Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe the vikings did intermingle and have sexual relations with the Amerindians in northeastern Canada back around the 1,000's as the sightings of the ''Blond Eskimo's'' goes back to the 1650's reported first by the Dutch arctic seafarers as well as later arctic venturers e.g. Christian Klengenberg who reported to have met them while he was whaling and trapping in the area circa early 1900's.
While researching two separate Maddox lines in my family history I came across the Welsh story about Prince Madoc. He reportedly sailed to America in 1170, along the Gulf coast, in one ship, returned to Wales and came back with more ships. There's apparently some evidence of early Welsh influences among Native Americans in the area and Queen Elizabeth I used the story to bolster Britain's claim to the territory in negotiations with the Spanish.
I don't doubt there were explorations to this continent much earlier than 1492, and probably on both coasts and up the Mississippi from the gulf.
What I get a little suspicious about is when I begin to see the subtle, between the lines hints that indigenous Americans couldn't have POSSIBLY developed their cultures without outside contact. Everybody from Irish monks to ancient Egyptians are speculated on, and precious little of it, beyond the Vikings, has any evidence.
I'm of the opinion that the reason these early explorations were transient is has to do with the fact that they were met by a well developed, self sufficient culture that wasn't particularly interested in them thank you very much. They weren't welcome, and they either figured it out and beat cheeks or suffered the consequences.
I don't doubt there were explorations to this continent much earlier than 1492, and probably on both coasts and up the Mississippi from the gulf.
What I get a little suspicious about is when I begin to see the subtle, between the lines hints that indigenous Americans couldn't have POSSIBLY developed their cultures without outside contact. Everybody from Irish monks to ancient Egyptians are speculated on, and precious little of it, beyond the Vikings, has any evidence.
I'm of the opinion that the reason these early explorations were transient is has to do with the fact that they were met by a well developed, self sufficient culture that wasn't particularly interested in them thank you very much. They weren't welcome, and they either figured it out and beat cheeks or suffered the consequences.
I haven't noticed much of that sentiment as much as discussion of why travelers might not have stayed. I find it impossible to believe that a continent sitting in the middle of the ocean wouldn't have been found and visited.
It's possible that some did settle, but mixed in with natives in time as well. Some of the natives would have repelled them, but not everyone was strong and able to defend themselves. I'd say most who accidentally found the continent might well have stayed, but there would be little evidence of them except perhaps some dna. Others besides the Vikings may have traded, as well.
There were also a series of migrations into the Americas and they generally wiped out those who came before. If a European population, say the Orcadians, had settled and mixed, it would have been inbetween other migrations. Those they might have mixed with could have dissapeared themselves.
The Vikings definately settled a small area, and traded from there. They did this other areas, how they left such a mark on the British Isles. But unlike there no families were shipped in to establish something more permenant. In Oklahoma there is a site where several runestones have been found, translated as a property marker, and they could have sailed inland from rivers with their smaller ships. Presumably it proved too distant to stay.
None of this implies that a native culture *needed* to share with a European one (especially since they too were tribal at the time of contact) to form a culture. It does not deny the possibiltity of meaningful trade or some degree of merging, especially if they were near the level of technology. Many cultures have been influenced by others and it does not imply they were weak or powerless.
I'm with Chapparrito. There is a plethora of claims to European exploration of the Americas before Columbus, and a large number of them seem to be based on a theory that key parts of Amerindian culture came from outside sources. I think if you have a Euro-centric hypothesis and you try hard enough you can find evidence to support many claims just by misrepresenting accepted historical data.
Amerindians did work in stone before the Spaniards (think Aztec/Maya culture) and did make large structures( Southeastern mound cultures). They also had a long maritime tradition on both coasts , for whale and seal hunting. As far as Vikings taking Inuit to Iceland, that is plausible, since the Vikings were known to have attempted abductions on Natives during their brief Canadian colonies.
All in all there is much more research out there attempting to prove early European influence on Amerindians than there is research on the established Native American nations. Clearly a bias.
I don't doubt there were explorations to this continent much earlier than 1492, and probably on both coasts and up the Mississippi from the gulf.
What I get a little suspicious about is when I begin to see the subtle, between the lines hints that indigenous Americans couldn't have POSSIBLY developed their cultures without outside contact. Everybody from Irish monks to ancient Egyptians are speculated on, and precious little of it, beyond the Vikings, has any evidence.
I'm of the opinion that the reason these early explorations were transient is has to do with the fact that they were met by a well developed, self sufficient culture that wasn't particularly interested in them thank you very much. They weren't welcome, and they either figured it out and beat cheeks or suffered the consequences.
I have never taken any of those theories about Egyptians, Irish monks etc. seriously. They are goofy history IMO. The Vikings likely were driven out of the Americas by Indians, in 1000 they did not carry with them the advantage of gunpowder like the Spaniards did. There was very little incentive for the Vikings to send reinforcements to the New World in the numbers that could have made a difference. The Indians in that region were not in possession of gold, or any technology the Vikings needed. It likely just made sense for them to cut their losses and just move on. Also it was just so far away from other major Viking areas, too extended. It is too bad that the Indians did not keep any records of the encounter, it would be fascinating to really know what happened when they met each other, and how they lived together for the few short years the Vikings were in Newfoundland. I would also love to know how far south they explored, and if they really could have traveled up the Great lakes as far as Michigan and Minnesota. There was a runestone found in Minnesota and there are rock carvings next to Lake Superior in Michigan that depict Viking like ships passing by, but in a part of the nation dominated by Scandanavian immigrants everything like that is suspect to fakes. Could the Indians possibly let them make that journey??? or even helped them. Like I said its too bad they did not keep records, what a story it must have been.
I would also love to know how far south they explored
They must have ventured south as for example archaeologists at L'Anse Aux Meadows have found butternuts in high quantities in their diggings there as they're only found southward along the eastern seaboard from southern Maine down to New Jersey.
Interesting sidenote: as the ''Saga of Erik the Red'' mentioned of a pregnant viking woman known as Gudrid Thorbjarnardottir who birthed a child while at L' Anse Aux Meadows (b. 1005?) named Snorri Thorfinnsson which would make him the first ''known'' european born in north america some 580 years before the birth of Virginia Dare (b.1587) of the ''Lost Colony of Roanoke'' fame.
The Amerindians of New England and the Maritimes were semi-nomadic , in that they traveled a few hundred miles or so north-south in New England to exploit various ocean and regional game. It was also found that they utilized trade good with tribal nations as far as the mid-Atlantic states. That would account for butternuts being found in L'Anse aux Meadows, Viking-Amerindian trade.
The Amerindians of New England and the Maritimes were semi-nomadic , in that they traveled a few hundred miles or so north-south in New England to exploit various ocean and regional game. It was also found that they utilized trade good with tribal nations as far as the mid-Atlantic states. That would account for butternuts being found in L'Anse aux Meadows, Viking-Amerindian trade.
Yeap i know that and that may have been the case with the discovered butternuts however if they were trading with the indigenous peoples of that region then archaeologists should have discovered at least some of their artifacts (arrow heads, wood carvings, copper trinkets etc.) buried amongst the viking settlement ruins to which i ''believe'' that none has yet to be found unless you dig down further into the strata 2,970 BP where they've found plenty of the ancient paleo-indians weapons for hunting whale and seal e.g. ''Tamarack Harpoons'' etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
