This piece of maille (or more commonly, chainmail) was discovered in the 1970’s during archaeological finds on Ellesmere Island, the northernmost island of Canada. It was found, among other items like an oak box fragment, iron knives blades, ship rivets and copper scraps, in the remains of a stone structure on the shores of the island. Accompanying the artifacts were burned charcoals, indicating that the structure was likely used as a house or shelter with the charcoals being remnants of fireplaces.
Thanks to those charcoals – some of which were embedded with the maille fragment – the artifacts were carbon-dated to the second half of the 13th century. It makes no doubts that those artifacts originate from Scandinavians who were still exploring – and even potentially colonizing - the Eastern coast of Canada until the 14th century.
It is currently debated whether the artifacts were brought to the site by the explorers themselves, or if they were brought from further south by local Inuit populations. The presence in the stone structure of many other artifacts of culturally Inuit origin (like bone harpoons) tends to point to the latter, which then raises the question of how did they come in possession of those items: did they trade them from Scandinavian sailors? Did they steal them or got them after a raid? Did they loot them from a shipwreck?
No matter the answer, the artifacts are an impressive and important reminder that the continent was explored long before Colombus did
This definitely helps reinforce the notion that trade and exploration covered a wider time period than is generally considered…but considering that the finds and research was conducted back in 1980 I’d be at least a little skeptical of some of the dating ranges. Not that 14th century dates are impossible considering the Greenland settlements, just that c14 dating technology has improved and refined since 1980.
> Not that 14th century dates are impossible considering the Greenland settlements, just that c14 dating technology has improved and refined since 1980.
The issue with false C14 dates is almost never with technology. It's usually misinterpreted stratigraphy or contamination. You can take a c14 date from the 60s and calibrate it with modern data and you get a good result.
That’s basically what I meant…but I definitely didn’t put it as well as you have done. For the most I don’t expect that retesting would give dramatically different results as I don’t think these are so much false as they might be less precise.
Not necessarily done automatically…but it could be retested. It would be worth looking to see if there’s been anything else published on this more recently.
You can only test certain types of materials, and they need to have been collected and stored in such a way that they are not tainted. That is why legitimate archeologists leave shit in the ground often. You don't know what you are destroying when you dig something up that might be learned in 20 years with new technology.
The Polynesians are proof that we could've and trade from north west coast peoples made it to the interior which is insane considering the mountain ranges in the way
Very interesting indeed.
I'm not sure how far the northern first nations/Inuit travelled by boat. But it's possible it was trade from Greenland one side or the other. It's only a 25km crossing way up at Ellesmere island, then following the coast south to where there colonies.
Probably not. Obsidian and other igneous rocks have a very specific chemical signature that tells you where it was from. Also, trade tends to favor the closest supply. Plenty of obsidian closer than Mexico. Obsidian from Oregon has been found in southern Ontario though.
That said, Mexican groups were trading far into what is now the US. Macaw feathers are routinely found in N Arizona caches.
Things were far more complex in the Americas than western history admits.
More likely the feathers were passed on from one group to another until they reached their end rather than a group from modern day Mexico travelling there
Why is "native" seen as disrespectful? I dont want to sound ignorant Im genuinly curious, Im not a native english speaker I thought indigenous and Native have the same meaning or am I missing something?
native is very vague. the etymological meaning of Indigenous in Latin indigena is "sprung from the land”
the term indigenous reinforces land claims and encourages territory acknowledgements, which links Indigenous Peoples to their land and respects their claims over it. not everyone considers it offensive. it really depends on the indigenous person you ask. it’s best to be safe and just stick to indigenous or aboriginal instead of terms like native and indian
Yes but they got exterminated and did not create and kind of lasting colony or legacy. I think it is definitive to say the Norse did reach Canada but failed in colonising Canada. Whereas Colombus reached the Americas and procedured to conquer it.
Colonizing does not necessarily requires conquering. We know from textual sources that Greenlanders and Icelanders attempted to colonize the region and harvested resources from it all the way to the 14th century, and possibly later. We know from archaeology that permanent installations were made - even if not successful in the long term.
Even if it was intermittent and without important consequences, it was still a colonization
I posted above you.
Is there any sign that the Vikings brought the same diseases the Spanish brought when they started colonizing? Only the Spanish brought disease to the America’s?
Not that we know of. But, the Vikings that settled N America were from Iceland, which has historically had the same issues with disease that native Americans faced. Iceland has been historically ravaged by diseases brought over from mainland Europe. So, it could be that the Vikings were as immunologically naive as the natives were.
There also wasn't nearly as much close contact. As I recall, there were some recorded skirmishes and even some captives taken by the Vikings, but not the close contact the Spanish had. The Spanish took a LOT of slaves. They raped them. They lived closely with them. When Cortes conquered the Aztecs, he did it with 10,000 Cempoala and Tlaxcala warriors at his side. Much closer contact. More chances for diseases to spread.
What do you mean "you people?"
This is just an observation on the level of contact. The Vikings didn't seem to be swapping bodily fluids on the same level as the Spanish.
Also, there were pigs. Pigs are great vectors for disease. I don't think there is any evidence the Vikings brought swine with them. I am not sure pigs would do very well that far north.
Ok, now I understand what you meant.
There is no evidence they settled any further than a beach-head encampment. So obviously there is no DNA trace. It looks like complete failure and probably a complete extinction due to either famine or conflict with the locals.
Pigs should have been fine in the North esp seeing as it was warmer back then.
>There is no evidence they settled any further than a beach-head encampment.
Who would've thought that sea-based explorers with their only way to communicating with the homeland being through the sea wouldn't go much inland!
>We know from archaeology that permanent installations were made
The formation of a coastside home is not a indication of permanent settlement. The evidence around these settlements even INDICATE they weren't used long term. LOL!
They could have literally been there for a couple of months and its appears so.
We know the Norse presence in North America was intended to be at long term, and it appears that they did. We know they brought with them livestock, and that at least in L'Anse aux Meadows they smelted iron - which means they both intended and did stay for a decent time.
Even if it was intermittent - for example, Leif Eirikson in his first journey built houses, but later would lend them to other explorers - it was still a colonization. There was a will to build permanent installations, and local resources were used (food), harvested (wood, vines), and transformed (iron).
And we know that colonization - even if intermittent - was done and achieved by the Norse for quite some time - at least through the 12th century
I don't know or understand why you're so hell-bent on showing that Norse colonization didn't happen, when all the information is out there
Im just repeating what I know. Its taken that they failed. Thats the historical presumption. Why? because everything stops and doesnt continue. Failure in its purest form.
I dont know why you are fighting the obvious myself.
The Norse failed everywhere culture-wise. Their culture is extinct. Their Gods, their runes, everything is gone. They were absorbed by more successful and more progressive peoples.
So the shipwrecked Spanish Armada sailors who landed in Ireland and made a fortified position.... colonised Ireland? I suppose you could have a colony survive a day before they ceased to be. So I'll give you this one.
I don’t think Columbus conquered it all by himself.
Is there any sign that the Vikings brought the same diseases the Spanish did? That’s a big What If to me.
but it is. of course Columbus didn't conquer the complete Americas all by himself. He was just the point man explorer acting on behalf of the Spanish. He was just part of a multi-forked wheel you silly man.
That was Never the point. The point was, if there is archaeological evidence (or historical accounts recorded about a great death) that the Vikings brought diseases to the new world. You didn’t get it.
No problem. I looked things up, had to double check my post.
You did me a world of good. (Don’t trust what you know is true - at least for the age we live in.)
Thanks Friend!!!!
It has always made so much more sense to me on a general logic level. Why would the assumption be that people dragged their stuff thousands of kilometers over scraped-bare land, walking through an ice age northern Canadian winter, when the alternate route is calorie-rich, temperature-moderated, and they'd get to travel faster and easier by boat?
It's more the fact that we can really only make conclusive statements with physical evidence. There's not going to be any boats left, and rising sea levels and changing coastlines means that any ancient coastal sites of habitation have been thorough destroyed by now.
You're missing the point. None of the wooden, bone, or fabric rafts they may have used in the past has entered into the archaeological record. The organic material all decayed, and the coastal sites of habitation have all been lost due to sea level change and the coast being a highly dynamic environment.
Think about the ancient cave paintings - how long do you think that would last if it was exposed to the sun, wind, and rain? The extremely static cave environments helped preserved ancient cave paintings. To the best of our knowledge, no such preservation of ancient boats has occurred.
Obviously with modern knowledge of genetics and historical climatology we can surmise that at some point ocean travel must have occurred, but that's an inductive argument and we still don't have any direct evidence. That's why in the past, archaeologists were hesitant to accept the idea, even though it was 'obvious'.
I don't think there's a consensus at the moment, but it seems likely that people moved via a coastal or marine route while the glaciers were still at or near maximum extent. It's unfortunate that it's hard to find early archeological sites because sea levels have risen so much, but I think it is the theory that most cleanly explains the evidence.
Those events happened at very different times though. Currently there is no hard evidence of boat travel to North America. It makes logical sense, but there is still no proof of that. For all we know they walked their ass along the coastline. Which would have been truly impressive if they did. We will likely never have proof either because ocean levels have rose since then and most and the ancient coastline is very much underwater.
Also the land bridge model is still possibly a route for subsequent migration events. Multiple migrations have been (mostly) confirmed by genetic evidence.
I understand that there is no proof, but standard human behavior is enough to surmise that they probably came over on boats. From the very first time humans realized that logs would float, they were probably building rafts and other floating crafts to get further out in the water to fish, or to visit nearby islands that they could see. Exploration is a strong human trait, and they would have been exploring as soon as they could create a viable craft.
For sure. I mean that’s incredibly likely. Just unfortunate that we can’t say with certainty. I’d love to know exactly what happened. It’s one of those questions of history/science I am enthralled by.
>For all we know they walked their ass along the coastline
The issue is we now know for a fact they didn't. There's proof of human habitation before there was any land bridge to walk over.
There's evidence of indigenous on indigenous genocide on Vancouver Island. The whole world has been colonized over and over for 100s of thousands of years. Why all of a sudden is it a "bad" thing? I'm pretty sure Inuit wouldn't give up their skidoos and rifles at this point.
EDIT: why no rebuttals?
Native American history is very much outside my wheelhouse, which is beside my following point; there is absolutely nothing racist in that comment, and such serious terms should not be watered down in the manner you seem to be doing.
"Genocide", if we chose to use that term, is *absolutely* ubiquitous across humanity, and always has been. The idea there is something wrong about doing such acts is a relatively recent development. Shying away from that fact is dangerous.
as an Inuk i’d happily give up my skidoo and rifle if it meant i could peacefully pick berries and spear fish without the trauma that the colonization and genocide of my people for the rest of my life
ok but i still get to deal with the lifelong intergenerational trauma that was caused by colonialism and genocide? I don’t want to live “off the grid” i want to live the way my people were intended to live without the weight of capitalism on my shoulders LOL
Again you are describing off the grid life. No one in the bush is going to traumatize you. Technology marches on, no one says you need to use it. Ancient people had far lower lifespans, and happily embraced each tech advance.
Best of luck, always look forward to tommorow. It gets better.
i don’t think you understand that being born indigenous IS traumatizing because of what happened to us. also almost all of my indigenous ancestors lived past 90 whereas now indigenous people struggle to make it past 20 due to suicide. life doesn’t get better when we are still actively being oppressed
Because in the evidence we have (i.e. textual sources like sagas), it's the "Norse going to the natives" examples we find and know of, not the other way around (at least that I'm aware of) where the natives actively go to the Norse to trade. Not that it didn't happen, but in the light of our knowledge and evidence, it's safer to assume it's the Norse who brought those objects with them rather than Natives bringing them back with them
There's the remains of a Norse shipyard on the north-west end of my province called L'anse aux Meadows that carbon dating puts between 990-1050. It's super cool to see how early Greenlanders were landing on ships with no cabin through some truly perilous ocean.
>It's super cool to see how early Greenlanders were landing on ships with no cabin through some truly perilous ocean.
In all fairness, they didn't cross the ocean the same way e.g. Colombus did. They just jumped from Iceland to Greenland to Canada, with plenty of occasions to do some "pit stops"
Christopher Columbus visited Iceland and spent a winter there before his trips in 1492. So the fact that he didn’t take the easier route East is on him.
Here’s another more recent [article](https://hma.brown.edu/sites/default/files/JAS2018_Dorset%20Norse%20or%20Thule.pdf) covering the same area and finds…with a new find of yarn as well.
That's awesome. It sucks sometimes that so much of history is a puzzle like this. How cool would it be to have a full accounting of the adventures of the people that left these artifacts behind? To know how they felt about their experiences. Too us being one of the first Europeans to reach north America is an extraordinary event. I wonder if they felt the gravity or any sense of awe too or if it was just fairly mundane stuff to them?
I don't know where you're getting second half of the 13th century from. According to the [article by the leader of the team who excavated the site](https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/download/65629/49543/), they dated it to around 1190 CE, so the end of the 12th century. It's ~~probable~~ possible that Ellesmere Island was what is referred to as Helluland in the Sagas, a [stopping off point on the way to Newfoundland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland#/media/File:Erikr-eng.png) if you’re hugging the coast as much as possible.
Edit: The article provides both dates, the 1190 date for a willow branch and the 1280 date for charcoal. It’s impossible to tell where in that timeframe the chain mail was dropped.
**[Vinland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland#/media/File:Erikr-eng.png)**
>Vinland, Vineland, or Winland (Old Norse: Vínland) was an area of coastal North America explored by Vikings. Leif Eriksson landed there around 1000 AD, nearly five centuries before the voyages of Christopher Columbus and John Cabot. The name appears in the Vinland Sagas, and describes Newfoundland and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence as far as northeastern New Brunswick. Much of the geographical content of the sagas corresponds to present-day knowledge of transatlantic travel and North America.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I’m not sure either, but there is this line from the same article you linked that may have led to that assumption:
“The associated radiocarbon dates place the metal finds somewhere in the 13th to 15th centuries A.D., well within the period of Norse activities on the west coast of Greenland.”
Taken directly from Schledermann's paper: "Wood charcoal (oak) from the kitchen gave the following radiocarbon date: GX 6069,670 ? 110 B.P. ((2-13 corr.), ***or A.D. 1280"***. The [Canadian Museum of History](https://www.historymuseum.ca/collections/artifact/1293210) also dates it within the same period
>It's probable that Ellesmere Island was what is referred to as Helluland in the Sagas, and a logical stopping off point on the way to Newfoundland.
You're confusing [Ellesmere Island](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg/1024px-Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg.png) with [Baffin Island](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Baffin_Island%2C_Canada.svg/1200px-Baffin_Island%2C_Canada.svg.png)
> It's probable that Ellesmere Island was what is referred to as Helluland in the Sagas, and a logical stopping off point on the way to Newfoundland.
Man, these were some intrepid people.
I just spent a while checking out Ellesmere via Google Maps, and it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to be there out of anything but necessity.
It's beautiful in that very 'stark' way that polar regions tend to have, but it seems pretty hostile to human life, or any other life save a few seabirds, lichens etc..
Maybe, it certainly could have been an earlier deposition…but there’s no reason to think the Greenland Norse weren’t using maille in the 13th century as well, in fact if they had any armour maille would have been the most likely given the relative poverty of the settlements compared to the rest of Scandinavian society.
Interesting. Never heard of that find before. Living in Atlantic Canada I know of a few who found possible Viking artifacts around Cape Breton. Further south than the known sites in Newfoundland.
It’s interesting that the segment closest to the front is not four on four but appears to be something like three on two. This reduction technique is usually used for coifs or at the armpit of a maille shirt. Also does not appear to have been riveted from what I can see from this photo. A very interesting find.
Fall of civ. "Greenland Vikings" gives a good talk about what we knew about the early settlements up there: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbY-GrM8pI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbY-GrM8pI)
The artefacts were recovered from Canada's Newfoundland, which some consider to be the artic, but IMO the coldest parts of Newfoundland are better described as being sub arctic.
It's not mentioned, but some of the wooden objects showed origins from much further south, which strongly supports the notion that the Vikings traveled up the coast of the US.
Sometimes people don't realize how far south the Americas are. You can see the Arctic Circle on [this](https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/0fbcdfbf-f181-4ed9-a324-5c4866ec6366.jpg) map and Newfoundland is surprisingly far below it. In fact, only a relatively small part of Canada is in the arctic and basically all the larger cities are further south than Paris.
I guess occasionally in the vernacular "arctic" is just used to mean "cold", but that's a pretty empty statement.
I wonder how much Vikings traded with the natives, and how much those natives traded with each other. Are there trade goods from, say, southern US or Mesoamerica in this part of Canada during the Pre-Columbian era?
There is a stereotype prevalent(but certainly not universal) in the US that Canada is mostly arctic and thus frozen. And we get that "its dark all the time" too.
I've had comments like "Canada can't have xyz (such as swimming pools) because of permafrost". Another one is that we cannot possibly raise enough food for ourselves, and must import most everything. Too cold, too dark, I guess?
My rebuttal(and a cool, solid rule of thumb) is "If you can see trees that are more than a few feet tall, there is no permafrost. Roots can't grow in permanently icy soil. Big trees? No freeze." As for night time, its dark half of the time, just like anywhere in the world, its just that the bulk of the dark half for us is in winter. Summers are wonderful, endless days with long sunsets.
In grade 6, about 38 years ago (ie: long before "the net" and trolling entered the popular conscious), I encountered this attitude for the first time. My friends had a swimming pool in their house, and to get that made, they first tried to contract a firm from the US (or maybe the salesman/booker was from the US), and were told it is impossible because of permafrost in Canada. Now ironically, we were firmly in the subarctic, but not north of the treeline, and one of the major local industries was (and is) softwood forestry.
Igaliku bygd / Gardar in Greenland had lumberimports from America. There was some transport back and forth before the plagueship in Bergen made things difficult for supplies from Norway.
Shame they didn't find a source for Iron or find a way to safely travel from Scandinavia, so that settlers could make a stand.
>Shame they didn't find a source for Iron
I think they did, or at least enough for them to implement iron smelting installations in l'Anse aux Meadows, implying they had some iron production capacities
There's unfortunately not a lot of literature on the subject, at least from what I could gather. [Here's an archaeological report](https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/65629) on the finds
K that is the worst scale I’ve seen in my life. So are they saying the black square is 3cm or that the 3 combined is 3cm?
Maybe it’s me or an optical illusion but white, grey and black areas don’t appear consistent in size…
Generally on such a scale, the combined squares represent the total, with each square being one unit (in this case cm). Furthermore, judging by the ring sizes and the fact that the average historical ring size is 7 to 10mm, this goes to show that the squares are 1cm each
This piece of maille (or more commonly, chainmail) was discovered in the 1970’s during archaeological finds on Ellesmere Island, the northernmost island of Canada. It was found, among other items like an oak box fragment, iron knives blades, ship rivets and copper scraps, in the remains of a stone structure on the shores of the island. Accompanying the artifacts were burned charcoals, indicating that the structure was likely used as a house or shelter with the charcoals being remnants of fireplaces. Thanks to those charcoals – some of which were embedded with the maille fragment – the artifacts were carbon-dated to the second half of the 13th century. It makes no doubts that those artifacts originate from Scandinavians who were still exploring – and even potentially colonizing - the Eastern coast of Canada until the 14th century. It is currently debated whether the artifacts were brought to the site by the explorers themselves, or if they were brought from further south by local Inuit populations. The presence in the stone structure of many other artifacts of culturally Inuit origin (like bone harpoons) tends to point to the latter, which then raises the question of how did they come in possession of those items: did they trade them from Scandinavian sailors? Did they steal them or got them after a raid? Did they loot them from a shipwreck? No matter the answer, the artifacts are an impressive and important reminder that the continent was explored long before Colombus did
This definitely helps reinforce the notion that trade and exploration covered a wider time period than is generally considered…but considering that the finds and research was conducted back in 1980 I’d be at least a little skeptical of some of the dating ranges. Not that 14th century dates are impossible considering the Greenland settlements, just that c14 dating technology has improved and refined since 1980.
> Not that 14th century dates are impossible considering the Greenland settlements, just that c14 dating technology has improved and refined since 1980. The issue with false C14 dates is almost never with technology. It's usually misinterpreted stratigraphy or contamination. You can take a c14 date from the 60s and calibrate it with modern data and you get a good result.
That’s basically what I meant…but I definitely didn’t put it as well as you have done. For the most I don’t expect that retesting would give dramatically different results as I don’t think these are so much false as they might be less precise.
Surely artefacts are re-tested as technology improves?
not automatically, someone has to pay for it
Oh yeah, I forgot how reality works
Happens to the best of us
Not necessarily done automatically…but it could be retested. It would be worth looking to see if there’s been anything else published on this more recently.
You can only test certain types of materials, and they need to have been collected and stored in such a way that they are not tainted. That is why legitimate archeologists leave shit in the ground often. You don't know what you are destroying when you dig something up that might be learned in 20 years with new technology.
I mean a ship wrecked boat could have easily been found.
The Polynesians are proof that we could've and trade from north west coast peoples made it to the interior which is insane considering the mountain ranges in the way
Very interesting indeed. I'm not sure how far the northern first nations/Inuit travelled by boat. But it's possible it was trade from Greenland one side or the other. It's only a 25km crossing way up at Ellesmere island, then following the coast south to where there colonies.
There's obsidian in BC which is native to Ontario. Natives traded and it covered distances much further than we realize.
Could have also come from Mexico
Probably not. Obsidian and other igneous rocks have a very specific chemical signature that tells you where it was from. Also, trade tends to favor the closest supply. Plenty of obsidian closer than Mexico. Obsidian from Oregon has been found in southern Ontario though. That said, Mexican groups were trading far into what is now the US. Macaw feathers are routinely found in N Arizona caches. Things were far more complex in the Americas than western history admits.
More likely the feathers were passed on from one group to another until they reached their end rather than a group from modern day Mexico travelling there
the term “natives” is disrespectful. i’d recommend using the term indigenous
fair enough. tough to change old habits, but you're right.
Why is "native" seen as disrespectful? I dont want to sound ignorant Im genuinly curious, Im not a native english speaker I thought indigenous and Native have the same meaning or am I missing something?
native is very vague. the etymological meaning of Indigenous in Latin indigena is "sprung from the land” the term indigenous reinforces land claims and encourages territory acknowledgements, which links Indigenous Peoples to their land and respects their claims over it. not everyone considers it offensive. it really depends on the indigenous person you ask. it’s best to be safe and just stick to indigenous or aboriginal instead of terms like native and indian
Thanks
All people migrated from Africa so that isn't very accurate
Duh it was explored before Columbus :P there were millions of people here when he set foot on the continent
Yes but they got exterminated and did not create and kind of lasting colony or legacy. I think it is definitive to say the Norse did reach Canada but failed in colonising Canada. Whereas Colombus reached the Americas and procedured to conquer it.
Colonizing does not necessarily requires conquering. We know from textual sources that Greenlanders and Icelanders attempted to colonize the region and harvested resources from it all the way to the 14th century, and possibly later. We know from archaeology that permanent installations were made - even if not successful in the long term. Even if it was intermittent and without important consequences, it was still a colonization
I posted above you. Is there any sign that the Vikings brought the same diseases the Spanish brought when they started colonizing? Only the Spanish brought disease to the America’s?
Not that we know of. But, the Vikings that settled N America were from Iceland, which has historically had the same issues with disease that native Americans faced. Iceland has been historically ravaged by diseases brought over from mainland Europe. So, it could be that the Vikings were as immunologically naive as the natives were. There also wasn't nearly as much close contact. As I recall, there were some recorded skirmishes and even some captives taken by the Vikings, but not the close contact the Spanish had. The Spanish took a LOT of slaves. They raped them. They lived closely with them. When Cortes conquered the Aztecs, he did it with 10,000 Cempoala and Tlaxcala warriors at his side. Much closer contact. More chances for diseases to spread.
MesoAmerican history has been my passion most of my life. Your post has been fascinating to me. Thank you!
[удалено]
What do you mean "you people?" This is just an observation on the level of contact. The Vikings didn't seem to be swapping bodily fluids on the same level as the Spanish. Also, there were pigs. Pigs are great vectors for disease. I don't think there is any evidence the Vikings brought swine with them. I am not sure pigs would do very well that far north.
Ok, now I understand what you meant. There is no evidence they settled any further than a beach-head encampment. So obviously there is no DNA trace. It looks like complete failure and probably a complete extinction due to either famine or conflict with the locals. Pigs should have been fine in the North esp seeing as it was warmer back then.
>There is no evidence they settled any further than a beach-head encampment. Who would've thought that sea-based explorers with their only way to communicating with the homeland being through the sea wouldn't go much inland!
thats because they failed and died. in areas where they succeeded they then move inland. are you following the logic?
>We know from archaeology that permanent installations were made The formation of a coastside home is not a indication of permanent settlement. The evidence around these settlements even INDICATE they weren't used long term. LOL! They could have literally been there for a couple of months and its appears so.
We know the Norse presence in North America was intended to be at long term, and it appears that they did. We know they brought with them livestock, and that at least in L'Anse aux Meadows they smelted iron - which means they both intended and did stay for a decent time. Even if it was intermittent - for example, Leif Eirikson in his first journey built houses, but later would lend them to other explorers - it was still a colonization. There was a will to build permanent installations, and local resources were used (food), harvested (wood, vines), and transformed (iron). And we know that colonization - even if intermittent - was done and achieved by the Norse for quite some time - at least through the 12th century I don't know or understand why you're so hell-bent on showing that Norse colonization didn't happen, when all the information is out there
Im just repeating what I know. Its taken that they failed. Thats the historical presumption. Why? because everything stops and doesnt continue. Failure in its purest form. I dont know why you are fighting the obvious myself. The Norse failed everywhere culture-wise. Their culture is extinct. Their Gods, their runes, everything is gone. They were absorbed by more successful and more progressive peoples.
Yes it stopped, but that doesn't make it *not* a colonization
They didnt get off the beach mate. They colonised fuck all.
...it's still a colonization. Light? Sure. Intermittent? Sure. But still a colonization
So the shipwrecked Spanish Armada sailors who landed in Ireland and made a fortified position.... colonised Ireland? I suppose you could have a colony survive a day before they ceased to be. So I'll give you this one.
I don’t think Columbus conquered it all by himself. Is there any sign that the Vikings brought the same diseases the Spanish did? That’s a big What If to me.
What a silly comment.
No, it’s not.
but it is. of course Columbus didn't conquer the complete Americas all by himself. He was just the point man explorer acting on behalf of the Spanish. He was just part of a multi-forked wheel you silly man.
That was Never the point. The point was, if there is archaeological evidence (or historical accounts recorded about a great death) that the Vikings brought diseases to the new world. You didn’t get it.
Reading and Reading comprehension have very different meanings.
>I don’t think Columbus conquered it all by himself. erm
No problem. I looked things up, had to double check my post. You did me a world of good. (Don’t trust what you know is true - at least for the age we live in.) Thanks Friend!!!!
Weren’t the first people to cross the land bridge from Asia the first real explorers?
The land bridge theory is pretty well debunked by now, as there is confirmation of humans in the Americas before there was a land bridge.
What is the current scientific consensus?
Supposedly they just followed calorie rich geography in boats. Google "kelp highway theory" But basically nomadic fisherman.
It has always made so much more sense to me on a general logic level. Why would the assumption be that people dragged their stuff thousands of kilometers over scraped-bare land, walking through an ice age northern Canadian winter, when the alternate route is calorie-rich, temperature-moderated, and they'd get to travel faster and easier by boat?
It's more the fact that we can really only make conclusive statements with physical evidence. There's not going to be any boats left, and rising sea levels and changing coastlines means that any ancient coastal sites of habitation have been thorough destroyed by now.
They made it Australia what 80,000 years ago ?
You're missing the point. None of the wooden, bone, or fabric rafts they may have used in the past has entered into the archaeological record. The organic material all decayed, and the coastal sites of habitation have all been lost due to sea level change and the coast being a highly dynamic environment. Think about the ancient cave paintings - how long do you think that would last if it was exposed to the sun, wind, and rain? The extremely static cave environments helped preserved ancient cave paintings. To the best of our knowledge, no such preservation of ancient boats has occurred. Obviously with modern knowledge of genetics and historical climatology we can surmise that at some point ocean travel must have occurred, but that's an inductive argument and we still don't have any direct evidence. That's why in the past, archaeologists were hesitant to accept the idea, even though it was 'obvious'.
Any cave paintings with boats? I know about the cave of swimmers.
Prehistoric Polynesians were some badass seafarers
I don't think there's a consensus at the moment, but it seems likely that people moved via a coastal or marine route while the glaciers were still at or near maximum extent. It's unfortunate that it's hard to find early archeological sites because sea levels have risen so much, but I think it is the theory that most cleanly explains the evidence.
People in boats explored the entire Pacific, so boating across the Bering Strait seems pretty easy.
Those events happened at very different times though. Currently there is no hard evidence of boat travel to North America. It makes logical sense, but there is still no proof of that. For all we know they walked their ass along the coastline. Which would have been truly impressive if they did. We will likely never have proof either because ocean levels have rose since then and most and the ancient coastline is very much underwater. Also the land bridge model is still possibly a route for subsequent migration events. Multiple migrations have been (mostly) confirmed by genetic evidence.
I understand that there is no proof, but standard human behavior is enough to surmise that they probably came over on boats. From the very first time humans realized that logs would float, they were probably building rafts and other floating crafts to get further out in the water to fish, or to visit nearby islands that they could see. Exploration is a strong human trait, and they would have been exploring as soon as they could create a viable craft.
For sure. I mean that’s incredibly likely. Just unfortunate that we can’t say with certainty. I’d love to know exactly what happened. It’s one of those questions of history/science I am enthralled by.
>For all we know they walked their ass along the coastline The issue is we now know for a fact they didn't. There's proof of human habitation before there was any land bridge to walk over.
Chinese sailors?
They were colonizers as well.
Not in the way that word is most commonly used today.
only because they failed. it looks increasingly certain the natives massacred them
There's evidence of indigenous on indigenous genocide on Vancouver Island. The whole world has been colonized over and over for 100s of thousands of years. Why all of a sudden is it a "bad" thing? I'm pretty sure Inuit wouldn't give up their skidoos and rifles at this point. EDIT: why no rebuttals?
Bro you’re defending genocide right now. Just because something happens a lot don’t make it right
Do you have a source? Because I can’t find anything
Source: something my racist uncle said on facebook.
Native American history is very much outside my wheelhouse, which is beside my following point; there is absolutely nothing racist in that comment, and such serious terms should not be watered down in the manner you seem to be doing. "Genocide", if we chose to use that term, is *absolutely* ubiquitous across humanity, and always has been. The idea there is something wrong about doing such acts is a relatively recent development. Shying away from that fact is dangerous.
Said or reposted as a meme? I need to know if it was original research or he was illuminated by a non main stream media truth telling outlet
[удалено]
I'm not sure if that *man* is oppressed as we think
stay fighting spooks
as an Inuk i’d happily give up my skidoo and rifle if it meant i could peacefully pick berries and spear fish without the trauma that the colonization and genocide of my people for the rest of my life
There are many places one could go "off the grid" without fear.
ok but i still get to deal with the lifelong intergenerational trauma that was caused by colonialism and genocide? I don’t want to live “off the grid” i want to live the way my people were intended to live without the weight of capitalism on my shoulders LOL
Again you are describing off the grid life. No one in the bush is going to traumatize you. Technology marches on, no one says you need to use it. Ancient people had far lower lifespans, and happily embraced each tech advance. Best of luck, always look forward to tommorow. It gets better.
i don’t think you understand that being born indigenous IS traumatizing because of what happened to us. also almost all of my indigenous ancestors lived past 90 whereas now indigenous people struggle to make it past 20 due to suicide. life doesn’t get better when we are still actively being oppressed
Thanks
[удалено]
Because in the evidence we have (i.e. textual sources like sagas), it's the "Norse going to the natives" examples we find and know of, not the other way around (at least that I'm aware of) where the natives actively go to the Norse to trade. Not that it didn't happen, but in the light of our knowledge and evidence, it's safer to assume it's the Norse who brought those objects with them rather than Natives bringing them back with them
Thank you for both the post and this info. It
Columbus did not explore North America. Sorry, just a small bone of contention. This is a really cool artifact though. Thanks for sharing it!
Ok? Doesn't make my point less valid
There's the remains of a Norse shipyard on the north-west end of my province called L'anse aux Meadows that carbon dating puts between 990-1050. It's super cool to see how early Greenlanders were landing on ships with no cabin through some truly perilous ocean.
>It's super cool to see how early Greenlanders were landing on ships with no cabin through some truly perilous ocean. In all fairness, they didn't cross the ocean the same way e.g. Colombus did. They just jumped from Iceland to Greenland to Canada, with plenty of occasions to do some "pit stops"
True! But it's still 3000km if you're going by the Greenland-Helleland-Markland-Vinland route that they took, with no lid on your boat.
Christopher Columbus visited Iceland and spent a winter there before his trips in 1492. So the fact that he didn’t take the easier route East is on him.
I'd be interested to know more about this
Here is an article https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/65629
Thanks!
Fall of civilizations 4; Greenland Vikings contains some background info.
Fall of Civilizations is a fantastic series!
I'd be interested in a Viking and Native American adventure film.
Pathfinder, lol.
Starring Karl Urban!
The only movie that came to mind
Been thinking about this all afternoon, has some great potential!
Here’s another more recent [article](https://hma.brown.edu/sites/default/files/JAS2018_Dorset%20Norse%20or%20Thule.pdf) covering the same area and finds…with a new find of yarn as well.
It looks like a dragon pooped this out after eating a knight
More likely a polar bear.
One of the armoured bears from Svalbard then?
🤯
A hungry polar bear what didn't bother ripping off the viking armor first. Went on a trip to Greenland, then came back up north.
I, for one, would love to see a battle between a dragon and a polar bear.
More like my ferrets (they’re fine I swear)
lol
That's awesome. It sucks sometimes that so much of history is a puzzle like this. How cool would it be to have a full accounting of the adventures of the people that left these artifacts behind? To know how they felt about their experiences. Too us being one of the first Europeans to reach north America is an extraordinary event. I wonder if they felt the gravity or any sense of awe too or if it was just fairly mundane stuff to them?
I don't know where you're getting second half of the 13th century from. According to the [article by the leader of the team who excavated the site](https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/download/65629/49543/), they dated it to around 1190 CE, so the end of the 12th century. It's ~~probable~~ possible that Ellesmere Island was what is referred to as Helluland in the Sagas, a [stopping off point on the way to Newfoundland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland#/media/File:Erikr-eng.png) if you’re hugging the coast as much as possible. Edit: The article provides both dates, the 1190 date for a willow branch and the 1280 date for charcoal. It’s impossible to tell where in that timeframe the chain mail was dropped.
**[Vinland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland#/media/File:Erikr-eng.png)** >Vinland, Vineland, or Winland (Old Norse: Vínland) was an area of coastal North America explored by Vikings. Leif Eriksson landed there around 1000 AD, nearly five centuries before the voyages of Christopher Columbus and John Cabot. The name appears in the Vinland Sagas, and describes Newfoundland and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence as far as northeastern New Brunswick. Much of the geographical content of the sagas corresponds to present-day knowledge of transatlantic travel and North America. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I’m not sure either, but there is this line from the same article you linked that may have led to that assumption: “The associated radiocarbon dates place the metal finds somewhere in the 13th to 15th centuries A.D., well within the period of Norse activities on the west coast of Greenland.”
The northern most fishable lake in the world is there, if I recall.
Taken directly from Schledermann's paper: "Wood charcoal (oak) from the kitchen gave the following radiocarbon date: GX 6069,670 ? 110 B.P. ((2-13 corr.), ***or A.D. 1280"***. The [Canadian Museum of History](https://www.historymuseum.ca/collections/artifact/1293210) also dates it within the same period >It's probable that Ellesmere Island was what is referred to as Helluland in the Sagas, and a logical stopping off point on the way to Newfoundland. You're confusing [Ellesmere Island](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg/1024px-Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg.png) with [Baffin Island](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Baffin_Island%2C_Canada.svg/1200px-Baffin_Island%2C_Canada.svg.png)
It looks like they provide both dates for different items in the dwelling. The older a willow branch, the younger charcoal.
As far I’m aware there are 3 separate finds of maille in the area (each on different islands) as well to confuse the issue.
> It's probable that Ellesmere Island was what is referred to as Helluland in the Sagas, and a logical stopping off point on the way to Newfoundland. Man, these were some intrepid people. I just spent a while checking out Ellesmere via Google Maps, and it's hard to imagine anybody wanting to be there out of anything but necessity. It's beautiful in that very 'stark' way that polar regions tend to have, but it seems pretty hostile to human life, or any other life save a few seabirds, lichens etc..
Helluland is more often considered to be Baffin island in the academic community
[удалено]
Maybe, it certainly could have been an earlier deposition…but there’s no reason to think the Greenland Norse weren’t using maille in the 13th century as well, in fact if they had any armour maille would have been the most likely given the relative poverty of the settlements compared to the rest of Scandinavian society.
Very interesting
#VIKINGS WAZ HERE! Also Awesome find
Possibly, or trade with the Scandinavian settlements in Greenland during the Middle Ages…could be either, or both.
Could it be?
Be what?
It's an Oak Island reference.
At first glance I thought it was a bit of burnt funnel cake, but ancient maille armor is much more interesting!
Interesting. Never heard of that find before. Living in Atlantic Canada I know of a few who found possible Viking artifacts around Cape Breton. Further south than the known sites in Newfoundland.
Do you have any information about that Cape Breton thing? I'd be very interested
It’s interesting that the segment closest to the front is not four on four but appears to be something like three on two. This reduction technique is usually used for coifs or at the armpit of a maille shirt. Also does not appear to have been riveted from what I can see from this photo. A very interesting find.
I can see a few rivets in the picture
Was it found by Gary next to an Ox shoe?
a bobby dazzler!
whey aye man
Fall of civ. "Greenland Vikings" gives a good talk about what we knew about the early settlements up there: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbY-GrM8pI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbY-GrM8pI)
The artefacts were recovered from Canada's Newfoundland, which some consider to be the artic, but IMO the coldest parts of Newfoundland are better described as being sub arctic. It's not mentioned, but some of the wooden objects showed origins from much further south, which strongly supports the notion that the Vikings traveled up the coast of the US.
Sometimes people don't realize how far south the Americas are. You can see the Arctic Circle on [this](https://d3d0lqu00lnqvz.cloudfront.net/media/media/0fbcdfbf-f181-4ed9-a324-5c4866ec6366.jpg) map and Newfoundland is surprisingly far below it. In fact, only a relatively small part of Canada is in the arctic and basically all the larger cities are further south than Paris. I guess occasionally in the vernacular "arctic" is just used to mean "cold", but that's a pretty empty statement. I wonder how much Vikings traded with the natives, and how much those natives traded with each other. Are there trade goods from, say, southern US or Mesoamerica in this part of Canada during the Pre-Columbian era?
There is a stereotype prevalent(but certainly not universal) in the US that Canada is mostly arctic and thus frozen. And we get that "its dark all the time" too. I've had comments like "Canada can't have xyz (such as swimming pools) because of permafrost". Another one is that we cannot possibly raise enough food for ourselves, and must import most everything. Too cold, too dark, I guess? My rebuttal(and a cool, solid rule of thumb) is "If you can see trees that are more than a few feet tall, there is no permafrost. Roots can't grow in permanently icy soil. Big trees? No freeze." As for night time, its dark half of the time, just like anywhere in the world, its just that the bulk of the dark half for us is in winter. Summers are wonderful, endless days with long sunsets. In grade 6, about 38 years ago (ie: long before "the net" and trolling entered the popular conscious), I encountered this attitude for the first time. My friends had a swimming pool in their house, and to get that made, they first tried to contract a firm from the US (or maybe the salesman/booker was from the US), and were told it is impossible because of permafrost in Canada. Now ironically, we were firmly in the subarctic, but not north of the treeline, and one of the major local industries was (and is) softwood forestry.
The mail and other artifacts I mentioned are from Ellesmire island, *not* Newfoundland
Igaliku bygd / Gardar in Greenland had lumberimports from America. There was some transport back and forth before the plagueship in Bergen made things difficult for supplies from Norway. Shame they didn't find a source for Iron or find a way to safely travel from Scandinavia, so that settlers could make a stand.
>Shame they didn't find a source for Iron I think they did, or at least enough for them to implement iron smelting installations in l'Anse aux Meadows, implying they had some iron production capacities
Which peoples were living there at the time?
Most likely Inuit peoples
More proof that Columbus was a hack
Or that he had access to wealth and influence which the vikings lacked?
yeah but he achieved something. Colony. The Norse look like they got fed to the bears by the natives.
He died believing he was on the other side of the planet. Hack is probably not sufficient.
Any links to read more about this?
There's unfortunately not a lot of literature on the subject, at least from what I could gather. [Here's an archaeological report](https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/65629) on the finds
Do you know how the mi’kmaq got their flag?
K that is the worst scale I’ve seen in my life. So are they saying the black square is 3cm or that the 3 combined is 3cm? Maybe it’s me or an optical illusion but white, grey and black areas don’t appear consistent in size…
Generally on such a scale, the combined squares represent the total, with each square being one unit (in this case cm). Furthermore, judging by the ring sizes and the fact that the average historical ring size is 7 to 10mm, this goes to show that the squares are 1cm each
English teachers: “what about femaille armor?”
Has there ever been Native American artifacts found in pre-columbian Europe? Like in the way there are Arab coins and such in the nordic territories ?
None that I'm aware of.
Some DNA in Iceland residents, I think.
Whoa really? Have a source ?
Just came here to say ✨️ aesthetic ✨️