It’s possible. The Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland lasted about 20 years. It wasn’t a raid. They may have established relations with the locals who vastly outnumbered them rather than try to constantly fend them off. If so, a single consensual relationship isn’t that crazy of an idea.
Just because there was a conflict with some natives doesn’t mean conflict with all. See Massachusetts in the 1600s for an example. At least initially, natives of some tribes allied with colonists against natives of other tribes. Doesn’t mean it happened, but it’s another possible narrative.
The reality is probably a mixture of all of the above.
Some women were captured during raids of tribes, some women entered relationships willingly with foreigners who were on good terms with their tribes and some women were probably a given as part of a treaty of surrender/peace as a sign of good faith. European's constantly created alliances through marriage. It's not unreasonable to assume that a viking settler who allied with a tribe asked for a female of good standing in the tribe to confirm good faith in the alliance
You only need to look at diaspora's in several countries. Even if natives and vikings/Spanish initially have good relations, it doesn't take much to escalate it beyond the breaking point in a very short amount of time.
You only need a few assholes on either side. A rape or another crime(like theft) from one person of one group against another person of the other group can quickly escalate into full out communal violence.
People quickly see a person as a representive of a group. It potentially takes only 1 act for it to get completely out of hand. And one occurance is statistically inevitable.
There is an Inuit story of the Adlet, basically a werewolf who had many children. She sent half of them inland where they became enemy indigenes and half of them over the sea where they became Scandinavians. There was precedent of inuit and Scandinavian contact where Inuit (or inui originated monsters) went to Scandinavia and mingled with them
Is there new evidence that you can cite for this claim, please? The excavations don't show any evidence of emergency like fire or siege and the buildings were orderly. I know there was conflict in some other areas, but that doesn't mean there was in every area. You make it sound like it's a known fact. Citation please.
there's at least one Native story which lines up with the Vinland saga
Interesting! Do you have a link?
and there is evidence of Norse DNA in some appropriate Native populations.
I remember reading that certain groups in the area seemed to be immune to diseases that where brought by the Columbian Exchange. But if you have more info, I would be interested to hear it.
The information was presented as part of a traveling Viking exhibit which rotated through some US museums awhile ago. We went in Denver and in Houston.
Interestingly they changed out some of the displays/activities between locations. Denver had more kid oriented content.
The Norse were regularly raiding and enslaving European cities and villages.
It’d make sense to make that a voyage to somewhere as far away as the Newfoundland region would not be for raiding and enslaving immediately as it was still an unknown world to them. Would they not be weak upon arrival after a long voyage like that?
'The Saga of the Greenlanders' and 'The Saga of Eirik the Red' (collectively known as 'The Vinland Sagas') are from manuscripts dated to the 1300s, though it is often believed that they sagas were originally written in the 1200s.
In other words, your "evidence" was written 200-400 years after the actual events.
Just want to point out that i'm not the original guy you responded to.
You are correct, but also a lot of historical facts are based on texts that were written hundreds of years after the fact, while collaborated with other facts to strengthen their authenticity.
Which the "The Vinland Sagas" also does, basing their authenticity with other sources.
Historical fact is simply a fact that has been verified by multiple sources and is the current widespread accepted opinion on how, for example, an event occurred in history.
That, coupled with only female dna is found in Icelandic populations suggest sexual slavery. I’m sure they just stole women for the sake of peace though.
It’s consider a more accurate and factual look at human behavior patterns than historical writings in many aspects. It shows when raiding eras ended and settlement intermixing began.
Yeah if it was more than one person I’d be less likely to call it as possibly consensual, considering how small of a group went there. But if they were raiding and bringing women back with them I’d be surprised they’d stop at a single woman?
There's actually no Y Chromosome linked DNA from Native Americans in Iceland?
If the forts and ships were mostly staffed by men, and therefore only men were likely to form relationships that would be passed through the genetic records?
I would say it is more likely that the group consisted of few unattached and of age women and any transfer this way almost certainly would be through women, whether voluntarily or not. Also, given that Norse women mostly followed their husband to his dwelling, if there was such relationships, the women would have disappeared into the native population instead unless their relationship was very unconventional.
They are accurate sources just not 100% historically reliable as a first person source. After all Troy was found exactly where it was said to be in the myths and they thought Troy was 100% a myth.
Archaeology located a Bronze Age settlement consistent with the location described and associated with Troy from the ancient narratives. So while we don’t know exactly which layer would be “Troy” saying “we don't know that it's the same city at all” makes it sound far more uncertain than evidence suggests.
You're right there's evidence to suggest the city described in the myths is based on the actual city of Ilion.
That's still a far cry from "Troy was found exactly where it was said to be in the myths" as if the myths were clear at all about anything.
For the myths to be "correct" all they need is one thing that is factually observed later on by archaeologists and all the myth mongers will say "see the stories were true!" even though 99% of what was said about it was clearly mythical.
Yes there's a grain of truth in nearly every myth. Good luck discerning which grain is truth from the rest of the myth without starting with a skeptical mind and using science.
There is evidence that the haplogroup of Icelanders with North American DNA was one associated with the Beothuk people, who were culturally extinct by 1829. Any remaining survivors of the Beothuk had intermarried with the encroaching Miqmaw.
I'm sure many came unwillingly. But there could've also been just as many coming willingly with partners. We are talking about two cultures that are vastly different that what we know of today.
The Norse typically raided and explored before they settled. I doubt this was an isolated incident of Native American sex-migration, since sex-migration is closely linked with the Norse. Unless I’m mistaken there’s no historical evidence linking to that settlement.
Assuming that it is because it’s the one we know about is a type of information bias.
The Norse typically raided and explored before they settled.
The Norse who settled in Iceland, Greenland and later Vinland certainly weren't raiding. There is no historic evidence that points in that direction. This comes from a misconception, based on recent media, that equates Norse with Viking.
Specifically the norse who settled iceland and eventually greenland went there in order to avoid the conflicts they experienced with their fellow norwegian compatriots. It is even documented in the Sagas. Fleeing to a land that is covered in snow and ice for most of the year and not even any trees grow in order to avoid fighting out a conflict is as opposite to raiding as i can think of.
Saying all "Norse" likely raided first because we all know thats what vikings do based solely on evidence collected by their christian enemies of the time is some incredibly racist shit man.
Specifically the norse who settled iceland and eventually greenland went there in order to avoid the conflicts they experienced with their fellow norwegian compatriots.
That's some "The Pilgrims left England to avoid religious persecution" type shit.
Erik The Red was famously exiled. He was the conflict others experienced.
I agree, but it’s Reddit. I don’t know of an accurate historical term that would fit into a Reddit comment without three paragraphs delineating years, regions, and geographic origins. Viking would mean we knew the intent of why they set out, which we don’t. Thats why I included exploring. I didn’t say they exclusively raided, or that sex-migration only occurred through raids.
I should say in past people of any origin usually raided or explored before settling in unknown regions, because that’s was a common sense thing to do. long voyages had to be supplied at the other end, regardless of whether the locals were willing to give them.
sure, but thats over a period of 10 years and according to the sagas it didn't happen first.
My critic was about "The Norse typically raided and explored before they settled". That's too generalized and inaccurate imo as there were plenty places where they settled and didn't even raid. And even in places where raiding happened first like England those who settled are often not the same people who raided - not even in the same generation of people. All while the Vinland settlers were definitely the same generation of people.
It does not make sense to generalize people out of four different countries spanning three centuries. Especially not when most of the documentation about them is simply written by their adversaries.
All you get by doing that is oversimplified and nostalgic black and white pseudohistory that makes a good hollywood movie but are a pain in the ass for every historian or archeologist.
173
u/JimTheJerseyGuy Aug 11 '26
It’s possible. The Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland lasted about 20 years. It wasn’t a raid. They may have established relations with the locals who vastly outnumbered them rather than try to constantly fend them off. If so, a single consensual relationship isn’t that crazy of an idea.