Vikings Possibly Carried Native Americans to Europe 1000 years ago ( Women of course)

news.discovery.com...

The first Native American to arrive in Europe may have been a woman brought to Iceland by the Vikings more than 1,000 years ago, a study by Spanish and Icelandic researchers suggests.

One more example of things not being quite what we are told from many history books.

I have always wondered about human migration and travels in ancient times. There are stone carvings and oddities all over the world of race traits that do not fit into a certain race based geological area.

Anyway, thought some might consider this article interesting considering men will fall in love and not want to be separated from their women regardless of race; or in this case maybe a sex slave she will be?

If reproduction is a sign of success then the women in the article were successful. Hopefully it was love and not conquest although no doubt both scenarios played their part.

Very good thread. I have been researching this stuff off and on for about four years now. There were a few theories with evidence but they couldn't be proven conclusively. Maybe this will help to give proof to those theories. It seems that the evidence in the old writings isn't enough nowadays to make something real. Science has stated that it needs expensive testing to prove things so they are real.

I suppose you can't believe everything that is written, look at the net. Look at the history written by the victors of war. I guess the writings of history are far from the truth, based on the perceptions of the ruling governments. All evidence that did not support consensus of the new time was destroyed.

I wonder if the monks, the record keepers, have more truth in their archives or if the scribes interpreted the writings as the people of the time perceived the events. I'd love to go visit the monks some day after I study the old languages more and sit with them and see what they can teach me. I suppose they will teach me that I cannot speak their language or comprehend the real reality

reply to post by 727Sky
Good facts...lousy reporting --->

The findings boost widely-accepted theories, based on Icelandic medieval texts and a reputed Viking settlement in Newfoundland in Canada, that the Vikings reached the American continent several centuries before Christopher Columbus traveled to the "New World."

If this is Discovery Channel, they must be among the last...well, right along with New York's Columbus Day Parade organising committee...to express anything less than complete certainty as to the validity of a Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows.

Interesting revelation regarding the DNA study, though. S&F4U

Good thread and adds to part of my studies on human migration. Interesting as to there's a link of mtDNA present from Europe in Natives such as from around the Great Lakes region called haplogroup X. Haplogroup X is not common in Asia, but is present in Europe at around 4 percent. The mtDNA is from over 500 years prior of recorded European exploration as by sources. I don't see why people could not have went back to Europe from the America-via the Atlantic, by the probable America- Euro ice bridge and or by ship such as with the Vikings, as expressed in the article.

reply to post by dreamingawake


If you were a Viking, and knew of a place where you could trade a boat load of skins and whatever else, for manufactured stuff that cost a fraction of what you'd get for the traded goods , and the fact that one trip would set you up for life, and make your family rich and powerfull, you might tell of the place in a tale like the sagas. But those that could do the navigation would have kept quiet about it. Breton fishermen fished the Grand Banks, dried the fish and then sold it in Europe. Britonny was settled by the norse,
I would suggest that America was known from Roman times, and even pheraps Phonecian but you had to have a reason to go there, like population pressure or trade. Since Alaska was sold by the Russians, it could be reasoned that they knew about the place as well. Since the "Ruse" were a tribe of Red haired Vikings. They could have easily found the place from the back door so to speak.. Bar talk in ancient Rome talks of land far to the north and west, where the people are short and have no necks. Sounds like the inuit people to me. Very interesting subject.! Considering that Papal records show Lief Ericksons daughter was born in "Vinland the good" and so recorded by the Church, It makes you wonder if after the destruction of the Knights Templar, there fleet having just disappeared into thin air, might have tried to make the trip. Anyway when in doubt ask the Indians they probably know.

It makes sense that the North American continent was influenced by the Vikings.... As well the North American continent was also influenced by the South American continent (some North American Indians have a distinctly "mayan" or "Central American" look,....)...and probably much earlier...looks like a one-two d-n-a punch on the U.S. ... rock on!....

reply to post by coastlinekid


Yeh but the big problem for interaction, was disease, the moment that the natives started to breath the same air as the Europeans, it seemed that they were stricken down with something as innocuous as the common cold. It wouldn't be long before any one that arrived from Europe would have been considered "Bad medicine". As soon as any meeting transpired the word would get around that you might get sick.
In the Sagas it looks like that a long ship got as far south as New York, at first the meeting with the natives went well, but the report states that the Vikings had a cow on board, and the natives being lactose intolerant started spewing up the milk they were given and decided that the Vikings were trying to poison them. After that trade, and settlement seemed out of the question so the Vikings left.

Thanks for the replies and knowledge added to the thread.

It is true that disease could decimate or wipe out a given population however that certainly was not the normal result of contact. To many explorers all the way back to the dawn of man, went, made contact, established trade routes and trading centers which were established and prospered until what was traded gave out or wars killed the trade..

Originally posted by 727Sky
Thanks for the replies and knowledge added to the thread.

It is true that disease could decimate or wipe out a given population however that certainly was not the normal result of contact. To many explorers all the way back to the dawn of man, went, made contact, established trade routes and trading centers which were established and prospered until what was traded gave out or wars killed the trade..

Correct.

Disease always has been a problem but far too often our contemporary view of history is clouded by the misconception that medicine was non-existent and disease was rampant.

This is untrue as any scholar of history knows, for medical knowledge was far more advanced than the modern pharmaceutical corporations brainwashed us to believe. Disease typically only really took hold after a series of factors were met.

War, mass murder, cannibalism, etc, these atrocious acts are some of our main causative factors leading to many of our historical mass disease pandemics.

I suspect ancient man travelled as far as he could get initially out of curiosity or the search for food and then trade. The Vikings we know used both the sea and the rivers. Recently a tv show on Alexanda the Great showed a river system long gone that he navigated, so the world was very different in the past often quite unrecognizable from the ground.

We know the peoples in the Southern hemisphere were expert navigators and travelled huge distances. We also know the sea levels have altered drastically and land masses have risen or disappeared which does leave us in our known world somewhat isolated between our oceans.

The wind is a very powerful energy and just because they used oars and sail didn't mean they couldn't reach out over huge distances of water.

If you accept that the Azores were well above the ocean in the past you have a stopping off place between Europe and the Americas. Also it appears there was a huge landmass from Madasca reaching nearly to India so we may well find other large areas above ground.

DNA is now opening up a past to us that cannot be denied and hopefully there will be a lot more genetic tracing of peoples because it is so fascinating.

Cool thread. There is even a researcher in Cape Breton Nova Scotia who believes the Chinese may have even predated the Vikings. Apparently he has found what he thinks are foundations of what appear to be little outposts that would have been set up to process fish and other goods to help prepare for other voyages and what not. very interesting stuff and quite plausible.

news.nationalpost.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> news.nationalpost.com...

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by 727Sky
Thanks for the replies and knowledge added to the thread.

It is true that disease could decimate or wipe out a given population however that certainly was not the normal result of contact. To many explorers all the way back to the dawn of man, went, made contact, established trade routes and trading centers which were established and prospered until what was traded gave out or wars killed the trade..

Correct.

Disease always has been a problem but far too often our contemporary view of history is clouded by the misconception that medicine was non-existent and disease was rampant.

This is untrue as any scholar of history knows, for medical knowledge was far more advanced than the modern pharmaceutical corporations brainwashed us to believe. Disease typically only really took hold after a series of factors were met.

War, mass murder, cannibalism, etc, these atrocious acts are some of our main causative factors leading to many of our historical mass disease pandemics.

don't forget Hygiene , or rather the lack thereof, for which europe under xtianity, held the crown.

those earlier explorers, be they phoenician, chinese, polynesian, viking or irish/briton, were much healthier and Cleaner people.

and this is not mentioning the pollution of rivers, etc. with their waste, giving away unwashed clothing and bedcloths, etc., which borders on being a conscious bio and chem warfare policy, which we can still perceive as ongoing to this day.

Originally posted by TheMagus
don't forget Hygiene , or rather the lack thereof, for which europe under xtianity, held the crown.
those earlier explorers, be they phoenician, chinese, polynesian, viking or irish/briton, were much healthier and Cleaner people.
and this is not mentioning the pollution of rivers, etc. with their waste, giving away unwashed clothing and bedcloths, etc., which borders on being a conscious bio and chem warfare policy, which we can still perceive as ongoing to this day.

I think you ought to investigate this theory of yours a little more. Life, as has been cited by Hobbes, was "nasty brutish and short." Look at the diseases we have eliminated as common...smallpox, leprosy...how many of your pals have fleas and lice? Romanticising the past is cheap entertainment.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by TheMagus
don't forget Hygiene , or rather the lack thereof, for which europe under xtianity, held the crown.
those earlier explorers, be they phoenician, chinese, polynesian, viking or irish/briton, were much healthier and Cleaner people.
and this is not mentioning the pollution of rivers, etc. with their waste, giving away unwashed clothing and bedcloths, etc., which borders on being a conscious bio and chem warfare policy, which we can still perceive as ongoing to this day.

I think you ought to investigate this theory of yours a little more. Life, as has been cited by Hobbes, was "nasty brutish and short." Look at the diseases we have eliminated as common...smallpox, leprosy...how many of your pals have fleas and lice? Romanticising the past is cheap entertainment.

methinks JohnnyC is having a bad day
and has misread my post concerning the lack of hygiene of Europeans up till recently
hobbes only had that to use as a reference btw

Life wasn't always "nasty, brutish, and short", that only applies to specific periods. For example the Dark Ages of Europe, would be an excellent case for such a description.

However there are many cases whereby civilizations lived by relatively higher standards.

If you disagree and believe otherwise, please cite examples and information to disprove my assertion.

This post in my most recent thread address this mythology directly and dispels it.

And no one has bothered to even argue it despite the amount of people who clearly saw that I claimed such a thing. That's an indicator of it's strength.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Life wasn't always "nasty, brutish, and short", that only applies to specific periods. For example the Dark Ages of Europe, would be an excellent case for such a description.

I dunno..

The Romans were a bit 'Brutish' when they came across those who weren't too fond of being a 'Citizen' in which case, those apposed lived much shorter and nasty lives.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If you disagree and believe otherwise, please cite examples and information to disprove my assertion.

No. Flame away, but it's an absurd contention and not worth my time to rebut beyond that which I have already stated. You want to dig out facts and figures about infant mortality, physical stature, nutrition, poverty, disease and pestilence to support your theory that health and quality of life for the non-elite was better in antiquity - go nuts.
The Romans get points for water and sewers, but that's not to say that they were healthier than us.
Edit to suggest that this become it's own thread, so as not to derail the topic at hand.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If you disagree and believe otherwise, please cite examples and information to disprove my assertion.

No. Flame away, but it's an absurd contention and not worth my time to rebut beyond that which I have already stated. You want to dig out facts and figures about infant mortality, physical stature, nutrition, poverty, disease and pestilence to support your theory that health and quality of life for the non-elite was better in antiquity - go nuts.
The Romans get points for water and sewers, but that's not to say that they were healthier than us.
Edit to suggest that this become it's own thread, so as not to derail the topic at hand.

edit on 24-7-2013 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?

There are no actual statistics. Thus an explanation for the common misconceptions.
All we have are estimates based off anecdotes. This is a fact.

Also you are revealing your ignorance by picking the Romans because it was estimated their infant mortality rates were something like 300 / 1000 at some periods, absolutely dismal, whereas modern 'undeveloped' nations rank around 50-200/1000 according to Wikipedia's information.

In comparison some scholars estimate that the Greek saw periods where it was something like 15-30 / 1000 , which even if remotely accurate of an estimate it is amazing.

The tree of human history bears many fruit and has many branches, you gotta be careful to look at the bigger picture.

A one-sided view of history is not accurate, rather a mixed view remaining open to a diverse set of possibilities is more accurate.

And don't forget our inability to account for the masses of children who were simply abandoned or sacrificed, as infanticide was quite widespread throughout human history (it still is today).

What proportions of Greek infant deaths are a result of simple malnutrition? Of economic circumstance? Religious sacrifice? Simple negligence or abandonment? Actual failure of 'medical science's poor knowledge?

We have no facts and figures, only guesses.
Whatever the truth is in it's many varied forms, it sure isn't anything like the simplistic notions of those who refuse to actually challenge their own opinions.

That's why all of this (common misconceptions and willful ignorance) relates to the OP.
The OP's information about how the voyages and exploits of the Vikings were far more extensive than earlier assumed, and we are only now beginning to see just how wrong our "conventional explanations of history" really were.

It all reveals to me the real story and that is about how almost everything we assumed about history is actually incorrect, and that questioning these notions and looking into varied aspects can reveal the true complexity and diversity we are dealing with here.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It all reveals to me the real story and that is about how almost everything we assumed about history is actually incorrect, and that questioning these notions and looking into varied aspects can reveal the true complexity and diversity we are dealing with here.

I would not agree that "almost everything we assumed about history is actually incorrect", but I will attest to a healthy process of inquiry and re-evaluation. This thread...in fact the current paradigm shifts about the peopling and exploration of the Americas...is a great indication of that academic thrust. True, it is a slow process, but if we are going to change the shape of our knowledge, it is essential to be right.

Of course Biblical archaeology don't count.

Lets see here.. blond haired white skinned blue eyed man goes south and meets tall dark skinned long black haired woman with brown eyes and decides he likes and wants to take home to Mother.. yeah.. I can see that. These native American women must have been the most exotic hot thing on two legs they ever saw.