Do you believe the Vikings were in mainland America before Columbus?

The Vínland Saga tells how Leif, sailed south from Greenland and discovered a temperate land. Because the berry known as vínber grew there in abundance, he called it Vínland. We don't know where Vínland was, or what berries he was talking about when he said 'vínber'.

It is often translated as 'grapes', making the name mean 'Wineland', but there are no grapes growing anywhere close to Greenland. Some people say that he must have sailed all the way to Virginia where there are wild grapes growing, but it seems unlikely that he would have missed all of the coast in between. Vínber might refer to cranberries or some other sort of berry.

Leif recorded meeting (and slaughtering) natives, but he also said that the natives were white-skinned. Perhaps these were the descendants of the Irish Saint and his followers. In recent times, many Viking artefacts were discovered on mainland America, but most, if not all, of these were subsequently proved to be hoaxes.

Did they discover America first? Asked by ronin 60 months ago Similar Questions: Vikings mainland America Columbus Recent Questions About: Vikings mainland America Columbus Society > History.

Similar Questions: Vikings mainland America Columbus Recent Questions About: Vikings mainland America Columbus.

The Minnesota runestones and the Vinland map are doubtful, but artifacts in Newfoundland are convincing. Many of the artifacts from L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland are identifiably of Norse design and are radiocarbon dated to the right period. No native American artifacts were found.

There is evidence of metalworking techniques known to Europeans but not to native Americans. The site has been designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site, for whatever that’s worth. Unless you’re aware of some new reasons to doubt them, I believe that the artifacts at this site "must be Norse and pre-Columbian" as claimed by the Ingstads, who excavated the site.

(The husband was apparently not an archaeologist, but his wife was. ) The connection of Newfoundland with the Vinland Saga is uncertain, the Vinland map is mired in controversy, and the Minnesota rune-stones are likely a hoax and were never too plausible anyway. When considering whether grapes are relevant, it should be kept in mind that this time period was part of the Medieval Optimum of historical climate variability, when Greenland was much more deserving of its name.

I don’t know that grapes could have grown on Greenland then, but grapes in Newfoundland were certainly possible. Some who insist that Vinland would have to be Virginia (others say Cape Cod) seem to be unaware of the Medieval Optimum. (The Medieval Optimum as a world wide phenomenon has recently come under fire from global warming advocates; but as a North Atlantic phenomenon it is well documented.

) .

There's no serious doubt about them having landed in Newfoundland before Columbus Because you only mentioned Greenland, not Newfoundland, I hope my answer is relevant. I grew up there, and we certainly considered ourselves part of North America. My apologies if you already knew about this and meant to exclude it because it's an island. The remains of a viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows on the Northwestern tip of Newfoundland, Canada are an authenticated archaeological find about which there is little controversy.

There is no conclusive proof that this settlement is in fact Vinland, although the timing does allow for that conclusion, and it's a very popular theory. If the grapes of legend were in fact blueberries or gooseberries, there are abundant supplies of both around L'Anse aux Meadows to this day, and Newfoundland was warmer back then. Blueberry wine is quite tasty.

As for the pale skinned natives...the natives of Newfoundland were not pale skinned, but since the Sagas were written generations after the events they described, a little leeway may be in order. Whether or not Vinland was in Newfoundland, there is no doubt that there was a short lived Viking settlement Newfoundland centuries before Columbus landed at San Salvador. Neither ended up in mainland (non-island) North America (that we know of), so I think the Newfoundland Vikings deserve to count if Columbus does.

Nah, it wasn't lost, so they couldn't discover it :) While I'm not sure the Vikings ever made it as far south as say Virginia, if memory serves me right, while many other artifacts have been discredited, there has been a coin found in Maine that is believed to be genuine. They seem to have stayed more to the north and engaged in trade with the Inuit, tho' I guess just because ol' Leif didn't toss some coins on the ground to be discovered by later archaeologists doesn't mean we can totally dismiss the idea that they sailed south. I mean, wouldn't you?

It gets cold up there, the kinda cold the most remote, desolate areas of Alaska faces, and I'd darn sure be looking for at least a warmer spot, too, if I were them. Maybe they were our first Snow Birds? All joking aside, Time magazine did a great story sometime ago on the Vikings in America. I'll see if I can find that with a link before I submit since I can't recall details and, alas, don't have tons of time to spend on this question, interesting as it is.

I'm not sure if it was in this story or elsewhere, but one of the things that has stuck with me is that calling them Vikings is in itself wrong. They were Norse, with the term Viking largely being reserved for the warriors/invader types. No double horn helmets, either, I understand, which would put a real damper on the Sons of Norway who celebrate Team Norway's mushers in the Iditarod.

Here's the link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,44020,00.html Figured I'd better go find it before I got sidetracked and forgot what I was doing. And, ah, ha, this is where I'd read about the names and helmets. Also have to chuckle as mention is made of the budding salesmanship of Eric the Red naming his settlement Greenland when, in reality, it probably wasn't even close much of the year.

I mean, who'd join even a raiding party to go to "So cold your ears will freeze off'ville", so his name choice is rather telling of the man's innate intelligence and insight. Did anyone get a chance to see the museum exhibit? Bet it was fascinating.

Kinda nice to see the Norse people displayed as intelligent, thinking people rather than the brutes they so often are made out to be in movies and lore. The sheer fact they were able to establish colonies in a new, harsh land speaks well for their ingenuity and adaptability, as does their ability to thrive in the Inuit's backyards, so to speak. One of the things I find more fascinating than pondering their presence or lack of presence in America is how wide spread they really were, from Africa to the Middle East.

Anyway, not sure I'm answering your question. Been interrupted several times and can't keep my train of thought going, sorry. I guess it comes down to what we consider "discover" to mean.

They were certainly in North America and places north before the English set foot in Roanoke and Jamestown (after the Spanish had established a foothold in La Florida, I might note), but I'm not sure they would be considered settlers since, in the long run, they didn't stay and thrive. They came with families and livestock, livestock that quickly mowed down native pastures and probably didn't thrive, plus, well, it was cold out there and despite contact with the Inuit, whose furs and cold weather sense is something I admire as an Alaskan, it doesn't seem like even these Northern Norsemen quite adapted. How's that for a non-answer?

Sources: fuzzy memory and Time's story on the Vikings .

Someone was here. They have very solid archaeological proof at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland that at least one group of Europeans tried to make a go of it in the New World about a thousand years ago. That certainly lends credence to some of the other tales about Norse settlements in North America. The Vikings were master sailors and the climate was much warmer back then.

If they could make it to Newfoundland, trips down as far south as today's New England couldn't be called impossible. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.