornoe proposed Leifsbudir was built on Waquoit Bay on the south coast of Cape Cod. I think he was right. Early navigational charts support his theory.

Neil Good, July 3, 2005

Objectivity in articles

Oh, and I am not a "Newfie", and I'm not trying to fluff their genesis up to countreweight the Ontario English stereotypes of them. Would it occur to you that the lifestyle of early settlers in Newfoundland mirrors the experiences of the sagas? Or are we to encourage to forays into Madog and Brendan for the sake of Romanticism? The Romantics are exaggerating for their ethno-patriotic pride on who knew and experienced America first. Utter nonsense. If Wikipedia is trying to increase its own credibility, it's editors should refrain from editing things in clearly POV manners. One manner is; "Oh, we can't be sure, there's just so much we don't know." Bullshit, they know only what they know and what we all have proof of so far. If they insist on cryptozoologic style science, they push their own falsehood and POV. Don't you look at these researchers and get a sense of their HOPEFULLNESS that things aren't what the evidence calls for? Or, do you hope they get their delusion circulated everywhere to satisfy your own? Certainly, their CLAIMS are just that. As you would steer my edits here to be NPOV, try to use some sense with your sources, and get a sense of the craze over "America the Beautiful". Everybody has a place here in America now, you don't need to entice anybody with false mythologies on the roots of people seeking their place in the wall of fame. It is surely looking like the wall of shame. Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 22:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The history is written by those who wins the battle, the victories, and not the loosers. :-) Are there any specific statement by you that someone thinks is POV? // Rogper 13:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Rogper, that was Martijn Faassen following me around to make sure I be a "good little boy". Pfft. Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 21:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

But is there anything in the article at present that you consider POV and want to fix? Martijn faassen 18:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

My problem was viewing the article as it was totally a tourist's fod for thought and not scientific. It seemed too heavily fancy laden with the vines being the "preferred truth"(Indeed, Welch's Concord Grape Juice is the biggest grossing grape product in New England-I confess it is better than the green grapes of the Old World). I know New Englanders, I am one, and they would definitely encourage the lies in order to get more people in their B&B and rented vacation cottages. I confess, they ARE nice.  :) I just don't want the whole legitimacy of this heritage issue discredited, when there is so much to gain from looking at it candidly. Please keep that in mind in editing, is all. Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 02:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the wine and wheat path of the meaning is not our thoughts but the description given in the written texts. Compare to Iceland that is a very hot climate. // Rogper 08:42, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hullland instead of Flatstoneland

Sorry, I just now got finished viewing the article. It's been doen nicely. My reason for "hull" is because it is etymologically connected to that "häll" term. Since the nature adjective comes before the technological reference. I am not debating that hull has no connection to "flat stone", like slate. The land of Baffin-I have seen pictures-has flat rocks in so many places. I was just using a word in English close enough to häll, just as we use Greenland instead of Groenland. What gives? I am making sense here. Instead of Helluland or Häll-land , we can put Hull-land for English. Just a bit of translation on my part.

The etymology is the word's origin and have nothing to do with their similarity in spelling. The "häll" (or "haell") have another transcription from "hull". The heall should sound like when saying the word hell. According to [2] is haell something that has an incline. Perhaps the english "hill" is etymologically related, but that is my guess. // Rogper 14:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I believe you are right. Baffin is on an incline everywhere away from the sea, moving inward. There was some comment on the ice in the sagas, was there not? I have seen people link the two words "hell" and "hill" often enough, but never a mention of "hull". I did, because this is a nautical description. They never really experienced the land just glanced over it many times. Because there is a city in England called Hull, I figured it would work very easily. That is bound by water just as Helluland. A hull is a natural protective feature that does often more than not does rise or incline. Just like we call Groenland Greenland, I figured this would work. Just like we have Iceland instead of Island. Are you understanding me? Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:01, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

If there is no other research besides your theory that indicates the 'hull' translation, I think we should leave in the current interpretation (flatstone), as part of the no original research policy.Martijn faassen 18:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

In the Mercia article, I had formerly debated the decision for something more English as an alternative to a latinisation. We had seen Mierce and another, but aimed for and ending like -land. From such intense analysis, we determined the likely existence of that, just as there is Northumberland for Northumbria and East England for East Anglia. My point here is a tapering one from that, and eating away at the back of my mind for some time now. We know that Mark has at least two meanings, border and forest, at least in the minds of the inhabitants speaking latin or germanic. I look at it as the forest being the borders anyways. They have always anciently served as a border.

I think the English word "Woodland" have the same meaning as "Markland". However, in today Swedish, mark changed its meaning from "wood or forest" to "ground". I don't now how it is in Danish or Norwegan. // Rogper 14:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

That change in mark for Swedish seems reflective of the boundary issue. Territory, I suppose, eh? That's how it happened for the Danes, correct? That's a latinisation, but mark as the wood does work because it's a Norse term. You know what, as ironic as it is that we need some scientist consensus for explicitly confirming the natures of the places, if you look at the Labrador flag, like I said, it has Spruce twig in it's jack, specifically denoting wood as it's primary bounty. Too bad we aren't "allowed" to make such calls. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:01, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Map

What prevents us from drawing that conclusion into the naming convention?

Which conclusion? That Vinland is in Newfoundland? Because there is a debate, and we have to respresent that fairly in the NPOV policy. The readers can draw their own conclusions from the article, if they want to. I think we give Newfoundland good support, though perhaps you have specific suggestions for improvement there? Martijn faassen 18:46, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least putting the focus into better light. For instance, the UFO phenomena in Roswell, New Mexico. Obviously, it's delusion as truth has engrossed Hollywood billions of dollars with their twists and turns. Most have casually agreed, after the F-117 stealth fighter and B-2 stealth bomber rolled out for display, that the US military had secrets it was trying to conceal regarding test weaponry(U-2, SR-71, AND weather balloons). No big deal, we put the alien existence part of that topic onto the sideline feature(not denying aliens or embellishing in them). Lord Kenneð Alansson 02:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Markland, if in Labrador, would definitively been as far as they've traveled inland from the sea, from the saga and archaeological results. What's to stop us from holding that as a primary focus for the description? Even Labrador's flag is remniscient of the Greenlander description of it being a prime source of wood, as the Black Spruce is the key feature in the jack of the flag. I'm not to sure about the effectiveness of spruce for shipmasts, but I know that the Eastern White Pine(used by English settlers as a replacement for Scots Pine) is present in Newfoundland in ample enough quantities. Perhaps, as some people have speculated in regards to Greenland's climes during the viking age, that the weather was hospitable enough for pine to be present in Labrador, but all I know for certain is that Jack Pine happens to be the only pine in that region, and concentrated to the southwest border on Quebec, quite aways from the sea. I am confused by the claims of Markland's location, then, unless somebody could clarify the wood uses. Maybe this was a confusion for those who postulated further than Newfoundland. If it is, I haven't seen this theory, but it makes a confusion enough for me to somewhat doubt the locales I defended. Did the Greenlanders care whether it was 'gran' or 'furu'? Lord Kenne<eth> Alansson 23:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I think a good idea would be to scetch a map containing the places from the sagas, and indicating the places where archeological remains have been found. For example, http://www.nyteknik.se/bilder/bildarkiv/Vinland.jpg , is one such attempt. // Rogper 14:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I have seen that map before, but it relies on the Kensington Stone to work, which most people, scientists and general others believe is a fake by the Scandinavian settlers in the Midwest. I agree with your idea, but perhaps it would be best to just have a visual of the northwest Atlantic coastline? Maybe linking to those sites with specific lines of travel postulated is great. Lord Kenneð Alansson 22:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Sketching such a map sounds tricky. I agree that this map looks like it relies on the Kensington Stone, of dubious provenance. Sketching it on a real map based on mythology sounds tricky (and could be considered as original research). A map of north-east America and Greeland might be nice though, without marking anything.

I see that you've got your mind in the right place Martijn, and you recognise my attempts to preserve this article. Regards. Lord Kenneð Alansson 02:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

My small contribution to the nonsense:

From growing up in Norway, having a fairly good understanding of various Norwegian dialects as well as having studied Old Norse, I would like to state the following: Helluland, or "Hell-land" is beyond doubt "(Flat) Stone Land). Hell, helle, heller, hellu have been used for flat stones for over 1000 years in Norway as well as in Sweden and Denmark. Markland means "Forestland". "Mark" can also mean meadow, but in Norway it means Forest. "Mark", or "Mork" is still being used in dialects. Now, for "Vinland", it has little to do with grapes. "Vinr" is Old Norse for grass (hay). It is still being used in dialects in Oesterdal in Norway. "Vinna" there means "haying season". Grassland would have been "Vinrland" (Vinland). --Lars in Wisconsin.

Lars! Thank you very much for your contribution to the topic! Just to point out again...Flat stone areas can be considered hulls when at the shoreline. How is transcendant insight so hard to understand? Lord Kenneð Alansson 19:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lars, et all, I'm sorry, I thought it was generally accepted that "Vinr" in Old Norse was "Friend", the basis for the name "Vanir" - a group of wild nature and fertility gods and goddesses, the sworn enemies of the warrior gods of the Aesir. I've never seen an alternate spelling of Vinland spelled "Vinrland", only "Viinland". According to http://www.historicaldocuments.com/VoyagestoVinland.htm "This hypothesis rests on the fact that the word 'vin' has two possible meanings. Vin (long I) means grapes or wine in Old Norse, whereas 'vin' (short i) means grass or pasture lands in Old German, the European language most closely associated with the Vikings' Old Norse language. The theory that Vinland meant grassy fields found support when L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered in a grassy location far north of lands where grapes could grow. Modern scholars are included to read 'Vinland' as grape land not only because grapes are found in southern portions of this regions but because some saga reference, like Flateyarbk, spell Vinland with a double i (Viinland), whereas pasture land in the Greenlanders' Old Norse would have been vinjaland or vinjarland. In fact, either 'wine land or pasture land' would have conveyed Vinland's bounty. Just as Erik the Red was able to recruit Icelanders to follow him to the 'green' land, Leif's naming of Markland and Vinland "for what they had to offer" would have encouraged others to explore and settle these new lands."

Norse naming conventions

What are the norse naming conventions in Wikipedia; anybody know? The most recent edit to the article edited away what are presumably the English spellings of various names, replacing them with the norse spelling. Leif for instance becomes Leifur, though Leif is definitely the name commonly used in English. Comments? Martijn Faassen 02:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possibility of grapes

A recent edit changed text into the following:

Finally it has been speculated that grapes did in fact grow in the area in the past, but not anymore due to climatic changes. The posibility that grapes once grew in Newfoundland is high. In the present day, grapes grow in many areas of Europe, mainly France and northern Italy, that are at the same latitude as Newfoundland.

While it's true that in Europe grapes can at least be cultivated at high latitudes, that doesn't mean the climate is the same. Europe is influenced by the gulf stream, north america (at that latitude) is not. Wild grapes growing in the area of L'Anse aux Meadows generally seems to be considered unlikely as far as I'm aware. I've changed the article back, adding a note about latitudes. If the original editor has some evidence that the possibility is indeed high, please let's first discuss this on the talk page. Martijn Faassen 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A correction to the above statement, Newfoundland is influenced (albeit to a minor degree) by the Gulf Stream. The entire south coast of the island has water temperatures that are higher than the water temperature on the north coast because of the Gulf Stream. Also Newfoundland and comparable lattitudes of Europe (e.g. France, Northern Italy) are not "high lattitude", they are intermediate lattitudes of ca. 47-49 degrees.

The essence of the statement of climate change seems to have been missed. The time period of the Viking settlement of Vinland corresponds to the Medieval Warm Period which influenced most of the northern hemisphere. The Medieval Warm Period resulted in changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation which more than likely affected other ocean currents including the Gulf Stream, resulting in slightly warmer temperatures in the North Atlantic region. Jcmurphy 19:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibility of fraud

I accept the NF site is gennie, but I've seen it raised the Maine penny is evidence of fraud, & maybe NF is a fake. Is it well established as gennie? Trekphiler 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

L'Anse aux Meadows is definitely NOT a fake. It's highly dubious that it was either Eriksson's Vinland or Karlsefni's, also (see Farley Mowat, West-Viking).Skookum1 20:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing 'vikings got here first'

I am removing the sentence "There is a general consensus of scholarly opinion that the Vikings got to North America first." This really has little to do with the article and obviously overlooks the fact that the north american continent had been inhabited for 25+ thousand years by that time.

it is more contructuve to clarify this than to remove information. --KimvdLinde 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed. We should just inform the reader who discovered what when, and in which order these movements of people took place. Fairly simple, eh ^? =J //Big Adamsky 20:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate assessment

"There have been several instances where evidence of pre-Columbian presence of Norse explorers in the United States has been considered to be fake by most researchers, such as for example the Kensington Runestone."

The Kensington Runestone is up for grabs at this point in time. It's not considered fake by most researchers, it's considered fake by some researchers, genuine by some other researchers, and in a very unknown state by most researchers.

yeah, someone was obviously going overboard on the pov there. In any case, its fixed.

The runic alphabet

It is scientifically and historically proved that the Etruscan alphabet gave origin to the viking alphabet. But the Etruscan alphabet didn't develop from the Phoenician language or from the alphabet of Magna Graecia (Southern Italy), as many authors mistakenly write. It had origin from the Sardinian alphabet, an ancient language spoken in the Mediterranean area around the 2nd millennium BCE. It is commonly thought that the islanders of Sardinia (Italy), who worked as sailors, warriors, traders etc. are the "vikings" of the Mediterranean Sea. These warriors, who built over 20,000 stone castles best known as "nuraghe" and even worked for the Egyptian pharaoh Ramseth IInd, wore horned helmets and fur coats. They had spears, swords and axes. In reality many German playwrights and novelists of the past, when wrote about the vikings of Scandinavia, about their clothes and traditions, described the same Sardinians. (i.e. Wagner)In addition, there is hard evidence of this ancient civilization making their mark in places where, according to traditionally accepted history, they just shouldn't be. Interesting, some scholars think and support the theory that the Sardinian-Phoenician sailors went to the USA over 3,000 years ago. The Sardinian influence can be still found among the Aztecs (i.e. buildings) and other local cultures. There are tons of pics and news about this ancient folk on Google. Unfortunately, most of the pages are not written in english language and my altavista translator doesn't work well. -- Susy Hallen & Pet Stromberg 12:00, July 30 2006 (UTC) --

This text seems to be added to various talk pages on articles related in some way ro runes. Interesting, but as long as it remains on talk, harmless. Anyone knows what this is about? Martijn Faassen 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Finland

Winland redirects to Vinland. I talked to a friend from Finland the other day, and Winland seems to be an area there, so perhaps this should be added somehow. --83.89.124.37 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Paganism

Is there any particular reason this article is listed in the "Germanic Paganism" category? Not only does their seem very to be very little connection (Is Christopher Columbus's voyage listed under "Christianity"?) but from what I've read, Leif Erikson wasn't even a pagan.

68.187.225.59 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationality of Leifr Eiríksson

There are some things to consider here. Leifr Eiríksson had a father from Norway (Eiríkr rauði) and an mother from Iceland. He was probably born in Iceland, but grew up in Greenland and served the king in Norway. Add to this that the idea of nationality in the West Norse Sprachraum a millennium ago can not be compared to how we understand it today. With this in mind the most representative description would be Norwegian/Icelandic, as has been used in this article. I suppose you could add Greenlandic, but I think that would clutter up the sentence. (Nidator 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

He was not Norwegian but Icelandic, and why do you think he served a king of Norway. It seems like you have your own POV here. --Arigato1 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's just call him Greenlandic as he lived most of his adult life there. Fornadan (t) 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have my "own POV"?! That is a bit rich coming from you. If you had actually read the relevant sagas you would have known that Leifr stayed in Norway and served in the hird of Óláfr Tryggvason. You are also making the common mistake of applying modern standards to a past period. (Nidator 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

He was Icelandic. I am tired of yours POV pushing here --Arigato1 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me who made the text you edited in the first place. I just reverted to it and tried to give you some reasoning behind it. You seem to have some issue with Norway though. (Nidator 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

My goodness! The Icelandic/Norwegian infighting over Mr.Eriksson's nationality is beyond ridiculous! Take into consideration that a thousand years ago there WAS NO ICELAND and NO NORWAY as we know it today. Whether he was from here or there doesn't really matter, since people in BOTH PLACES spoke the same language (Norse), shared the same cultural heritage (Western Scandinavian), the same religion (pagan with Christian overtones), and themselves COULD NOT CARE LESS if they carried a Norwegian or an Icelandic "passport". Iceland was primarily colonized from Western Norway, but the debate on whether he was Norwegian or Icelandic reminds me of the ancient debate of what was the language of Eden. Why not conclude that 100,000 years ago (or thereabout) his ancestors migrated out of Africa!!!! --141.149.57.224 04:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Sparviere

Yes but you failed to give me a reason, next time try find sources before editing. No i like Norway it's where my grandfather is from. --Arigato1 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited it to Icelandic/Greenlandic. Since he grow up in Iceland. --Arigato1 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)