An Examination of the Vinland Sagas

By Nexx

©2003 by Mark Hall

The Vinland Sagas is a collective title for two, separate sagas; the Saga of the Greenlanders the Saga of Eirik the Red. Together, these two constitute the majority of the modern information on the Nordic expeditions to the North American continent. However, as Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson point out in their translation of these two sagas, these are hardly pristine examples of uncorrupted information. Both sagas, especially Eirik’s, show signs of tampering and are incomplete. Magnusson and Palsson go into more detail in the introduction to their translations, but both are based on copies of earlier works, with the Saga of the Greenlanders having only survived as part of a work on Olaf Tryggvason, and the Saga of Eirik the Red being preserved in the 14^th century Hauksbok and the 15^th century Skalholtsbok.

The age of the two manuscripts containing Eirik’s Saga is interesting. While the Skalholtsbok dates from the early 15^th century, it is still worth noting that the knowledge of Vinland was being not only kept alive, but actively incorporated into new works less than 100 years before Christopher Columbus¹ made his voyage to the Caribbean. It stands to reason, however, that such knowledge would have been preserved. Greenland itself was inhabited into the late fourteenth century, and its remoteness from Europe and paucity of natural resources would have required trips to North America (likely Markland, which is traditionally identified as being Labrador) to get certain raw materials not obtainable on their island. The continent that became known as North America would have been known to grandfathers into the middle of the 15^th century, if only in stories told by their grandfathers.

If neither saga is regarded as being “pure” or correct, then how can we claim to know anything about the events in Vinland at the beginning of the eleventh century? First of all, we have to know that archaeological evidence proves that there were Icelandic settlements in North America. This evidence comes from Helge and Anne Ingstad’s excavations in Newfoundland², which uncovered not only the foundations of several Nordic-style houses, but also a variety of tools which are identical to those used in Iceland at the time that the sagas took place. Since we know that there was a settlement, we can then turn to the textual references to make certain assumptions. This is where having two separate accounts is most fortuitous.

We know that both accounts are not completely correct; they differ, and even contradict each other on several important details. Eirik’s Saga also contains at least one outright falsehood (the mention of unipeds in chapter 12, who were a popular fiction in late medieval travel books, and likely added by the author of the saga, or a later transcriber). However, if one assumes the two sagas to be based upon real events, it is likewise reasonable to assume that where they intersect, the events are most likely to have occurred, but perhaps not precisely as recounted. When you consider that, in essence, all the Icelandic sagas are early examples of historical fiction, written nearly two centuries after the events they describe, it becomes far easier to reconcile these two accounts with the assumption of some basis in historical fact.

This method is somewhat suspect, however, and such an objection deserves mention. First of all, the Saga of the Greenlanders shows signs of being a far earlier work; its style is less polished than that of Eirik’s Saga, and represents a lack of refinement seen early in the saga genre. Thus, it is quite possible that the writer of Eirik’s Saga had access to the Saga of the Greenlanders, and plagiarized somewhat in order to add legitimacy to his story. We also have the additional problem of both sagas surviving only as copies, and in somewhat fragmentary forms. Each is likely at least two generations removed from the original manuscript, which was itself at least five human generations removed from the actual events. At any point in these intervals, the stories could have mingled, added or lost details, or otherwise been corrupted. However, as Jesse Byock’s Scientific American article “Egil’s Bones” shows, the saga-writers often were fairly accurate to events, often including details which they would not have reasonably known from personal experience. This suggests a continuity and integrity of knowledge which is hard to discount. Comparing the two sagas is far from perfect or foolproof; yet it is not an exercise in futility.

The events we are able to tentatively confirm, by using the two sagas to verify each other, are relatively few. We can assume that a man named Bjarni Herolfsson made the initial sighting of lands west of Greenland, and that Leif the Lucky, son of Eirik the Red, made early explorations of these lands, providing the names of Helluland³, Markland⁴, and Vinland⁵. His brother Thorvald followed, and his brother Thorstein attempted to explore it, but failed to locate it. Thorstein’s widow and her new husband, Thorfinn Karlsefni, successfully settle Vinland for a time, having a son named Snorri while there. Eirik’s daughter Freydis then leads a group that meets with disaster, while Thorfinn and his wife return to Iceland. Other details in each saga are not confirmed by the other, making them somewhat less reliable. They are not impossible, but could stand if supported by either new documentary evidence, or by archaeological discoveries.

Perhaps the most pressing question for many modern heathens, is why did the adventurers not form a permanent settlement in Vinland? It is somewhat amusing that they would ask this question since both sagas suggest that the settlers were at least nominally Christian. Eirik’s Saga asserts that Leif was deputed by Olaf of Norway to evangelize to the Greenlanders. Furthermore, it is likely (given the trend in Europe at the time) that any settlement in Vinland would have become more Christian if it had been maintained. Despite this, it is still a valid question that remains unanswered. We know that the Icelanders were technologically superior to the skraelings, and one would assume they had access to further resources in Europe settlement was a major goal. Why, then, did they not stay?

First of all, they did not have the manpower or resources to make a full-time occupation of Vinland viable. Had they stayed, they would have found themselves frequently short of iron tools, which were their main advantage over the skraelings. The sea route to Vinland was a treacherous one, and few would be able to afford the risk of carrying a heavy load of iron to Vinland for the relatively small return on native goods such as raw materials, which were not yet in short supply in Europe. Eventually, they might have found veins of metals which could be used, but that would require a massive initial cost and a fair amount of expertise, which most of the adventurers who went to Vinland were not likely to have. In short, their European connection was tenuous, as there was little advantage to the Europe of the eleventh century in going to Vinland.

Secondly, consider how the Norse interacted with people they conquered. Much like the Spanish some 500 years later, the Norse had a tendency to settle down and marry local women. They brought over some women from their homeland, but most of the men would have found wives amongst the skraelings. The only two places of major Scandinavian settlement where this was not the case are Iceland and Greenland. Iceland’s population was limited to Irish monks when the Norse came, and Greenland only had the Inuit, who largely avoided the Icelanders. Even if the Norse had stayed, their society would have been hybridized, much like the Swedish-Slavonic culture that developed in Russia after the Swedes moved in. Life would have been different from the essentially Norwegian culture of Iceland or Greenland, and certainly not like the idealized version in John Maddox Roberts' King of the Wood.

Another aspect to consider is how ill-fated the previous two expeditions were. Thorfinn’s expedition ended with the settlers being repeatedly attacked by the skraelings, and Freydis’s expedition ended with the murder of her companions, including the death of the women and children at her own hands. This could have made Vinland something of an ill-omened land, in the eyes of the Icelanders, that people did not want to settle on for fear of disaster.

On the subject of war with the skraelings, there exists the hypothesis that lactose intolerance was responsible for the skraelings’ hostility towards the Norse (i.e. the Norse gave them milk, they grew sick because of it, and assumed they were poisoned). While this is an attractive hypothesis, as it explains the voilence between the two groups without need for malice on either side, it does not stand up to textual analysis. Chapter 7 of the Greenlander's Saga states that the skraelings came for trade on two occasions, separated by some months, and both times were absolutely mad for milk. Had they been interested the first time and then attacked, the idea would have been more viable; their return for trade, and subsequent acceptance of milk as a valid trade good, makes this hypothesis very weak, though not an impossibility. What drove the two groups apart was a killing. Some of the Norse men killed a skraeling who was attempting to steal weapons, which Thorfinn had forbidden as trade items.

The Vinland Sagas are an important part of our heritage, both as Americans and as heathens. They provide a glimpse into the lives of our ancestors, the past of what would become our country, and stand as a testament to the men and women who braved the cold waters of the North Atlantic to settle a new land. That they did not settle permanently is perhaps regrettable, but is now a fact of history. While we can hope that future discoveries will reveal more of the history of these early European explorations of the New World, it is still important to examine these two sagas. They are rich with their own style and history, and good tales, no matter how accurate they may or may not be.

Byock, Jesse. “Egil’s Bones,” Scientific American, January 1995 [online]. Available from the World Wide Web (http://www.viking.ucla.edu/Scientific_American/Egils_Bones.htm)

Edmonds, Columba. 1908. “St. Columba” in The Catholic Encyclopedia [online]. Available from the World Wide Web (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04136a.htm)

Gunnvör sílfrahárr. [Ward, Christie]. 2003. “Einfætingur: The One-legged beast from Eirik’s Saga and medieval ‘wonder stories’” [online]. Available from the World Wide Web (http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Einfaettr.htm)

Magnusson, Magnus and Herman Palsson, trans.. The Vinland Sagas. (New York: Penguin Books)

Thorsson, Örnólfur, ed. The Sagas of the Icelanders. New York: Penguin Books, 1997