Norses: Were the Skraelings Amerindians?

Quote, Tommy:

Well, according to the record of the Portuguese, they stated that the King of Norway had a mysterious land at the west, his ship would go there, and brought back animal skin,the ship spent one year to go there and returned,but the King kept the existence of the land as a secret.

That was new to me. Do you have any reference on that?

The key book to this subct-matter is "Westwards before Colombus" by Kare Prytz. According to Prytz Colombus returned from Labrador to Iceland, with the merchant Jon Jay in 1477.

That trip is mentioned by Fernando Colon, as the key to his fathers correct accounting of the width between Europe and Terra del Norumbega and - further south - Terra del Indianas.

The Norse settlements along Norumbega strected as far as Cheasapeak Bay, at least. Probably down to the Mexican Gulf, since the Northmen also are repported to have rowed along the Missisippi.

Prytz even found out that the old Norse settlements - along the east-coast - was using the name "Vinland" and "Vinland Goda", as well as "Landit Goda" - as they moved south. Vinland later became english, and named "Virginnia", while "Landit Goda" became portuguese and called "Terra Cova". Later the Spaniards took it over and the name became "Terra Coba" - before the English finally took it over and made it Carolina. From that point on the Terra Coba became the name for the (Spanish) island today called "Cuba"...!

But - that was all happening after 1370 - when the vital blows were made on the Norse strongholds of Greenland - that governed the "western isles" on behalf of the Norwegian king. In 1362-1364 a certain frenchman called Metzier visited Scandinavia where he wrote a book about the Norwegian Sea-King and his settlements "out in the ocean". According to Metzier it would take the Norwegian Chancellor three years to complete a sailing around this "enormous area", in order to collect the taxes and look after the trade of the Norwegian crown...


Edited by Boreasi - 05-Apr-2007 at 01:56

Sure?!

I think we should look for the logic of history when we deal with these questions. At least we should refrain from using pics of henna-bleached sami women to prove genetic points...

Traditional ethnology used to point to the mere fact that there were several tribes that have spread out around the circum-polar area of the arctic world - well after ice-time.

The first trace of these peoples - that also makes sense -  is a migration from the Himalayan area and northwards along the Ural mountain-range, where there was an ice-free corridor already 40.000 years ago.

Much later there have been a spread from the northern mounths of the arctic, Russian rivers towards both east and west. The Inuits and the Eskimos were held as the end of the eastern branch, while the Norwegian Sami were held as a logical end of western branch.

The similarities between these tribes were both physical as well as cultural. Looking into their traditional ways of life we can still see the paralells in life-style, housing, clothing and social organisation.

Obviously they have developed differences as well, but they are still not  disqualifieng the simlarities.  Recent mixes and traces of genetic markers common to their respective hemispheres can't be taken as a proof of anything but signs of integration.

Recent analyzis from Sweden have already shown that the DNA-markers of the Sami arrived to Scandinavia from the Ural-area - about 4.500 - 5.500 years ago.  Simultaniously we just heared that the Aleut and the Inuit reached Alaska some 2.500 years ago. From Kamchatcka, of course.

30 years back the antropologists talked about the 12 mongolian tribes that circumferenced the arctic nort. I haven't seen anything lately that really contradicts that.

---

Btw.: Could you name the different etnicities reflected in the pictures collected on the previous page?!


Edited by Boreasi - 05-Apr-2007 at 11:19

From a book,  the discovery of the Portuguese, it had such statement, i tell you more when i go back to university to find the book,and then i reply you.

But some samis clearly had Asian, or Mongolian -charactheristics , they had ethnical connection with people of Siberia or east asia

But Finns also from Uralic region, but I do not think they have Asian root?

Tommy,

The Finns are NOT from an Uralian root - but are the original population of the eastern part of Fenno-Skandia, while the  Swedes, Danes and Norse are their western counterparts.

That's been the case since mesolothic time. They both spread from the Baltic, after ice-time - born out of the same original "proto-caucasians" that had survived in a "biotic refugia" - up north, during the end of ice-time, according to the more recent sources.

The Finns spread east-wards over a vast area - from Transylvania to Tocharia. We see those traces already during the various stages of stone-age.

In western Europe these eastern Finns were originally called "Vaner" or "Vends" ("Vene", "Wende" "Wendi") - carrying amber from the Baltic to the Black Sea - and onwards. Thus we find "Schytian" mummies in their easternmost off-springs - the Tarim-bassin, in present China. The Chinese wall pretty much explains their eastern border.

Simultaniously another branch of people came out of the Himalayan mountains - that later made it along the northern coast of Russia to Scandinavia. Thus we have Samojeds and Sami.  The Himalayan population had kept the contact with their southern brothers much longer though, since they did not live isolated from their tropical origin during ice-time, but rather as the northenmost branch of the asian peoples. Thus we see their pigmentation to be far more intact - compared to the "refugians" that became the caucasian origin.

Jams,
The present population of Samis are definitly "European", in any juridical term, whatsoever. But their etnic and cultural characteristics originates from an altaic descent - not much doubt about that. Most of the northern samis still carry their pigment very clearly, as do the eskimos and the aleut-inuits.

Thus you were absolutely correct about Anna Kriistina Juuso. I just wonder if she could pass in a mongolian or tibetan beuty-contest?!

These mongolian branches have traditionally lived by a nomadic life-style and used the "Yur-ta-principle" when building their homes. Thus  have the circular cone-building as "lavvus" and "tipis" on each side of the north Atlantic, paralell to the squares and angles of the eurasian settlers.

As they have settled inbetween Scandinavians, Finns and American Indians they have adapted different morphologic traits that separate them genetically - today. But they still all share a common origin - as can be seen also in their respective traditions of architecture, life-style, clothing and cultural expressions. Their long, due and close relationship with the Finnish tribes of eastern Russia have made  very special impact on the western branch of the Himalayan descendants, as they have adapted to the Finno-Ugrian language.

Thus they were able to live successfully and prosperously side by side - for millenias - without ever getting into serious conflicts. Because they had a very clear division of culture - the Samojoeds and Samis were high-landers that lived "with a ligth bag" - with seasonal migrations to get to the scarcer sources of nature. Meanwhile the Finns would stick to their forests, rivers and lowlands - for the traditional fishery, log-production, lowland agriculture, boat-building and river-trade - connected to their Scandinavian neighbours that developed coastal setlements, ships and ocean-sailings.

When these "goths" reached America they populated the empty land of the east-coast and its islands. The Norse buildings and tools from the Orkneys are very similar to the Mound-builders of the US.

Thus the Norse kept their connections across the Atlantic already during neolithic time.  As the Inuits arrived they became a normal part of the scarce northmen that inhabitated the rural, arctic part of north America - too.

Thus we may see that there are two differnt styles of life-style and architecture among the North American Indians - too. The ones that were singing - like you can hear the Norwegian joiker - you may understand what the later Norsemen called them "hollers" - which in Norwegian can  still be written "skraelings"...



Edited by Boreasi - 07-Apr-2007 at 23:28

But some people say that there is no ethnical connection between Finns and Vikings, but they are both white people, One of my teachers stated that she had a Finns friend, and the friend stated that they were the offspring of the Huns, then this is not correct?

Just a note to the Finnish-Hunnic thing:

Originally posted by Boreasi <h3 minmax_bound="true">Genetic trails:</h3> <p minmax_bound="true">This suggests an arrival in the region soon after the retreat of the glacial ice, either by way of Continental Europe and/or the Volga-Ural region.

So it's either or both, but nothing is really settled for now it seems.

The ancestors of the Sami walked in as soon as the ice retreated enough, something like 15.000 years ago.

Likely one contribution came from the south, others from the Urals in the east.

Any link with other arctic peoples to the east is quite weak, and probably non-existant with the Inuits.

And you still can't pick out the 15.000 Sami living in Stockholm in a crowd.