Talk:Maine penny

Section

This section This is generally considered to have been the result of trade or theft or discovery by the Beothuk and the later invading Mi'kmaq from the Nova Scotian mainland but is entirely possible to have been left by the vikings as perhaps the indication of the furthest south they've ever been, eventfully preserved by the presence of the Mi'kmaq who were possibly involved in the coin being dropped, if not later picking it up and moving it to their settlement when visiting the shore. was written by Kenneth Alan. I've tried to keep most of the background on how the coin might've arrived at the site intact, but I do not know how much evidence there is for the identification of the native american peoples involved in this. We should elaborate this first on the talk page.

Martijn, it was an exercise to postulate what might have happened. Most people find it hard to draw conclusions without an idea to the background of the nature regarding obscure topics. I did, however, leave out the presence of the Penobscot by faulty memory and not intended omission. Lord Kenneð Alansson 05:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Are the Penobscot attested to have been at this site around 1200 AD? I mean, I realize the place is dead smack in the area so it's likely. I'll do some checking. Martijn faassen 06:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Penobscots have a bit of local prestige in Maine, from what I remember in summer vacations to southeastern Maine(excursive travel enticements). They never really talked about about Mi'kmaq or Algonquins in general. I know that the Mi'kmaq are in Nova Scotia though, and have been there for a long time. They invaded Newfoundland during European colonial history, from what I recall on the Newoundland heritage website. The Beothuk were reduced by the combined efforts of the European diseases and Mi'kmaq expansion. I believe it to make sense to state that it is possible the Mi'kmaq brought the coin to the Penobscot as something exotic for trade. That's my opinion from the data, but obviously that is a likely, not necessarily exact truth. In any case, the Mi'kmaq are directly between the Penobscot and (former) Beothuk. Also, the Innu of Labrador are in between what was the Beothuk of Newfoundland and the Inuit of Greenland. That's my understanding of the east coast, of these places where the vikings could have met these tribes. I don't really know much about other tribes in those areas. Lord Kenneð Alansson 06:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't find this confirmed so far. I checked "Ancient North America" by Brian M. Fagan but it has nothing about the Penobscot (but does mention the Goddard site briefly). "Goddard site" seems to be the right term, I can't find any reference to "Goddard Point" in my googling. I've found a timeline which mentions the Penobscot but only later, so I don't know. I've removed the identification as peoples can change quite a bit in a few centuries.

http://www.mainepbs.org/hometsom/timelines/natamtimeline.html

Martijn faassen 18:55, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The Penobscot would have influence in the site, regardless. They encompassed the area. I know for a fact that Penobscots are the only natives spoken about in that area. They are advertised in travel guides, but never any history of other natives. My Penguin Atlas of the Vikings says Goddard Point. This is a geographical area, not just the name of an archaeological site. Lord Kenneð Alansson 23:06, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It is quite possible that these (often semi-nomadic) peoples are moving around; or didn't have an individual identity yet; we're talking about a timeframe of centuries. I don't think we can make the positive identification of Penobscot unless we get some grounding in the literature about this.

I *was* talking about the 'Goddard site' in the article (which presumbly is at Goddard Point?), but I'll do some more research in the naming conventions for this stuff. Martijn faassen 05:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just found a few references that support your identification:

http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nagpra/DOCS/nic0185.html

Interestingly enough as part of an investigation on the protection of native graves. I did find other references indicating much older finds at this site as well (thousands of years ago), which means we have to be exact in our statement; not all of this might be penobscot ancestral. I'll rewrite to try to take this into account. Martijn faassen 06:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Naskeag

Naskeag gives me a whole trove of new content with google about this site. In particular I found this article which is somewhat skeptical about this coin. It claims it was accepted without much criticism in somewhat dubious circumstances:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/phantom/norsepenny.pdf

I've made the article a bit less definite about some matters to account for this. Martijn faassen 06:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Circumstances of the discovery and external links

There is not a single external link here, nothing to identify which archaeologists have worked the "Goddard site" or where the "Maine penny' is now etc. Some context would be more interesting. --Wetman 03:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maine penny the only artifact regarded generally as genuine?

I'm trying to find some material outside of wikipedia that can be cited to back up that the Maine Penny is the only Norse artifact in the United States that is generally regarded as genuine by experts. Does anyone have some references for me? Of course if other artifacts also have this status that would be good to find out too. There are of course other artifacts like the Kensington Runestone, but it's debated whether they're genuine. (such debate in fact exists for the Maine Penny too, but it appears to have a special status nonetheless) Martijn Faassen 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

article biasing the other way now?

Originally the article was very positive about the Maine penny being a genuine Norse artifact. This is because I generally only ran into sources that didn't dispute this (the sources generally aren't very good, though). Finally I ran into the Carpenter paper, which is skeptical. While this paper's arguments are quite convincing, it's only one paper, and generally I do get the impression that it's been accepted. I originally just linked in the paper without modifying the article. Right now the article is leaning much in favor of skepticism. The comments in the history give me the impression that's because other people were convinced by the arguments in he paper and adjusted the article accordingly.

To balance the article, it would be worthwhile to find other careful examinations of the facts surrounding the Maine penny. If we find more skeptical ones, that's a good reason to keep the article as is. If we find well-reasoned articles arguing the other point, that's an indication we might want to adjust the article somewhat. Again, I did have the strong impression that the Maine penny has at least traditionally been accepted as genuine, but it's indeed hard to find sources on a statement like that. Martijn Faassen 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martijn. Balancing it out would be just fine with me, although I found the article very convincing, esp. the fact that there are no coins known from L'Anse Aux Meadows, Greenland, or Iceland from that period. Go ahead and make any changes that you think are necessary, and I'll look for more sources. Cheers. Alexwoods 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "allegedly" in the first line of the article suggests there is some sort of fraud or deception taking place - suggest this word should be deleted. I don't think there is any serious dispute that the coin was found where it was found - the dispute centres on whether the Vikings brought it there, or whether it was brought by indigenous peoples from somewhere further north (Baffin Island?) That there are no coins from l'Anse aux Meadows isn't relevant - the L'Anse aux Meadows site is both a lot earlier and was subject to an orderly evacuation, both reasons why we would not find coins there. We have to be rigorous in the standards applied to examining Viking finds in North America, but it is sometimes hard to avoid the view that we are seeking an impossible standard of proof. This is a coin of known date found within the context of an archaeological site as part of a proper dig. It is within a reasonable distance of a major known Viking site (L'Anse aux Meadows) in an area that literary sources tell us the Vikings visited. Furtermore the find of a butternut at L'Anse aux Meadows gives archaeological proof that the Vikings travelled south of L'Anse aux Meadows. How much more evidence do people want? Is it just that it is now fashionable to be sceptical? Graemedavis (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graeme. I suggest you read the linked article by Carpenter. It is considered highly unlikely verging on totally improbable that the penny is a trade item. Carpenter points out that there are no such finds from established Norse sites in Newfoundland and Greenland, and that coins like the penny are even incredibly rare in Iceland. Also, I believe the coin actually dates from after the collapse of the Greenland colony. I think in this case that skepticism is warranted, and that using 'allegedly' in the intro is appropriate.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone disputes that the Norse went south - possibly very far south - of L'Anse aux Meadows. I'd like to spend some time working on articles related to the Norse in North America, and maybe you'd be interested in helping out. Best regards. Alexwoods (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is somewhat biased the other way now. What I find missing is citations to papers discussing the find as authentic. I don't have access to the relevant subscriptions, so I keep hitting paywalls in my searching for academic literature. But this is clearly missing from the article as it now stands. (Incidentally, the Carpenter paper link had gone 404 on us; I've replaced it with a link to the same paper at a different site.) This 2000 NYTimes article describes the consensus on the penny as "Norse penny minted in the late 11th century turned up at an Indian site in Maine, but it is generally thought to have gotten there by trade." The Carpenter paper is dated 2003. So the current scholarly consensus may be different - but there certainly ought to be scholarly papers available that are supportive of the trade theory. If we found and used those, we'd be better able to assess the balance of reliable sources. GRBerry 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, additional sources to consider:

1. Spring 2005 American Numismatic Society Magazine non-scholarly
2. June 2002 issue of American Anthropologist, behind a pay wall
   1. June 2003 issue of same, with response to relevant article, also behind pay wal
3. October 1980 issue of of Current Anthropology, behind a pay wall
4. Maine State Museum page - better than popular press but not a scholarly paper, but probably should be an external link in the article regardless

(extend list as found)

Has anyone found a rebuttal of the Carpenter paper? I looked for one and was unable to find one. patsw (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of the Carpenter paper - its last words - are "not proven". It is the Spring 2005 American Numismatic Society Magazine which takes the case for a hoax further than did Carpenter by suggesting that the coin may be one from a particular hoard found in Norway.

Set against the hoax idea is the view which is in effect endorsed by the Smithsonian on the website "Vikings, the North Atlantic Saga" at http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/ , ie that the coin is "thought to be evidence of an extensive northern native trade network". This website derives from "Vikings: the North Atlantic Saga", edited by William W. Fitzhugh and Elisabeth I. Ward. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press in association with the National Museum of Natural History, 2000. Fitzhugh is director of the Smithsonian's Arctic Studies Centre. Those wishing to argue that the Maine Penny is a hoax have to argue either that Guy Mellgren is responsible for the hoax, or that someone duped him. I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that he had a motive (as this article suggests). If it were a hoax by him or someone else it required some preparation and some cost in order to carry it out (a coin of this type has a more than trivial value) and it is hard to see what he gained by it. Carpenter writing on the Maine penny expresses surprise that the details of the find circumstances were not thoroughly checked, but the reality is that they rarely were at this period (or even perhaps today). There is an interesting parallel with a coin of the same type found in the 1960s at a dig at the Brough of Birsay in Orkney, http://nms.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-100-060-079-C . It cannot be absolutely proved that either an archaeologist or some nameless hoaxer did not place this coin in the site, though I very much doubt anyone is suggesting this. Unusual though it is to find a Norse coin of this period in a British site we assume good faith on the part of the archaeologists and those amateurs assisting them. I would be interested to know how the ANSM would regard the Birsay coin. Do they doubt this find also? Can you doubt one without doubting the other?

I feel this article needs a clearer balance between on the one hand the Smithsonian/Fitzhugh view that the coin comes from an archaeological site in Maine and on the other the view that it is a hoax, as expressed in a brief item in ANSM. Carpenter comes somewhere between these two alternatives. I also think the "old" view that the Vikings took the coin to Maine needs to be more clearly stated. The "new" trade view has not disproved the "old" view, just given an alternative possible explanation. The Dorset Inuit burren is not absolutely certain, and if that is taken out of the equation then there is no evidence of trade with Labrador or Newfoundland. I don't think there has been a proper direct rebuttal of the ANSM view or of Carpenter's view, but the Smithsonian/Fitzhugh view sets out something clearly different.

"However, this explanation is unsatisfactory, as no coinage has been recovered from other North American Viking sites. This Maine penny and other similar coins of this era were available on the open market in 1957. Mellgren had the means, motive, and opportunity to plant the coin at the site, or to be deceived by someone else planting the coin". I don't like this section! The only major Viking site on the North American continent is L'Anse aux Meadows, which is earlier than the Maine penny and which was subject to an orderly evacuation. Olaf Kyrre silver pennies were indeed potentially on the market around 1957, but making this statement at this late point in the article implies that the coin is a hoax. By comparison the archaeologists at Birsay also had "means, motive and opportunity" to plant an Olaf Kyrre silver penny, but no-one would dream of suggesting this. I think this sentence suggests wrongdoing when there probably is none and should therefore be deleted. The conclusion is surely to the effect that the identification of the penny is secure, but whether it came there through direct Viking contact, trade or as a hoax is (to borrow Carpenter's words) not proven. Graemedavis (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Article needs a picture. A diagram showing the original design would also be helpful. Do other coins of the same pattern exist in good condition? Drutt (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Maine Museum seems to have copyright on images. There are pictures of other Olaf Kyrre silver pennies. Graemedavis (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some problems with the article fixed.

I rewrote it to be as chronological as possible. The article was rather vague regarding who is claiming what. I hope it is clear to the reader now. I think the Wikipedia's role here is not to decide if it is authentic but to present both sides. My rewrite puts the claim of authenticity in the voice of the Maine State Museum and not as a passive voice claim. It is unfortunate that if Mellgren had followed better archeological protocol either when it was found or when it was handed over to the MSM, there's a possibility we would place this beyond dispute. Carpenter's paper not only discusses the difficulties of proving authenticity in 2003 beyond reasonable doubt, but the lack of interest in the archeological professionals in not recognizing its significance and in not investigating its authenticity during Mellgren's life. I shared Carpenter's shock "How could that not have been checked..." Mellgren died in 1978. patsw (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor updates to the article that I think will help provide balance. The well researched Edmund Carpenter investigation actually concluded "Not proven" to the charge that it was a hoax, and does a good job of presenting facts from both perspectives (it is genuine, it is a hoax). I think, based on that investigation, that no one will ever know. Salient points against: (a) Guy Mellgren did collect coins and (b) was personally of Nordic descent, and (c) didn't record find in his journal when it was found. Points for: (a) he never attempted to make money from the find, (b) he didn't publicize the find (Maurice Robbins, Maine State Archaeologist attributed this to Mellgren's belief that as an amateur archaeologist, he would be accused of fraud), and (c) that he had a good reputation to those who knew him.

I personally concur with "Not proven". SunSw0rd (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP concern

I'm about to read the Carpenter paper but in the meantime, I wanted to raise a BLP concern here. "There is no solid evidence of a hoax, yet there are enough questionable aspects regarding the archaeologist that produced the coin to leave its provenance in doubt." - I think this wording suggests that there's something dodgy about Guy Mellgren, and I don't think that's appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Having now read the Carpenter paper, I see that 'BLP' isn't quite right, since Mr. Mellgren passed away decades ago. My concern, though, is still with me.

The main thing is that, whatever the deal with the coin is, there seems to be little reason to even suppose that Millgren was the perpetrator of a hoax. To believe that, we have to believe he bought a Norse penny, pretended to find it, but then never ever revealed to anyone that it was a Norse penny, instead putting forward his view that it was an English coin. It wasn't known to be Norse until after he died. That just doesn't make sense as a hoax.

I think it perfectly appropriate that we raise Carpenter's doubts about the coin, but not appropriate to cast doubt on Mellgren's honesty.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the possibility that Millgren perpetrated the hoax, but was himself confused about the coin, erroneously believing it to be a British coin - not an impossibly mistake, given the errors often made by collectors of coins and other antiquities at the time. Anyway, I understand your larger point, and I suggest the following replacement text: "There are enough questions regarding the provenance of the coin to leave its archaeological significance unclear." Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Doubts about the provenance of the coin certainly exist and can be stated in a neutral way without casting doubt on Mr. Millgren.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that can definitely be sourced is the "NEBC Principle" that was first pointed out by author Boland in the '60s - and maybe we should do an article entitled NEBC Principle to explain what that means... "No Europeans Before Columbus" - therefore, if any artifact ever does suggest Europeans before Columbus in the western hemisphere, then it is a priori considered a hoax by scholastics without any further ado. I.N.R.I. Negus (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But since virtually every archeologist in the US and Canada agree that there are Norse artefacts in Canada and that the Norse were there(by the way, you don't really mean Western Hemisphere I hope), the principle is nonsense. Besides that, you'd have to find sources mentioning this NEBC principle and this coin, otherwise it would be original research. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There are, however, enough external sources to write an encyclopedia article entitled NEBC Principle to explain what that term means. But the term is certainly controversial, has many detractors, and mentioning it in the pre web 2.0 era always led to instant ostracism. Thus, perhaps you are right again and it is preferable for Wikipedia to shun controversial concepts altogether, rather than give voice to them. I.N.R.I. Negus (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are responding to me, perhaps you would point out where I've said Wikipedia should shun controversial topics? Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have misunderstood me, as I have not "put any words into your mouth" whatsoever, and the accusations are getting farther away from the subject at hand. I.N.R.I. Negus (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Then when you said 'perhaps you are right' you meant? And you didn't mean I was suggesting WP shun controversial topics, that's your suggestion? Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

'Perhaps you are right' in what you said before... That the NEBC Principle is "nonsense"... And I'm saying that even if there are other sources out there that explain what it is, yet no sources calling it "nonsense", perhaps WP still doesn't need to explain what it is here, because we already have "your" word that it is nonsense - and that seems to be good enough. I.N.R.I. Negus (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It must be difficult to face these kind of conspiracies on a regular basis. Regardless, I've made the change, since no one objected (or commented). ClovisPt (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

More info about the native American settlement

The article talks a lot about the dating of the coin, but what about the settlement where it was found, how old is that? Naturally, I'm sure the actual investigators have considered this, but if that settlement doesn't date to the viking times, the coin could have been brought along by a later settler from Europe and could have ended there without it really being a hoax as such. So I would suggest some info would be added about what is known about the settlement.85.157.155.247 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)