Using the sun to precisly navigate, at night?

[RON20406]

The vikings were illiterate, they didnt put anything in writing, so it would be very difficult for them to rely on the sun for navigation, and i tend to think, why would they, because for thousands of years, people in the northern hemisphere, have used polaris for navigation, its allways in the northern sky, and the higher it is, means the further north you are, the lower it is, means the further south you are, only thing you cant work out from observations of polaris, is how far east or west you are, and you cant do that with a sun stone either, even if it lets you see the direction of the sun, an hour after its gone down, all it tells you is the direction west is, and anyone who goes to see, understands that when the sun goes down, the stars come up, if you see sirius, in early evening, and its on your beam, when you are heading for some island, and you know you are going the right dircetion, it will be on your beam the next evening, I am not saying you are wrong, but to me, seems like an overcomplicated way of doing things.
The other thing is, in the area of the north atlantic where the vikings spent a lot of time. The wind, and the waves, nearly always come from the west, I spent a lot of time at sea in that area, and you know you are heading west when you get into the north atlantic, just by where the waves are coming from, when you are punching into it, you are going west, when its on your stern, you are going east. You may get it coming from north of west, or south of west, but it will never be from due north, or from due south, which is why, if you look at every british city, the poor part of the city is always in the east, and the rich part, is always in the west, reason being, during the industrial revolution, the factories were built within the city, and the smoke from the factories blew from west to east, so the owners and wealthy people, built their houses on the west side of the city, and the poorest people, ended up on the east side of the city, a thing that still lives on today, in the uk, where the east end of a city, is still the poorest part of the city, and the west end, is the most desirable.

Al, with all due respect, your statement that Vikings were illiterate is historically absurd and false. The runic alphabet was used by the early Germanic tribes and the Norse as a form of written communication until the latin alphabet predominated in the 12th Century due to the influence of the church. There is a wealth of history, poetry and the famous sagas that were recorded in Runic inscriptions. Before you make assertations as truth to a readership that may not know early world history, you have a responsibility to be accurate and knowledgeable in your assertions. Don't lump the Vikings with other cultures that were illiterate. The Vikings were a culture that possessed Science, Art, Literature, Technology and a written language. They also possesed a trait that has been lost in the modern world: bravery, honor and cultural pride. You might want to read about this further. Best, Ron
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_alphabet

 

[RON20406]

The pen is mightier than the sword, and history belongs to the person who writes it, the vikings like the celts didnt have the written word, the recited history to each other, which eventually becomes folklore, by the time of columbus, the spanish had written history, so they documented it, had the spanish writing, a british captain would have found the usa, may have even went there through hearing about columbus, but, the brit would have been put down as the disoverer.

Al, Did you even bother to read the submission from Wikipaedia on Runes? If you want to believe the Vikings didn't have the written word, then you are clearly ignoring accepted historical fact and countless extant writings from the Viking Period which are taught in universities around the world and fabricating your own biased, unsubtantiated, and delusional version of the truth. But then again, maybe you believe the earth is the center of our solar system and that the earth is flat. The great thing about Freedom of Speech is that you can say, think or believe anything you want. However, among the educated among us . . . you surely will be judged. Best, Ron

 

[AtlanticAl]

Al, Did you even bother to read the submission from Wikipaedia on Runes? If you want to believe the Vikings didn't have the written word, then you are clearly ignoring accepted historical fact and countless extant writings from the Viking Period which are taught in universities around the world and fabricating your own biased, unsubtantiated, and delusional version of the truth. But then again, maybe you believe the earth is the center of our solar system and that the earth is flat. The great thing about Freedom of Speech is that you can say, think or believe anything you want. However, among the educated among us . . . you surely will be judged. Best, Ron

Their is no need to be so rude. I come from the Island of Barra, which is on the western isles of scotland, and was owned and settled by vikings, which can be seen in the names of places on the island, such as "Borve" and Braivick" their is no V in the celtic, or gaelic language, (which incidentaly is also a spoken and not written language, the celts like the vikings, had no alphabet) You will also be aware of the finding of the ancient viking chess set, on the island of Lewis, which is next door to the island of Barra, however, other than the odd artifact that turns up, and some chiseling of symbols in rock. The ancient egyptians were illiterate, but they were able to leave information, in their hyrogliphics, which were symbols, that egyptoligists were able to read, however, whithout an alphabet, you are in effect illiterate.

Take for instance, the dead see scrolls, hebrew is a simple language, it was a spoken language, not a written one, and its hard to read it and understand it, because the meaning of something, is the way it is said, the word "i will write it in english, because i cant write in hebrew "shecket" that means be quiet, its the only word they have for be quiet, in english i might say "be quiet, i might say shut up, i might say silence, i might say shut it, i can say lots of things, and the things i say, show the way i feel, but in hebrew, its the way you say the thing, that is why the dead sea scrolls are so open to interpritation, because they dont know the context of the words in the scrolls.

As for the vikings, they were probably farmers who ran out of land, and set off on their boats to find new land, being farmers, they had no need for reading and writing, and at that particular time, the only people in Europe that could read, were monks, and the vikings showed how much they thought of them at lindesfarm abbey, where they threw most of them off the walls and into the sea, and took the rest to be sold as slaves.

To make the claime, they had reading and writing skills at a time, when more than 90% of the people in europe didnt, is just rediculous. Celtic history, is told in stories and in songs, it was never up a written history, they only adopted writing, when they converted to christianity, which is why not a lot is known about pre christian celts. Much the same with the vikings, they were finally defeated in Scotland, in the battle of largs, but nothing much is known about the battle other than the vikings lost, and lost in a big way, according to written history, but for the amount of actuall artifacts that were found in largs, it leans more towards a small battle, with perhaps the crews of one or two ships, against a huge army, but the vikings didnt leave any text about what happend, so no one knows the real story, just the point of view from the victors.

 

[Ross]

Al , I think that you are equating literacy with vocabulary. I believe that the official French lexicon contains some 50,000 words. The American English exceeds ten times that. It doesn't make the French less literate than the Americans.

 

[AtlanticAl]

Al , I think that you are equating literacy with vocabulary. I believe that the official French lexicon contains some 50,000 words. The American English exceeds ten times that. It doesn't make the French less literate than the Americans.

No, literacy, and vocabulary are two different animals, french is a latin based language, the reason we use latin today, in law and in medicine, is that its a dead language, no knew words will be invented, so what a latin word means today, it will mean the same thing a hundred years, and english word, may not, such as "gay" used to mean happy, but you dont get that many people who tell you they feel gay nowadays, and that change was in the seventies, tart, some places it means a type of pastry cake, and some places it means a loose woman, their are so many examples, but the english language is be constantly re invented. You wouldnt have known what a hard drive was in 1980, or what RAM was, or a Compact Disc, you wouldnt use the word "utalise" in 1975, you would have said "use" but people get bored with words in english, and invent new ones, which is why english has such a huge vocabulary, I am not being obsequies with you, I am telling you, their is a huge difference between languages that are written, and languages that are spoken, when you write someone an e mail, you can word it in ways that show feeling, but, if your language was only spoken, and never written, you would have no need for that, because tone, and facial expressions, would show your feeling. Latin is a language, that was spoken before it was written, so it has less words, only one description for gay, and that is homo sexual, English is a bastardised language, with bits taken from every other language, and adopted, Safari, is a swaheli word, but its in the english language, a safari park, various other uses, para military, para the latin "for" if someone is dress "para military" they are dressed for military, Post mortem latin for "after death" vincere, latin for victory, also seen in english as invincible, most of the english language, is base on latin, with so many words stolen from other languages, spanish, italian french, are latin languages, that is why they have less words. You dont need five differnt ways to name something, but in english they do it, in spanish, a boat, is "el barko" a table is a 'messa" in english a boat, is a ship, a boat a yacht, a sailboat, a punt, a barge, a super yacht (new one) a corrac, a launch, a semi rigid, an inflatable, but in spanish, its el barko. in english its a coffee table, a dinner table a work table, desk, computer desk, school desk, office desk, boardroom table, in spanish, their is just "messa"

 

[kendall]

The vikings did (to my knowledge) have a written language, consisting mostly of letters that could be 'hacked' into wood or stone with an axe or blade. (Pretty good considering I don't think any self respecting viking would be caught without a weapon of some sort)

However most illiterate peoples had a very rich tradition of oral history, knowledge was passed down through tales and verbal histories, many people had dedicated scholars who's sole purpose was to keep track of events. Most skills (navigation, metalurgy etc) were taught through apprenticeships
They may not have been able to write it down, but it was passed along.
Much of the 'lost knowledge' was lost due to war or disease that wiped out huge chunks of the population, leaving the survivors pretty much clueless about their own past. Vaguely remembered histories were in many cases embellished or modified and became the basis for legends myths etc
Illiterate does not equate to an inability to pass knowledge along it just means you don't have a way of writing your thoughts down other than telling someone, or teaching them. It does mean that if you die before you can pass that knowledge along it becomes lost.
It becomes much easier with pen and paper, but even today, much knowledge is passed along by word of mouth.
Long after writing was common, the prevailing method of spreading news was the town crier.

 

[RON20406]

Their is no need to be so rude. I come from the Island of Barra, which is on the western isles of scotland, and was owned and settled by vikings, which can be seen in the names of places on the island, such as "Borve" and Braivick" their is no V in the celtic, or gaelic language, (which incidentaly is also a spoken and not written language, the celts like the vikings, had no alphabet) You will also be aware of the finding of the ancient viking chess set, on the island of Lewis, which is next door to the island of Barra, however, other than the odd artifact that turns up, and some chiseling of symbols in rock. The ancient egyptians were illiterate, but they were able to leave information, in their hyrogliphics, which were symbols, that egyptoligists were able to read, however, whithout an alphabet, you are in effect illiterate.

Take for instance, the dead see scrolls, hebrew is a simple language, it was a spoken language, not a written one, and its hard to read it and understand it, because the meaning of something, is the way it is said, the word "i will write it in english, because i cant write in hebrew "shecket" that means be quiet, its the only word they have for be quiet, in english i might say "be quiet, i might say shut up, i might say silence, i might say shut it, i can say lots of things, and the things i say, show the way i feel, but in hebrew, its the way you say the thing, that is why the dead sea scrolls are so open to interpritation, because they dont know the context of the words in the scrolls.

As for the vikings, they were probably farmers who ran out of land, and set off on their boats to find new land, being farmers, they had no need for reading and writing, and at that particular time, the only people in Europe that could read, were monks, and the vikings showed how much they thought of them at lindesfarm abbey, where they threw most of them off the walls and into the sea, and took the rest to be sold as slaves.

To make the claime, they had reading and writing skills at a time, when more than 90% of the people in europe didnt, is just rediculous. Celtic history, is told in stories and in songs, it was never up a written history, they only adopted writing, when they converted to christianity, which is why not a lot is known about pre christian celts. Much the same with the vikings, they were finally defeated in Scotland, in the battle of largs, but nothing much is known about the battle other than the vikings lost, and lost in a big way, according to written history, but for the amount of actuall artifacts that were found in largs, it leans more towards a small battle, with perhaps the crews of one or two ships, against a huge army, but the vikings didnt leave any text about what happend, so no one knows the real story, just the point of view from the victors.

Al, my intention was not to be rude, but your stubborn, close-mindedness to historical fact needed to be addressed. You cannot postively contribute to a forum when you continue to recant historical falsehoods. And, where you live has no bearing and gives no credulity to your false statements concerning Dark Age history. Why not take some time and read some credible history concerning the Viking Period. May I suggest "The History of the Vikings," by Gwyn Jones--A Welsh novelist and historian who briiliantly encapsulates Viking History with a special emphasis on their literary and artistic talents. Good luck, good reading and good sailing, Ron

 

[RECESS]

Saying that societies that used symbols that were not an alphabet is illiterate is wrong. An alphabet is a collection of symbols. The Mayans and Egyptians passed down as much recorded history as did the Greeks. It may have been more had much of both civilizations libraries been destroyed.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Take for instance, the dead see scrolls, hebrew is a simple language, it was a spoken language, not a written one, and its hard to read it and understand it, .

1. That's utter nonsense. The "Torah" is written.

2. Illterate - synonyms: uneducated, uninformed. It has NOTHING to do with being able to read or write.

3. Spelling DOES matter. It makes search engines work, but, besides, it increases the ability of the presenter to be understood, and, eventually make his case. In your case, you are factually wrong, your spelling and use of the English language is atrocious, and it is difficult at best to understand your concepts.

I agree with Rognvald. Suggest you do some homework, a lot more.

These forums, interestingly enough, bring a lot of varied advice. Like "What's the "best"..." kind of questions. They also bring lots of different answers. In many cases, the differences in answers must make the OP cringe, because of the conflicting advice, but in most cases the differing answers simply represent differing experiences.

In this case, it is truly unfortunate that you're just way off the mark.

Good luck.

 

[Ross]

There is an ancient writing form called cuniform. With it the culture conveyed knowledge, instruction, financial details, astronomical observations. And is completely mysterious to me.

 

[AtlanticAl]

Al, my intention was not to be rude, but your stubborn, close-mindedness to historical fact needed to be addressed. You cannot postively contribute to a forum when you continue to recant historical falsehoods. And, where you live has no bearing and gives no credulity to your false statements concerning Dark Age history. Why not take some time and read some credible history concerning the Viking Period. May I suggest "The History of the Vikings," by Gwyn Jones--A Welsh novelist and historian who briiliantly encapsulates Viking History with a special emphasis on their literary and artistic talents. Good luck, good reading and good sailing, Ron

Ron, if you have read a lot of viking history, then you will know, most of what you read, was wrtten between, the eighteenth, and twentieth century. Historians are still writing books about it today, very little of it, was written by the vikings themselves, during the time. What was written during the time, was written by the victims of viking raids, which put them in a very negative light, that changed later on in history, when historians decided these views were not quite true.

You dont know why they abandoned the settlements in Greenland, because their is no text to explain it, all you know about why they abandoned is the views of historians who wrote about it, centuries later. As for Gwyn Jones, he wasnt there at the time was he, no, he wasnt, so all he is giving, is his opinion, you are happy to read his opinion, because its what you want to read about the vikings, but you are not happy to read my opinion, because its not what you want to read.

You can get an accurate picture of the US civil war, because you can read the letters and journals of the people who fought in it, and lived throught that period, you can read letters from the lowest ranking soldiers, to the generals, and you can build up a big picture of what happend. If you didnt have these journals and letters, you would have to read what historians wrote about it, and that would be very different from what actually happend at the time, If you think about it, you can pick up a magazine today, and read a completely untrue story of what some celebritiy is doing, so why do you think if something is written a thousand years after the fact, its going to be extremely accurate.

 

[AtlanticAl]

Thier is one other big history turnaround i rember about the vikings. They owned an island off the north of scotland called Orkney, and the people of Orkney were so proud of their viking heritage, they all claimed to be descended from the vikings, and their were loads of books confirming the decendancy. They dont call themselves scottish they call themselves Orcadians, so anyway, due to all the books written by hitorians that proved they were all descended from the vikings, a BBC historical research program, went up to orkney to investigate, what was believed to be the only settlement in the uk, that had the descendants of the vikings on it, they started by DNA testing sheep and other animals, and found the sheep to be descended from the sheep the vikings had, then they asked for volunteers to have their DNA taken, no shortage, everyone wanted it confirmed that they descended from the vikings, they found, their DNA was nothing like norse DNA, and matched the people in southern scotland, because those islands were inhabited, wiped out, re inhabited, wiped out, and re inhabited again, but they didnt like the results of that test, so they just tore it up, and said, "no the people from sothern scotland descended from us, we descended from the vikings" so according to them, the history books that were written hundreds of years later, are more accurate than the DNA tests.

 

[RON20406]

Ron, if you have read a lot of viking history, then you will know, most of what you read, was wrtten between, the eighteenth, and twentieth century. Historians are still writing books about it today, very little of it, was written by the vikings themselves, during the time. What was written during the time, was written by the victims of viking raids, which put them in a very negative light, that changed later on in history, when historians decided these views were not quite true.

You dont know why they abandoned the settlements in Greenland, because their is no text to explain it, all you know about why they abandoned is the views of historians who wrote about it, centuries later. As for Gwyn Jones, he wasnt there at the time was he, no, he wasnt, so all he is giving, is his opinion, you are happy to read his opinion, because its what you want to read about the vikings, but you are not happy to read my opinion, because its not what you want to read.

You can get an accurate picture of the US civil war, because you can read the letters and journals of the people who fought in it, and lived throught that period, you can read letters from the lowest ranking soldiers, to the generals, and you can build up a big picture of what happend. If you didnt have these journals and letters, you would have to read what historians wrote about it, and that would be very different from what actually happend at the time, If you think about it, you can pick up a magazine today, and read a completely untrue story of what some celebritiy is doing, so why do you think if something is written a thousand years after the fact, its going to be extremely accurate.[/quote

Al, I'm sure you're a nice fellow, but I can see no benefit for me or others to continue to answer your bizarre assertations. I also wanted to mention that Hebrew was and is a written language. Along with Aramaic, it is the language of the Old Testament. I suggest you reply strictly to sailing issues since your knowledge of History is abysmal and your personal beliefs unusual to say the least. I have, however, responded sincerely and there is no ill intent in my response. I wish you a good day and happy sailing, Ron

 

[sandpiper10471]

Okay, guys, instead of ranting and raving, how about some displays of intellect and academia. I would love to see some creditable references to support the arguments cited. So far, the only reference given is Jones. ( However, I have only read pages 1 and 3 of this thread so far so please forgive me if there are more.)
Too bad the thread took this direction. I think we can learn a lot from information about the navigational stone.
Please, please, get a spelling and grammar checker or a proof reader. Having been an English teacher, I want to put red marks all over my computer screen. Actually I don't. That is unproductive and damaging. What I really want to do is sit with those who are challenged by the language and help them learn current conventions.

 

[Ross]

There exist written records of the summer ice conditions in the harbors of the settlements on Greenland. During the period of occupation the winters were relatively mild and the harbors were ice free during the summer months. But the climate cooled,( there is scientific proof of that) and the harbors became inaccessable even during the short summer. There is written record also of that.
However none of this has anything to do with the ability of the people of the time and place to use the tools they had to find their way. The fact is they could and did cross from Iceland to Green land and back for about three hundred years. So it is fair and reasonable to conclude that they not only knew how to do that but that they left some manner of detailed information for others to use. It is unreasonable to think that all of the men that knew the ways went at the same time. 200 to 300 years provides time to train many successors. .

 

[RECESS]

I would not want to be the one to break it to the Japanese people that for thousands of years that they have been illiterate.

 

[AtlanticAl]

Yes dummy, had you bothered reading my post and reference to hebrew, you would know i said it was a written language, it was me who mentioned the dead sea scrolls, i even visited the place they were found when i lived in Israel. I also listened to the professor who tried to interprit the dead sea scrolls, (cant remember his name) but he said, it was impossible to truly translate what they said, they were written in the early days of hebrew writing, when the language was a spoken language, that was in its early days of writing, and a language that is only spoken, is very difficult to write down, because the way things are said, give meaning. You have a lot less words in a language that is only spoken, a language that is going to be written, needs a lot more.

 

[AtlanticAl]

In favor:

1. In the Hrafns Saga it says: "the weather was thick and stormy . . . The king looked about and saw no blue sky . . . then the king took the sunstone and held it up, and then he saw where [the Sun] beamed from the stone."
2. The crystal cordierite can be found as pebbles in the coast of Norway. It has birefringent and dichroic properties, changing color and brightness when rotated in front of polarized light. With an adequately cleaved crystal it is easy to tell the direction of skylight polarization: its color will change (e.g. from blue to light yellow) when pointing towards the sun. [Curiously enough, the Vikings frequented Iceland, the first source of Iceland Spar (optical calcite), which has had such an important role in the discovery and study of polarization. Even today, many high-performance polarizers use that mineral]
3. At high latitude the sun remains for a long time close to the horizon, which produces the best skylight polarization pattern for navigation purposes.
4. Because of perspective, a bank of clouds of uniform density is squeezed together when looking far away. Thus, it is usually much easier to find a clear patch of sky towards the zenith (just try it). And crepuscular rays (the beams of light and darkness radiating from the sun when blocked by clouds) are difficult to see close to the zenith, as the line of sight crosses them through their thinnest section.
5. The method would have worked even when the sun was several degrees below the horizon (but still illuminating the atmosphere). Note that at twilight, when the sun is below the horizon by about two degrees, its location is very difficult to ascertain. Although a bright twilight arch can be seen, it occupies a large part of the horizon and is of uniform intensity. A similar effect may conceivable happen when the sun is above the horizon and a thick layer of clouds covers it.
6. Light fog and overcast of thin clouds don't eliminate skylight polarization.

Against:

1. Little detail is given to identify the sunstone and it is not mentioned specifically in relation to navigation or sailing.
2. The navigation season was, of course, summer when the sun is not that low during good part of the day nor is the weather very bad.
3. In all likelihood, the Viking sailor would have used a large number of clues from the sea and the sky to steer his ship. In many cases he could have interpolated the position of the sun between sightings or estimated its position. Many times it suffices to look at the pattern of illumination of the clouds, their iridescence, the direction of crepuscular rays or, close to twilight, the general illumination of the sky. Furthermore, the knowledge of the sun position is not sufficient for navigation. The helmsman needed to correct the sun direction for the time of the day and day of the year. Thus, he must have been quite a good reader of the sky and the sea.
4. Under a heavy overcast sky, when a navigational aid would be most useful, the polarization method doesn't work.
5. This theory is just a possibility, a statement of what the Vikings could have done, but it is based only in circumstantial evidence.

Interestingly, in the late 40's the US National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) developed a Sky Compass based on the same principle. It was inspired by a previous "twilight compass" developed by Dr. A. H. Pfund of Johns Hopkins University. From a NBS 1949 paper: "The principal advantage of the sky compass . . . is during twilight, and when the sun is several degrees below the horizon, as well as when the region of the sky containing the sun is overcast, so long there is a clear patch of sky overhead. The sky compass is thus of particular value when the sun compass and the sextant are not usable. Since the extent of polarization of the sky's light is greatest at right angles to the incident beam of sunlight, the compass is most accurate in the polar regions, where it is also most useful, because of the long duration of twilight . . ." The US Navy and Air Force experimented with the sky compass in the 1950's and Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) used it for several years on its polar flights. Polarization.com has recently developed an inexpensive educational Skylight Compass Card.

When Ramskou originally proposed this theory, it was well received and widely accepted by the general public and also by the scientific community, and remained so for more than two decades. The Viking navigational triumphs became very fashionable, especially the exploits of Eirik the Red and his son Leif (Eiricksson) the "Lucky" circa 1000 AC, and the "discovery" of America centuries before Columbus. Both, Scientific American and National Geographic magazines carried the story of skylight navigation. However, in the 90's the theory was disputed on the basis that no real material proof exists and that the advantage provided to navigation would have been marginal. My personal take is that polarized skylight could have been of real use to the Vikings but, until direct evidence is found, one should be skeptic and stick to the simplest explanation: that the Norsemen where damn good sailors!

You will notice, it says, this will work when the sun is "several" degrees below the horizon, that is not night time, when the sun is fifteen degrees below the horizon, its an hour after sunset, the figure of two degrees below the horizon, is ten mins after sunset, hardly the ability to navigate at night. As for the claim that they wrote about not being able to enter the harbours of Greenland due to ice, how come i cant find any of this on the web,
From the Greenland guide, this is what they say on the settlers leaving.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1480-1500

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Norse population of Greenland disappears. [/FONT]

 

[Ross]

Smithsonian mag. Scientific American and National Geographic have all published studies concerning the colonization of Greenland and the subsequent abandonment of those settlements. Please don't ask me when or where I didn't realize that there would be a quiz.

 

[AtlanticAl]

How much would you value the opinion, of a British historian, on the US civil war, Probably not much, so why would american text be of any great value to european history, when america didnt even exist as anything more than a land mass when it was going on.
I am the only european commenting on this thread, I unlike the people here, had to study about the vikings in the school history cariculum, while you lot were learning about american industrialism, and the causes of war with Japan, the vikings were part of british history. They may have reached canada, or america, but since they were not great at writing stuff down, or creating charts, no one knows. They didnt have schools for their kids, they were an agricultural society, they taught the kids how to farm, and how to sail, they did a lot of trading, Dublin was a center for viking trade, the museum there, has a lot of viking stuff, i had a look at it last time i was in Dublin. Most of the viking relics on display, were found through excavating grave sites in Dublin, but not much is known as to what they did in Dublin, as they didnt leave any records, they believe though, due to what was excavated, they used dublin as a center for trade.

With history, a historian who writes a book and agrees with what everyone before him said, wont sell many books, to sell books, he has to come up with a new angle, that new angle can be something as simple as, "if the vikings got to Greenland, they probably reached canada too, and if they got to canada, they would sail down the coast to the USA. Or, the vikings were misunderstood, they actually had schools and uiversities, and were quite advanced, in science, and maths, but all the records of this were destroyed, when they converted to christianity. Yet all the serious history studies show, they were pesant farmers, some of whome went sailing, and to our Kippling expert, why dosent he read harp song of the dane women,
What is a woman that you forsake her
the hearth fire and home acre
to go with the old grey widdow maker
she has no house to lay a guest in
but the one chil bed for all to rest in,
that the pale suns and the stray bergs nest in
yet when the signs of summer thicken
and the ice breaks and the birch buds quicken
you forget the mirth and talk at the table
the kine in the shed, the horse in the stable
to pitch her sides and and go over her cables
then when forget forget forget
forget
You row out to where the storm clouds swallow
all we are left through the months that follow
are the sound of the oar blades falling hollow
what is a woman that forsake her, to go with the old grey widdow make.