Upon first encountering one another, the vikings and the natives of Scotland often experienced violent confrontation. However, through the passage of time they contributed in shaping each other in equal and sometimes opposite measure. There are several hypotheses that describe the details of the first viking-indigenous interactions.1 Out of the many propositions, two theories appear most often. The first asserts that the vikings set up an earldom and thenceforth ruled over the native Scottish population. Sometimes this earldom is portrayed as peaceful, at other times more violent. The second proposition asserts that a genocide took place in which the vikings eliminated and replaced the native people.2 The evidence for either model is contradictory and variably justifiable. The best explanation therefore is a syntheses of both hypotheses. Namely, that both earldom and genocide took place in different circumstances. Bands of viking ships were often federations, and as such individual rulers within the federation must have had some measure of latitude. In some areas viking captains completely exterminated the indigenous people they found. In other instances, the leaders simply subjugated the people they encountered. In areas where the local population were left alive they influenced the Scandinavian settlers in terms of religion and material culture to different degrees. Conversely, the viking presence in Scotland forced the native inhabitants to become more militant and politically united.3 Furthermore, the natives eventually adopted parts of Scandinavian language, material culture, and custom as well.
The vikings first made contact in eighth century Shetland. From there they made their way south to Orkney and Caithness, eventual...
... middle of paper ...
...kingdom of Wessex.21
In conclusion, both the textual and archaeological evidence can be contradictory as to the exact nature of the early viking-native encounters. Some evidence supports genocidal tendencies, other evidence supports native integration. Evidence for the different theories was presented above, but even that which was presented represents only a fraction of the evidence, both archaeological, textual, and linguistic, that support the various models. It is also important to note that Scotland has still been left woefully unexplored by modern archaeologists, and that further investigation may provide key answers to reconciling the disparity in evidence. Until such time, it seems the most logical conclusion to draw is that of the middle ground, whereby both genocidal and more peaceable vikings arrived and initiated different circumstances for the natives.
The author starts the chapter by briefly introducing the source in which this chapter is based. He makes the introduction about the essay he wrote for the conference given in at Vanderbilt University. This essay is based about the events and problems both Native Americans and Europeans had to encounter and lived since the discovery of America.
I believe that The First Nations did, in fact, have conflict with the Europeans due to the over hunting of animals, specifically beavers. In this position paper, I will explain my viewpoint through three contentions relating to the resolution at hand. First, the First Nations spirituality with animals, then the proof of actual over hunting, and lastly, the European and First Nation visible animosity. Furthermore, I will now delve into my first contention.
When we hears the term Viking an immediate image of bloodthirsty men with long beards and horned helmets is conjured up in our minds. This is the image the historical sources have given us, and it is partly true. Vikings were merciless when raiding, but they were peaceful when they traded. Their navigational technology was exceptional, and the ones who settled in foreign lands contributed greatly to the lands’ culture.
In his translation of The Saga of the Volsungs: the Norse Epic of Sigurd the Dragon Slayer, Jesse L. Byock compiles many versions of this famous Norse epic and creates a very important scholarly work. Of special importance is the introduction, which provides a central working background to base readings upon. There are several themes echoed throughout the translation that reflect accurately on this portion of history. Byock does a superb job of illustrating these important aspects in his work. While the tale Byock tells is a fairy-tale handed down by generations of families, within the reader can find tell-tale signs of important aspects of Norse culture. For instance, important aspects of family life and the role of men and women surface. Likewise, the importance of wealth and material possessions on the power and prestige of a king is also evident.
When the Vikings landed they were not friendly. The Vikings killed 10 Indians while they were sleeping (Weiner 4). That did not bold well with the Indians that upset them immensely. The Vikings did not like that they were outnumbered by the Indians (Weiner 4). The Indians did not like the Vikings at all. The Vikings tried to make peace with the Native Americans, but the Native Americans did not accept it. The Indians wanted the Vikings gone. Norse colony tried to establish itself in Newfoundland according to the sages (Clarke 177). Thorwald died trying to make the same trip his brother Leif had done to get to Vinland and an arrow belonging to the Native Americans killed him. (Clarke 177). Thorwald had made a home and settled before he died. Even after his death his family had stayed for a short time. Then it had gotten too dangerous for the Vikings so they had to leave. Hostility from Native Americans made their period there short lived (Clarke 178). The Indians had driven the Vikings out of North America. The Vikings left and only came
Leif Erikson’s grandfather, Thorvald Asvaldsson slaughtered a man in Jæren, Norway in 960 CE. This was the age of the Vikings, but Thorvald was still banished from the land (Mandia, n.d.). So he brought his ten year old son Erik, later to be named as Erik the Red because of his scarlet hair, to Drangar in northwestern Iceland on a farm with rather appalling soil (Where is Vinland?, n.d.).
“The biggest of all Indian problems is the Whiteman (Basso pg. 3).” The elusive Whitman is not a recent problem for the American Indians. For the Western Apache this problem first came to light in 1853 after the Gadsden Purchase was finalized. The Whitemen invaded the western Apache’s Arizona territory not with peace, but with demands and open hostility. Thus began a brutal thirty year war that led to Apache defeat (Basso pg. 24). The creation of reservations in 1872 was not enough for the Whitemen. They also created an assimilation program for the Western Apache because acclimating one’s self to Anglo American society was a necessity for survival.
The blood-thirsty Vikings had such a strong influence and impact on Western Europe that their impact of Viking contact spread throughout the world and lives on today. Three significant ways they affected the world was by the Vikings amazing technology skills of ship building and navigation as well as their polytheism religion.
Throughout the course of history, the majority of people have always been shown to eventually and always, die. This was especially shown when the people were colonizing for the English and were trying to colonize the Americas. Many colonists escaped Europe by means of transportation to escape a harsh life, and in hopes of finding a new land where they would not be kept down by something they all called a glass ceiling. The colonists wanted to choose for themselves and wanted a place where they could freely practice their religion and their cultures. In addition, they wanted to establish a stable colony and also wanted a stable trade to the mainland of Europe. Unfortunately, the Americas were not as hospitable as everyone thought it to be.
Reflecting on the colonization of North America is an uneasy topic for most Americans. The thought of war between the Indians and the early settlers creates an image of clashing cultures between the well-armed Europeans and the hand-crafted weaponry of the native Indians. We tend to have the perception that the early colonists came and quickly took away the land from the Indians but, in reality, the Europeans did not have this power. Though French explorers and English settlers had a different perception of land ownership than that of the Native Americans, the fate of the Europeans rested in the hands of the Indians. Either from self-preservation, civility or curiosity, various American Indian tribes assisted the early European colonies through the sharing of resources, by befriending them as allies and, ultimately, by accepting them as permanent neighbors.
Clarke, D., & Maguire, P. (200). Skara Brae: Northern Europe's best preserved neolithic village ; (p. 14). Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.
Native American Relations During the numerous years of colonization, the relationship between the English settlers and the Native Americans of the area was usually the same. Native Americans would initially consider the settlers to be allies, then as time passed, they would be engaged in wars with them in a struggle for control of the land. This process of friendship to enemies seemed to be the basic pattern in the majority of the colonies. When the English landed in Jamestown in 1607, the dominant tribe of the area was the Powhatan (which the English settlers named after the leader of the tribe, Powhatan).
...ught could be seen as arrogant, and had a condescending attitude as they thought the Inuit were “skraelings (a sick, weak person)” (McAnany and Yoffee, p. 56), all their encounters may not have been confrontational. They believe that their attitude simply could have come from a religious factor that it was the difference in being Christian compared to non-Christian. Though artifacts were scarcely found from the Norse in the Thule Inuit ruins and vice versa, the artifacts that were found could represent an encounter, but could as well have been from plundering abandoned homes. Also, when searching Norse settlements, no weapons were found, thus making them powerless against the Inuits if it had come down to a conflict between them. A scene on a small piece of bone did depict a battle, however it is important to note that it did not depict a Norseman against an Inuit.
Early European exploration and colonization resulted in a multitude of cultural interactions among the Europeans, Africans, and American Indians. These diverse cultures were brought together, exchanged, and compacted into different, newer cultures, that included all of their views.
The Norsemen were feared for hundreds of years. They came from Scandinavia and raided both the known and unknown world. They were great warriors, raiders, shipbuilders and leaders. The Norsemen were pagan, their obedience to the gods and their leader Odin. Religion was an important part of their life and death. In life, the Vikings strived for is Valhalla (the great mead hall of the gods and fallen warriors) in Asgard. Only the most honorable warriors, who dies in battle or if executed by the way of blood eagle (the victims will be on his knees and held up by two hooks and they take an ax to his back to break away the ribs, then take his lungs and place them on his shoulders) without making a sound, will go to Valhalla. Their social behavior was based on an unwritten system of honor or code of ethics. Their moral code was determined by the gods but rather honor. Honor went a long way in Viking culture, it was the most defining attribute a man could have. A man of honor was a principled man, he gave moderation, was generous and hospitable, he would offer a helping hand to a friend in need. This included allying himself with his friends against his friend’s enemies. A man of honor also never forgot to be a foe to his enemy. A Viking never wanted to be a man of disgrace. This is the opposite of a man of honor, and because every man lived his life as a member of an extended family-circle, he could easily bring disgrace to his entire family - including his forefathers. Therefore, it was intolerable for a free man to live in such a fallen state. If he was disgraced, he could only restore balance in his social system by confronting the source of his fall from an honorable status. Thus, revenge was a key component of this social system, ...