
Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history - Thevet
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/discovery-vikings-newfoundland-canada-history-norse-point-rosee-l-anse-aux-meadows-a6965126.html
======
jernfrost
I am more interested in whether there is any way of find a connection between
Columbus and the Vikings. I've read stories before about how Columbus went to
Norway and got info there about the Viking exploration. But what I've read
just seemed like wild speculation then. Something more solid would have been
nice.

The reason why that is relevant is that the Viking discovery of America is of
no significance if it didn't help European discovery in any way. If the
knowledge was completely lost then it had not influence on history. A failed
settlement in Canada which nobody ever learned about makes no difference
whether it happened or not.

From what we know thus far it caused no technology transfer to the native
americans and there is no proof it advanced european discovery in any way.

I am Norwegian, so I kind of have a vested interest in seeing something that
gives the Viking discovery some sort of purpose.

~~~
0x07c0
Thor Heyerdahl had this theory _, Columbus did not go to Norway but his family
is of the Norwegian Nobel Bonde family. They lost a power struggle, and had to
go abroad, to Genova . This as I recall is based on a book written by a family
member of Columbus, think the brother(if he had one). Stating that the name of
the family is not from Italy, but it a Latinifaction of the original language
from where the family is from. Bonde means farmer (In Norwegian), Columbus
apparently means something of the same. He should then know about Vinland
(name of America given by Norse explorer) from his family roots in Norway. I
also think part of the theory also was him being a period (some years)aboard a
Danish or Norwegian ship, this would have given him hint of a land on the
other side of the ocean. Also there are Danish tax records stating that the
fishing banks outside New Foundland was taxed by the Danish crown, from before
Columbus. There are also tails of Norse-Indian settlements encountered by
early settlers.. And I think some one found a Indian skeleton in Denmark or
Norway some years back.

_ Only article I found.. (In Norwegian)

[http://tux1.aftenposten.no/kul_und/kultur/d105453.htm](http://tux1.aftenposten.no/kul_und/kultur/d105453.htm)

Some more sources here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Amer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas)

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Of course a famous Norwegian thinks Columbus is Scandinavian! I'm reminded of
the phrase Samuel Eliot Morrison used in his books on the European Discovery
of America-"Scandinavery". Its about as realistic as the "runes" discovered in
the midwest in the late 19th century. There's a bit of a cottage industry in
the US of various ethnic groups either claiming Columbus was really one of
their own, or claiming that some other ethnic group (theirs, coincidentally!)
actually discovered America.

~~~
elcapitan
Everybody knows that Columbus was German!

~~~
jo6gwb
In 1492 Columbus was a Jew.

------
Jonathanks
I'm not very knowledgeable in history but I find this interesting: In his
book, "We Are Not The First (Riddles of Ancient Science)", Andrew Tomas argued
for a possible knowledge of the existence of other continents, particularly
North America, by the ancients. He writes: "Plato must have been cognizant of
the great size of our globe, and of other continents, because he said in
Phaedo that the Mediterranean people occupied 'only a small portion of the
earth'. 'Besides the world we inhabit, there may be one or more other worlds
peopled by beings different from ourselves,' wrote Strabo (1st century BC). He
even mentioned that if the parallel of Athens were extended westward---across
the Atlantic, these other races might live there in the temperate zone,
clearly alluding to North America. ... Did the scholars of antiquity know
about America? Seneca (1st century), the tragedian, confirms this supposition
by his famous verse in the Medea: There shall come a time When the bands of
Ocean Shall be loosened, And the vast Earth shall be laid open, Another Tiphys
shall disclose new worlds, And lands shall be seen beyond Thules.

New lands 'beyond Thules', or Iceland, could be nothing but Greenland and
North America."

That's inspiring. So, before the Vikings, the New World wasn't an
impossibility. It was in fact as old as any other point on Earth.

~~~
douche
Well, in the 3rd century BCE, Eratothenes calculated a fairly accurate
circumference of the earth. I don't know how widely accepted this measurement
was, but, given that measurement, and the general distribution of land vs
ocean observed by the ancients, it's not a huge stretch to assume that there
must be something out there on the other side of the world. Some of the early
world maps were remarkably accurate, at least for the areas that were well-
known to the geographers, even given the very limited tools at their
disposal[1].

There's also the curious case of the apparent Roman-era shipwreck that was
discovered off the coast of Brazil[2]. It's a little tinfoil-hatty, and
possibly a hoax, but it is interesting.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_world_maps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_world_maps)

[2]
[http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1042040/pg1](http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1042040/pg1)

~~~
Jonathanks
There are similar accounts in that book and it all seemed not-so-extraordinary
until I got to the accounts of maps that described features of Antarctica.
Whether it's true or a hoax, the human mind is amazing. The book contains
accounts of evidence of tides of human civilization: planned cities in
Pakistan, well-developed waste management systems, advanced ship building and
navigation (for the time they lived), possible advances in weapons and
warfare, including nuclear weapons (evidence in an Indian desert and writings
describing a nuclear explosion), writings describing space travel and some
other marvels of the ancient world.

~~~
losteric
> planned cities in Pakistan, well-developed waste management systems,
> advanced ship building, [...] nuclear weapons

One of these is not like the other...

------
gooserock
If you want to know more about the Norse accounts of America and how their
presence in Newfoundland was originally discovered, I recommend listening to
my podcast - the Born Yesterday podcast - about it. It's one of my best
episodes, I think:
[http://bornyesterdaypodcast.com/#episode5](http://bornyesterdaypodcast.com/#episode5)

~~~
WhoBeI
Very nice. Well done and lots of information.

I'll be back. Particularly interested in the stuff about South American
history because, well, I don't know much about it beyond the genocides and
events connected to them.

------
restalis
_" The unearthing of a stone used in iron working on Newfoundland, hundreds of
miles south from the only known Viking site in North America, suggests the
Vikings may have traveled much further into the continent than previously
thought."_

Newfoundland is an island! I understand that there may be an implicit
assumption that they most likely had to touch the continent before getting
there but this isn't neither a fact (only a speculation) nor "much further
into the continent".

~~~
dalke
There are multiple definitions of "continent". See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Extent_of_continents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Extent_of_continents)
. These include:

> From the perspective of geology or physical geography, continent may be
> extended beyond the confines of continuous dry land to include the shallow,
> submerged adjacent area (the continental shelf)[6] and the islands on the
> shelf (continental islands), as they are structurally part of the continent

and:

> As a cultural construct, the concept of a continent may go beyond the
> continental shelf to include oceanic islands and continental fragments. In
> this way, Iceland is considered part of Europe and Madagascar part of
> Africa.

~~~
restalis
_" continent may be extended beyond the confines of continuous dry land to
include the shallow, submerged adjacent area (the continental shelf)"_

Well then, Vikings definitely discovered America because they continuously
inhabited Iceland, which sits on both North American and Eurasian continental
tectonic plates.

EDIT: Followed the suggestion.

~~~
dalke
If you're so interested in details like that, then you surely know that humans
were on North America thousands of years before the Norse, so the Norse didn't
"discover" America any more than John Cabot or Christopher Columbus did.

(Of course, you are using a different definition of discover; more like how I
discovered a great hamburger restaurant in town, even though many others knew
of it. I am highlighting how one must be aware of multiple shades of meaning,
and not assume there is only one.)

In any case, I gave two additional definitions, to show that yours was not the
only, nor even the most common, definition. Your response now concerns only
the geological one. However, that is not the definition in use here. The
third, cultural definition places Iceland as part of Europe. This article
appears to concern that modern, cultural definition, not a geographical or
geological one.

For similar cultural reasons we say that people from Hawaii are Americans
despite Hawaii not being on a continental plate, or that Los Angeles and
Catalina Island are part of North America. We also say that Columbus came to
America in 1492 even though he didn't get to a continental mainland until his
third voyage in 1498, when he reached what is now Venezuela.

As you are someone who cares about correct names, may I suggest you use the
terms "North American Plate" and "Eurasian Plate" for the two plates which
meet at Iceland, not "American" and "European"?

~~~
jernfrost
I think discovery always has to relate to its impact with respect to a
society. E.g. when a biologist discovers a plant, it is about categorizing it,
describing it and publishing his/her findings. That people in the area already
know and use the plant isn't really relevant in this context.

Likewise from a European perspective or from the perspective of everybody else
not living in north and south America Columbus made a real discovery. To take
an extreme example, if a single person goes to an unknown island and stays
there, that isn't a discovery, since nobody else gets to learn about it. To be
a discovery you have to come back and spread the knowledge.

We all carry DNA inside us but but somebody had to discover it, in the sense
of documenting and explaining it to everybody else.

I frankly find this frequent criticism of euro centric world view a bit
pedantic. Modern history is naturally euro centric because the present day all
across the planet has been strongly shaped by events that happened in Europe.
One of those watershed events was Columbus discovery of America. The effects
of that had major implication all the way to China, India and Africa.

Should China come to dominate the world in the future, Chinese history would
naturally become more significant in world history than today. Understanding
the processes that lead to modern day China would be important if modern day
China strongly affected all countries around the globe.

To some extent that is already the case, which is why Chinese history is more
important than say Olmec or Inca history.

~~~
dalke
I read this as a criticism of something I didn't actually write or intend.

I said there are often multiple meanings, and correct understanding requires
knowing that there are multiple valid meanings, and knowing the context enough
to select the intended one. Remember, restalis started by complaining that
"continent" should not include islands. I pointed out that there are multiple
definitions for continent, including widely used ones which include islands.

restalis then argued that the Norse discovered America by reaching western
Iceland, which is on the North American plate. Now, I happen to believe that
many people discovered America, for different definitions of "discover" and
"America". Some definitions are more useful and appropriate than others.

My response was meant to highlight that it's unwise to insist on one of
several correct definitions of "continent" then turn around and use a non-
standard definition of "discovered America" which is more like "first European
to set foot on land on the North American plate." Nor do I think it's a useful
definition.

You want to use the more standard definition, which is Euro centric for the
reasons you described. I'm also fine with that definition. My point has always
been that there are multiple definitions with different cultural contexts. I
don't think it makes sense to complain about one usage by pulling it out of a
valid context and insisting it must fit into another context.

You seem to have interpreted my counter-example as an insistence that it is
the only possible counter-example. I mentioned it because restalis' definition
used "North American Plate". I needed something which pre-dated the Norse
settlement of Iceland. I realize now that I could have pointed to the the pre-
Norse Celtic monks on Iceland, though that just shows that there are multiple
objections to restalis' new definition, not that mine is fundamentally wrong.

I think you will have no problems in saying that Leif Erikson and his extended
family discovered Newfoundland? Vinland and Markland did affect Norse society
on Greenland, and the Norse spread knowledge of it, which we still know about
through the sagas and in the Descriptio insularum Aquilonis. By your own
definition, the Norse discovered America, yes?

If the Norse did not discover America, when do you think Columbus _did_? 1492,
when he and his crew found some islands and returned to Europe to report? Or
the third voyage, when Columbus was at the mouth of the Orinoco and surmised
there was a large land mass to be discovered? Or when Amerigo Vespucci
demonstrated that it was a new continent, and not part of Asia? I think all
three can be applicable moments of discovery.

Even in the scientific literature, discoveries are made multiple times. The
Cooley–Tukey algorithm for FFT, for example, was described by Gauss, though
his posthumous publication was not influential. In my own field, we use the
"Tanimoto similarity" based indirectly on work Tanimoto did in the 1950s, even
though "Jaccard index" is the more widely used term and Jaccard published in
the 1910s.

History is complicated.

------
skc
Good, means we can get a season five of "Vikings"

~~~
distances
The Last Kingdom is frankly better. Though it's about the events in the
British Isles, so colonisation of the New World won't likely show up there..

~~~
fsiefken
yes, the last kingdom is better (2nd season end this year), it's based on a
book series by bernard cornwell:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saxon_Stories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saxon_Stories)

------
mentatghola
PBS is airing a program about the discovery tonight, called "Vikings
Unearthed". [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/vikings-
unearthed.html](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/vikings-unearthed.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
There's a similar sounding piece on BBC iPlayer at the moment,
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b076r0sr/the-vikings-
un...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b076r0sr/the-vikings-uncovered).
Haven't seen it yet though.

------
staticelf
As a Swede currently listening on the newly released album of Amon Amarth,
this is cool news. I'm proud of you, long dead ancestors!

------
gshubert17
Author Farley Mowat writes that even before the Vikings, North America was
discovered and settled by Europeans originating from Orkney who reached Canada
after a generation-spanning migration that used Iceland and Greenland as
'stepping stones'. Mowat's ideas are controversial and have been accused of
being over-speculative.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farfarers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farfarers)

~~~
jbattle
Another good one - speculation that proto-norse were involved in a copper
trade network spanning from Michigan to North Africa, and left some runes (in
a Moroccan script no less) in Ontario.

[http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/bronze5.htm](http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/bronze5.htm)

------
avip
This comes to mind:
[http://philippe.ameline.net/images/ScienceNewsCycle.png](http://philippe.ameline.net/images/ScienceNewsCycle.png)

Should have a dedicated "archaeological news" version.

------
easytiger
Hardly rewrite, but extend existing knowledge and confirm the veracity of the
Sagas

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Indeed.

The sagas describe the discovered land as Vinland because they found wild
grapes growing everywhere.

Which does not describe Newfoundland, especially not the northern tip of it
where the L'anse aux Meadows sits. (I've been there. It's cold and desolate.
We watched icebergs float around 100 feet from the shore).

But up the gulf of St Lawrence a bit you'll find wild populations of vitis
riparia growing like crazy.

Given this new site shows them as having traversed the western shore of
Newfoundland and mined iron, presumably for the purpose of producing nails to
build ships, I can't see why they would not have gone further up the gulf of
St Lawrence, maybe as far as modern day Quebec City or Montreal.

It would be interesting to know what historical levels of the river was at
that time. Maybe archaeological evidence is underwater.

~~~
alephnil
The sagas was also mostly written down in the 11th century, long time after
the event, based on the oral tradition. Although they put more pride into
retelling stories accuratly back then, it is not unlikely that the details had
altered during that period. There are many other sides of the sagas that have
proven inaccurate.

For the sea level, this is areas that was covered by ice during the last ice
age, and these areas have been rising since then. Some areas, like around the
Botnian Sea, is still rising even today, so archaeological sites that was on
the seashore will be there or slightly inland.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Eastern North America is the genetic centre of diversity for the Vitis genus,
and the likely ancestral origin of it. So it is somewhat fitting that the
Norse explorers named it Vinland and explicitly called it out as something
they observed.

------
hutzlibu
Does anyone know if there have been research about a possible genetic mixture
with vikings and american native tribes?

~~~
douche
Seems doubtful, simply because of the really, really small numbers of Norse
that ever would have been in North America. Between the stories in the Sagas
and the size of L'Anse aux Meadows, I would bet that you could put the ceiling
on the number of Scandinavians who set foot in Vinland before 1500 at about a
thousand, being generous.

~~~
rpledge
It would be diffuclt to test as the Beothuk (the native people who lived on
Newfoundland) sadly have been extinct for a while.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk)

~~~
hutzlibu
Ah... thanks for the link, because ...

>In 2010, a team of European researchers announced the discovery of a
previously unknown mitochondrial DNA sequence in Iceland, which they further
suggest may have New World origins. If the latter is true, one possible
explanation for its appearance in modern Iceland would be from the capture and
removal of a Native American woman, possibly a Beothuk

------
yoavm
so it's a git rebase history!

------
Ivoah
Is it bad that the first thing I thought when I saw the title was "How can a
website be 1,000 years old?"

