John Acher, Reuters, July 17, 2009
The 15th century Vinland Map, the first known map to show part of America before explorer Christopher Columbus landed on the continent, is almost certainly genuine, a Danish expert said Friday.
Controversy has swirled around the map since it came to light in the 1950s, many scholars suspecting it was a hoax meant to prove that Vikings were the first Europeans to land in North America—a claim confirmed by a 1960 archaeological find.
{snip}
“All the tests that we have done over the past five years—on the materials and other aspects—do not show any signs of forgery,” Rene Larsen, rector of the School of Conservation under the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, told Reuters.
He presented his team’s findings at an international cartographers’ conference in the Danish capital Friday.
The map shows both Greenland and a western Atlantic island “Vinilanda Insula,” the Vinland of the Icelandic sagas, now linked by scholars to Newfoundland where Norsemen under Leif Eriksson settled around AD 1000.
{snip}
He said wormholes, caused by wood beetles, were consistent with wormholes in the books with which the map was bound.
He said claims the ink was too recent because it contained a substance called anatase titanium dioxide could be rejected because medieval maps have been found with the same substance, which probably came from sand used to dry wet ink.
American scholars have carbon dated the map to about 1440, about 50 years before Columbus “discovered” the New World in 1492. Scholars believe it was produced for a 1440 church council at Basel, Switzerland.
The Vinland Map is not a “Viking map” and does not alter the historical understanding of who first sailed to North America. But if it is genuine, it shows that the New World was known not only to Norsemen but also to other Europeans at least half a century before Columbus’s voyage.
{snip}
The Vinland map. Enlarge by clicking here.
Original article
(Posted on July 23, 2009)
Comments
This is just more proof that the Vikings were not just barbarians but also great explorers because of their shipbuilding abilities. I’m sure we will eventually learn from people like Henry Louis Gates about the black African that somehow managed to bring science to the north.
That map seems to show that the Vikings had a knowledge of what became known as Hudson’s Bay and also had sailed up the St. Lawrence river for some distance inland. So it is conceivable that the Viking made it pretty far inland on the North American continent.
This is really great!
For years the establishment tried to ignore or show the Vinland map was a forgery, rather than admit that Northern Europeans discovered and colonized North America.
Perhaps this will rekindle the Viking rune stone found in Minnesota, that was first thought a hoax and now appears to be real. Abut 1380 AD if my memory services me right.
Then what about those White Tribes… the clovis spear points found in killed/hunted mammoths, 12,000 years ago in Mexico-of course clovis spear points have an uncanny resemblance to European spear points of the same date, NOT asian spear points…
…or the ancient White Tribes of South America, maybe they will get a bit more publicity and archeological review…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vinland/
Well done.Recent archaeology reveals that America was populated by europeans in the beginning. After some disastrous climate changes adversely affected the european first settlers, they were exterminated by asian newcomers.American Indians. What does that do to the victimology charts? The truth, only the truth- for a change.
According to some historians, about two centuries before Columbus, Portugese mariners were fishing for cod off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and trading with the now-extinct Beothuk tribe. Therefore, I think the real reason Portugal turned Columbus down was because the Portugese, unlike their European neighbors, knew about America, but did not want an official government expedition, because they did not want the rest of Europe to know their trade secret. I have read that the Beothuk had a lighter skin complexion than most other Indian tribes, so maybe there could be some truth to these historical claims.
Contrary to popular myth, people in Europe at the time of Christopher Columbus did not think the Earth is flat. Western civilization has known since ancient Greece that the Earth is round. The real reason the Spanish royal court did not at first want to fund the voyage Columbus proposed, was because the Spanish considered it too many nautical miles west to sail. In a way they were right, but unlike the Portugese, they did not know that America exisited.
I read from somewhere, but I do not know for certain if this is true, that Columbus visited Iceland in 1477. This is one place he could have learned about America’s existence. I have heard from other sources, that before Columbus, rumors of the New World were around in Europe. Perhaps, it could compared to contemporary rumors like Area 51, the Roswell, New Mexico ufo crash, or the hollow Earth theory. If you want to know about the hollow Earth theory, put in “hollow earth” in an internet search engine like Yahoo or Google.
My own theory about Christopher Columbus is that he already knew about America and used the ploy of sailing west to get to Asia, as a scam, so that he could outfit an offical royal expedition and make a name for himself.
The Vinland map does support such historical theories that there could have been other voyages besides the Vikings, to America before Columbus and that knowledge of America’s existence could have been in some elite pre-Columbus European circles, not known to the general public.
There is a legend that St. Brendan sailed with a group of monks to America in the 6th Century. I do not know if this is true. But if a movie were to be made about the supposed voyage of St. Brendan, Liam Neeson would be fantastic in the role of St. Brendan! Even though Denzel Washington and Will Smith are great actors, it would still be out of place to have any any black actors play any of the monks. There certainly were no blacks in Europe, Britain, or Ireland in the 6th Century.
Vikings refered to the land of America as ‘omme rike’ (probably the real origin of the name America). Bristol, England’s sea farer John Cabot and merchant Richard Ameryke were both in the know of America prior to Columbus (another theory on the name America). The Zeno Brothers of Genoa, Italy accompanied the King of the Orkney Islands (North Scotland) to ‘Nova Scotia’ and later returned to Genoa, where they had their map shop completely prior to Columbus. The Northwest Passage (in the arctic) was once ice free, like the land under the continent we call Antarctica. These remnant maps only prove the constant moving around the globe of civilizations advanced enough to undertake them. What do these civs all have in common you may ask? All of European stock. The Chinese only sailed around the Pacific. Phoenicians and Romans are known to have sailed the Eastern seacoasts of the Americas, if not up the major rivers as well. The lower civilizations did not have maps as they either undertook one way voyages to new lands of refuge or navigated to and from simpler locations via the stars. Maps of this nature indicate CONTINUED voyages to the lands cartographed therein. Columbus (the bastard gold looting murderer) merely took credit for the knowledge of those before him. Why would the Queen of Spain gamble treasure on a voyage to a land not known? As it turns out, they secretly knew what they were funding and getting into.
The great story of the 14, 15 and 16 centuries is the long distance exploration of Europeans. Spanish, Portugese(especially), Norse, English and Italians made voyages equivalent to Moon journeys. Unsophisticated boats and navigation that tracked voayages through unknown seas. Colonies were established, commerce expanded, knowledge gained and traded with China and other culutres, advanced and not advanced.
Despite legends, we have no hard proof the Mayans or Aztecs went anywhere outside their immediate areas of dominance. Africans were the worst; sitting as they do now, in puddles of poverty and ignnorance. Given the mores of the times, it was inevitable that many Africans ended up as slaves. How else did they present themselves?
It was proved without a doubt when the ruins of ‘Viking’ settlements were found in Greenland. Apparently a cold snap finished them off. We’ll never know for sure. Even more interesting is the Newfoundland, the giant dog found only on the island of Newfoundland, well, now across the globe. What a survivor. A ‘rescue’ type dog too. Not sure if it traces to the Vikings, or early European settlers, who were also wiped out. It would make an interesting book. A subject that’s not well researched.
“Perhaps this will rekindle the Viking rune stone found in Minnesota, that was first thought a hoax and now appears to be real. Abut 1380 AD if my memory services me right.
Then what about those White Tribes… the clovis spear points found in killed/hunted mammoths, 12,000 years ago in Mexico-of course clovis spear points have an uncanny resemblance to European spear points of the same date, NOT asian spear points…
…or the ancient White Tribes of South America, maybe they will get a bit more publicity and archeological review… “
Don’t forget about Kennewick Man; Caucasoid skull, 7000BC, found in Columbia River, WA riverbank
The biggest argument against significant Pre-Columbian contact is the lack of immunity to European diseases. After Columbus, Indian populations decreased by the millions. In the Southeastern States alone it is estimated that Indian populations decreased by about 90% due to disease in the century after DeSoto’s expedition.
It is certain that the Vikings came to North America before Columbus and perhaps a few others did too, but not in large numbers and certainly not far into the interior of the continent. Widespread and significant knowledge of the New World did not occur until after Columbus. After all, no one claimed ownership of territory until 1492 and later.
Perhaps this will rekindle the Viking rune stone found in Minnesota, that was first thought a hoax and now appears to be real. Abut 1380 AD if my memory services me right.
So it would appear that the distinctive Norwegian and Swedish character of Minnesota is far older than commonly supposed.
I don’t remember where I saw this pointed out,but I remember reading once that the North Atlantic-while known for some of the most godawful weather in the world-is NOT any kind of impassable barrier to a decent sailor with a well built boat,who knows basic navigation techniques. Even if you can’t do celestial navigation,dead reckoning,and some common sense will get you across it just fine.
As was pointed out,assuming you have a craft that can sail 90 miles a day. Assume then that you have a lookout point on your craft that’s about 30’ above the water,which will enable you to see 15 miles or so on a clear day.
Then look at a map of the North Atlantic. There are numerous islands and just plain big rocks that will serve quite well to provide a navigational fix,and they’re close enough to each other that one actually has to work pretty hard to be out of sight of land for more than three days.
The Vikings were great sailors,and one of the reasons for this is that they were pretty good at knowing where they were at any given time. Their voyages were NOT-contrary to what Hollywood wants us to think-long days of monotony,with everyone terrified that they were going to hit a rock a drown when the boat sank.
Instead,they were on a more-or-less routine trip to England or Ireland or France to pick up some cattle,maybe grab a few women,and some portable wealth like reliquaries. Not really all that different from our daily commute to work,although when we’re stuck in traffic,we can only wish we had a battleaxe.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T4AMQM772QMD8G9O8
Anonymous at 10.30 pm July 23rd, its already believed by a number of lunatics. See the link. Its a discussion, about 4 years old, that the Vikings were Black!
The biggest argument against significant Pre-Columbian contact is the lack of immunity to European diseases.
At least for the Vikings, couldn’t this be explained by the fact that some of the biggest killers, e.g. smallpox, simply had not reached Scandinavia by the 900s and 1000s AD? Apparently it wasn’t well established in Europe until the 1500s. This would also explain why the English colonists had a relatively easier time in their settlements than the Vikings did.
There is this tendency to suppress the achievements of Northern Europeans in the academic world. Achievements of all other civilizations/ races may it be blacks, Hindus, Muslims etc… are spiced up while the achievements of Northern/ Central Europeans downplayed. But they cannot change the bitter fact that Northern/ Central Europeans changed the world (in discoveries and inventions) in ways no other people did. They must deal with this bitter truth.
“for the Vikings, couldn’t this be explained by the fact that some of the biggest killers, e.g. smallpox, simply had not reached Scandinavia by the 900s and 1000s AD? Apparently it wasn’t well established in Europe until the 1500s.”
The only ‘biggest kill’ which took place in regard to smallpox was when ‘western science’ erradicated smallpox from the entire globe.
I suspect there is humor to be found in the historically revisionism, but just the same, I know the average ‘meat head’ honestly believes that the true story is offensive, and could seem demeaning, so a new story is fitted in it’s place. It’s wrong to hurt peoples feelings. People, anyway.
“about two centuries before Columbus, Portugese mariners were fishing for cod off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia “
But the Basques were fishing and whaling there as well, and landing on Nova Scotia.
“I think the real reason Portugal turned Columbus down was because the Portuguese, unlike their European neighbors, knew about America, but did not want an official government expedition, because they did not want the rest of Europe to know their trade secret.”
Interesting concept. But the Portuguese had just found a route around Africa, so they didn’t need to go exploring for another. Whereas Spain, jealous of Portugal’s success, needed to find another way, since Portugal controlled the coastline of Africa and the whole Eastern hemisphere had been awarded to Portugal by the Pope.
“I read from somewhere, but I do not know for certain if this is true, that Columbus visited Iceland in 1477. “
I have read that too. I think it is historically established.
“My own theory about Christopher Columbus is that he already knew about America and used the ploy of sailing west to get to Asia, as a scam, so that he could outfit an offical royal expedition and make a name for himself.”
Well, he did keep two separate logs, and lied to his crew, so he was not beyond falsification and subterfuge. That was the way of his time. It was a Machiavellian age. And he did hold out stubbornly for the right to rule his new discoveries. Surely he wasn’t expecting to rule China.
“if a movie were to be made about the supposed voyage of St. Brendan,..it would be out of place to have black actors play any of the monks. There certainly were no blacks in Europe, Britain, or Ireland in the 6th Century.”
Oh, don’t underestimate Hollywood’s ability to be creative! I’m sure some ploy could be found. No law binds them to historical accuracy. Perhaps there could be a wise, kindly Moorish navigator (enslaved by Europeans) who offers to show them the way in return for his freedom. That could work slavery and European brutality into it — hitting two bids with one stone! Indeed, nowadays some ruse would HAVE to be found to get the requisite quota of [wise, kind, brave, heroic] black characters in there. They’ll find a way.
It’s interesting to look at this map and see just how much exploration was done by the Vikings. Contrast this with black Africans. They had no maritime experience at all. I think black Africans didn’t even know of nearby Madagascar.
It’s not implausible or impossible for it to be real.
“Oh, don’t underestimate Hollywood’s ability to be creative!
Ross - #6 - is in error about blacks in Europe in the 6th Century. There were trade links across the Mediterranean long before the rise of Rome or Rome’s predecessors and these links were never severed for long. Slaves, whether pale Slavs from the Black Sea or blacks of African origin, were among the commodities traded.
The people of Lincolnshire, in Eastern England, showed up as having a Middle Eastern gene not long ago and it is accepted that this is almost certainly a souvenir of the Legions stationed there in Roman times.
Now, with relation to a black actor in a movie about Robin Hood, this is stretching credulity somewhat but it is not quite historically impossible that a man of African origin could have accompanied returning Crusaders.
He would not necessarily have been a slave, either. One feature of the various Muslim states over the centuries was that of kinship slavery; a little boy of the Arab ruling class would be given a black slave of his own age to be his personal servant and playmate. On the Arab youth attaining manhood, he would trust his own slave far more than he’d trust his cousins or even his brothers or half-brothers.
It is not quite an impossibility to imagine such a man, whose master had been killed fighting the Crusaders or died of fever, ending up in the company of returning Crusaders. Far stranger things have happened.
The actual evidence for the very existence of Robin Hood seems somewhat threadbare, but we need hardly discuss that now.
Maybe now more light will be shed on the blonde haired blue eyed Indian tribes who lived in Viking style huts in the American Mid West that were reported by early explorers. Also maybe some of the runestones found in Oklahoma and Arkansas will be more throughly examined.
A necessary footnote to Anonymous #22:
The Roman Empire stretched well up to Nile and as far into the Sahara and the Atlas range as Biskra and what is now Southern Morocco.
It is claimed that Egyptian and/or Greek-Egyptian mariners circumnavigated Africa; this would not have been impossible given the technology of the day and assuming good luck with the weather but is of no real importance in this discussion.
What can be assumed is that Romans knew about Africa and owned some hundreds or thousands of black African slaves. It is a strong probability that there were blacks of African descent in Roman Britain and a near-certainty that some of the crews aboard Columbus’ three vessels were wholly or partly of African, Arab, Berber and Separdic-Jewish descent.
As for blacks in a Viking crew, we can say the following:
The Roman Empire contained many black slaves, some of whom were bought and taken over the borders by cross-border traders in periods of prolonged peace. Since the Romans were well-established and very comfortable in the Rhineland, it can be presumed that slaves could be bought in urban centres like Aachen and Trier. It is a short journey by land or sea to Jutland and a very brief journey by water to what is now the Norwegian-Swedish peninsula.
To jump a few centuries forward in time and guess that a ‘pure’ African sailed with any Norse crews is to assume that strict racial separation was a fact of life in early Medieval Scandinavia.
Knowing what we do of the realities of miscegenation in early colonial America, this seems unlikely. What is more probable is that a man - or woman - of part-African descent was among those who sailed from Iceland for Greenland and then on to Newfoundland and ‘Vinland.’
The Vinland map. Enlarge by clicking here.