“Almost as soon as the Norsemen hauled their long boats onto the beaches, fighting broke out with the local inhabitants.”
MANY POINT TO the Jamestown Massacre of 1622 as the first clash between European settlers and indigenous North Americans.
A harbinger of centuries of bloodshed yet to come, the incident saw a group of unarmed Powhatan warriors infiltrate the wooden palisade of England’s struggling Virginia colony only to launch a surprise attack on the settlers using what tools and weapons the raiders could lay their hands on. Nearly 350 colonists were killed in the ensuing battle.
And while the attack ushered in 300 years of almost ceaseless violence between the white settlers and indigenous peoples, it wasn’t the first occasion in which Europeans met North American aboriginals on the battlefield. More than five centuries prior to Columbus’ voyage of discovery, a party of Vikings under the leadership of Thorvald Eiriksson established small a colony in modern day Newfoundland.
Thorvald, the son of Erik the Red and brother of Lief Eiriksson, landed in the New World sometime around 985 CE. The 50-member party eventually set up a fortified camp on the large island. Yet almost as soon as the Norsemen hauled their long boats onto the beaches, fighting broke out with the local inhabitants.
In an early encounter, Eiriksson himself was struck by an arrow. His injuries would prove fatal.
“I have been wounded under my arm. An arrow flew between the edge of the ship and the shield into my armpit,” one contemporary account records the Viking leader as saying. “Here is the arrow, and this wound will cause my death.” [1] Eight natives were reportedly killed in the engagement.
The locals were most likely Inuit. The small band of Europeans continued to fight them for the duration of their stay.
The Vikings dubbed their enemies Skraelings, which might translate as either “barbarian” or “foreigner” in the old Norse tongue. It could have also meant “weak” or “sickly” or even “false friend.” [2]
A larger settlement was planted in what is now Newfoundland in 1010 by the Viking leader Thorfinn Karlsefni. Nearly 150 Norsemen, a number that included warriors and their families, established a colony near the previous settlement at what is today known as L’Anse aux Meadows.
During their three years in North America, the visitors faced annihilation by Skraeling warriors. So great was the danger posed, Karlsefni forbid his men from trading swords or armour with locals on the few occasions that a truce could be negotiated.
It seemed even the smallest provocation could touch off a battle. According to Viking accounts, one indigenous raid was precipitated when a bull escaped from captivity in the Norse camp. Native warriors were terrified by the animal, the likes of which they had never seen, and attacked the settlement. Two Vikings were killed in the ensuing melee.
“Despite everything the land had to offer there, they would be under constant threat of attack from its prior inhabitants,” recorded one Norseman. [3] The colony was eventually abandoned. Europeans would not settle again anywhere in New World until the late 15th century.
May I ask you your source for this info plz ?!
Check the foot notes.
I don’t see any foot notes and I looked all over the page.
SORRY – cancel that last comment, they are IN the text! Well, that’s not FOOT notes.
My ancestors I know for fact were here back before the 1500s noone knew how to read or write but only markings as a form of communication. They traveled the strait between Russia and north America not native as ppl believe. Red hair. Just because captain James cook or Christopher Columbus wrote down what he was told does NOT mean there were not others in other parts, hidding out or keeping to themselves at a great distance. It’s a shame noone thinks byond what their told. Long forgotten and buried by over growth and thousands of seasons of compost. But who goes into the woods to unbury ancient artifacts. So nice though that the natives whom also traveled around the same time can take credit for items they never left behind like those stone tools and wood crafts or pictures on the cave walls. Most natives also traveled in the same many forms but we’re more of a plains dwellers and hunted the beast of the plains. My ancestors were marine and wilderness fish nuts and berries. But who can prove this NOT to be true.
If your question is due to doubt, after years of school only teaching about U.S. History as far back as Columbus, leading everyone to believe this land was desolate, and uninhabited prior to Native Americans coming here from the Bering Sea land bridge, even Native Americans’, North & South, tell a different story.
The Paiute, when their first ancestors made it here to North America, in the Lovelock, Nevada area, they encountered people already here. They weren’t Europeans, but their descriptions would have an ignorant person think otherwise.
The Inca, when they first arrived in Peru, they encountered an empire so old, it was already in decline, weak, and ripe for conquering by the Incas.
They were called the ‘Chachapoya’, the Cloud Warriors of Peru. They had fair or ‘white’ skin, fair hair (reddish, and blond), and eyes (blue).
They too, were not European. They are most likely the few who went Eastward, taking to the seas, when the rest of the Indo-Aryans eventually headed west, later becoming the Visigoth migrations that settled Europe.
Given the age of the Chachapoya’ empire, that theory would fit.
There’s also ancient statues in Central America, that point to either ancient Asian or African visitors, or possibly even civilisations.
Ppl forget there was both an ancient, global flood,..and at other times, massive earthquakes, & super volcanic eruptions. All those events changed the global landscape.
So when we dictate modern continents as the places specific races originated from, and make the statements that they were “the first and only inhabitants there”, from the ancient origins of mankind, till today, is naive.
“If your question is due to doubt,..”
Wow, seemingly so defensive.
Some people like references so that they can do additional reading, research, etc. Only a fool takes literally (or solely) a second hand (or one sided) telling of any account.
Does it bother you that people attempt to acquire knowledge beyond your control/bounds?
I, for one, am interested in the source of [1], which is not listed, nor linked to any reference.
“Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.”
― Albert Einstein
“The process may seem strange and yet it is very true. I did not so much gain the knowledge of things by the words, as words by the experience I had of things.”
― Plutarch
It’s interesting in how one can convey (either consciously or not) a certain message in just the way they write, or relay a particular account.
As example, as you write herein:
‘“I have been wounded under my arm. An arrow flew between the edge of the ship and the shield into my armpit. Here is the arrow, and this wound will cause my death,” one contemporary account records the Viking leader as saying. [1] Eight natives were also killed in the engagement.”‘
Again, with no source given.
However, upon reading “Grœnlendinga saga – The Saga of the Greenlanders” directly, it states:
“Thorvald went up the country with all his companions. He then said: “Here it is beautiful, and here would I like to raise my dwelling.” Then went they to the ship, and saw upon the sands within the promontory three elevations, and went thither, and saw there three skin boats (canoes), and three men under each. Then divided they their people, and caught them all, except one, who got away with his boat. They killed the other eight, and then went back to the cape, and looked round them, and saw some heights inside of the frith, and supposed that these were dwellings.”
Thus, your account seeming points to a skirmish of unknown origin, involving mutual deaths during that skirmish. Yet the account of Grœnlendinga saga seems to point to Thorvald’s men’s unprovoked attack and deaths of the “natives”, resulting in a later retaliation against Thorvald’s men.
I’d rather read the account at
https://notendur.hi.is/haukurth/utgafa/greenlanders.html
than rely on your retelling ofan overly simplistic, inaccurate, retelling from inadequately sourced materials.
Have you ever played that game whereas like ten or so people sit in a large circle, the first person whispers a phrase to the second, the second then whispers it to the third, and so on until the last person receives the message. By the last person, the message is often likely highly distorted, with words, phrases, and meanings completely changed.
Thus the need for reliable sources.
Good for you for thinking you have achieved all-encompassing knowledge (because you may have read an incorrect quote on Wikipedia, or somesuch), but……
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”
-Darwin- “The Descent of Man”
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt”.
-Bertrand Russell- “Calculus Gems”
Some people want more.
P.S. – It’s interesting that you lambast others, for questioning you, yet simultaneously lambast those that refuse to question others.
Hypocrite much?
Questioning is not necessarily doubt, it can equally contain belief, withthe intent on learning more.
Why you all have 9 mile long comments XD
The Saga of the Greenlanders is not considered an accurate source at the detail level, only the “broad strokes”. The Saga was not written until 300 years after the events described. Before that, it was passed orally from father to son, likely with embellishments to encourage the son’s path to a proper manhood. Similar to how the saga of the Pendragon (warlord) that led the armies of combined kingdoms to repel the Saxons transformed into the earliest tale of King Arthur.
Absolutely correct, ppl are just ignorant and lazy. Can’t think beyond the book that told them so.
You are quite correct. People today are taught things as fact that are speculation or pure disregard of other cultures own stories. There were other people that were in North America and South America before the tribes that we know. The ” mound builders” are an example that we have no information about. We live in an age where arrogant academia teaches assumptions without fact. They also blatantly ignore the “first people’s” who practiced slavery, genocide, and all the other behavioral atrocities that are found in all cultures. Human nature is more complex and human life is bigger than the narrow revisionist history that is being taught.
The first peoples there never committed atrocities on the scale of the European colonization. That is a fact, not an assumption. As for the “mound peoples,” they likely fell apart due to internal struggles.
This is not true. Native Americans did commit plenty of atrocities just as bad and frequency as Europeans per Capita. Denying this is either ignorance of history or some warped view to try and seem like only Europeans are the only ppl to have done stupid and evil crap through history.
Also if you are so in tune with Native American history you would know that history the tribes have kept through the ages speak of other races of ppl before them in North America. It was the ignorant white man from the 1600’s that ignored their history because they looked down on them but these legends that are based in a lot of fact that has continuously been proven through archeology in the last 30 years alone.
So when you state “That is a fact, not an assumption” are you speaking out of your ass? Or are you only referencing what appears to be a very limited amount of Native American history?
Obviously you know less than nothing about this topic. I say “less than nothing” because, you are making verifiably false claims, then demanding that your erroneous claim “is a fact, not an assumption.” And with the usual pompous demeanor ignoramuses of this ilk oft possess, he offers no evidence and no actual facts to support his claims. Glorious, truly, I’m impressed by your ignorance but, the problem is that your claim is much worse than an assumption, this is actual misinformation. You are intentionally, imo, giving incorrect information to muddy the waters, as it were. No, you see the Spaniard’s put an end to the abhorrent practices of the natives. One such practice being human sacrifice and good ol cannibalism. New research estimates that the Aztec empire was sacrificing 250,000 people a year. Roughly 1% of their population. Sacrificed by having their beating hearts cut from their chest, then rolled down a pyramid to be butchered and cooked and eaten. All after being forced to do some embarrassing chicken dance first.1487 in Tenochtitlán at dedication to the main temple its estimated 80,400 were sacrificed, then eaten.
But, y’know ur prob right dude. Us Europeans committed much worse atrocities by, y’know, making those MFers stop eating each other!
And the Europeans did not commit atrocities on the scale of the Arabs/Persians, who not only slave raided themselves but then castrated all black male slaves in horrible ways and took the females as sex slaves. Is this a contest or something?
There was no global flood ever…
Yeah, I didn’t think so. But where did all the water come from, though?
The water formed from hydrogen and oxygen gases accumulated by ice on comets and simply gases pulled by the gravity of proto earth.
You don’t know that since…the Great Unconformity and all. However there were huge beyond comprehension regional flood events all over the world that, in a world without flight and modern technology, would certainly seem worldwide to people living at that time.
This settlement (tip of Newfoundland) was likely one of many! There are excavations of suspected Viking sites on Baffin Island which the Vikings knew of and called Helluland (land of the flat stones) It would seem they did not realize it wasn’t connected to the mainland, which is why they never discovered the Hudson Bay and made it inland. The coastal aboriginals were usually very warlike, but the further inland settlers went, the more open to trade and friendly they became. only God knows how different history would be if they had made it into the Hudsons Bay and linked up with the peaceful, swampy ground- cree and other plains type tribes… they might have stayed!
I, for one, am happy they didn’t (stay).
There were not enough Vikings as they came from the settlements in Greenland which entire Norse population never exceeded 7,000 the voyage from Greenland to America was treacherous and it is not know how many ships were lost every summer.
i live next door to a family of skraelings lol
An important detail you fail to mention is that according to the Greenland Saga, the Vikings under Thorvald Eiriksson largely start the conflict by killing 8 natives they caught sleeping unprovoked.
A detail that may not be true as the Saga was not written until 300 years after the events took place.
Considering the relatively advanced complexity Iroquois societies appear to have stretching back to the 12th century, and geographical proximity of those Nations, what is known about the social structures of the people these Vikings would have encountered?
Did they have tribal villages and long houses and agriculture? Or were the Vikings just skirmishing with small hunter and gathering tribes?
Side note: The English and probably Icelanders were fishing off the Grand Banks at least a century before Columbus. However, there is no record that they ever came ashore for any period of time and certainly made no settlements.
Due to recent studies and findings, proof as many have put it above. The Bering Land Straight Theory has been quashed. They have unearthed native artifacts that would predate the land straight theory by thousands of years. Many Native tribes have specific DNA unique to them they have found as well. They have proven many Natives DNA did not and are not from Europe or Asia or India as previously thought. They have unearthed Native tools and bones under the Sea which predate the Land Straight theory by 1500 to 3000 years. Evidence of Bisons Ancestor being hunted and used for food and tools prevalent. This solidifies that Natives Americans are in fact unique and were by as far as the evidence suggests the 1st inhabitants of North America. I find some claims above to be out right fictitious, as there is no 0 proof to the contrary. How could one find the above to be true or ever come to that finalization without proof? How would you come to that finalization is beyond me. You ask for the sources for the writers article. Yet you provide none yourself on theory not found anywhere, and with 0 proof. The latest finding have it as the vikings being immediately attacked as soon as they pulled their long boats ashore. Under constant attacks they abandoned their fortified positions and retreated to the sea. Evidence has it that the Viking were in fact pushed out by the Native Americans.
Those older artifacts I’m aware of. In no way are they sure if they were even handmade by humans or coincidental natural anomalies. Even if the dating isn’t off by a few thousand years as testing normally is. No reason to think later peoples didn’t cross the bering straight later on and destroyed cultures like the Clovis for example. The difference between me and most on this forum is a admit I have absolutely no actual theory on any of it.
this isn’t backed up by any sources whatsoever, makes me question the credibility of all of it
Would you please post info about the source of the black-and-white photo? I am studying art history of battles.
lol 😆 so the Vikings was getting their ass kicked so bad he didn’t come back for over 500 years.