THE NORSE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA
Eric Stevens
detailed work is now available on-line:
THE NORSE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/nda/nda00.htm
A Compilation in Extenso of all the Sagas,
Manuscripts, and Inscriptive Memorials
Relating to the Finding and Settlement of the
New World in the Eleventh Century.
With Presentations of Freshly Discovered Proofs,
in the form of Church Records Supplied by the Vatican of Rome,
Translations and Deductions
by
ARTHUR MIDDLETON REEVES,
NORTH LUDLOW BEAMISH,
HON. RASMUS B. ANDERSON.
Published by the Norrenoena Society, London, Stockholm, Copenhagen,
Berlin,
New York [1906]
Eric Stevens
Steve Glines
suggest it to all. It will provide endless entertainment in this news
group for months to come.
SG
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Sarcastic swine :-)
Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
> Courtesy of John N. Harris, I have just learned that the following
> detailed work is now available on-line:
>
> THE NORSE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/nda/nda00.htm
Eric:
Many thanks to you and Harris for this pointer.
Just BTW, the speculation at the end of this passage
doesn't seem to accord with reality, as those who have
actually been to the Arctic Archipelago know it:
"The Northmen sail from Kroksfjardarheidi, a name implying a frith
bounded by barren highlands (heidi), and known to be
p. 248
on the north side of Lancaster's sound; this frith must have been
of considerable extent, as three days sailing are specifically
mentioned in that part of the narrative describing their return;
--they descry several islands, and meet with many seals, whales,
and bears;
--they see icebergs lying to the southward, as far as the eye can
reach;
--they observe traces of the Esquimaux (Skrælings) in various
directions;
the sun was above the horizon both night and day, and although in
the month of July, it froze during the night.
<now here's the phantasmagorical part>
There is little doubt, therefore, that these early explorers of
the arctic regions, starting from Lancaster's sound, were driven
through Barrow's straits, and Wellington Channel, into the Polar sea,
from whence they saw the North Georgian Islands, and where they
naturally fell in with a multitude of seals, whales, and bears."
For "North Georgian Islands", read Parry Islands, i.e.
those west of Devon Island (where Kroksfjardarheidi is said to lie).
It is much, much more plausible that they were describing the
western end of Lancaster Sound, at the northern end of Prince Regent
Inlet, or just possibly as far west as the southern end of Wellington
Channel.
Daryl Krupa
onegod
america 8-)
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:no9d30l3auktscc2h...@4ax.com...
Michael Zalar
> Get it to your racist head.... AMERICAN INDIAN'S ancestors discovered
> america 8-)
>
A discovery by one group does not necessrily infer that the discovery
had not been made previously by another group, merely that they were
the first of their group (unknowing of previous groups) to make the
discovery.
Michael
hippo
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
> Courtesy of John N. Harris, I have just learned that the following
> detailed work is now available on-line:
[.]
You've got to deal with folks like the Norrenoena Society very carefully.
This was the racial determinist period and some of what they came up with
was pretty creative. I have a set of their Saga commentaries which have much
that is valuable in them but often seem to go too far in reaching
conclusions. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
now you better go looking for pink Elephants because you see them any how. I
suggest that you learn a bit more about what the word Norrenoena stands for.
It has nothing what so ever to do with racism. It means with roots in
Norwegian culture which has nothing what so ever to do with Nazists nor with
Asa-beliefs. In the Norwegian culture 'normal' Norwegian as well as Kvens
and Sami are included. We who are descendants of Norwegian no matter of
which Norwegian group or from where in Norway we refer to ourself as
Norrenoe.
I think it's time for you as well as many others outside Scandinavia to
realise that it's you who show racistic tendency in your hunting against
people from Norway and Sweden just because you have listened too much on the
Nazi-era propaganda in Germany and their false interpretation of the past. I
also think it's time for you to realise that the German Nazi's beliefs in
themselves as 'Aryan' was just a dream of a people who actually had and have
more mixed blood then any other groups on the European Continent.
It's deeply disturbing that so much false information still is spread here
in groups by people who say that they are against rasists but who themselves
continue year after year to attack people from Norway and Sweden just
because we had the Vikings. That show high degree of rasistic behavior on
your side!
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:aKSdnW0srvh...@giganews.com...
Jim Webster
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:S7u%b.50509$mU6.2...@newsb.telia.net...
What has always intrigued me is how little antagonism I have ever seen in
the UK to Vikings and Scandanavians. Whilst the British public might well
lump Norse and Danes in together (which we have been doing for over 1100
years
:-)) the Vikings are just accepted into the general mix that make up our
ancestors. The BBC did a series 'Blood of the Vikings' which as an aside
showed how people were quite proud of their distant ancestors.
Jim Webster
Tom McDonald
Jim,
For me, there is no antagonism regarding Vikings and Scandinavia
viz a viz the New World. There is a known history in Britain and
Ireland, attested to by written records, art, architecture and
archaeology, of Scandinavian contact. There is a known history
in the New World, attested to by written records, art,
architecture and archaeology, of Scandinavian contact. Apples
and apples.
However, there are hints, seemingly odd, out of place artifacts,
some interesting correspondences of language and cultural usage,
old stories and histories that may or may not be part of a larger
whole indicating a greater (perhaps even far greater)
Scandinavian history of interaction, exploration, trade and/or
settlement than is more reliably known on evidence similar to
that in Britain and Ireland. There may be something to some of
those hints. There may not be. The conflict you see here, IMHO,
is due to the pro-Scandinavians-were-everywhere-here-first folks
claiming more than they have been able to adequately support.
There's been a long history in the US and Canada of this sort of
thing. It was fairly mainstream about 100 years ago. However,
the number of possibly-Norse artifacts has been whittled down due
to alternate explanations being better supported, and the
expected finds in controlled archaeological investigations
haven't been made. The pro-SWEHF side has increasingly been
either relegated to the gaps in our archaeological and historical
knowledge, or to the re-interpretation of ground that's been, for
the most part, plowed pretty well and grown a different crop.
These are my off-the-cuff thoughts. It's, as always, more
interesting than this. However, AFAIK few got very bent out of
shape by the discovery of L'anse aux Meadows (scientifically
investigated in situ); and few would be very bent out of shape if
further such evidence were to come to light.
Tom McDonald
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
Inger, this was 1900 not the present. My ancestors at the time were digging
up imaginary pedigrees in order to get themselves memberships in esoteric
and exclusive social organizations based on birth like 'the Decedents of
Charlemagne'. We understand that now and take what they created with a grain
of salt and re-validate the research. The Norrenoena Society was, to say the
least, very narrowly focused. It was a time of extreme nationalism in
Scandinavia and everywhere else in the West. I don't think for a minute that
modern Scandinavians are ethnocentric and am certainly not implying that
they are. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
your problem is that you don't accept that Scandinavians could have been the
first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who travelled most of all
according to several Arabic(!) sources written before 1000 AD.
On the way the Scandinavian Goths, the Ostrogoths btw, in 3rd century AD
managed to increase our former Gods Frö(Freja) and the sun with the so
called Asa-Gods in Asia Minor and Greek. Actually almost all but one of the
so called Asa-Gods origin from the area between Asia Minor to Indus Valley.
That's known by all of us who have Religion in our degrees. Hardly ever told
but I know many scholars here in Sweden working as teachers in schools who
do as I do: Present all the facts about the so called Asa-Gods' origin when
ever a tendency for racism is shown in a class. The neo-nazists fall out of
speach more than once when confronted with the fact that the Aryan theory
actually is 'Oriental'..... and when I on top of that show from written
sources texts which they have to paint on maps which can't help proving that
the Germans are the most mixed group in all of Europe at least they keep
quiet and withdraws in a haste.
The reason why the Scandinavians were so successful in travelling boats over
hard open water, oceans and such as well, is that they didn't have an
alternative on one hand and that groups of Scandinavians at an early stage
in History came together against introders from the sea-side.
The first is due to the fact that up to late 9th century almost all
transport-ways were connected to water-ways. As we say here water unites,
forrest diverges.
It was dangerous up to 1200's to travell in deep forrests. Sweden and Norway
had such as well as high mountains. Not Alps but high enough. In my second
academic essay, the one I refer to as my C-essay, I managed to prove that
between 88%-93% of all settlements were build within 800 meters of 'the
best' waterway at the time the settlements were founded and up to 95% of all
artifacts made 'abroad' have been found withing 3-400 meters from such
waterway up to 900 AD. It wasn't until 1000 AD the roads importance
increased. That can be shown from the artifacts found but can easier be
shown from where and when the fortress and the defense-castles were built in
Scandinavia.
That said we have to add to the simple fact that while the Continent and the
English Isles had many small Kingdoms and Dukes owning land fighting against
each other among other things because they thought that the Christian Church
in the other group's area wasn't a 'true Christian Church', we in
Scandinavia don't see so much of this.
It's just like Tacitus said. The Norwegians weren't known to use their
weapons to fight. They didn't have to. Thus they could spend more time
concentrating on how to come from area A to area B without having to climb
the mountains.
The Swedes on the other hand did have some fights but only as long as there
wasn't an uniting enemy trying to take their land. Which thanks to Geography
we had, the Danes who at an early stage held Skane. The Goths travel-routes
are well documented. In written sources, in found artifacts and such. Btw.
before the agriculture changes and new species introduction date were
studied by scholars, what was done to track their routes and the routes of
earlier Scandinavians was exactly that which you Tom and some other protest
against when we do in US. Following the tracks of the artifacts!
It would have been nice if you instead of throwing in protests against the
items you found obscure would have asked for the full picture. If you had
you would have had a good solid ground to stand on if only you had listened
to what the Indians of First Nations have said from 1530's on forward. You
would have known that you are out on cracking ice and that your anti-
scandinavian approach, I am not the only one who feels that, is totally
improper.
Oh I guess I have to add the information I presented 6 years ago when we
discussed over-water travel in distances where no land could be seen: The
Goths made it to the Sargasso Sea in late 3rd century AD. How that can be
proven? By following some very rare specicies in their natural stage. The
only places on this earth two of them who always followed a specific seed as
weed can be found is: on the eastern side of Greece up to Donau(Danube)
along Donau's shores to the Hungarian Pusta, over the Hungarian Pusta then
nothing before arriving in Östergötland's archipelago where it was
introduced in late 3rd century together with the seed. The only other place
you can find those two species are in same type of wild seed and also then
as weed on an island in the Sargosso Sea area. Who could have brought them
there? Well we still miss more than 100 boats loaded with Goths who had
bought the seed for gold(! specially noted btw) in 266 AD and who sailed
westward out of the Gibraltar without being seen or heard of again.
Inger E
Jim Webster
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
news:103sv79...@corp.supernews.com...
I think you will find few people on the European side of the Atlantic take
much notice of a lot of the proto-Scandanavian stuff. Most of it is regarded
as along the same lines as Howards tales of Conan the Cimmerian, fanciful,
not desperately well written, but a good yarn for all that.
We have the accounts in the sagas and a bit of genuine archaeology but I
suspect most of the rest of the pro-SWEHF isn't even know over here never.
Jim Webster
>
> Tom McDonald
>
Inger E Johansson
congratulation of having such fine ancestors. The best I can come up with
despite my Norröne ancestors on my father's side is farmers, fishermen,
stone workers and a judge, on my mother's side which partly is of the
Norröne origin partly of definite Gothic one the best we can find is a
master-glazier......
I don't mind.
You still don't see it do you? What you are hunting is imaginary Pink
Elephants.
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:pvedneydn4o...@giganews.com...
Inger E Johansson
"Jim Webster" <J...@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:c1mrqg$tb6$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jim,
it's well known and been up at several of the Archaeological Symposium that
have been held especially before 1939 and after 1987. Why the gap? Simply
because there were only a handful of the Medieval History Scholars here who
were interested in the period before 1500 AD and who on top of their
knowledge of Scandinvavian language, Latin and probably Greek also were
educated enough to read Old-English(Saxon especially) handwritten texts and
had a hint of archaeology on top of that.
It wasn't until the heated debate about where the cradle of the Swedes
started in 1980's the period we discuss became more popular to make deeper
studies in and to write thesis and dissertations about. Today we have
several good Medieval Historians who are specialist in the area. Professor
Dick Harrison who I consult from time to time and also according to
agreement have sent interesting facts and sources over the years, he is the
best at present. On the field where Scholar of Religion have worked there
are many more to be noted having studied the period and it's
implications/impacts over the years.
Unfortunatly their works rarely makes it to Journals dealing with
Archaeology and only occasionally to the History Journals. Translated into
English? Only a few. More during the last five years. Most of the translated
works and articles you can find translated into German by non-Nazist
Historians and Linguists. Oh and some written in French isn't translated at
all....
Inger E
>
> Jim Webster
> >
> > Tom McDonald
> >
>
>
Seppo Renfors
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> Jim Webster wrote:
>
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> > news:S7u%b.50509$mU6.2...@newsb.telia.net...
> >
[..]
> >>It's deeply disturbing that so much false information still is spread here
> >>in groups by people who say that they are against rasists but who
> >
> > themselves
> >
> >>continue year after year to attack people from Norway and Sweden just
> >>because we had the Vikings. That show high degree of rasistic behavior on
> >>your side!
> >>
> >>Inger E
> >
> >
> > What has always intrigued me is how little antagonism I have ever seen in
> > the UK to Vikings and Scandanavians. Whilst the British public might well
> > lump Norse and Danes in together (which we have been doing for over 1100
> > years
> > :-)) the Vikings are just accepted into the general mix that make up our
> > ancestors. The BBC did a series 'Blood of the Vikings' which as an aside
> > showed how people were quite proud of their distant ancestors.
> >
> > Jim Webster
> >
> >
> Jim,
>
> For me, there is no antagonism regarding Vikings and Scandinavia
> viz a viz the New World.
...except when it comes to finds that tends to breach the
pre-Columbian Brick Wall and the accepted and established "exceptions"
to it. THEN you resorted to the racist argument in order to "explain
away" the offending material. Therefor I don't see that statement to
be entirely truthful!
> There is a known history in Britain and
> Ireland, attested to by written records, art, architecture and
> archaeology, of Scandinavian contact. There is a known history
> in the New World, attested to by written records, art,
> architecture and archaeology, of Scandinavian contact. Apples
> and apples.
The "exception to the rule" that "proves" the Pre-Columbian brick
wall....
> However, there are hints, seemingly odd, out of place artifacts,
> some interesting correspondences of language and cultural usage,
> old stories and histories that may or may not be part of a larger
> whole indicating a greater (perhaps even far greater)
> Scandinavian history of interaction, exploration, trade and/or
> settlement than is more reliably known on evidence similar to
> that in Britain and Ireland. There may be something to some of
> those hints. There may not be. The conflict you see here, IMHO,
> is due to the pro-Scandinavians-were-everywhere-here-first folks
> claiming more than they have been able to adequately support.
Yep..... there it is again!
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McDonald
> Tom,
> your problem is that you don't accept that Scandinavians could have been the
> first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who travelled most of all
> according to several Arabic(!) sources written before 1000 AD.
Inger,
Scandinavians weren't first in North America. Period. Any idea
that they were would be astoundingly foolish. Think for a
moment, and I'm sure you'll see who _was_ first here.
>
> On the way the Scandinavian Goths, the Ostrogoths btw, in 3rd century AD
> managed to increase our former Gods Frö(Freja) and the sun with the so
> called Asa-Gods in Asia Minor and Greek. Actually almost all but one of the
> so called Asa-Gods origin from the area between Asia Minor to Indus Valley.
> That's known by all of us who have Religion in our degrees. Hardly ever told
> but I know many scholars here in Sweden working as teachers in schools who
> do as I do: Present all the facts about the so called Asa-Gods' origin when
> ever a tendency for racism is shown in a class. The neo-nazists fall out of
> speach more than once when confronted with the fact that the Aryan theory
> actually is 'Oriental'..... and when I on top of that show from written
> sources texts which they have to paint on maps which can't help proving that
> the Germans are the most mixed group in all of Europe at least they keep
> quiet and withdraws in a haste.
I don't disagree, but who is talking about German racism on this
thread?
Good to know. Not to the point, though.
> The Swedes on the other hand did have some fights but only as long as there
> wasn't an uniting enemy trying to take their land. Which thanks to Geography
> we had, the Danes who at an early stage held Skane. The Goths travel-routes
> are well documented. In written sources, in found artifacts and such. Btw.
> before the agriculture changes and new species introduction date were
> studied by scholars, what was done to track their routes and the routes of
> earlier Scandinavians was exactly that which you Tom and some other protest
> against when we do in US. Following the tracks of the artifacts!
I don't protest you doing this, and I can't think of many who
do. What I and others protest is the scattered nature of your
presentation here, and your apparent preference for giving far
more hints and stern lectures than for giving useful evidence.
For instance, it is not useful for you to say, "Read all of ____
by ____" when the needed evidence is in a small portion of the
cited material. And don't go off on a "You have to read the
entire context" riff; we all know that, and will do what is
necessary to understand the issue. Archaeologists, pro and am,
are perhaps the premier autodidacts; once their formal education
is finished, they have to become more or less competent in many
fields as their investigations require. It isn't beyond them to
comprehend the context of the stuff you talk about.
>
> It would have been nice if you instead of throwing in protests against the
> items you found obscure would have asked for the full picture.
Boggle! Inger, I and others regularly ask for 'full picture'.
You regularly say you won't give relevant information, or we will
find out at some specified or unspecified later date, or that we
should find it yourself from hints you've given over X number of
years, or that we will have to wait to read it in your book.
If you are willing to give 'the full picture', please do so; I
would be tickled pink if you did.
> If you had
> you would have had a good solid ground to stand on if only you had listened
> to what the Indians of First Nations have said from 1530's on forward.
What specifically should I hear? I've done extensive reading on
North American Indians post-1492. I have some good resources for
that period. I've also done significant study of the archaeology
of the New World. So I'm not exactly a novice here.
However, you seem to have found some common thread to some of
the accounts, the earliest almost entirely from written
observations of Europeans. The later Indian accounts are known
to be 'tainted' by circumstances during and following the
European conquest to a larger extent than I think you credit.
Some threads can be followed back with some reliability, and
those accounts are more likely to accurately reflect pre-contact
situations than other stories that may be contaminated.
> You
> would have known that you are out on cracking ice and that your anti-
> scandinavian approach, I am not the only one who feels that, is totally
> improper.
I'm not anti-Scandinavian. I am against tunnel vision in
scholarship, and niggardly scholars. In my opinion, that
description fits much (but far from all) of what you do.
If you want to build some fantasy of my 'anti-Scandinavian
approach', I can't stop you. However, that has nothing to do
with my real views, nor with my willingness to consider your ideas.
>
> Oh I guess I have to add the information I presented 6 years ago when we
> discussed over-water travel in distances where no land could be seen: The
> Goths made it to the Sargasso Sea in late 3rd century AD. How that can be
> proven? By following some very rare specicies in their natural stage. The
> only places on this earth two of them who always followed a specific seed as
> weed can be found is: on the eastern side of Greece up to Donau(Danube)
> along Donau's shores to the Hungarian Pusta, over the Hungarian Pusta then
> nothing before arriving in Östergötland's archipelago where it was
> introduced in late 3rd century together with the seed. The only other place
> you can find those two species are in same type of wild seed and also then
> as weed on an island in the Sargosso Sea area. Who could have brought them
> there? Well we still miss more than 100 boats loaded with Goths who had
> bought the seed for gold(! specially noted btw) in 266 AD and who sailed
> westward out of the Gibraltar without being seen or heard of again.
Yes, that was one of your arguments. It wasn't persuasive the
first time I and others chased it down. If you have new info,
give it. If not, then I'd thank you to let it go.
Neither I nor anyone else I can think of deny that Scandinavians
were remarkable, courageous and inspired sailors. That's your
red herring. It's getting pretty smelly, and ought to be buried.
Tom McDonald
>
> Inger E
>
>
Inger E Johansson
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:103v7jr...@corp.supernews.com...
> Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> > your problem is that you don't accept that Scandinavians could have been
the
> > first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who travelled most of all
> > according to several Arabic(!) sources written before 1000 AD.
>
> Inger,
>
> Scandinavians weren't first in North America. Period. Any idea
> that they were would be astoundingly foolish. Think for a
> moment, and I'm sure you'll see who _was_ first here.
I think you have to realise two things:
a) US scholars who specially study neoliticum have according to their own
words found that very specific details in artifacts found south of the Great
Lakes are only to be found in Finland and Russia. I know that others in the
groups have same information as I do but I don't know if it's published in a
Journal you can get hold of. That I have to ask around for.
b) the Swedes were in NA long before Columbus and I am not talking about
L'anse Medow, far from it. And yes there are specific artifacts which two of
the Indian groups had by the Scandinavians before 1400 AD.
I guess you will here more about them later this year, but I only know that
you aren't among those trusted with the artifacts and their context. Had you
been you wouldn't have written what you do.
>
> >
> > On the way the Scandinavian Goths, the Ostrogoths btw, in 3rd century AD
> > managed to increase our former Gods Frö(Freja) and the sun with the so
> > called Asa-Gods in Asia Minor and Greek. Actually almost all but one of
the
> > so called Asa-Gods origin from the area between Asia Minor to Indus
Valley.
> > That's known by all of us who have Religion in our degrees. Hardly ever
told
> > but I know many scholars here in Sweden working as teachers in schools
who
> > do as I do: Present all the facts about the so called Asa-Gods' origin
when
> > ever a tendency for racism is shown in a class. The neo-nazists fall out
of
> > speach more than once when confronted with the fact that the Aryan
theory
> > actually is 'Oriental'..... and when I on top of that show from written
> > sources texts which they have to paint on maps which can't help proving
that
> > the Germans are the most mixed group in all of Europe at least they keep
> > quiet and withdraws in a haste.
>
> I don't disagree, but who is talking about German racism on this
> thread?
You are talking about Norse and Swedes as if we were racists because we want
the true story of the Scandinavians living in North America from 1121 to
Modern time, Scandinavians who the Vatican and Pope are very well aware of
and have documents about. Some documents exists in contemporary copies,
contrasigned btw by Papal representant, in Norway, Denmark and Sweden to
this day. You call us racists indirecly by puting forward your absurd
nonsense regarding the fact that so many Scandinavian artifacts have been
found and every time we discuss you dismiss them without even looking for
the full picture. You see the full context is there. Your own archaeologists
have provided us with much more confirmation than you seem to realise.
Yes it is to the point! So many of you US scholars have put forward funny,
yes I say funny, argumentation about level differences to overtake to
transport for example Scandinavians to the middle of NA. We have proved over
and over that this isn't anything out of the ordinary on the contrary Swedes
and Norwegian did it all the time. In Russia but also within our own
countries.
I find it obscure that scholars can accept that the French made it in 1500's
but not accept that the Scandinavians as early as before, not after, Viking
Age had ships more suitable for such voyages..... and that none of all those
speaking against Scandinavians in the middle of NA before Columbus, none
what so ever, has managed to read the French documents and comprehending
what's said in them. There are confirmations in them as well. Detailed
confirmation btw but to that I will return after speaking with Fridrik in
Iceland.
>
> > The Swedes on the other hand did have some fights but only as long as
there
> > wasn't an uniting enemy trying to take their land. Which thanks to
Geography
> > we had, the Danes who at an early stage held Skane. The Goths
travel-routes
> > are well documented. In written sources, in found artifacts and such.
Btw.
> > before the agriculture changes and new species introduction date were
> > studied by scholars, what was done to track their routes and the routes
of
> > earlier Scandinavians was exactly that which you Tom and some other
protest
> > against when we do in US. Following the tracks of the artifacts!
>
> I don't protest you doing this, and I can't think of many who
> do. What I and others protest is the scattered nature of your
> presentation here, and your apparent preference for giving far
> more hints and stern lectures than for giving useful evidence.
I know you have been told and also accepted that I believe that everyone
should do their homework.
Now you seem to have withdrawn from that. If you believe that I or anyone
else for that matter could, should and would write all proof in an open
discussion group, then you are stupid. Which you haven't shown before so I
guess you must be joking. I am not to present a 300 pages long articles to
the groups.
But I have sent sci.archaeology more than 40 articles of the kind you asks
for. When? The last two years. Why you missed it? Because you don't accept
that articles is written in normal standard with referenses. Quotations
aren't suitable when we are discussing Medieval Age because neither you nor
most of the group can read texts in Icelandic, Old-Norse, Norse,
Old-Scandinavian, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, German not to mention Medieval
English. You think you know English, but Medieval English aren't the same as
British English and far away from American English. That's one reason apart
from the fact that such quotes definitely ruin an article and makes it too
long and too boring. Then I haven't spoken about translation of all the
quotes. So Academic Standard used: Author/Historian; work/Prime source; Book
and chapter + page; Edited where and when.
That ought to be sufficient.
If you can't find a specific book or a Prime source translated into English?
Well either you ask around because there are those especially in
soc.history.ancient who has such in their homepages,
or you ask after looking for it the person who sent the article/message in a
private mail as others do for the direct text used for this or that.
It's the normal procedure.
>
> For instance, it is not useful for you to say, "Read all of ____
> by ____" when the needed evidence is in a small portion of the
> cited material.
Problem is that you actually has to read ALL of it not only a small portion
to have the content and the context you need to draw the conclusion or
present arguments against it. You can't do with a small portion of the cited
material. That's never ever enough.
the rest I snip because I see that it's impossible to make you understand
this basic factors which we learn on ground courses. You have to do your
homework. No one else can do it for you. You can't expect to have the meal
delivered on a golden plate. And above all, please read the links provided
more carefully. None of the 20 links I have provided to the groups the last
48 hours is possible to read in less then at least two hours if you are to
read them and comprehend their content and also to give yourself time to
analyse it in a haste. Nothing in the written documentation is so easy to
comprehend that you can write an answer within an hour if you haven't
studied the field very very carefully for long time!
Inger E
Tom McDonald
> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> skrev i
> meddelandet news:103v7jr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Inger E Johansson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Tom, your problem is that you don't accept that
>>> Scandinavians could have been
>
> the
>
>>> first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who
>>> travelled most of all according to several Arabic(!)
>>> sources written before 1000 AD.
>>
>> Inger,
>>
>> Scandinavians weren't first in North America. Period. Any
>> idea that they were would be astoundingly foolish. Think
>> for a moment, and I'm sure you'll see who _was_ first here.
>
>
> I think you have to realise two things: a) US scholars who
> specially study neoliticum have according to their own words
> found that very specific details in artifacts found south of
> the Great Lakes are only to be found in Finland and Russia. I
> know that others in the groups have same information as I do
> but I don't know if it's published in a Journal you can get
> hold of. That I have to ask around for.
Inger,
Please ask around, and get back to me.
>
> b) the Swedes were in NA long before Columbus and I am not
> talking about L'anse Medow, far from it. And yes there are
> specific artifacts which two of the Indian groups had by the
> Scandinavians before 1400 AD. I guess you will here more about
> them later this year, but I only know that you aren't among
> those trusted with the artifacts and their context. Had you
> been you wouldn't have written what you do.
Scandinavians weren't first in NA. There were people here
before them.
As for what artifacts and their context I'm privy to, you have
no idea. And the info I have, mostly in storage, is available
to anyone; it's not held close to the vest, as so much of your
stuff is.
<snip>
> The neo-nazists fall out
>
> of
>
>>> speach more than once when confronted with the fact that
>>> the Aryan
>
> theory
>
>>> actually is 'Oriental'..... and when I on top of that show
>>> from written sources texts which they have to paint on
>>> maps which can't help proving
>
> that
>
>>> the Germans are the most mixed group in all of Europe at
>>> least they keep quiet and withdraws in a haste.
>>
>> I don't disagree, but who is talking about German racism on
>> this thread?
>
>
> You are talking about Norse and Swedes as if we were racists
> because we want the true story of the Scandinavians living in
> North America from 1121 to Modern time,
That may be your interpretation, but it's not true. I don't
think you're being racist; just a bit more focussed on your views
than might be best for scholarship.
All I'm asking for is the same kind of evidence and analysis
that I ask for from anyone propounding a hypothesis at variance
with what I already know. If that is forthcoming, I'll entertain
it; if it meets a certain standard of mine, I'll accept it as (to
paraphrase Steve Gould) "confirmed to the point that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional assent". As with anything else
I accept.
I think you may have some tunnel vision because of your own
personal history and studies; but we all have that. The key is
be able to stand back and consider other ideas. I'm open to
that, whatever you may believe. Are you?
<snip>
<snip discussion of Scandinavian sailing and misc. history>
>> Good to know. Not to the point, though.
>
>
> Yes it is to the point!
OK, fair enough; but it's not to the point I'm interested in here.
<snip>
Yes, that's the kind of stern lecture I'm talking about. It's
not to the point here, though.
>
>
>> For instance, it is not useful for you to say, "Read all of
>> ____ by ____" when the needed evidence is in a small portion
>> of the cited material.
>
>
> Problem is that you actually has to read ALL of it not only a
> small portion to have the content and the context you need to
> draw the conclusion or present arguments against it. You can't
> do with a small portion of the cited material. That's never
> ever enough.
>
> the rest I snip because I see that it's impossible to make you
> understand this basic factors which we learn on ground
> courses.
Bullshit. The rest you snipped because I pointed out that we
are not the scholarly infants you think we are, and can make up
our own minds about what evidence is germaine, and how much of
the context we need to read to understand the issue at hand.
Tom McDonald
Daryl Krupa
> Hippo,
> congratulation of having such fine ancestors. The best I can come up with
> despite my Norröne ancestors on my father's side is farmers, fishermen,
> stone workers and a judge, on my mother's side which partly is of the
> Norröne origin partly of definite Gothic one the best we can find is a
> master-glazier......
> I don't mind.
>
> You still don't see it do you? What you are hunting is imaginary Pink
> Elephants.
Pink elephants are not imaginary:
http://www.eco-resorts.com/TsavoEast.php
A.L.
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:ZpC%b.84293$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
> congratulation of having such fine ancestors. The best I can come up with
> despite my Norröne ancestors on my father's side is farmers, fishermen,
> stone workers and a judge, on my mother's side which partly is of the
> Norröne origin partly of definite Gothic one the best we can find is a
> master-glazier......
> I don't mind.
>
> You still don't see it do you? What you are hunting is imaginary Pink
> Elephants.
No, Inger, I am discriminating. One must always evaluate one's sources even
to include the prejudices in play when they were written. I am very familiar
with the works of the Society and they are reflective of their time. They
are *not* free of nationalist prejudice.
FYI they estimate that more than 80 percent of all Europeans are descended
from Charlemagne one way or another. The game in those days was to be able
to *prove* it. In order to do that they became very creative with the
facts. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
I belong to this worlds largest family on my father's father's side.the
Långarydssläkten. On 'my' line we certainly don't have any nobleman as far
as we know.
I know that some members of the Långarydssläkten in 20th century married
with such, but not in my line.
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:D-WdndkT45-...@giganews.com...
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
> hippo,
> I belong to this worlds largest family on my father's father's side.the
> Långarydssläkten. On 'my' line we certainly don't have any nobleman as far
> as we know.
> I know that some members of the Långarydssläkten in 20th century married
> with such, but not in my line.
You wouldn't have to to be descended from Charlemagne. Very few of his
descendents were noble or remained noble. He almost certainly had
illegitimate offspring. The European gene pool in Charlemagne's time was
very small. Most European families are related if you go back far enough.
That's why spending fortunes searching for noble ancestors and
ethnocentricity are so silly. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
it's hardly likely that I could be a descendant to Charlemagne. We only have
people origin from farms in Smaaland(+ border to Halland), Västergötland,
Värmland, Bohuslän and Oslo and Id in Norway + an island in the archipelago
south of Halden. Nothing more on either side. They have been so kind to keep
records...
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:w6OdncR59I5...@giganews.com...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I wasn't advocating it. I was merely passing along the information.
But thanks for the warning.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I've goy no axe to grind and first came to this news group about seven
years ago following a trail of old boats. This led me into the subject
of early European contact with North America. Even before I had heard
of the Peterborough inscription I gained the impression of
a n c i e n t people living in the far north. There is a commonality
of artifacts, stone circles, spirals etc throughout both Scandinavia
and North America which suggests that there was cultural contact. I
think I referred to this as a 'ghostly impression' in a long ago
discussion with Doug Weller. If I am right, the Vikings were
latecomers.
>
> There's been a long history in the US and Canada of this sort of
>thing. It was fairly mainstream about 100 years ago. However,
>the number of possibly-Norse artifacts has been whittled down due
>to alternate explanations being better supported, and the
>expected finds in controlled archaeological investigations
>haven't been made. The pro-SWEHF side has increasingly been
>either relegated to the gaps in our archaeological and historical
>knowledge, or to the re-interpretation of ground that's been, for
>the most part, plowed pretty well and grown a different crop.
>
> These are my off-the-cuff thoughts. It's, as always, more
>interesting than this. However, AFAIK few got very bent out of
>shape by the discovery of L'anse aux Meadows (scientifically
>investigated in situ); and few would be very bent out of shape if
>further such evidence were to come to light.
>
>Tom McDonald
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>Tom,
>your problem is that you don't accept that Scandinavians could have been the
>first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who travelled most of all
>according to several Arabic(!) sources written before 1000 AD.
Do you mean the first from Europe or the first of any people?
Eric Stevens
Jim Webster
>
> I've goy no axe to grind and first came to this news group about seven
> years ago following a trail of old boats. This led me into the subject
> of early European contact with North America. Even before I had heard
> of the Peterborough inscription I gained the impression of
> a n c i e n t people living in the far north. There is a commonality
> of artifacts, stone circles, spirals etc throughout both Scandinavia
> and North America which suggests that there was cultural contact. I
> think I referred to this as a 'ghostly impression' in a long ago
> discussion with Doug Weller. If I am right, the Vikings were
> latecomers.
Given human nature combined with the vagaries of wind, weather and tide, it
is not at all unlikely that Europeans ended up in America. Especially
northern Europeans.
We know that Irish monks or similar were on Iceland prior to the Settlement.
From them you get tales of saints travelling by millstone to distant
destinations.
The big thing is that there doesn't seem to be much commerce and the same
person doing a lot of crossing backwards and forwards. I suspect that while
you could get to America, there wasn't really anything there that you
couldn't get easier and cheaper in Europe.
Jim Webster
Tom McDonald
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:30:19 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Tom,
>>your problem is that you don't accept that Scandinavians could have been the
>>first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who travelled most of all
>>according to several Arabic(!) sources written before 1000 AD.
>
>
> Do you mean the first from Europe or the first of any people?
Eric,
Bingo. That's what I meant when I wrote about 'tunnel vision'.
I've been reading some stuff from the pre-1940 time that Inger
says was the start of a hiatus in studies of Scandinavians in the
New World before Columbus (ending, per her, IIRC, about 1987;
although where that leaves LAM, I'm not sure). Something that's
struck me is how often, even into the 1930's, some folks could
write off the possibility that Indians did some interesting and
sophisticated things. For one thing, the book I'm reading now
(albeit by a journalist) repeats the view that Indians couldn't
have made some of the copper tools found around the Great Lakes;
and therefore someone from Europe made them.
The problem is that several of the copper tools shown as
evidence of this are well-known to be from the Old Copper
Culture, largely centered in Wisconsin and Michigan. It is
clearly a Native American culture. This culture dates to ca.
3000 BC, IIRC. It didn't continue, although Indians used native
copper (and meteoric iron, too) on and off since then.
I hope that as Inger re-traces the work done before the mid-20th
century, she pays attention to all of the work, not just that
which tends to support her views.
<snip>
Tom McDonald
Inger E Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:iuo040laavfd30qr3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:30:19 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote:
>
> >Tom,
> >your problem is that you don't accept that Scandinavians could have been
the
> >first in NA, SA as well as they where the ones who travelled most of all
> >according to several Arabic(!) sources written before 1000 AD.
>
> Do you mean the first from Europe or the first of any people?
According to friends who studies the subject it could be that there was
people from Asia entering NA at or around the same time as the first from
the European North. I can understand that. For almost all kind of stone
tools shown on net found in dated Neoliticum layers in NA I can't deny that
I or my family have an identical looking or almost identical looking into
the smallest detail. Where we found ours. Well where else then in our land
in Northern Bohuslän. Hight over today's sealevel? from 17 meters up to 43
meters. I use to show them to students when we discuss the Stone Age. Why
should I borrow from a Museum as many scholars do when I own more such
myself.
Oh I have forgotten to tell peole in the group, you Eric included, that in
1940's close to the clay-sediment layer under black earth my father found a
rare fruit-kernal which only can be found from the Sargasso area down to
Northern parts of SA.....
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
I really suggest you to try to get hold of Ironman in Pre Historic Sweden,
edited by Jernkontoret.
If only you and other took yourself time to compare the chemical components
for second and third metal in the bronze items as well as the Iron
artifacts, you wouldn't be so lost and neither would they.
You see it's a lot of facts never told in NA in these questions as well as
many other which made several scholars start their assumptions from
imaginative starting points without any solid ground what so ever for their
non-contact and non-diffussion theories. As I said so many times before.
Scholars and other interested needs to do their homework carefully which
many of them seem to have forgotten.
Inger E
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1040uti...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim Webster
Actually it should be comparatively easy to check the chemical composition
of various bronze implements, and this would at least tell you where the
bronze came from. Obviously American sourced bronze worked by a immigrant
isn't going to show up, but imported bronze should
If you find imported bronze in the artefacts then I think there are
definately questions that need answering
Jim Webster
Inger E Johansson
Same goes for bronze artifacts found here where the origin of the bronze in
some cases haven't been able to track to any known bronze here in the old
world....
Inger E
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
Jim Webster
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:Hq00c.84418$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
>
> >
> > Actually it should be comparatively easy to check the chemical
composition
> > of various bronze implements, and this would at least tell you where the
> > bronze came from. Obviously American sourced bronze worked by a
immigrant
> > isn't going to show up, but imported bronze should
> >
> > If you find imported bronze in the artefacts then I think there are
> > definately questions that need answering
>
> Same goes for bronze artifacts found here where the origin of the bronze
in
> some cases haven't been able to track to any known bronze here in the old
> world....
>
> Inger E
These are interesting even if they turn out to be European sources, this
would show wider trade patterns that we currently suspect
I suspect the problem is that we are discussing a method which is
comparatively new and comparatively expensive. Hopefully it will be more
widely used in future.
What we need is someone with a lucrative book deal and TV series that
includes funding some tests :-))
Jim Webster
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
> híppo,
> it's hardly likely that I could be a descendant to Charlemagne. We only
have
> people origin from farms in Smaaland(+ border to Halland), Västergötland,
> Värmland, Bohuslän and Oslo and Id in Norway + an island in the
archipelago
> south of Halden. Nothing more on either side. They have been so kind to
keep
> records...
Inger, in the Viking Age, and probably before, Swedes didn't have an
exclusive sense of ethnicity. Slaves and women were brought in from raids
elsewhere and adventurers from other places in Europe were absorbed into the
race without much resistance. Swedish 'armies' included Slavs, Finns,
Norwegians, Danes, Balts, Prussians, Wends, Lapps, Pomeranians and other
Germans and probably many more. Half-castes from Novgorod and other trading
posts were accepted as Swedish. In the Hansa period there were racial
imports of seamen and traders. Your family records probably don't go back
more than several hundred years. By then Sweden was long past being racially
pure. Even the Icelanders are a mix. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
>
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
> news:Hq00c.84418$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Actually it should be comparatively easy to check the chemical
> composition
> > > of various bronze implements, and this would at least tell you where
the
> > > bronze came from. Obviously American sourced bronze worked by a
> immigrant
> > > isn't going to show up, but imported bronze should
> > >
> > > If you find imported bronze in the artefacts then I think there are
> > > definately questions that need answering
> >
> > Same goes for bronze artifacts found here where the origin of the bronze
> in
> > some cases haven't been able to track to any known bronze here in the
old
> > world....
> >
> > Inger E
>
> These are interesting even if they turn out to be European sources, this
> would show wider trade patterns that we currently suspect
>
> I suspect the problem is that we are discussing a method which is
> comparatively new and comparatively expensive. Hopefully it will be more
> widely used in future.
Not necessarily. I know that Swedish origin of Iron has been tracked in
Russia and that some of the Bronze seems to origin from a very small but
specific area in mid-Europe. It's a lot noted about this in works from
excavatitions made before 1965.
>
> What we need is someone with a lucrative book deal and TV series that
> includes funding some tests :-))
Tests exists. One friend of mine's father used to work with this type of
tests. I have one closer to home who still do.
Inger E
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
Inger E Johansson
>
> "Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
>
> > híppo,
> > it's hardly likely that I could be a descendant to Charlemagne. We only
> have
> > people origin from farms in Smaaland(+ border to Halland),
Västergötland,
> > Värmland, Bohuslän and Oslo and Id in Norway + an island in the
> archipelago
> > south of Halden. Nothing more on either side. They have been so kind to
> keep
> > records...
>
> Inger, in the Viking Age, and probably before, Swedes didn't have an
> exclusive sense of ethnicity.
You don't know my family-background. We have nothing of the kind. It hasn't
anything at all to do with ethnicity, race or position in society. Up to
second half of 1800's we lived within a small distance of our ancestors. So
have many here in Sweden. Strangers weren't at all popular no matter if they
came from an other part of the country or from abroad. But it's funny we
haven't had more than one single marriage between relatives, second cousins
since 1650.
Inger E
hippo
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote:
> >> Courtesy of John N. Harris, I have just learned that the following
> >> detailed work is now available on-line:
> >
> >[.]
> >
> >You've got to deal with folks like the Norrenoena Society very carefully.
> >This was the racial determinist period and some of what they came up with
> >was pretty creative. I have a set of their Saga commentaries which have
much
> >that is valuable in them but often seem to go too far in reaching
> >conclusions. -the Troll
> >
> I wasn't advocating it. I was merely passing along the information.
> But thanks for the warning.
I didn't think you were. Scholars at the turn of the century have done us a
great service preserving folk tales and passing down their exhaustive
researches. The problem with studies from those days is that *their* sources
were not as critically researched and evaluated as is the practice today.
They did not have the advantages we do of multi-disciplined input such as
Archaeological evidence or exhaustive Philological studies in comparative
linguistics from which to draw their conclusions. The Society volumes I have
open with the promising objective of culling through the available Sagas,
classical and medieval literature, folk takes, traditions, and the like to
rationalize Norse Mythology, one confusing aspect of which was the tendency
of the ancient bards to use kennings in place of the names of the gods. I
find it extremely useful but a bit forced (subjective rather than objective)
and tinged with the romantic nationalism of the time. -the Troll
Jim Webster
>
> >
> > Inger, in the Viking Age, and probably before, Swedes didn't have an
> > exclusive sense of ethnicity.
>
> You don't know my family-background. We have nothing of the kind. It
hasn't
> anything at all to do with ethnicity, race or position in society. Up to
> second half of 1800's we lived within a small distance of our ancestors.
So
> have many here in Sweden. Strangers weren't at all popular no matter if
they
> came from an other part of the country or from abroad. But it's funny we
> haven't had more than one single marriage between relatives, second
cousins
> since 1650.
> Inger E
Family history can be illuminating in certain areas. While the English tend
to be a pretty mongrel lot, years ago someone did some research on how far
apart bride and groom lived prior to marriage. From memory was stuck at a
median of a couple of miles for centuries. The big change came with the
invention of the bicycle when it shot up to ten miles.
Similarly the difference between cities and smaller towns would be quite
profound.
In this area of England (Cumbria), in spite of being part of a multi-ethnic
country, the population is still well over 99% white Caucasian. The Irish
present a more interesting mix in that they were both actively imported to
work in certain industries, but also being handy, used to make their own way
as well. So now you have enclaves of Catholicism where a high proportion of
the families are of Irish descent, but you also have a proportion of the
population who have acquired an Irish ancestor but no Irish connections or
cultural roots.
Yet we know there must have been serious mixing at one time, with Norse and
Danes settling, Saxons mixing with the initial Cymri and even more exotic
incomers. One Roman Emperor whose name currently escapes me settled 10,000
Sarmatians around Lancaster about 40 miles from here, while on the Roman
wall we have gravestones showing that local girls married Palmyrans.
What interests me about this is did the Norse, Danes etc act like the Irish,
where a couple of centuries later there were distinct communities,
integrated but still separate, with a little bit of intermarriage around the
edges, or was the process more like that you see in some cities now where
the populations are becoming more actively mixed.
If the former you can quite see how Inger's family and area stayed
relatively unmixed, while in the cities a more mixed population grew up.
What always strikes me when I go to London is just how many physical types
(and here I don't mean just skin colour, by physiognomy and physique.) one
comes across just walking down the street as compared to what I see in the
North West.
Jim Webster
George
Interesting. Is there any evidence or are we back to playing games again ?
Anything ?
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:10:25 -0600, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
> >Jim Webster wrote:
[..]
> I've goy no axe to grind and first came to this news group about seven
> years ago following a trail of old boats. This led me into the subject
> of early European contact with North America. Even before I had heard
> of the Peterborough inscription I gained the impression of
> a n c i e n t people living in the far north. There is a commonality
> of artifacts, stone circles, spirals etc throughout both Scandinavia
> and North America which suggests that there was cultural contact. I
> think I referred to this as a 'ghostly impression' in a long ago
> discussion with Doug Weller. If I am right, the Vikings were
> latecomers.
I agree, I have seen similar - but what's the point. Nobody wants to
know anyway. There is that pre-Columbian brick wall, where only LAM is
"acceptable", any other mention of contacts will automatically result
in being abused. So why bother...
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
> "hippo" skrev i meddelandet
In the Viking age most families had members who went to sea on raids,
trading expeditions, King's wars, or any combination of them. These brought
back slaves and mates from elsewhere which would have been accepted since
they constituted a form of wealth. Those few from the inland areas who
didn't intermarried with families who did. I doubt that every your family
avoided foreign blood over the centuries. -the Troll
hippo
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
>
> "Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
> > > Inger, in the Viking Age, and probably before, Swedes didn't have an
Around the Roman military vici the mixing would have been pretty rapid. The
Roman military had its own culture quite apart from the origins of the
Auxillia and Numeri serving in it. Those serving, and the civilians
surrounding them, adapted to the military culture such that once Ethnic
units quite quickly lost their original language and culture and became of
mixed race since sons tended to follow fathers into the local unit.
Eventually the original ethnicity of the unit was lost. The Viking age saw
real movements of people, especially in coastal areas. Viking 'armies'
recruited from anyone willing to follow the leader. There were Irish, Scots,
Norwegians, Normans, Dutch (Friesians), Germans, Wends, Norwegians, Swedes,
Danes, Slavs, Fins and others in them, eventually serving on an equal basis.
When Rolf the Ganger first landed in what is now Normandy, the records show
the land was almost depopulated, at least in the Cotentin Peninsula and
coastal areas. They didn't bring their women. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
we were staying behind. Can't vouche for if we might have a slint of Herules
in us, that is to say if those who say that the area close to Långaryd on
the border between Halland and Småland is correct in assuming that it was
that way the Herules took up to Småland. But of course, that we don't
know.....
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:bPWdnQ16t_2...@giganews.com...
Jim Webster
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:HK6dnTjRsKb...@giganews.com...
>
> Around the Roman military vici the mixing would have been pretty rapid.
The
> Roman military had its own culture quite apart from the origins of the
> Auxillia and Numeri serving in it. Those serving, and the civilians
> surrounding them, adapted to the military culture such that once Ethnic
> units quite quickly lost their original language and culture and became of
> mixed race since sons tended to follow fathers into the local unit.
> Eventually the original ethnicity of the unit was lost.
Yes, looking at the vici you get a cultural effect, but how much of a
genetic one do you get? The soldiers come in from away, many marry, their
sons are brought into the unit. But not every soldier marries, (look at the
age on the tomb stones and who erected the stone) and local lads who are
brought up under the influence of the cultural effect will also join. So you
will get that first big hit, but then there will be the diluting effect.
Culturally, if you were to move any unit into the area, even if from
elsewhere in Britain, it would still bring the culture with it.
I stumbled upon http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html which I
posted elsewhere. It looks at Jewish genetics and this shows similarity,
young men apparently moving into an area and taking local wives. I think the
comparison is interesting.
The Viking age saw
> real movements of people, especially in coastal areas. Viking 'armies'
> recruited from anyone willing to follow the leader. There were Irish,
Scots,
> Norwegians, Normans, Dutch (Friesians), Germans, Wends, Norwegians,
Swedes,
> Danes, Slavs, Fins and others in them, eventually serving on an equal
basis.
> When Rolf the Ganger first landed in what is now Normandy, the records
show
> the land was almost depopulated, at least in the Cotentin Peninsula and
> coastal areas. They didn't bring their women. -the Troll
In the book "Blood of the Vikings" which also had a BBC tv series to go with
it, they actually discuss this issue and they have done some of the genetic
work. The Icelanders actually contain a lot of Celtic blood, probably the
wives etc brought by many men from Ireland. In other places you do see signs
of Norse women coming over and immigration taking place in family groups. It
does paint a fascinating picture. Given that women were a tradable commodity
the potential genetic mix must have been extraordinary.
Jim Webster
hippo
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Around the Roman military vici the mixing would have been pretty rapid.
> The
> > Roman military had its own culture quite apart from the origins of the
> > Auxillia and Numeri serving in it. Those serving, and the civilians
> > surrounding them, adapted to the military culture such that once Ethnic
> > units quite quickly lost their original language and culture and became
of
> > mixed race since sons tended to follow fathers into the local unit.
> > Eventually the original ethnicity of the unit was lost.
>
> Yes, looking at the vici you get a cultural effect, but how much of a
> genetic one do you get? The soldiers come in from away, many marry, their
> sons are brought into the unit. But not every soldier marries, (look at
the
> age on the tomb stones and who erected the stone) and local lads who are
> brought up under the influence of the cultural effect will also join. So
you
> will get that first big hit, but then there will be the diluting effect.
> Culturally, if you were to move any unit into the area, even if from
> elsewhere in Britain, it would still bring the culture with it.
> I stumbled upon http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html which I
> posted elsewhere. It looks at Jewish genetics and this shows similarity,
> young men apparently moving into an area and taking local wives. I think
the
> comparison is interesting.
Not really. Eastern European Jews had their women with them while an Ala of
Iberian Cavalry wouldn't have and in Judaism Jewishness is carried by the
mother not the father. IMO what European blood is found in Eastern European
Jews came mostly from converted males. Here is how I think it worked. The
men of a unit of Auxillia ceased being ethnic Iberians the day they joined
the army. Language is an important determinant here. There would have been
considerable pressure to learn Latin. Army contractors and doctors,
merchants and the command spoke it. Once out of Spain it was the only common
language. Stationed in Britain the men would have co-habited with native
women whether they married later or not. The children would have spoken the
native tongue of the mothers since the men were on duty much of the time.
The language of the vicus would probably have been mixed Celtic and Latin
with only the soldiers speaking Iberian with one another. The culture of the
vicus would have been almost exclusively Celtic with a thin Roman veneer, at
least at first, with the veneer thickening over time and most traces of
Iberian vanishing completely within two or three generations at most. All
recruits to the unit would be Celto-Latin speakers with only a word or two
of Iberian and completely Celtic in culture. In spite of what we men think,
it is the women and family which carry the culture just as they do in a
pride of lions. Males dropping in from time to time don't change it.
[.]
> In the book "Blood of the Vikings" which also had a BBC tv series to go
with
> it, they actually discuss this issue and they have done some of the
genetic
> work. The Icelanders actually contain a lot of Celtic blood, probably the
> wives etc brought by many men from Ireland. In other places you do see
signs
> of Norse women coming over and immigration taking place in family groups.
It
> does paint a fascinating picture. Given that women were a tradable
commodity
> the potential genetic mix must have been extraordinary.
Norse women were certainly not tradable and any Celtic wives would have been
'liberated' fairly quickly by the essential equality of women in Germanic
society. Women, like children and employees, will always get away with what
you let them get away with, always pushing the limits and explains why
Islamic husbands don't like their wives living in the US or Britain because
society does not support Islamic views towards them. Germanic culture at the
time treated slaves more like sharecroppers. They were permitted to marry
and usually farmed their own allocated land from their own households. Quite
soon they intermarried with the Icelanders and are now indistinguishable
from their once Norse masters. -the Troll
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
> hippo,
> we were staying behind. Can't vouche for if we might have a slint of
Herules
> in us, that is to say if those who say that the area close to Långaryd on
> the border between Halland and Småland is correct in assuming that it was
> that way the Herules took up to Småland. But of course, that we don't
> know.....
Chuckle, I'll bet you are as much a descendent of Charlemagne as I am. I
have to go with the bastard daughter of a son of Edward III. Your Migration
and Viking Age ancestors were not nearly the contented stay-at-homes as
Swedes of later centuries. -the Troll
Inger E Johansson
we weren't travelling around. Someone needed to be home taking care of the
farms. Actually we know pretty well were we origin from. As I said in
beginning, we don't have any nobleman in or outside wedlock to fall back
on.....
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:K66dnfcC8MC...@giganews.com...
Jim Webster
That was the interesting thing about the websites, where it seems that the
carrying by the mother seems to have been comparatively late.
IMO what European blood is found in Eastern European
> Jews came mostly from converted males. Here is how I think it worked. The
> men of a unit of Auxillia ceased being ethnic Iberians the day they joined
> the army. Language is an important determinant here. There would have been
> considerable pressure to learn Latin. Army contractors and doctors,
> merchants and the command spoke it. Once out of Spain it was the only
common
> language. Stationed in Britain the men would have co-habited with native
> women whether they married later or not. The children would have spoken
the
> native tongue of the mothers since the men were on duty much of the time.
> The language of the vicus would probably have been mixed Celtic and Latin
> with only the soldiers speaking Iberian with one another. The culture of
the
> vicus would have been almost exclusively Celtic with a thin Roman veneer,
at
> least at first, with the veneer thickening over time and most traces of
> Iberian vanishing completely within two or three generations at most. All
> recruits to the unit would be Celto-Latin speakers with only a word or two
> of Iberian and completely Celtic in culture. In spite of what we men
think,
> it is the women and family which carry the culture just as they do in a
> pride of lions. Males dropping in from time to time don't change it.
>
Seems fair enough. I often wonder just how much of a divergence there was
between army and population. Veterans had tax advantages and one suspects
that as the army had to be used to support tax gatherers, the lads sent
round to collect would be more understanding when dealing with army
families, and keen to ensure that all soldiers privileges were regarded.
This could lead to there being a comparatively privileged population in the
vicus and along the frontier generally, which would perhaps become more and
more separate from the generality of the population.
I think one problem we have is that the definition of slave actually alters
depending upon time and place. Ours probably owes more to the American south
than to our own history. While you can say what a terrible thing slavery
was, it is difficult to bewail the fate of those who ended up as ghulams in
various Arab armies, or Mamelukes in Egypt. Their standard of living and
social aspirations were almost certainly higher than their fellows who were
trapped within peasant societies at home. OK so they had to adopt Islam, but
for many, how deep and considered was their Christianity?
Jim Webster
hippo
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > Not really. Eastern European Jews had their women with them while an Ala
> of
> > Iberian Cavalry wouldn't have and in Judaism Jewishness is carried by
the
> > mother not the father.
>
> That was the interesting thing about the websites, where it seems that the
> carrying by the mother seems to have been comparatively late.
It is in the Torah so it can't be that late.
I have no doubt the vici were very different from the surrounding villages
and towns just like any military town today. For a start they would have
begun as monied economies and been generally wealthier having, say for
Legion, 5000 employed men as a basis. The demand for, and availability of,
foreign products would have been far greater as would the general skill
level for many trades from tanning hides to stone and metalworking,
coopering and general carpentry. I think the effects over time would have
been generally beneficial for the nearby native population. The military
base provided a ready market for agricultural products and cottage
industries such as weaving and pottery making. Overall trade and traffic in
the area would certainly have been greater.
[.]
You are right. In the Roman period folks would sell themselves into slavery
so as to eventually achieve citizenship at manumission. In several
generations their children would be the social equals of the masters of the
world. -the Troll
hippo
"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
> Hippo,
> we weren't travelling around. Someone needed to be home taking care of the
> farms. Actually we know pretty well were we origin from. As I said in
> beginning, we don't have any nobleman in or outside wedlock to fall back
> on.....
Sometimes the noble connection isn't so great. My family is descended from
Joan Beaufort the illegitimate daughter of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, son of
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster 1340-1399. That gets me back to Charlemagne
and related to every royal house in Europe. It only takes one. I think there
was a pirate in your family somewhere back there. You can't keep all the
young on the farm swilling pigs when everyone else is having fun raping and
pillaging and getting rich. -the Troll
Jim Webster
>
>.
>
> I have no doubt the vici were very different from the surrounding villages
> and towns just like any military town today. For a start they would have
> begun as monied economies and been generally wealthier having, say for
> Legion, 5000 employed men as a basis. The demand for, and availability of,
> foreign products would have been far greater as would the general skill
> level for many trades from tanning hides to stone and metalworking,
> coopering and general carpentry. I think the effects over time would have
> been generally beneficial for the nearby native population. The military
> base provided a ready market for agricultural products and cottage
> industries such as weaving and pottery making. Overall trade and traffic
in
> the area would certainly have been greater.
>
have to been to Vindolanda?
There the excavation is mainly of the town, the fort itself is pretty
nondiscript. They also have a trail with various shops and shrines rebuilt
to give people an idea of what it would have been like. As a way to put the
ideas over to the public it takes a lot of beating
Jim Webster
hippo
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > I have no doubt the vici were very different from the surrounding
Nope, I passed through the wall twice on my way in and out of Scotland but
the folks I was with had no interest in ancient history. I did do three
back-to-back tours of HMS Victory. I'm sure the guides thought I was off my
rocker. I went to the official site and the Republican period denarii are
interesting. They must have been in circulation for a hundred years before
being lost in Vespasian's time *unless* they were picked up by natives from
Caesar's time and hoarded. That's what is interesting about Archaeology. It
can drive you nuts with too many answers. -the Troll
David
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:G5%%b.84397$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
>
>
> Oh I have forgotten to tell peole in the group, you Eric included, that in
> 1940's close to the clay-sediment layer under black earth my father found a
> rare fruit-kernal which only can be found from the Sargasso area down to
> Northern parts of SA.....
>
> Inger E
>
Found at http://75.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SA/SARGASSO_SEA.htm
SARGASSO SEA, a tract of the North Atlantic Ocean, covered with floating seaweed
(Sargassum, originally named sargaco by the Portuguese). This tract is bounded
approximately by 25 and 30 N. and by 38 and 60 W., but its extent varies according to
winds and ocean currents. By these agencies the weed is carried and massed together, the
original source of supply being probably the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico (see ALGAE).
Similar circumstances lead to the existence of other similar tracts covered with floating
weed, e.g. in the solitary part of the Pacific Ocean, north of the Hawaiian islands,
between 30 and 40 N. and between 15o and i8o W. There is a smaller tract S.E. of New
Zealand, and along a belt of the southern. ocean extending from the Falkiand Islands,
south of Africa and south-west of Australia, similar floating banks of weed are
encountered. The Sargasso Sea was discovered by Columbus, who on his first voyage was
involved in. it for about a fortnight. The widely credited possibility of ships becoming
embedded in. the weed, and being unable to escape, is disproved by the expedition of the
Michael Sars, under the direction of Sir John Murray and the Norwegian government, in
1910, which found the surface covered with weed only in patches, not continuously.