Viking Site in Canada Hinted by Satellite

a reply to: YachiruKusajishi

It's in Newfoundland, Canada. It was discovered in the 1960's. It is a confirmed and accepted site of a Viking settlement in North America, prior to the Columbus expedition.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Well they found the roasted off bog ore which indicates metalworking.

Yeah, but they failed to give out a date for it...Why?

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Cos you can't carbon date iron.


They still have a lot of digging to do on the site, but I'd guess at some point they'll find something that is contemporary with the iron that can be dated.

a reply to: 001ggg100
That is fascinating! I love how much new information I am learning from this forum!

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Cos you can't carbon date iron.


They still have a lot of digging to do on the site, but I'd guess at some point they'll find something that is contemporary with the iron that can be dated.

Great program though all the same.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Cos you can't carbon date iron.


They still have a lot of digging to do on the site, but I'd guess at some point they'll find something that is contemporary with the iron that can be dated.

Since I know next to nothing about carbon dating I have to ask, wouldn't they be able to test the trace carbon left from being worked in a wood/peat burning fire? Both are organic material and should leave deposits in the metal as it's being worked or are those too small to test?

a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

Think they need a bit more than a trace for that. They also need to find a source from a dateable layer in the soil to give context to the rest of the find.

It shouldn't be too tough, at some point they'll come across an old fire pit or something at a depth contiguous with the ore and then it should confirm the approx date it was worked.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: looneylupinsrevenge

Think they need a bit more than a trace for that. They also need to find a source from a dateable layer in the soil to give context to the rest of the find.

It shouldn't be too tough, at some point they'll come across an old fire pit or something at a depth contiguous with the ore and then it should confirm the approx date it was worked.

Humans are messy. As soon as they can open the site up a little more, I'm sure they'll find datable material.
And to think I drove past the place last summer...who knew?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

They always find something to date.

As for driving by a site?

I once had a riverside picnic within a two-three minute walk of Kennewick Man. Two years before he was found.

For much the same reason the two guys who found him were there, trying to get to see the boat races for free.

I wasn't really convinced by the episode -- it seemed like they were hunting for material to pad out the show, and in the end were accepting evidence that was a lot less rigorous than it should have been, even for a dig in the field. Everything they found in Canada "confirmed" to them that they had a Viking site and there was little of the skeptical approach that is needed when involved with a new find.

I don't doubt that Pacek can find a site if there's one here. But what I saw was not very convincing -- the lump of bog iron could have dated to the 17th century or later, and there was no evidence that the stone had been worked by fire... other than a crack, which could have appeared there any time. The ground structure could have been built by anyone at any time.

I found it a very disappointing show.

a reply to: Byrd

I kind of agree - i like both Parcek and Dan Snow but the episode was more hopeful rather than definitive. I also agree with the bog iron in that it could easily have been from 17th century fishing settlements (particularly French).

However, that said, there is no reason to disbelieve the Greenland and Iceland sagas which do say that L'Anse Aux Meadowes was but one camp (hinting at others). These sagas have proved pretty reliable so i am fairly certain there are other North American sites out there. Finding temporary sites from nearly a thousand years ago though will not be easy.

I'm not sure if the PBS show was exactly the same as the BBC show but in the BBC show they were using Parcek's techniques to identify Viking sites in Britain before heading to North America (to see if it was possible). There is a huge flaw here though in that the sites in Britain were occupied for much longer, meaning it would be much easier to find trace evidence. The Greenland / Iceland sagas, however, tell us the North Amercian sites were only temporary (several years / up to 1 generation).

originally posted by: Byrd
I found it a very disappointing show.

I thought it served well as an intro and a teaser for things that could very well emerge in this coming field season. No, it was not definitive, but grant dollars follow excitement. What I found odd was the apparent reticence of the NFLD gov't to licence the survey. Perhaps protecting the singularity of L'Anse aux Meadows?
But there is certainly no reason that this cannot be the next Norse site to be discovered...and let's not forget Pat Sutherland's work on Baffin Island. Nice overview here: The Medieval Norse on Baffin Island

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Byrd
I found it a very disappointing show.

I thought it served well as an intro and a teaser for things that could very well emerge in this coming field season. No, it was not definitive, but grant dollars follow excitement. What I found odd was the apparent reticence of the NFLD gov't to licence the survey. Perhaps protecting the singularity of L'Anse aux Meadows

Perhaps because there wasn't anyone associated with it who was familiar with archaeology in the area? I have no quibble with the techniques, but didn't see anyone around who was talking about the archaeology of the area in any great detail (unless I missed that part...and I might have.

Like you, I liked both Parcek and Dan Snow and wanted to see more of the technique. I wonder what real archaeologists thought of it (since I've only had a few courses and have been on only a few digs, I'm not exactly a world expert here.)