Vikings? In Canada?

Most people know about the Viking settlements on the East coast of Canada and Northern US, and some people also believe that this occupation extended as far west as Minnesota. Though this has been proven a hoax, the idea of Vikings in North America before what is usually considered European contact still fascinates many.

Archaeologists digging... typical.

A recent article in National Geographic reports about new evidence suggesting not only more Viking settlements than those previously found, but more contact than though occurred between Native Americans and Vikings. The evidence cites various furs, metallurgic products, ivories, and other trade goods in the archaeological record linking the two groups. The discovery is not wholly shocking, but it certainly puts more weight behind Viking occupation of the so-called New World.

While reading the article, one sentence really stood out to me: "The cords turned out to be expertly woven Viking yarn, identical in technique to yarn produced by Viking women living in Greenland in the 14th century." Maybe this is just a bias from my academic focus, but this seemed to me like possibly a misinterpretation of data. I'm not saying the discovery isn't authentic. I just have a problem with the question of craftsmanship and the evolution of production. The cords may be similar or even the same as those made in Greenland, but I don't like how it is assumed to be a Viking tradition, rather than Native American.

The find is not too groundbreaking, since nothing is conclusive yet, but it's still exciting in the archaeological world. If proven true, it not only contradicts with the idea that the Vikings were here for a short time then abandoned it, but challenges the model of contact as well. Since the Vikings were settled here and in many other places of the Northern Hemisphere, they were avid traders, therefore dispersing new European goods throughout the continent earlier than thought. I don't know how much of an effect this had on North America, but it could certainly prove with a little more investigation that many goods or inventions thought to be native to this continent are actually imported.

I guess it's nice, if you want a dirty scarf

The article itself is well written enough, though certainly not targeted to a younger audience. Interestingly, National Geographic posted coverage of the same discovery in their magazine as well as this article online. Printed in the November 2012 issue, the other article focuses much more on the human aspect of the discovery, rather than the technicalities discussed online. It is also told more like a story, following the chronology of the discovery, the history of Viking occupation, and the implications of the little piece of yarn.

Both pieces discuss the discovery and put it in context, but their focus is tailored to the media and audience. When one sits down to read a magazine, they do so fully aware that it is a time commitment and are prepared to peruse as much as they have time for, soaking it in leisurely. Magazines are often used to relax and provoke thought while doing so. On the contrary, the internet is scattered with webpage after webpage, therefore the attention span is much shorter. The article must get to the technicalities of the discovery first and the readers who stay attune get the less important news at the end. Inherently, these media function in their specific way. National Geographic simply figured out an effective way to present the same discovery to magazine readers and internet users.