> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:07:27 +0100
> From: Kathryn F Hinds <[log in to unmask]>
> >And, the
> >Viking settlements, which for almost a century had quite intensive
> >trade with their home bases in Denmark, were almost completely
> The Viking settlements in the North Atlantic were affiliated (and only
> loosely) with Norway, not Denmark.
Yes, sorry. Norway, of course.
>Trade interests were not involved in the
> settlements; they were motivated primarily by "land hunger" (although of
> course they did engage in trade with Norway and other countries).
That hasn't been my point. What I wanted to show is that, for
whatever reason the first voyages were made and the settlements
founded, after this initial phase there definitly were trade
interests involved (this is why contact didn't break off immediatly).
Ships sailed to and from Greenland back to Europe to trade in goods.
Of course those people sailing over great distances over not really
placid sea had a definite interest in the trade. This contact was not
limited to sailing once to Greenland and back again, but happened
often, and still almost no records survived.
> although the Viking settlement in Newfoundland may have been "almost
> completely forgotten," Greenlanders continued to voyage to North America
> for furs and timber for *several* hundred years. The Greenland
> settlements themselves were mysteriously deserted in the fourteenth
> century; no one knows exactly what became of the people.
This is the point: These settlements, and together with them the
setllements in Newfoundland, were almost completely forgotten by
the Europeans, even by the Norse, even though they had had over a
century of relativly frequent contact with at least the Greenland and
probably also the Vinland Vikings. How much more likely is it that a
single, or at least a not often made voyage is completely lost from
> But the other
> North Atlantic Viking settlements--the Faeroes and Iceland--certainly
> cannot be said to have been forgotten. For details on Viking activities in
> the North Atlantic, see, for starters, _Cultural Atlas of the Viking
> World_, ed. James Graham-Campbell.
Yes, because there still live descendants of those Vikings there,
which stayed, more or less, in constant contact with Europe.
> >wasn't there
> >something like a huge eruption of the Mount Vesuvius at abou 69 AD?
> 79 CE (AD) -- destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum
Hmm, typical prehistorian's error that I made - as who cares about
+/- 10 years if you are used to talk about millenia ...;-)
RAY (Raimund Karl,University of Vienna,Dep.of Prehistory)
email: [log in to unmask] (or [log in to unmask])
The CELTIC-L Resources: