76
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − 1. 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. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)+ + + + + + + + + + + +
→Why isn't this article being reverted?: new section
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.
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.
[[User:PerWilly|PerWilly]] 19:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
[[User:PerWilly|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:: It's a pity there's no proof of their deception, eh? [[User:Wandering|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 [[deceit]]ful [[liberal]] [[Professor values|professors]] stole the rest? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:::: Why are there no artifacts bigger than what can be easily carried in one hand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Because they took the big and valuable items with them when they left again? --[[User:AKjeldsen|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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]. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
==Recent edit==
==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."
"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. [[User:Wandering|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. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Because they're <big>Vikings</big>? 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 <i>proved</i> that women used them in this instance, but it seems a reasonable assumption. --[[User:Toffeeman|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. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Fair enough, you're the historian. --[[User:Toffeeman|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?