Finding Vinland

[lazserus]

The Canadian government, with the help of Helge Ingstad and his wife Anne Stine, and Bragitta Wallace, have declared the site of L'Anse aux Meadows in New Foundland the official location of Leifr Eiríksson's Vinland. This site rakes in tons of tourist money annually as a heritage site. But would the Canadian government, with the help of Bragitta Wallace, ignore data that says L'Anse aux Meadows is in fact not the Vinland? Of course they would. Any government would if they were in the same position. But if L'Anse aux Meadows is not Vinland, then where is Vinland?

Before I answer that question let's first look at some information that leads the site of Vinland away from L'Anse aux Meadows. You'll have to bear with me, for the points I will be making require a little background information.

The first thing we must consider is the climate in the North Atlantic at the beginning of the 11th century, when Vinland was discovered and settled by Leifr Eiríksson. Why does the climate matter? Because the Vinland sagas make specific points regarding the climate, such as frost-free winters and the existence of wild grapes. Both of these environmental descriptions require some investigation into medieval climate for verification and locating ye olde Vinland. Moreover, Helge Ingstad followed the Norse map and sagas' descriptions to discover the settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows.

I'm sure most of you have heard of the Little Ice Age (LIA), which occurred roughly between 1350 and 1850. At its coldest, temperatures during the Little Ice Age were colder than ever sense the last Glacial Maximum some 12,000 years ago. In fact, the LIA was a major contributor to the collapse of Norse settlements in Greenland in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. What does this have to do with Vinland? The LIA occurred right after a significant warming trend, so called the Medieval Warm Period (c900-1350). It is believed that this warming trend enabled the Vikings to expand in such a way and efficiently as they did, especially in their conquests of Ireland, the Shetlands, the Orkney, and northern Scotland. With freedom of mobility in the North Atlantic--without the obstacles of glacial ice--the Vikings spilled onto the British Isles and took control of most of the region within a short period. Moreover, this allowed the Vikings to populate Iceland and Greenland in the 9th and 10th centuries, a feat that would have been much more difficult if not impossible during the Little Ice Age.

During the Little Ice Age temperature minimums were about ~0.45-0.50°C cooler than the mid-20th century, colder spikes possibly being close to 2°C cooler on average. Believe it or not, although those numbers seem small, a drastic change in temperature of 2°C at any latitude could prove catastrophic, especially if that is a temperature drop. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was approximately 0.20°C warmer than the LIA minimum temperatures, which is still on par with mid-20th century temperatures. On average MWP temperatures were about 0.20°C cooler than today, however periodic spikes would have brought temperatures relatively close to today's. If the average temperatures between AD 900 and 1350 were 0.20°C cooler than today's, how is it that there were frost-free winters in New Foundland circa AD 1000? It couldn't be, meaning Vinland must have been further to the south! Or does it?

With the climate issue discussed, we now move into the botanical question of the existence of wild grapes. Wild grapes today are not found north of Maine, meaning that, if grapes were in fact discovered, that the discovery would have been made south of New Brunswick. Grapevines, specifically Vitis visifera, grow on the vines of deciduous plants. This species of grape berries is found in temperate, tropical, and subtropical deciduous forests. New Foundland resides at a subarctic lattitude, a place grapes cannot grow naturally.

Archaeological evidence tells us that the earliest use of fermented grapes was in the Indo-Iranian area of Central and Western Asia--sites suggesting this found in places like Iran and Georgia-- around 6000 BC. Sites in China suggest fermentation for rice wine goes back as far as 7000 BC. Some scholars have suggested that the mention of grapes in North America was a late edition, something that was not originally reported because the Norse were not familiar with fermented grape wine. Unfortunately, these scholars didn't do their research, for the Norse had penetrated Western Asia some time before Leifr Eiríksson's fateful journey. In fact, the Varangians, the elite guard and soldiers of Byzantium, were Norse mercenaries. That means Norsemen were in Constantinople before and at the time of AD 1000, which was a major trading city between the East and West! Harald Hardåde, the last Viking king of Norway (d. AD 1066) was a Varangian and had plenty of communication with his kinsfolk back in Scandinavia. It's foolish to believe the Norse were ignorant to the existence of fermented grapes in the 11th century, therefore they would have enough knowledge of the berry to recognize it if they saw it. But they certainly could not have discovered grapevine in New Foundland! It would have had to have been seen much further to the south. That is, of course, if the reports of grapes are in fact true.

So, again we ask where is Vinland? In my opinion, Vinland is not a single settlement, but a region of North America. If we look at the trends the Norse used in naming areas they populated we see that larger regions were identified by natural or physical traits, and smaller locales were named after people. For example, a place named Brattasfjord would be a fjord named after a person called Bratta. But a larger region, such as Markland or Helluland (Forest Land and Slab Land) describe a location by its physical traits. Leifr Eiríksson named three places in North America: Helluland, Markland, and Vinland. Helluland and Markland describe the physical traits of the regions believed to be Baffin Island and Labrador. Why would Vinland be any different? Climate data from the MWP conflicts with frost-free winters and the temperatures were still too low to allow grapes to grow in New Foundland naturally. Sure, there was a settlement erected at L'Anse aux Meadows, but it cannot be the Vinland. The data conflicts and there's no reason to think that Vinland must be a single or series of settlements. Logic and history tells us it was more likely a large geographic region.

[TC]

I'm inclined to hold with this theory, not only with your climate analogy, but with the vast difference in the physical features of several tribes of indigenous peoples of that area. Strong elongated jaws and powerful noses that don't show the classic oriental features that define the plains and coastal tribes of central and western America. I believe a remnant of European blood is vary present within these East coast groups, specifically Scandinavian.

[lazserus]

I did a little more research today and found some interesting facts that help put the Vinland question into a vice. Adam of Bremen in AD 1075 mentioned Vinland and also mentioned grapes from the region. Knowing what we do about the Medieval Warm Period, and about its temperatures not being any warmer than those of the mid-20th century, we can deduce that wild grapes could not be found north of the 45th parallel, roughly the border of New Brunswick and Maine.

The Grœnlendinga saga, the older of the two Vinland sagas (believed to be written in the late 12th century--the second saga being Eiríks saga rauði in the 13th century), mentions not only the existence of wild grapes but also an abundance of salmon. The salmon is a cold water fish, and none can survive in waters much further south than the 41st parallel. This gives us a good chunk of real estate to consider, with L'Anse aux Meadows being the northern-most settlement. If the existence of grapes were merely an addition to the tale much later, then Adam of Bremen would not have mentioned them in the late 11th century, a good time before it is believed that the Grœnlendinga saga was put to parchment.

[lazserus]

I've come across more information that may prove interesting to those interested in Vínland. Here I will attempt to lay to rest the etymological debates regarding Vínland by simply applying Occam's Razor and Seip's maxim.

Occam's Razor: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Jens Arup Seip's maxim: It is essential that a historical phenomenon should be viewed in its functional context.

Sources
The first known recorded mention of Vínland is by the German cleric Adam of Bremen in his history of the archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen circa A.D. 1075. It is within this history he mentions being told by the Danish king, Sven Estridsson, about a land in the ocean to the west called Vínland. The next source comes from the medieval Icelandic historian Ari Þorgilsson in his Book of the Icelanders, written perhaps in the 1120s. The Icelandic Geographical treatise (twelfth or thirteenth century) is the third chronological source, suggesting Vínland was part of the educated Icelander’s geographical view of the world by 1300.

The actual sagas describing the settlement of North America by the Vikings come from what are widely known as the Vínland sagas. The Vínland sagas consist of Grœnlendinga saga and Eiríks saga rauða. The oldest version of Eiríks saga rauða, The Saga of Eirík the Red, is found in the Hauksbók, a medieval codex copied down sometime between 1299 and 1334 by Haukr Erlendsson with the assistance of two or more scribes. The oldest copy of Grœnlendinga saga, or Saga of the Greenlanders, is found in the Flateyjarbók, written around 1387. It is generally agreed upon that Grœnlendinga saga was written earlier than Eiríks saga rauða, based on the differences in literary technique, perhaps around A.D. 1200. Eiríks saga rauða is written in a style similar to other sagas produced in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, whereas the style of the Grœnlendinga saga is less refined and uses language indicating it is the older of the two accounts. These two sagas, although recorded centuries after the voyages occurred, provide the only first-hand information we have regarding the geography and environment of eleventh-century Vínland.

Vínland or Vinland?
For decades scholars have debated the location of Vínland by strictly analyzing the etymology of the word. These arguments have occurred between both scholars with and without linguistic training in Old Icelandic (a.k.a. Old West Norse).

In order to delve into this linguistic argument, we must first break down the two words. For the sake of simplicity I will start with the second half of the word (lǫnd), which translates the same way in both versions. Lǫnd (in most conditions appearing as land) translates to mean "country," "region," or simply "land." There are no significant arguments regarding the use of lǫnd as a suffix in either Vínland or Vinland.

Where things get tricky for many historians is dealing with the two possible prefixes: vín- and vin-. Just so there are no troubles, allow me to display the two prefixes in larger text so that you can see perfectly the difference.

vín / vin

You will notice that the prior is í (i with an accent) and the latter is i (i without accent). The sounds in Old Icelandic are qualitatively the same, except í is pronounced with a longer sound (as in the English percieve) and i with a shorter (as in the English fin or sit). In linguistics we call this a short, tense monophthong in vín and a lax monophthong in vin. Simply expressed, the í is a longer sound like English ee whereas i is a shorter sound. Thus, vin is pronounced [vin] and vín is pronounced [vi:n].

Beyond pronunciation the two words are defined differently. Both Old Icelandic, vín translates to "wine" or "vine," and vin translates to "pasture" or "meadow." Therefore, if we literally translate the two words we end up with two conflicting names: Vínland = Wine Land; Vinland = Pasture Land.

Where and why is there conflict? These sagas were not recorded until the middle of the 13th century, and they were recorded in Old Icelandic. However, as shown above, the Vínland has been mentioned in historical documents long before the sagas were recorded. As these names were recorded transliteration occurred, especially when translating to English or German, as í does not occur naturally in either language. Thus, the í was transliterated to i. Many historians have no linguistic training in Old Icelandic, therefore they must resort to using translations to formulate arguments. Transliteration has occurred during transcriptions of these sagas into other languages, primarily Latin, German and English.

These transliteration problems can be resolved if [trained] historians rely soley on the surviving manuscripts as opposed to translations. I have seen reproductions of the Flateyjarbók manuscript (provided by the Royal Danish Sanction and the Papal Secretary of State), and it clearly shows vín and not vin. It matters not what any historian wants to find, it matters what actually exists.

ϒnge: engi or eigi?
In 1997, Magnús Stefánsson published an article in the Scandinavian Journal of History, titled "Vínland or Vinland?" In the article he pulls a sentence out of Flateyjarbók and translates it. The translation is fine, but he transcribes the sentence incorrectly. The way he transcribes this sentence tosses gasoline on a fire because the word engi is used instead of eigi. Followed is a transcription directly from a reproduction of the manuscript.

Þar var svá góðr landskostr, at því er þeim sýndisk at þar myndi œínge fénaðr fóðr þurfa á vetrum.

The quality of land seemed [to them] so good that no form of fodder was needed for livestock there.

Old Icelandic was never standardized, thus many forms based on regional dialects can be found. The above quote from Flateyjarbók comes from 14th-century Iceland near Breiðafjord. Although Old Icelandic was never standardized, it does not mean certain rules were not applied. Old Icelandic was rather flexible in literary form for stylistic and poetic reasons. Regardless of this stylistic flexibility, context is always the true testament to translation.

The word œínge is sometimes transliterated to mean engi (meadow), however in this example œínge must mean eigi (not/no) and not engi. It is meant to negate myndi (need of). In Old Icelandic the œ diphthong resorts to e in circumstances wherein it occurs in the beginning of a word. Moreover, the n prior to a g can drop out, and thus we have eigi. If we are too literal with the word œínge we end up with eingi, yet now we have a thought that makes absolutely no sense. Without eigi there is no adverb to negate myndi and thus we no longer have a translation that includes there was not need for. We instead have a translation that calls the place a meadow or pasture and mentions the need for livestock fodder. Couple this with the fact no foundations for barns or byres were ever found at L'Anse aux Meadows, and that winter fodder and shelters were common place among the Greenlanders, it makes no sense for œínge to transliterate to engi.

Conclusion
Does this etymological explanation shine a light on where the real Vínland is located? Absolutely not! It does, however, help minimize confusion regarding the location of Vínland by resolving the etymological debate. The reality is, there is no archaeological evidence outside L'Anse aux Meadows to suggest Vikings actually established another settlement.

[Becks]

Hi Laz!

I agree, I've always referred to Vinland as an area that probably spread well into New England. Growing up we were always taught in history class in Canada that L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland was just a settlement, not solely Vinland itself.

Good job researching!

[lazserus]

Hi Laz!

I agree, I've always referred to Vinland as an area that probably spread well into New England. Growing up we were always taught in history class in Canada that L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland was just a settlement, not solely Vinland itself.

Good job researching!

The evidence is overwhelming in support of L'Anse aux Meadows being the site of Straumfjord, a permanent waypoint established linking Greenland to Vínland. Particular descriptions found within the Vínland sagas contradict L'Anse aux Meadows being the Vínland. Moreover, archaeological evidence recovered at L'Anse aux Meadows shows it only matches fragments of the descriptions.

There was, however, another site, primarily established for collecting timber (and perhaps grapes), called Hóp. The location of Hóp is what is still debated today, with more and more scholars agreeing the site must have been the Miramachi region of northeastern New Brunswick. This region provides sugar maple, along with silver and red maple, and is the northern limit of North American grapes suitable for fermenting into wine. Maple and larch trees were the two most widely exported from North America to Greenland and Iceland. After Vínland was abandoned some 30 years after it was founded, larch continued to appear in Greenland and Iceland, meaning the Greenlanders at the very least still harvested timber along the Labrador coast (Markland).

The reason the Miramachi region of New Brunswick is preferred as the location of Hóp is due to the recovery of a burl of white walnut and three butternuts in carpentry waste at L'Anse aux Meadows. Butternut (aka white walnut) wood has an upper northern limit of New Brunswick. The timber must have been brought in from the continent no further north than New Brunswick. This is also the northern limit of wild grapes suitable for making wine.

Straumfjord at L'Anse aux Meadows was a perfect permanent outpost for the Norse to ship North American resources to Greenland and Iceland. There is no way to ever confirm Hóp was located in New Brunswick unless archaeological evidence is found there. Unfortunately, if Hóp was a lumber camp, no permanent foundations would have been laid, and thus there is probably no archaeological traces to be found. The Norse would have more likely resided in búðir or "booths," temporary shelters without permanent foundations typical for halls or houses, but more enduring than tents. The Icelanders erected búðir every summer in Iceland when they attended the Alþing. These búðir would never leave any archaeological traces.

New England is likely too far south to be Hóp. During the Middle Ages salmon did not swim as far south, at least as far as we can tell. Salmon appearing as far south as New England is an occurrence post-dating the onset of the Columbian Exchange, more likely within that latter part of the 17th century. Futhermore, the maple and larch exported from the continent are more abundant further north than in New England.

[Ningishiddza]

I did a little more research today and found some interesting facts that help put the Vinland question into a vice. Adam of Bremen in AD 1075 mentioned Vinland and also mentioned grapes from the region. Knowing what we do about the Medieval Warm Period, and about its temperatures not being any warmer than those of the mid-20th century, we can deduce that wild grapes could not be found north of the 45th parallel, roughly the border of New Brunswick and Maine.

The Grœnlendinga saga, the older of the two Vinland sagas (believed to be written in the late 12th century--the second saga being Eiríks saga rauði in the 13th century), mentions not only the existence of wild grapes but also an abundance of salmon. The salmon is a cold water fish, and none can survive in waters much further south than the 41st parallel. This gives us a good chunk of real estate to consider, with L'Anse aux Meadows being the northern-most settlement. If the existence of grapes were merely an addition to the tale much later, then Adam of Bremen would not have mentioned them in the late 11th century, a good time before it is believed that the Grœnlendinga saga was put to parchment.

I disagree.

You're making the false assumption that atmospheric temperatures and ocean water temperatures move in unison. They do not. There's a lag time of many decades (nearly a century) to several centuries.

It is entirely possible that air temperature warmed enough to allow grapes to be cultivated while the ocean temperatures remained cool enough for salmon to migrate that far south.

Conversely, it's also possible for the ocean temperatures to cool long before atmospheric temperatures cooled, allowing for salmon to migrate south while the weather was still warm enough to cultivate grapes.

We need to keep looking for additional Viking settlements along the North American coast. I can't believe for a moment the Vikings did not explore the areas around Hudson Bay and the Gulf of St Lawrence. Surely the Vikings had contact with indigenous peoples and they either raided or traded, and the evidence is there. I understand that many of the best sites may not be accessible because of the "tribal taboos and customs" of some of the indigenous groups that occupy those areas, but there has to be evidence somewhere.

[Beatnik Bob]

We need to keep looking for additional Viking settlements along the North American coast. I can't believe for a moment the Vikings did not explore the areas around Hudson Bay and the Gulf of St Lawrence. Surely the Vikings had contact with indigenous peoples and they either raided or traded, and the evidence is there. I understand that many of the best sites may not be accessible because of the "tribal taboos and customs" of some of the indigenous groups that occupy those areas, but there has to be evidence somewhere.

I think they did.

by Wm. P. Holmen, Viking Research

LINK: A series of 15 campsites have been found, running from Hudson Bay to Sauk Centre, Minnesota. The Vikings, as is still the case in Norway, cut triangular holes in convenient rock ledges to which to fasten anchor pins for their boats.

Because the Indians or early settlers to Minnesota did not use such type of holes, these mooring holes are distinctive and have not been molested. They are so old, the rain and sand have worn the tiny chisel marks on their inner surfaces smooth. Several have been found at projected intermediate places along the route.

There are a number of actual 1362 period Norse instruments, which have been taken to Europe and found to be identical with similar instruments in the Nordic museum near Stockholm and other museums.

These instruments have been found in no other place in the North American continent showing they could not have been brought to this country by settlers.

These instruments include a firesteel for making fires; a ceremonial halbred signifying a royal expedition; a heavy battle axe with a 16 inch cutting edge; a light battle axe, used for fighting men in armoured suits; a spear head; a Nordic sword, and other relics which include mooring stone pins.

I agree that more research needs to be done though. Particularly concerning the mandan indian tribe, which were reported to have "indians" with light skin and blue/hazel eyes.

This could not have been due to later groups of europeans that came, because when they did come into contact with later europeans, they were destroyed by smallpox.

[lazserus]

I disagree.

You're making the false assumption that atmospheric temperatures and ocean water temperatures move in unison. They do not. There's a lag time of many decades (nearly a century) to several centuries.

I don't know why you got that from my post, but that's not what I said. Atmospheric temperatures and oceanic temperatures are indeed separate, however local temperatures can be attributed to ocean temperatures. There is significant overlap in coastal regions. If I were speaking of a location within the continent's interior then you would have an argument. As far as coastal regions are concerned, oceanic temperatures directly contribute to local means. For example, if the Gulf Stream did not carry warmth to Iceland the overall temperatures there would be much colder. Western Europe's continental temperatures are directly related to the warmth provided by the Gulf Stream.

It is entirely possible that air temperature warmed enough to allow grapes to be cultivated while the ocean temperatures remained cool enough for salmon to migrate that far south.

You're thinking purely theoretical here. In perfect conditions anything is possible, but the natural world does not function under such perfected pretenses. Wild grapes can grow in subarctic regions, hence such species as Vitis riparia. However, there are no species of grape in Newfoundland today or in history. The reports of grapes in the Vínland sagas must have been linked to somewhere south of L'Anse aux Meadows. In the sagas it is said the camp of Hóp was further south, so it makes sense.

As far as the appearance of salmon further south is concerned, it's been recorded in history and by both zoologists and paleozoologists that the present southern limit of salmon migrations is relatively new, not appearing until after the early part of the 15th century.

The point here is there's no need for special conditions to explain Straumfjord's and Hóp's locations when both can exist within natural boundaries 2,000 years ago. A New Brunswick location for Hóp fits with both the upper limit of grapes and the lower limit of salmon. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me here.

We need to keep looking for additional Viking settlements along the North American coast. I can't believe for a moment the Vikings did not explore the areas around Hudson Bay and the Gulf of St Lawrence.

Although I don't think there are any other settlements to be found, I certainly agree the search should continue. Hóp was probably a lumber camp, so foundations would not have been laid, and thus there will be no conclusive archaeological evidence. Those spending summers at Hóp would have erected búðir, a type of temporary housing similar to military tents. Búðir were designed to be temporary but were more enduring than your typical tent. Foundations were laid for permanent structures such as homes, byres, barns, and halls. This is why there is no archaeological evidence in places we know Vikings camped during invasions.

I don't think we should stop looking, but I don't think we'll ever find anything. Straumfjord was a year-round, permanent camp. Hóp was perhaps a seasonal resource-harvesting site.

Surely the Vikings had contact with indigenous peoples and they either raided or traded, and the evidence is there. I understand that many of the best sites may not be accessible because of the "tribal taboos and customs" of some of the indigenous groups that occupy those areas, but there has to be evidence somewhere.

We know the Norse in Greenland traded with the Inuit, at least for a short while. The Norse received tribute for centuries from the Saami in Finland, so it's not unheard of for them to make some sort of peace treaty with indigenous peoples.

One of the many theories pertaining to the abandonment of the Vínland experiment is attributed to pressure from indigenous peoples. The two sagas, Eiríks saga rauða and Grœnlendinga saga, each mention contact with North American natives, both circumstances ending in violence. Grœnlendinga saga mentions briefly of a trade occurring between the Norse and the natives within some fort. (The fort is perhaps Hóp.) The natives were curious and kept touching Norse weapons, and so eventually the Norse lashed out and killed as many as they could. In Eiríks saga rauða Norse settlers are chased down by natives, with Freyda, the illegitimate sister of Leif Eiríksson, scaring the pursuers away by slapping one of her lactating breasts with the flat of a sword blade. Aside from the sagas there is archaeological evidence suggesting the Norse were in some form of contact with North American natives, such as the Maine penny.

Because we cannot locate the site of Hóp we cannot conclude the Norse were pressured out of Vínland by indigenous peoples. In fact, L'Anse aux Meadows shows signs of organized and calculated departure. No tools or utensils were left behind. Everything was carefully cleaned out before the site was abandoned. We know there was increased pressure in the Western Settlement of Greenland by the Thule Inuit starting in the 14th century, and by the early 15th century that settlement was abandoned and the Thule controlled the area.

I think they did.

by Wm. P. Holmen, Viking Research

I'll have to look into this research. If it's not brand new, it's not being accepted by Norse scholars for some reason. I'll see what I can find and make my own call.

I mean no offense to Scandinavian scholars, but it seems they refuse to accept anything outside of traditional Scandinavia and known occupations sites as Norse. I only know of one Scandinavian scholar willing to accept the idea that artifacts found in North America are genuinely Norse. It's a professional death sentence to Scandi scholars to support Norse artifacts beyond a certain accepted geographic scope, thus I will not mention his name. I can say, though, that he has yet to make any real conclusions regarding artifacts found in North America, however he is keeping an open mind.