4 ms·

"Our new date lays down a marker for European cognisance of the Americas" Is "cognisance" really the right term here? I didn't really follow the whole article

"Our new date lays down a marker for European cognisance of the Americas" Is "cognisance" really the right term here? I didn't really follow the whole article and it seemed mostly unrelated to my question anyway, so sorry if I missed something. It just seems to me that for there to be any European awareness, there would have to be proof of a return voyage, no? Is this not really just talking about "European presence"? I'm being highly pedantic, I'm well aware.

CRConrad 5y ago
The existence of Grönländinga Saga -- specifically, the bits in it about Vinland and Markland and Helluland -- is in itself proof of European cognisance of the Americas. And yes, obviously at least some of them must have made it back, or their exploits would never have been recorded in the saga(s?). There's a couple of timelines in the article, reconstructing the sequence of events both from the artefacts and from the sagas; ISTR the fact-based one also mentions the return trips. I think what they mean by "lays down a marker" is that this finding marks that already-established-as-existing cognisance in time, since they established the exact year those trees were felled and the Viking settlement built. (And, nice coincidence -- or did they sit on it for a while to make it so? -- it's apparently exactly a millennium ago.) OK, since the Vikings then had to winter in their in their new-built settlement before returning in the spring, and if you want to count "Europeans know of it" as pertaining to at least Icelanders in general[1], you could argue that the specific marker for "European cognisance" goes a year or two later. But that's academic -- literally, as in, let the academics discuss it. But now they have a starting year to hange their discussion on, so this finding marks not only the age of the settlement and discovery of North America, but ultimately also of Europeans' consciousness thereof. ___ [1]: Not just the also rather precarious settlement on Greenland, which I suppose could have died out after the return of the Vinlanders but before anyone went from there to Iceland, so without ever getting word back to Europe at large.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  Thank you for the very informative reply. I think that basically resolves my confusion about this.

CRConrad 5y ago

The existence of Grönländinga Saga -- specifically, the bits in it about Vinland and Markland and Helluland -- is in itself proof of European cognisance of the Americas. And yes, obviously at least some of them must have made it back, or their exploits would never have been recorded in the saga(s?). There's a couple of timelines in the article, reconstructing the sequence of events both from the artefacts and from the sagas; ISTR the fact-based one also mentions the return trips. I think what they mean by "lays down a marker" is that this finding marks that already-established-as-existing cognisance in time, since they established the exact year those trees were felled and the Viking settlement built. (And, nice coincidence -- or did they sit on it for a while to make it so? -- it's apparently exactly a millennium ago.) OK, since the Vikings then had to winter in their in their new-built settlement before returning in the spring, and if you want to count "Europeans know of it" as pertaining to at least Icelanders in general[1], you could argue that the specific marker for "European cognisance" goes a year or two later. But that's academic -- literally, as in, let the academics discuss it. But now they have a starting year to hange their discussion on, so this finding marks not only the age of the settlement and discovery of North America, but ultimately also of Europeans' consciousness thereof. ___ [1]: Not just the also rather precarious settlement on Greenland, which I suppose could have died out after the return of the Vinlanders but before anyone went from there to Iceland, so without ever getting word back to Europe at large.

nixpulvis 5y ago
Thank you for the very informative reply. I think that basically resolves my confusion about this.