Talk:Leif Erikson

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I am not certain if you grasped the nuance of Jeff Bolster's argument. Archaeological evidence for a Viking presence in North America, circa 1000 AD does exist, in Newfoundland. However, there is no evidence for a Viking presence in New England, Minnesota, and Kansas. Part of the suspicion regrading claims of a pre-Columbian European presence goes back to the nineteenth century, when Scandinavian-American societies, citing Norse myth, claimed that Leif Erikson landed in North American centuries before Cristobal Colon (his proper name). Some individuals went so far as to plant archaeological forgeries in Minnesota and Kansas, that have come to be known as rune stones. They are large rocks with inscriptions made on them by metal tools. Close examination revealed them as modern fakes (the nineteenth century, BTW, saw many archaeological frauds. A number of "artifacts" of supposedly Etruscan origin surfaced in western Michigan in the 1890s). So, while scholars like Julius E. Olson and Edward Gaylord Bourne did not accept that the Norse had landed in North America, they still included excerpts from the Vinland saga in their edited volume The Northmen, Columbus, and Cabot, 985-1503 (Scribner's, 1906). However, the controversy about a Norse presence was finally laid to rest in 1960, when artifacts of Scanadiavian orign, dating to about 1000 AD were discovered in Newfoundland.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]--JBoley 10:36, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I looked at your initial cites and found nothing persuasive. One or two tiny artifacts can be easily forged or misunderstood, and are not evidence for an actual settlement.--Aschlafly 10:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I find it unpersuasive that Aschlafly actually read the cites I provided in four minutes. Perhaps, as Dr. Lenski noted, reading is not your strongest suit?--JBoley 10:44, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, insult Andy with a non sequitur. That's the way to win him over. Jinxmchue 10:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Non sequiter? What he said is essentially along the same lines as "I found your performance of the task I gave you lacking. Maybe it's like Susan said - you can't be trusted to do chores correctly?" It's not non sequiter at all. Wandering 15:49, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
"Cristobal Colon (his proper name)" An Italian whose "proper name" is Spanish? Jinxmchue 10:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I care about history and the truth. Andy said he did not find the cites persuasive, without even looking at them. Perhaps Dr. Lenski had a point?--JBoley 10:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
You say you care about history and the truth, but provide a Spanish name for an Italian and claim it's his "proper name." How does that jive? Jinxmchue 13:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I was thinking of the original agreement between Columbus and the Spanish Crown, which referred to him a Cristobal Colon. However, it still stands that the assertion that the Norse did not reach North America is obviously incorrect. --JBoley 13:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, it is not correct that there were only found "one or two tiny artifacts". Actually, the excavations have unearthed eight buildings, including three Norse-style longhouses for habitation, and several hundred different artifacts. --AKjeldsen 15:34, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Archaeologists are notorious for only seeing what they want to see, a fault shared with many of our Liberal friends here. Bugler 16:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Im a Norweigan myself, and Id love to think that we discovered america, but when the facts speak against it I have nothing to do but concede. It doesnt have to be harder than reading the sources provided. Even in norway people are starting to realize "we" didnt do it. Im going to try and find some more good sources to confirm that. PerWilly 19:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The evidence rests primarily on two tiny artifacts identified by the much younger wife of a prominent archaeologist from Norway. Nothing larger of significance was found, aside from speculation that arose beginning with those artifacts.

Sadly, the planting of small artifacts is a fact of life and has been proven in other circumstances. There is powerful evidence against any such settlement, and no documentary support.--Aschlafly 19:34, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, the more one looks at the details, the more it appears to be an archaeological wannabee trying to acquire the fame and respect of her older husband.--Aschlafly 19:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
It's a pity there's no proof of their deception, eh? Wandering 20:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I'd just like to know how eight buildings and hundreds of artifacts can suddenly turn into "two tiny artifacts". Maybe deceitful liberal professors stole the rest? --AKjeldsen 20:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Why are there no artifacts bigger than what can be easily carried in one hand?--Aschlafly 20:29, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Because they took the big and valuable items with them when they left again? --AKjeldsen 20:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Or because it's the small things that tend to get lost in everyday life - and then re-emerge centuries later in archaeological digs. Or things like pins break with repeated usage, needles snap, pots chip or break... that's the flotsam and jetsam of history. Darkmind1970 11:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I must say, what I find most interesting about the proposition that the site was built and seeded by the Ingstads (and the international team of archaeologists that accompanied them) was the fact that Parks Canada either willingly or unwittingly colluded in the matter when they performed [url=http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/natcul/fouilles_excavate_e.asp]their own excavations[/url]. Wandering 20:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)


Recent edit

"One of those artifacts was used by Norse women in their chores, but there is no explanation for how or why Norse women would have gone to Newfoundland."

The vikings, including, women used boats to travel, and women were essential to the creation of settlements. Unless an objection is raised, I'll be removing that sentence. Wandering 19:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm somewhat skeptic about this "used by women" interpretation. What would prevent Vikin men from using the same tools if necessary? It seems likely that there are some preconceived notions about gender roles at work here. --AKjeldsen 09:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Because they're Vikings? You modern-day Scandinavians might have gone soft but back then.... More seriously in the past gender-roles where more fixed. It might not be proved that women used them in this instance, but it seems a reasonable assumption. --Toffeeman 09:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't know. The question of gender roles is quite complex, and very culture-dependent. In many cases, what we might consider 'traditional' gender roles date only a couple of centuries back at most, and projecting those backwards on past societies is problematic. In any case, common sense would suggest that clothes would need mending whether or not there were any women around to take care of it. --AKjeldsen 11:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough, you're the historian. --Toffeeman 12:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Why isn't this article being reverted?

Does anybody else find it strange that once it was pointed out that Leif Ericson was a christian Schlafy sort of gave up on his claims that there was no real evidence for the settlement? What happened to Schlafy's claims that there was only a tiny amount of evidence and what little there was could be explained by other means?