Talk:Point Rosee

Point Rosee - A Permanent Norse Settlement?

The 2015 and the 2016 excavations clearly show that there is not enough evidence to support the claim Point Rosee was a permanent Norse settlement. That Point Rosee was even a temporary Norse site is very much in question. No hard evidence of a Norse presence has ever been found at Point Rosee, and it does not appear that anyone even returned to Point Rosee in 2017 to do further research. To show that "it is possible it was a permanent Norse settlement" is a stretch and does not appear to be of encyclopedic quality. It also does not appear to be supported by either of the two cited sources.

National Geographic:[[1]] "One theory is that Point Rosee was primarily an iron-working camp, a temporary facility supporting exploration and exploitation of resources within the Gulf of St. Lawrence." So one of the cited sources for the information that "it is possible it was a permanent Norse settlement" actually shows that it was a temporary facility.

Searching for the Vikings: 3 Sites Possibly Found in Canada.[[2]] "Point Rosee . . . These finds, the researchers say, suggest that Vikings may have used the site, though more dating information and excavation are needed to confirm that idea, they said. Additionally, even if it is a Viking site, it's uncertain how long the Vikings lived there." This cited source shows the Vikings may have used the site so they are not certain that Vikings were even at Point Rosee.

I added the bold to the above quotes.

Suggest the text that "it is possible it was a permanent Norse settlement" be removed. Thoughts anyone? Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) doing this, Jerry. I truly believe this is the proper way of improving our articles. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, User:DOwenWilliams, User:Jonathunder, User:Yngvadottir: Just thought to bring in some significant previous contributors on this. Hope you don't mind. (I have no commentary on your specific proposals; I'm a wikipedian myself, not an archaeologist) CapnZapp (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's my opinion in response to the ping. I think it would be better to say "It has been suggested that it was a permanent Norse settlement, but the archaeological evidence accords better with its having been a seasonal camp." The Norse had seasonal settlements as well as permanent—including several trading posts—and the possibility was indeed suggested. Based on the sources, there is no reason to emphasize the possibility that it was not Norse; it has been plausibly argued that it was. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it can be plausibly argued that Point Rosee was ever a Norse site. In the two years Point Rosee was excavated, 2015 and 2016, not one single piece of hard evidence was found to show that Point Rosee was a Norse site. It appears that in 2017 no one even returned to Point Rosee to do further research. What evidence is there that the Norse were ever at Point Rosee? Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone checked for more recent sources? This is a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the most recent information about Parcak's research and Point Rosee can be found in National Geographic, New Visions of the Vikings, by Heather Pringle, March 2017, Vol. 231, No. 3, p.51.

Birgitta Wallace and Karen Milek are both Norse archaeologists and were at the 2016 dig. Both have expressed doubt that Point Rosee was even a Norse site. To imply that they think Point Rosee was a temporary iron-working camp is wrong. I have changed "The archaeologists think the site may have been a temporary iron-working camp" to "Some of the archaeologists[3] think the site may have been a temporary iron-working camp" Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug, the one year old March 2017, National Geographic article New Visions of the Vikings, by Heather Pringle, is some of the more recent information available about Point Rosee. The Viking article is 21 pages long with about 6 1/2 pages of text. It is more of a overall history of the Vikings along with some information about their exploration and the settling of new lands. Heather Pringle mentions that Sarah Parcak is a National Geographic fellow, and the article has four paragraphs about Parcak and her work. Only two of the paragraphs are about Point Rosee. The article is a little hard to access, so here is some paraphrased information and some quoted text. - - - In 2015, what looked like a turf wall was found. Also, what appeared to be collected bog ore was found. In 2016, a larger dig "cast serious doubt on those interpretations, suggesting that the turf wall and accumulation of bog ore were the results of natural processes." - - - I added the bold. The digs at Point Rosee were sponsored in part by the National Geographic Society, and it was the National Geographic Society that published that there is "serious doubt" about the 2015 Point Rosee findings. Jerry Stockton (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to remind everybody: please try to avoid vague terms like "some". Thank you. (Note: I'm not claiming any specific passages violate Wiki policy here. I'm merely saying article quality is improved when passages are rewritten for clarity. Have a nice day!) CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Four of the top Newfoundland Norse archaeologists appear to be Martha Drake, Newfoundland's Provincial Archaeologist; Birgitta Wallace, Research Archaeologist Emerita, Parks Canada Agency; Michael Deal, a professor of archaeology at Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador's University; and Karen Milek, archaeologist specializing in the Norse and member of the 2016 Point Rosee excavation. They have all expressed doubt that Point Rosee was even a Norse site. To suggest the Point Rosee was a permanent site is not supported by the facts as we now know them.

The findings in 2014 and 2015 that suggested that Point Rosee was a Norse site appear to have been disproven by late 2016. Research at Point Rosee appears to have stopped by 2017. It does not appear that any Norse experts have claimed in 2017 or 2018 that the Point Rosee was a Norse site. I am going to remove "... but it is possible it was a permanent Norse settlement" as it is not supported by the facts, is pure speculation, and not of encyclopedic quality. — Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Norse or Viking

Birgitta Wallace, Senior Archaeologist Emerita, Atlantic Service Centre of Parks Canada, Halifax, was a member of the team that excavated L'Anse aux Meadows in the 1960s and was also at the 2016 excavation of Point Rosee. She has had a long and distinguished career as a Norse archaeologist and appears to be the preeminent authority on the Norse exploration in Newfoundland. In a paper published in 2003 she states her preference for using Norse over the more popular Viking. [[4]]

The Norse in Newfoundland:
L'Anse aux Meadows and Vinland
by Birgitta Wallace,
Senior Archaeologist Emerita, Atlantic Service Centre of Parks Canada, Halifax

"Note that the term “Norse” refers to all inhabitants of Viking age and medieval Scandinavia, not just those of Norway (Webster 1988). Danes and Swedes were part of the migrations of this period, aptly named the Viking Age (c. 750-1050). Although they drastically affected the map of Europe, their role in the Norse ventures to North America was minor, and is therefore not discussed here. The term “Norse” is preferred here to the more popular “Viking”, which really refers to pirates or raiders. Although many men of the Viking Period would have been vikings at some time in their lives, women and children were not."

Maybe use the combined "Viking or Norse" very early in the article and then use Norse in the following text. Here is a little more information about Birgitta Wallace and her qualifications as a Norse expert:

Canadian Archaeological Association, 2015: [[5]]

“Birgitta’s name is synonymous with Norse archaeology and Viking-age evidence in the west. Her CV [Curriculum Vitae] contains an outstanding 95 published submissions, including top-ranked national and international journal articles and book chapters, as well as the beautiful illustrated volume, Westward Vikings: The L’Anse aux Meadows Saga. Her research has expanded far beyond the academic milieu. As the world’s expert in a field fraught with controversy, mythology, misunderstanding and enormous international interest, she has included in her writing a wealth of public outreach in attempt to educate the interested in the realities of Norse North America.” Jerry Stockton (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

November 8, 2017, report by Sarah Parcak and Greg Mumford

"An archeological team searching for a Norse settlement at Point Rosee in the Codroy Valley has come away empty-handed, according to a project report submitted to the province. The report, filed by the team leads Sarah Parcak and Greg Mumford, is conclusive: "None of the team members, including the Norse specialists, deemed this area as having any traces of human activity," it states." [6] Lindsay Bird, CBC News, 30 May 2018

And: "No Viking presence in southern Newfoundland after all, American researcher finds" [7] Holly McKenzie-Sutter, The Canadian Press, 31 May 2018

Please see Dr. Sarah Parcak and Dr. Greg Mumford's report: Point Rosee, Codroy Valley, NL (ClBu-07), 2016 Test Excavations under Archaeological Investigation Permit #16.26, November 8, 2017. [8]

So even Sarah Parcak and Greg Mumford, the team leaders of the 2015 and 2016 excavations, don't believe that there are any traces of Norse activity at Point Rosee. Jerry Stockton (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of Norway (872–1397)

@Yngvadottir, Joe Roe, CapnZapp, and Jerry Stockton:, anyone else interested, I'm trying to remove relevant claims from the above article as unsourced or badly sourced, including a claim about Point Rosee, but am being reverted by a new editor. Similar problems in other articles of unsourced claims. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, about the only relevant mention would be to say that Norwegian Vikings from the period did visit l'anse aux Meadows. That's exploration, not conquest. Under no circumstances should that visit be blown up to an "expansion" or "areas peridocially ruled", and File:Norwegian_expansion_800-1380.jpg desperately needs to be scaled back or removed.

As a Swede I'm not touching jingoistic Norwegians with a ten-foot pole, which is why this reply will be the limit of my cooperation. But good luck - you'll need it. CapnZapp (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: You might get slapped with lutefisk for that comment. Jonathunder (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing needed

The exact same sentence (Parcak has not applied for any new archaeological permits to excavate at Point Rosee since 2016.) and footnote occur twice. One should be removed or changed. Kdammers (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)