Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Philip Deitiker wrote: qFHpe.916804$w62.411622@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> Tom McDonald says in
m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Alaca wrote: 

<snip>

In the light of the story on the stone,
it is not the most obvious place.


It was on my first vist to the hill where I first began to
think the runestone story might be true.  I had done a number
of military history papers (primarily on fortifications) during
my college years.  This was a nearly perfect natural defensive
position, and reminded me of an overlarge motte (as in the
motte and baily type of castle). There are several distinct
advantages of the location which a band in hostile territory
would find advantageous.  The hill is steep sided, providing a
strong postion in case of attack; it is surrounded (or nearly
surrounded) by water, making a direct assault difficult; and it
has unobstructed lines of sight in all directions so that
surprise attack would be impossible.  In short a group under
the conditions given on the stone, would have found this
location irresistible for setting up a campsite.


     For a fortified campsite with fighters enough to repel
attackers, you may be right.

     However, given the situation where Indians (or other
     Europeans;
let's dream big) are present in strength enough to massacre 10
of their number and force the rest to flee, the very things that
make the location a good one for defense would also make it a
trap.

     Recall that the technological advantage later Europeans had
against American natives didn't exist at this time. Iron and
steel weapons would be superior in some ways; but stone-tipped
arrows, stone knives, stone and wooden clubs, etc., would have
been a match for them except in the closest of close combat, in
a situation where the Norse were awake, armed and ready. If
taken unawares, their weapons would have made nice trophies.

     The native folk would have the advantage of knowing the
     ground.
You talk about clear fields of vision. However, that would not
have been true for people who tracked and stalked skittish game
for a living. We've all seen topo maps of the vicinity; it's not
at all devoid of places one couldn't see from the hill.

     There would also not have been any real vision at night,
     except
under significant moonlight. Even then, nervous Norse, like
people today, would have often seen movement where there was
none, and missed it where there was. This would have favored
stealthy approaches by Indian hunters. An attack under those
conditions would have largely negated whatever superiority the
Norse might have had in arms and armor.


The Kranakua at Matagorda apparently tormented the french for nights
on end, getting close enough to make pot shots but basically engaging
in psychological warfare against the unprepared french, trapping them
inside their fortifications. I am sure the Kranks thought it was all
great fun.
 The most effective place to be is on the water moving, that
advantage being you move out of one groups territory before the next
group knows you are coming. Impressions alone, but that major
waterways were generally uncontested (probably because of their use
in trading).
 Natives in the southwest frequented bowl shaped plateaus because
they had good observation points and could hide villages in the
depressed parts.

 The other thing is that none knows what the vegetation was like on
Runestone hill in 1362, it could have been heavily forested, making
any point of view less that tree top obstructed. From that point of
view personal opinion about what makes a good fortification in a
farming community is a moot point.
 The flip side is that the region may have been a part of a manmade
fire ecology zone.

 If I were under attack by native peoples as I penetrated deeper
into a continent, the risk of even more attacks would increase as a
function of distance I had traveled. It would suffice to learn about
fewer cultures and try to negotiate a peace, rather than traveling
deeper inland. Therefore if I had the ability to return from whence I
came, that would be the route. So that there appearance on a hill in
a land of small potentially trapping lakes is not wise. The best
route is on watercraft moving with the flow down river. Traveling
south and east from the red river will not get one to siberia. lol.
A more likely scenario for a hoard of 1362 norse is that the
misjudged something and they lost their watercraft. Having past
through the territory of a dangerous indigeonous people they were
probably fleeing that people when they were cut-off and surrounded.
In that case the runestone would have been their last act.


And they were only with ten.
How many made it home (or to the king of Norway or the pope)?
I guess none.

--
- Peter Alaca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> against American natives didn't exist at this time. ... >>> a situation where the Norse were awake, ... An attack under those ... >> inside their fortifications. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • PING: Blue, the Indian Issues
    ... my mother in law lives in Bliss NY. ... The weather sucks, but we didn't fall for, ... from the Unnamed individuals that liked to attack me in the ... So, Natives aren't so noble. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... It was on my first vist to the hill where I first began to think the ... attack would be impossible. ... situation where the Norse were awake, ... Indians' POV, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Common Historical Errors
    ... of which retreated to England after pissing off the natives, ... he saw the ships coming he told the natives to go out and attack them. ... Doctor: Yes, it is. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)