Still Waters Posted December 24, 2015 #1 Share Posted December 24, 2015 When Norway announced plans to expand its Orland Airport this year, archaeologists got excited. They knew that pre-construction excavation was likely to reveal ancient Viking artifacts. But they got far more than they had hoped. http://arstechnica.c...w-airport-site/ 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted December 24, 2015 #2 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Always amazing when stuff like this is found! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted December 24, 2015 #3 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Amazing discovery, and it would be really cool to be able to see it... That being said this is one of my pet peeves... It was NOT a Viking settlement... It was a Norse settlement... Viking was an action, an "occupation", not a people... You don't make a settlement if you are on a quick "Grab, slash and burn" raid, and since only those who were actively participating in a raid were "On a Viking", there are probably NO "Viking" settlements anywhere in the world... The Norse, Danes, Swedes etc that sailed in the long ships back in those days were either explorers, traders (they were actually very good traders) or - on occasion - raiders and invaders... That this settlement was in Norway, clearly points to it not being a settlement that was primarily for raiders (Vikings)... I blame Hollywood and adventure writers for this mainly, that and the "horns" on their helmets ... Off my soap box now... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted December 24, 2015 #4 Share Posted December 24, 2015 That is pretty cool. Thanks Still Waters! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohbear Posted December 24, 2015 #5 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Amazing discovery, and it would be really cool to be able to see it... That being said this is one of my pet peeves... It was NOT a Viking settlement... It was a Norse settlement... Viking was an action, an "occupation", not a people... You don't make a settlement if you are on a quick "Grab, slash and burn" raid, and since only those who were actively participating in a raid were "On a Viking", there are probably NO "Viking" settlements anywhere in the world... The Norse, Danes, Swedes etc that sailed in the long ships back in those days were either explorers, traders (they were actually very good traders) or - on occasion - raiders and invaders... That this settlement was in Norway, clearly points to it not being a settlement that was primarily for raiders (Vikings)... I blame Hollywood and adventure writers for this mainly, that and the "horns" on their helmets ... Off my soap box now... A vicious evil bunch of rapists and plunderers mostly due to 'Olaf the hat' supplying a consignment of helmets with the horns on the inside.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted December 25, 2015 #6 Share Posted December 25, 2015 A vicious evil bunch of rapists and plunderers mostly due to 'Olaf the hat' supplying a consignment of helmets with the horns on the inside.... I thought that was Hrolfgar the Mad Hatter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 26, 2015 #7 Share Posted December 26, 2015 Amazing discovery, and it would be really cool to be able to see it... That being said this is one of my pet peeves... It was NOT a Viking settlement... It was a Norse settlement... Viking was an action, an "occupation", not a people... You don't make a settlement if you are on a quick "Grab, slash and burn" raid, and since only those who were actively participating in a raid were "On a Viking", there are probably NO "Viking" settlements anywhere in the world... The Norse, Danes, Swedes etc that sailed in the long ships back in those days were either explorers, traders (they were actually very good traders) or - on occasion - raiders and invaders... That this settlement was in Norway, clearly points to it not being a settlement that was primarily for raiders (Vikings)... I blame Hollywood and adventure writers for this mainly, that and the "horns" on their helmets ... Off my soap box now... It was not Hollywood but an opera director called Richard Wagner who initiated the horny part of the Vikings (archeologist have not found a single horned Viking helmet to this day).... and since we know that we cannot say anymore: "Blessed the Vikings as their horns were artificial". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted December 26, 2015 #8 Share Posted December 26, 2015 It was not Hollywood but an opera director called Richard Wagner who initiated the horny part of the Vikings (archeologist have not found a single horned Viking helmet to this day).... and since we know that we cannot say anymore: "Blessed the Vikings as their horns were artificial". True.. I'd forgotten about Wagner... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted December 26, 2015 #9 Share Posted December 26, 2015 You guys are great ! First, I didn't know before that the term "Vikings" is widely misused, and just barely remembered that the horns on helmets are a myth. Anyway, nice find on the article! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohbear Posted December 26, 2015 #10 Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Horns do look the part in the cartoons though don't they? Unfortunately from a foot combat point of view helmets were designed to deflect a slicing or glancing blow. I've had the pleasure of reproducing armour over the years from the originals of all periods in museum collections. A blow from a broadsword or an axe coming into contact with a fixed horn would to say the least give the wearer a severe headache. Edited December 26, 2015 by poohbear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highdesert50 Posted December 27, 2015 #11 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Interesting that the government restricts archaeological digs until an area is slated for construction or other activity. Wondering how many other identified sites are awaiting exploration by the experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry_Dresden Posted December 27, 2015 #12 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Interesting that the government restricts archaeological digs until an area is slated for construction or other activity. Wondering how many other identified sites are awaiting exploration by the experts. Europe is like that. If you build there, its a huge expense if you encounter anything during construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted December 27, 2015 #13 Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) Amazing discovery, and it would be really cool to be able to see it... That being said this is one of my pet peeves... It was NOT a Viking settlement... It was a Norse settlement... Viking was an action, an "occupation", not a people... You don't make a settlement if you are on a quick "Grab, slash and burn" raid, and since only those who were actively participating in a raid were "On a Viking", there are probably NO "Viking" settlements anywhere in the world... The Norse, Danes, Swedes etc that sailed in the long ships back in those days were either explorers, traders (they were actually very good traders) or - on occasion - raiders and invaders... That this settlement was in Norway, clearly points to it not being a settlement that was primarily for raiders (Vikings)... I blame Hollywood and adventure writers for this mainly, that and the "horns" on their helmets ... Off my soap box now... Another significant example of using a wrong term is the Incas. It is ususally taken to be the name of a people and an empire, while it is in fact the name of the ruler (stricktly he was known as Sapa Inca). The country was know as Tawantinsuyu. (the four provinces) Here is a list of some other common misconceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions Edited December 27, 2015 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted December 27, 2015 #14 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Viking culture is generally dated from 800 AD on, so a 1500-year old site wouldn't technically be a 'Viking' one. Proto-viking, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted December 27, 2015 #15 Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) You guys are great ! First, I didn't know before that the term "Vikings" is widely misused, and just barely remembered that the horns on helmets are a myth. Anyway, nice find on the article! While misused in this general sense, it's still correct to refer to them as "vikings", and the "viking" age. Not as bad as viking horned helmets, of course. By going a-viking, you are a viking. Edited December 27, 2015 by Thorvir Hrothgaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookemeister Posted January 12, 2016 #16 Share Posted January 12, 2016 am i the only one who went "helllooo?" is this really news ? of course there was an ancient viking settlement found in Norway....is that not like saying ancient briton settlement found in England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now