Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#11

Post by Htsthbjig »

jernfrost wrote: post #5

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…

Where did you hear that story, in Norway?

Had he had information about the Vikings, he would had used the Viking route going around the coast that is way easier than strait on the Ocean. Don't you believe?.

In Columbus times, there were real stories of manmade and natural objects on the beach(Portugal and Spanish beaches) after strong storms, that were not native from Spain and Portugal.

Those stories are documented on Spanish documentation. The Indias archive contains an incredible amount of documentation.

Columbus probably had some hints that there was something at America's distance, because he used that distance in order to calculate the earth radius if it(America) this were Japan. But he was totally wrong on what it was(thankfully).

In X century there were accurate records of earth radius but Colombus uses a new value considering America's distance as the extreme of the world, because Colombus believed that was the Indias(India, Japan...).

Why he used this value? We don't know.

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#13

Post by dalke »

restalis wrote: post #9

"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 (on…

There are multiple definitions of "continent". See 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.

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#14

Post by restalis »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #11
jernfrost wrote: post #5

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…

Where did you hear that story, in Norway? Had he had information about the Vikings, he would had used the Viking route going around the coast that is way easier than strait on the Ocean. Don't you believe?. In Columbus times, there were real stories of manmade and natural objects on the beach(Portugal and Spanish beaches) after strong storms, that were not native from Spain and Portugal. Those stories are documented…

Also, it's worth remembering that Columbus wasn't trying to discover America, he was just trying to find another route to India. Whatever might one have learned about Vikings' achievements in Columbus time it definitely sounded like something very different from the highly sought India!

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#15

Post by restalis »

dalke wrote: post #13
restalis wrote: post #9

"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 (on…

There are multiple definitions of "continent". See 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 c…

"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.

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#16

Post by 0x07c0 »

jernfrost wrote: post #5

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…

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

Some more sources here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Amer...

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#18

Post by douche »

jernfrost wrote: post #5

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…

I think the more probable connection for Columbus would be the Basque cod fishermen that were fishing off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland years before he sailed the ocean blue.

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#19

Post by douche »

distances wrote: post #17
skc wrote: post #2

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

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..

Not really at all what I pictured Uhtred to look like, though.

Re: Discovery of 1,000-year-old Viking site in Canada could rewrite history

#20

Post by dalke »

restalis wrote: post #15
dalke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple definitions of "continent". See 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 c…

"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.

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"?

Post reply on HN