Vikings in America (30 page)

In fact the dispute about this date has been loud. The radiocarbon dates have been criticised on the grounds that the sample tested was too small, that there was poor precision in some of the work, that there was poor control for the interference of modern absorption of carbon dioxide by the mortar, and that the group's initial hypothesis that all the mortar was of the same age was wrong. In short the dates must be wrong, therefore there is shoddy archaeology. It is hard to avoid a sense that there is circularity in the reasoning: a date such as 1410 is assumed to be wrong, therefore in itself it proves sub-standard work. The obvious solution of redoing the tests with newly obtained mortar samples has not been carried out. Indeed scientific investigation of the Newport Tower appears to have gained the academic respectability of looking for the Loch Ness Monster. Yet even those most critical of the Tower being a pre-colonial construction feel it is necessary to pull their punches, and do not dismiss this absolutely. A characteristic recent statement is found in a news conference report made in December 1995 based on four years of research by Danish and Finnish experts, the City of Newport, and the Rhode Island Preservation and Heritage Commission. They concluded that there is a ‘95% probability' that the tower was constructed in the late seventeenth century. Even the critics give a 5 per cent chance that the building is pre-Colonial.

Most recently an archaeological investigation of the area surrounding the Newport Tower has been carried out by the Chronognostic Foundation,
⁵
an
Arizona-based research firm. They have found remains of buildings close to the tower dating from the seventeenth century, but nothing earlier. That there were early colonial buildings in the vicinity of the tower fits neatly with use of the tower itself in this period, but otherwise does not carry forward the question of the date of building.

Comparable buildings can be found in Europe, though they are mediaeval rather than seventeenth-century. Two seem particularly close. The first is Orphir Round Church in Orkney. This shows a remarkable similarity with Newport in terms of the style of building, which arguably can only reasonably be explained in terms of a common construction tradition. Orphir was built around 1115, at a time when Orkney was an integral part of the Viking world. The second is the cluster of four mediaeval stone-built Round Churches on the Danish island of Bornholm. These have granite walls externally plaster covered – pargeted – as there is evidence Newport once was, a comparable window construction, and a second floor as does Newport. If the Newport Tower were in Europe it would be dated and understood within the context of such monuments as Orphir and the four Bornholm Round Churches, as a mediaeval Norse church. Greenland also has a parallel – the stone-built church of Gardar in Greenland. Gardar is a twelfth-century construction with substantial fourteenth-century changes, including the introduction of glazed windows, a feature exhibited by the Newport Tower. Newport and Gardar appear to be within the same building tradition.

There is European documentary evidence for the existence of the Newport Tower prior to the colonial age. The Italian Giovanni da Verrazano, one of the earliest explorers of the coast of North America, reported in 1524 that he has found in this location a European building which he calls variously a Norman villa and ‘tolos'. The word ‘tolos' is an Italianisation of Greek ‘tholos', a round temple or church. In Italian usage ‘Norman' was the adjective not ‘from Normandy' but ‘from Norway'. At face value Giovanni da Verrazano reports clearly that he has found a Norse house or church (or both?) in Newport. Gerardus Mercator (1512–94) also marks the tower on his map (published 1595, after his death). Finally, it has been pointed out that the unit of measurement for construction of the building appears to be not the English foot (used by the early colonists of Rhode Island) but the Norse foot of twelve and one-third inches. There has also been a suggestion that the unit may be the Scottish ell (of 37 inches), though as the ell is based on the Norse foot (and is exactly three Norse feet) this is more or less the same statement.

We are lacking evidence to prove beyond doubt that the Newport Tower is a Viking construction. Carbon-14 dating is disputed; no tool or similar instrument from the pre-colonial age has been found around the foundations; Verrazano's notes are brief. Scholarly caution argues against asserting that the tower is a genuine and well-preserved Viking building, yet there is much support for the idea that it is in origin something other than an early colonial windmill. Verrazano saw something there which he thought to be a European building, and no Native American construction could be so misidentified. Mercator believed there was something there. And while Arnold's contemporaries certainly carried out extensive work on the tower, this is compatible with repairing rather than rebuilding. A strong case can be made for considering the Newport Tower as a mediaeval Viking round church on the New England coast of the USA – yet until evidence can be produced which permits of no doubt whatsoever the academic world will not accept this.

Where should we expect in the future to find traces of the Vikings? If nothing else an answer to this question might provide some amusement for readers in future generations. The underlying view is that we should be actively looking for Viking traces. We have found a major settlement in Newfoundland, and traces through much of the far north of America, enough to give grounds to expect much more. Clearly the area is immense. However, several specific areas do suggest themselves:

North-west Greenland, around 77° north. The Vikings visited this area every year, and presumably had some form of seasonal settlement as evidenced by Viking remains across the bay on Ellesmere Island. While the climate is severe and the polar night challenging, the location is even so habitable year-round, as for many centuries the Polar Inuit have demonstrated. If it could be done, then the likelihood is that the Vikings did it – my belief is that sooner or later Viking archaeological remains will be found in the vicinity of Thule. I also see no reason why such a settlement, or a settlement on Ellesmere Island, would have died out with the failure of the Eastern and Western settlements. In the eighteenth century Hans Egede believed that he would find Norse living in Greenland, apparently basing
his belief on something more recent than the sagas. He found none, but neither he nor the Inuit he spoke with ever visited the Thule area. Just possibly a Viking settlement survived even then in the far north.

Canadian High Arctic. The area is immense and basic surveying and mapping in many cases have still not been carried out. Archaeological investigation has hardly started. That we have already found Viking remains with so little investigation suggests that there is much, much more to be found. There is an ultimate westward barrier in the multi-year ice, and Victoria Island surely represents the furthest west that any Viking traces could possibly be found. Yet almost anywhere in the High Arctic that had open water access in the summer months – which is most of the High Arctic – we can reasonably expect to find traces of the Vikings.

Hudson Bay. The lure of timber and the relatively short journey – relative to a trip to Norway – would have made the south-western shore of Hudson Bay attractive to the Vikings. We should find traces there, though probably summer settlements only. The winters on Hudson Bay are extreme – more so than Greenland – and over-wintering or permanent settlement would not have been attractive. Given the exploring zeal of the Vikings it is likely that some penetrated the rivers south from Hudson Bay, and Viking archaeological finds from the centre of the North American continent must be a possibility.

Finally, Vinland. While the finds at L'Anse aux Meadows demonstrate Viking presence on the American continent, Newfoundland is not Vinland. Rather, it is a transit point for voyages from somewhere further south to Greenland. From Newfoundland the vast estuary of the St Lawrence River is within easy reach. So too is the coast of New England. In view of the presence of an indigenous population in North America it is most likely that the Vikings would have sought to establish settlements in defensive locations, particularly islands. Aquidneck Island, site of today's city of Newport in the state of Rhode Island and the location of the Newport Tower – fits the requirement, as do for example Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket
Island and many smaller islands in the modern states of Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

While the sagas recount stories from around 1,000 years ago, there is no necessity for Viking remains in the Americas to be this old. They may certainly be expected for the whole of the period of Viking Greenland, so right up to the time of the first Columbus voyage just 500 years ago. There is no absolute necessity for the cessation of Viking Greenland to have ended all Viking involvement in the New World. I am not suggesting a continuous presence in America from the time of Leif Eiriksson to the present day – though some writers have, with Martha's Vineyard the preferred location.
⁶
I am, however, suggesting that we need to be open-minded, and that finding evidence of Nordic people in the New World before and after Columbus is perfectly possible.

There are reasons why every place on the globe is called what it is.

Often we know little about the origins of a name. For example, Canada is supposed by some to be called Canada after a hypothetical map in which the northern part of the continent was labelled in an unspecified Spanish dialect ‘aca nada', supposedly meaning ‘there is nothing there'. Many Canadians seem to find this amusing, and treating it as a joke is about all this unbelievable derivation deserves. Alternatively, it is supposed that Jacques Cartier and some of the early settlers of Canada were met in 1535 on the St Lawrence River by a group of indigenous people. They asked the name of the land, presumably speaking English or French, and received the reply in Huron–Iroquois: ‘kanata', meaning ‘this way to the village'. By some poorly explained process this word for village came to be applied to the whole of Canada. There must be a reason why Canada is called Canada, but we can be almost completely sure that neither of these explanations is correct. The honest answer is that we really don't know why Canada is called Canada.