When Rome Fell, Ireland became an isolated Christian area (Isolated by the Pagan Saxon's control of England). Since this was still the time of monastic living, the Irish monks started to head West in small boats to fine more isolated places to set up monasteries. These were found by the Norse as the Norse started to sail the same seas in the 9th Century. One of the comments of the Norse when they discovered Iceland was the presence of Irish Monks AND other Irish already living in Iceland (According to the stories these were "wiped out" but in Ancient days that term did NOT mean the same as it does today, many were killed and no one disputes that, but many if not most of the people survived, but as slaves to the invading Norse. as time went on the two cultures tended to merge, with the Norse dominate do to new influx from Norway but the Irish was NOT completely eliminated AND do to importation of New Irish Slaves from Ireland survived to a degree and for a while, Christianization of the Norse after 1000 AD probably eliminated any remaining deference in Iceland).
Anyway, even after Iceland had long been a Norse land, the Norse would tell stories of finding Irish monks in some of the most isolated parts of what we now call Greenland and islands and waters between Modern Greenland and Canada. No Monks are reported in "Vinland" but do to native American opposition the Norse did not stay that long in Vinland. The stories of the Irish Monks, encouraging the Native Americans to fight and oppose the Norse seem to come exclusively from the area between Greenland and Canada. This may be because the Norse went to these areas to get ivory (From narwhals) and white Peregrine falcons, both very fashionable in Europe and thus very valuable). The American Indians to the south were to large in numbers for the Norse to take on and did NOT have access to these two trade goods. The Inuit did have access to these trade goods and how much trading occurred has always been an point of speculation for we have little written records from either side (I remember reading an National Geographic article about excavation of an old inuit village from the 1200s, and finding a coat of mail, i.e. IRON ARMOR, in one grave site. That had to come from Europe, for that was the nearest site for such products, there were other areas, but 2 to 10 times further away, both in distance AND time).
The Interaction between the Inuit, the American Indians (Who tended to live further south then the Inuit), the Irish Monks and then the Norse is an interesting study.
http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/iceland.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Icelandhttp://www.science-frontiers.com/sf107/sf107p02.htmSt. Brendan of Ardfert. the Irish Monk who is believed to have gone on the first RECORDED trip across the Atlantic, the movement of the Irish Monks are believed to have started with him. His Story is a combination of facts, myths (Both Christian and Pagan) to such an extent that some people question he made the journey at all. Most Historian believed he did, they debate how far he went but he did go. How long is difficult to judge, he planed for a "40 day" trip that lasted "Seven years". These terms are terms of art in most ancient and Medieval verbal literature, roughly translated as "More than a month but less then a season (40 days) and more then a few years but less then a lifetime (Seven years). Both 40 days and & years is used in the Bible, since they were used in the Bible people understood more or less what they meant, thus the above definitions. These were NOT intended to be exact time periods but rough dates good enough for pre-literal people. Now the Monks were Literate, but these stories seem to take on a life of they own via the Norse, then German legends. Thus the simplification of the dates, as any written record was lost and all that remain was the legend, repeated often and then written done in the Middle ages, 600-800 years after the time of the Voyage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendanhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02758c.htmhttp://history.howstuffworks.com/north-american-history/irish-monk-america.htm/printablehttp://home.gci.net/~mboesser/voyager.htmlOne last comment, English Pirates were raiding Iceland in the 1300s and 1400s (Yes, time did change after the Viking Age) and some question where some of the Fish brought in from the North Sea was really North Sea Fish NOT Grand Banks fish (European Fishing boats wrecks have been found in North American dating from the 1300 and 1400s). The fishing ships of that time period were small compared to what would come later (Columbus's main ships, the Santa Maria, was one of the largest ships of its days, the Nina and Pita were more the norm in size). Until the time of Columbus it was still possible to beach a boat haul it up onto the beach, replace all of the nails (Which tended to rust given the salt in the water) and then re-launch the ship with just the crew of the Ship. Given it was six week trip from Europe to the Grand Banks (But only one week back, that is how the current flow and wind blow), such repairs were probably done by any fishing ship of the time period BEFORE they fished the grand banks. Once they fished they headed straight home with their cargo. Some interaction with Native Americans would have occurred, but both sides would have wanted to avoid contact. Both the Native Americans and the fishermen had very little items to trade, so minimal contact (The Fishermen dare NOT bring back a fur, for that was a monopoly held by someone else, who had power, and given thar Iron was often a monopoly of a third person not much could be traded). Thus the question how much interaction existed between Europeans and Native Americans in this time period. Most of the people who could read and Write Were NOT on these fishing boats, so records were NOT kept (You do NOT have to destroy records if none are made, especially trade secrets such as the location of the Grand Banks).
Further study is needed, but the Irish in Iceland is a good example of the main problem we face. No trace has been found of the Irish monks in Iceland, but the Norse record that they were there. The Norse kept some written records (or wrote down legends much earlier then some other people) but these written records were only used by and controlled by the literate classes. 90% of the population could not read and write and what they did we can only found out by the written records of others who record the poor, archeology finds that show use what the poor were doing, legends handled down among the poor till written down, often centuries later. In the case of the fishing boats of the 1300s and 1400s we have no written records (With the exception of what ships went out and what ships returned and with how many fish). Thus what did these fisherman do? We know they came to the New World, for we have found their boats, but no indication of trade between them and the Native Americans. Interesting time and place but little data and less research for this is about the working class of Europe NOT the power elite, and it is the study of the later that is fashionable NOT the study of the working class (And this is true even among American Indian research, a lot of about what the Chiefs and Shamans did but little about how the women worked the fields and how the better women farmers were short shafted for the best land did not go to the best farmer, but the wife of the highest ranking warrior). Yes, not only is European History suffers from fashion so does the study of Native Americans ((For example we hear of all the whites that defect to the Indians and became "big people" among those Indians, but little about the Indian women who defected to the White Community, for such women would NOT be marrying upper class whites but poor white farmers who would help her on the farm, unlike a male Native American AND land went to the person who could buy it (i.e. to the person who could produce the most food from it) NOT to the person with the strongest political connections in the Tribe. Given these women would be among the poor, no one would record they existence, why waste the paper (Slaves were valuable property so they would be recorded, but poor whites and Indians no UNLESS they caused trouble). That such mixture occurred in white communities can be seen in that some people are referred as a "half-breed" NOT as an insult (Through the term was used as such) but as a description of the person, as if people assumed you knew what a half-breed looked like and that is only possible if you knew one or more "half-breeds".
Yes I went on a rant, for the records on the poor and working class prior to about 1840 is poor, and the only reason we have decent records from the 1840s was pulp paper came into general use about then which reduced the cost of paper to about what it is today (Prior to Pulp paper the most common paper was Linen, the most common source of paper in the Western Word from about 1350 to 1840. Linen Paper was expensive when compared to pulp paper, but no where near the cost of Parchment which was the dominate "Paper" from late Roman Empire days till about 1350, when linen paper made it way from China to Europe. Parchment was literally a skin of an animal. processed to be written on. Thus before 1350 it is rare to have any personal correspondence and most books were written to be read in public to a group NOT read in private. Even Linen paper only permitted most people to own one book (the Family Bible and that was more to keep family records, like who married whom when and who was born when then the Bible stories themselves). Thus Martin Luther's famous comment that when he was a Catholic monk he never saw a Bible in the Monastery. Linen paper had only been available for about 150 years when Luther was alive and the printing press that used linen paper around for less then 50, that is like asking why is not the bible on my Computer in the 1960s when most people did NOT have access to a Computer? Luther lived in a time of transition, from a time period where records were only kept if they were viewed as important enough to spend a good deal of money to keep, to a more modern one where records were a lot cheaper to keep. This is the chief problem with studies of period before pulp paper and even more so for periods before Linen paper, records were just not kept do to the expense of keeping such records. Verbal Contracts and records were viewed as good a written record, and given the lack of written records were more the norm. It hurt us in the study of people of such pre-linen periods but we have to keep that in mind, that the records just do NOT exist and never did and we have to get use to using legends and other verbal records in addition to any written record.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
