Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

Apparently on date Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:24:17 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says in
>news:i8b7g1h4dtvhn7s1oq0voico92740eiojv@xxxxxxx:
>

Philip's snip restored to show what I was actually responding to:

>>>> This is where I get confused as to what you are trying to say. A
>>>> distance of 500 miles as their maximum range of operations makes
>>>> no sense to me at all - they're capable of 300 miles in the
>>>> Viking era as a routine "raiding" voyage. They're doing that,
>>>> out of sight of land, to get to Shetland, Faroes and Iceland and
>>>> nobody is disputing they were managing this without any
>>>> difficulty.
>
>>>To what end would they have traveled farther west, often along
>>>passages blocked by ice?
>>
>> Deny it if you want, but the Norse did go all the way west to
>> greenland.
>
>Talking about taking things out of context, hypocrit, just how far is
>it from iceland to the nearest point on greenland. All the way as in

I have done my homework here and I have produced some webpages to show exactly
what I am saying. I hope some people bother to actually read these pages and
maybe see that what I am saying is quite accurate.

This is the low res version.
http://tinyurl.com/8yggy

This is the high res version for those who want to check in more detail:
http://tinyurl.com/9ojxm

These pages are a mapped version of the webpage that comes up when you just
google for "greenland iceland norse travelling distance" and pick the first edu
that comes long (second on my list), and it is reasonably consistent with other
sites of similar credibility and backing, and here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/dd6bv

I have tried to honestly match up the voyages described by this page, on MS
Autoroute where I've used it to "tools->measure distance" for what the page
describes as early voyages, and four saga recorded voyages by named Norse
captains. I accept the values are rough rather than precise, rounded to about
100 mile intervals, but I don't think this is unrepresentative of what the
Norse were actually doing back around the year 1000.

By all means, use Autoroute or similar tools and make your own estimates.

Philip - as I am mainly posting for other people as I don't believe Philip is
capable of self-realisation - is claiming the Norse were travelling up to 250
miles most of the time and that they would rarely achieve their max limit of
about 500 miles, and would require an established route even to do this. I say
this is totally underestimating the capacity for the Norse to sail long
distances.

My figures, based on the saga records with references to disko bay, baffin
island (helluland) and the labrador coast (markland), and of course "L'Anse aux
Meadows" and the like, are:

Early voyages, 800 CE to 1000 CE (well, a tad earlier really):
Bergen to Shetland - 200 miles
Shetland to Faeroe - 200 miles
Faeroe to Iceland - 300 miles
Norway to Britain - 300 miles
Norway to Brest - 800 miles
Faroes to north of Iceland and Bergen to north of Iceland to circumnavigate it
- 500 and 1,300 miles respectively.
Bergen into the Barents Sea - 1,100 miles.

Named voyages,
(1) Erik the Red, 985 CE Reykjavik to the eastern settlement in order to settle
it = 1,000 miles
- example data - (surely nobody needs proof that Erik founds the eastern
settlement?)
(2) Bjarni Herjolfsson, 985 CE, Iceland to the eastern coast of NA, north up
the coast of Labrador and across to the eastern settlement = 2,400 miles
- example data - http://tinyurl.com/8xpy8
(3) Leif Eriksson, 1000 CE, eastern settlement up the coast of Greenland to
Disko bay, across to Baffin Island, and south down the Labrador coast and
L'Anse aux Meadows = 2,200 miles
- example data - http://tinyurl.com/bcaer
(4) Thorfinn Karlsefni, 1005 CE, Iceland around Greenland all the way to Disko
Bay, and then down the east coast of NA to LAM = 3,500 miles.
- example data - http://tinyurl.com/b36z4

To forestall accusations that I'm hiding my sources and making claims that I
then fail to provide data for, check various of these references and find these
voyages described in various detail by what will no doubt be good and bad
websites, but my claims will, I think, be fully substantiated by anyone who is
even remotely unbiased about this. Feel free to ask questions if you cannot
understand what my claims actually are.

Left in because it illustrates my point so well:

>250 miles is not 2000 miles. Secondarily the support structure in
>iceland, scotland and norway presents itself much better than the
>support structure in western greenland, which BTW, disappeared

>>>> To go from Iceland to the eastern settlement they're looking
>>>> at a trip of 700 miles - although they can make a crossing of
>>>> 200 miles to the Greenland coast and then down 700 miles. I
>>>> don't know which way they went but airline direct routes are
>>>> 700 mile ones and doubt they do it that well. I'd favour the
>>>> 700 miles
>>>
>>>700 miles is not a problem over a well established route.
>>>Obviously in 1350 when the ice flows headed south they had to
>>>travel the longer routes.
>>
>> Iceland to the eastern settlement on greenland simply is 700
>> miles. They did it centuries before 1350 and I'm confused as to
>> what your "longer routes" are. There clearly were no (recorded)
>> sites between iceland the eastern settlement and nor were there
>> prior to 900+ when the eastern settlement was established.
>
>The distance from iceland to greenland is ~250 miles, by dead
>reckoning you would choose a course that was 'sure' bet (meaning
>north) of your destination and head south along the coast. A sure way

They weren't sailing up over the arctic circle to an uninhabited region 250
miles from Iceland. They were sailing down the East Greenland Current to the
Eastern Settlement and sometimes beyond. That's a longer journey. Deal with it.

>to end up dead is to aim directly at your destination an miss it, so
>by that reasoning you would take the shortest route, 50 to 100 miles
>north of destination and head southwest along the coast.
>
>>>> Then it is 500 miles from the western settlement to Markland,
>>>
>>>Where is Markland? Is there a map where Markland has been
>>>mapped.
>>
>> Markland is generally accepted to be the labrador coast. But if
>> you don't believe the Norse got further west than Iceland this
>> is all, obviously, moot.
>
>Ah, the propoganda flows, we now see the signs of a classic kook.
>I never said they never reached greenland, that is your red herring
>argument. What I said was from greenland west 500 miles that I could
>not imagine them seeing a benefit of traveling further westward.

Indeed the "propoganda" flowed there. You know perfectly well that the Norse
were sailing to Markland, that Markland was the Labrador coast and having
noticed that the Labrador coast is, across open ocean, about 600 miles as the
airliner flies, away from the Eastern settlement. Instead of addressing that,
you SQUINK. And to cover that up, you accuse me of it.

>> I won't bother reading the rest of your "there never were any
>> Norse" reply which is clearly denial and crackpottery and I'll
>> request you killfile me properly so you don't start pointless
>> sub-threads on my posts, thanks in advance.
>
>I see you completely snipped all that section on requesite
>archaeological evidence to pour your crocodile tears here.

No, you were producing just more rubbish. I really, really, felt that there was
no point in discussing it further - I was being honest. I don't doubt you will
fail to deal with this post, or the detailed website illustrations as to why
you are completely and utterly wrong on this and will just try and cherry pick
some sort of religious-style dodges and evade items that you think you can save
face on. So prove me wrong about my expectation that you will do that, by
acting like a non-crackpot.

>So the way I see it you are rather niave about debates on the UseNet
>and your thinking that the ploy is something that might work. I
>suggest you learn a better tactic for debating, otherwise when you
>make the occasional mistake, your are going to be eaten for lunch.

Prove me wrong.

Look up some of the voyages, do some of the mapping - properly mind, I shall
check your work - show how the Norse couldn't go much further than 500 miles or
admit that they were managing voyages well over 1,000 miles and often much,
much more - the Hauksbok saga is accepted as valid (it can obviously be total
lies but it doesn't read like that). It records that the ships set out for
Vinland from Iceland, and first arrived at Helluland before sailing past
Markland - the first is an airline distance of 1,000 miles, but you can't have
them fly over Greenland and must go by sea, following the East Greenland
Current, and then the North Atlantic drift up the west coast of Greenland to
the latitude of Helluland and then down the Labrador current to L'Anse. There
is no way to make these distances much less than they clearly must have been.

http://tinyurl.com/b36z4 to remind you.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >it from iceland to the nearest point on greenland. ... >250 miles is not 2000 miles. ... >(and north of ice there is not a whole lot of habitable unoccupied ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... it from iceland to the nearest point on greenland. ... 250 miles is not 2000 miles. ... >>travel the longer routes. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... Bergen to Shetland - 200 miles ... Faroes to north of Iceland and Bergen to north of Iceland to ... 985 CE Reykjavik to the eastern settlement in order ... Bjarni Herjolfsson, 985 CE, Iceland to the eastern coast of NA, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... Bergen to Shetland - 200 miles ... Faroes to north of Iceland and Bergen to north of Iceland to ... 985 CE Reykjavik to the eastern settlement in order ... Bjarni Herjolfsson, 985 CE, Iceland to the eastern coast of NA, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >> distance of 500 miles as their maximum range of operations makes ... >> To go from Iceland to the eastern settlement they're looking at ... Iceland to the eastern settlement on greenland simply is 700 miles. ... >> Then it is 500 miles from the western settlement to Markland, ...
    (sci.archaeology)