New satellite evidence suggests that Vikings may have reached another location in Newfoundland. This one is 300 miles south and west from the L’Anse aux Meadows settlement discovered in the 1960s. There will be a PBS Nova special “Vikings Unearthed” appearing online Monday, April 4 at 3:30 pm EDT and Wednesday, April 6.
As my book Myths of the Rune Stone: Viking Martyrs and the Birthplace of America shows, there has been a long history of the American fascination that Vikings traveled to North America prior to Columbus. There are multiple racial, religious, and cultural reasons that fuel this fascination, even when the evidence is thin. Some Viking enthusiasts think they even reached what is now Minnesota. Although most of the evidence to support this is deeply suspect (i.e. the Kensington Rune Stone), this new evidence suggests that Vikings may have traveled at least a little bit further west than we had previously thought.
2 thoughts on “Possible New Viking Site in North America”
David, here’s a comment I left after the above-mentioned news item about Viking activity possibly being discovered within what I see as Vinland (most likely), where the Kensington Runestone party of men came west to MN from. The St. Lawrence Seaway is one of three oceanic approaches that merge far inland near the MN/Dakota border…the reason for all the medieval Norse evidences in this region. Norse travelers were able to reach the Big Stone Lake/Lake Traverse area of the Upper Midwest by coming down from Hudson Bay, or by coming up the MS River and then turning west via the MN River, or by coming through the Lake Superior/St. Croix River/MN River route originating where this 2nd North American possible Viking settlement is located, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The location helps support the inscription on the KRS, which says the men came west from Vinland.
My post to National Geographic Viking comments:
I’ve been trying to get folks to understand that there are medieval Norse evidences to examine where the northern route down from Hudson Bay converges with the one through the Great Lakes, from the St. Lawrence Seaway. These two oceanic waterways merge near MN and the Dakotas. There is what appears to be a water basin and rock anvil near this place, as well as Norse petroglyphs and numerous clusters of medieval stonehole rocks, related to attempted land up-taking.
I recently discovered an an actual medieval Norse stonehole code-stone in this area, showing where something is buried. My metal detector backs up the code-stone. Also, I recently found the mysterious “lake with two skerries” described on the Kensington Runestone.
In this present Viking article, it says, “It was a temporary settlement, abandoned after just a few years, and archaeologists have spent the past half-century searching for elusive signs of other Norse expeditions.” Really? The official academic point of view in MN is that no Europeans were up in this region before the 1600’s French, which is absolute nonsense.
Concerning iron, I found an interesting piece of iron within several paces of where the Kensington Runestone, dated 1362, was found in 1898 by farmer Olof Olman. A storm had uprooted a tree, exposing the metal artifact.
You can see exhaustive information related to these discoveries at my personal website. I’m not selling anything. My most earnest desire is for the authorities to do an exploratory dig where the Norse code-stone I found shows something related to waterway surveying is buried. I’m saying there is plenty of unrecognized Norse evidence right here in MN and near the Dakotas border that is currently being ignored.
Also, see my very recent articles in the Norwegian American Weekly, where I talk extensively about stoneholes, waterways, and the code-stone I recently found. Thank you for your interest. I can be contacted through my website, above.
Gunn – Seriously? Your rambling diatribe is an inarticulate mix of myth, undocumented statements, nonacademic thought and baseless conjecture. Beginning with:your belief in the KRS, which you inaccurately describe:
“Concerning iron, I found an interesting piece of iron within several paces of where the Kensington Runestone, dated 1362, was found in 1898 by farmer Olof Olman. A storm had uprooted a tree, exposing the metal artifact.”
What artifact? The misnamed KRS? First of all note the man who carved the stone then supposedly “found” it was named Olof Ohman, not Olof Olman. It is not made of metal and has never been dated to 1362. If you believe either is the case, please >>>> state your sources<<<< for these statements. Or are you stating that you found a "metal artifact" within several paces" of it? If that is the case, please show documented evidence of the find, and and testing or research that would indicate it age.
How about this wizard of a gem you posted:
"In this present Viking article, it says, 'It was a temporary settlement, abandoned after just a few years, and archaeologists have spent the past half-century searching for elusive signs of other Norse expeditions.' Really? The official academic point of view in MN is that no Europeans were up in this region before the 1600’s French, which is absolute nonsense."
Gunn – READ the article. The area this article is written about is over 1700 miles as the bird flies from Minnesota. It is NOT in this area. Please show your source or sources for your statement that Europeans were in the western Great Lake area prior to the 1600.
If you have no documented and peer reviewed academic sources for these and the many, many other laughable statements in your post, please refrain from uneducated conjecture like this in the future.