News Release - New Findings show Vikings did what?

by **Histo-Sci** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:20 pm

Hello all fans of Medieval history,

I came across this National Geographic online article a while ago and have been meaning to share it with you all, and obiously just now got around to it. The following link leads to the article which summarizes the study of Viking skeletons, and it says, strangely, that the Vikings apparently filed scores into their teeth! The article muses about the possibility of the Vikings having picked up this trait from other lands, and since the Vikings were such good seamen and explorers (think Lief Ericsson), this is a tentative possibility in my opinion.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... teeth.html

Perhaps they borrowed this practice from the American Indians? (Lief had to deal with those fierce guys-gulp!)

Please enjoy!

Histo-Sci

P.S. Oh, while we are on the subject, please do not forget that Lief Ericsson encountered very large ape-like creatures that could only be Sasquatch! Now, how about the Lego Yeti chasing some Vikings?

by **eNiGMa** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:27 pm

These are interesting findings indeed. Thanks for posting!

by **wunztwice** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:30 pm

Hmm, that's interesting, thanks for sharing it! I think the biggest thing i got from this article is summed up best in this quote:

"No one would accuse them of being dandies, but contrary to popular belief, the Vikings took great pride in their looks."

It's funny how we ussually think of them as burly, ugly fellas who are always smelly and dirty. To learn that (at least supposedly) they were concerned about thier appearance is neat. What's next, viking fasion?

by **Histo-Sci** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:44 pm

Ha ha! Viking fashion! Wuntwice, that was good! Can't you just see it?

One day after a succesful pillaging raid:

Viking #1: "Hey, Thor, how does my new hauberk look? I took it off the body of a rich Norman!"

Viking #2 (Thor): "Ooh, nice! Now you're ready to be seen in public! Oh, wait, your braid is out of place."

Viking #1: "Oh, it is? Quick, help me fix it before the Jarl sees me!"

by **The Hordesman** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:12 pm

Wow, thats pretty cool! Now the Lego viking's missile launchers look primitive.

Btw: His name was Leif Ericsson, not Lief. If a viking was named "Lief" the other vikings would need alot of time to learn to pronounce it. :lol:

by **Histo-Sci** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:28 pm

Oops I think you're right Hordesman! :shock:

Sorry! And I had such a good reputation in the family for spelling....

Oh, and please tell me....are you a GOLDEN Hordesman?????

Histo-Sci

by **The Hordesman** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:58 pm

Histo-Sci wrote:Oh, and please tell me....are you a GOLDEN Hordesman?????

I am a norseman & hordesman, thats all folks!

Im pretty oversensitive when it comes to scandinavian things spelt/understood wrong, like my constant hatred to blonde Thors. :wink:

by **Histo-Sci** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:25 pm

Yeah, I noticed the oversensitivity. :lol:

Just kidding. Anyway, it was my fault, and I should have proofed my post better. Then again, maybe I should take this as a reason to beef up on Viking history! Oh, and when you said "norseman" you had me worried there for a second, because I thought you said "norman"! Yikes! Now that would be just bad! :wink:

Histo-Sci

by **TwoTonic Knight** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:14 am

Histo-Sci wrote:Oh, and when you said "norseman" you had me worried there for a second, because I thought you said "norman"! Yikes! Now that would be just bad!

Histo-Sci

I don't see a whole lot of difference between a Viking and a house-broken Viking, so I'm not sure why being Nor(se)man rather than a Norseman would be bad (or any worse, at the least). :-)

(edit in: Yes, I'm refering to William the Conqueror)

Anyway, the Vikings certainly traveled a lot and brought back all sorts of things from all sorts of places, dunno why they couldn't borrow from Amerinds, beyond the actual numbers involved would make it difficult to establish much going back east to Europe.

by **Histo-Sci** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:10 pm

Oh, I meant "Norman" as in William the Conqueror...you see I am a Saxon sympathizer, dat means me no likee William!

Histo-Sci

by **smcginnis** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:59 pm

Well, the Normans under William the Conqueror were descended from the Norse, but had lived in France for several hundred years.

~smcginnis

by **HenrytheV** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:47 pm

Histo-Sci wrote:Oh, I meant "Norman" as in William the Conqueror...you see I am a Saxon sympathizer, dat means me no likee William!

Histo-Sci

So, I guess that means you'd call good ole' William by one of his not so nice but true titles. You know, William the B*****d. And anyone who figures it out and tells me not to swear, it's true and historical so get over it.

Jonathan

by **Histo-Sci** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:46 pm

HenrytheV, you are too funny! Yes it is historical and I was a little tempted to post it, but didn't, subjecting it to the Grandma test. :wink:

My to commendations you for knowing that! (Obviously you would know that, this is a castle forum! DUH!) Me and my sister (she also reads G.A. Henty, see castle book thread) have this joke where we say "William the--" and don't say the last word, because I would not mean it in the nice sense. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all, that's what my Mama always told me!

Anyway, I love the history surrounding Hastings and would reccommend G.A. Henty's Wulf the Saxon. I'll bet you have read it, HenrytheV.

Anyway, about them Vikings, I knew that about the Vikings being ancestors of the Normans (not to flaunt my scanty supply of knowledge here). It's interesting though, isn't it? Me still likum big bad file-toothed warriors bettuh dan big and really bad Normans. Big chiefum no carem for dat villun Willum.

Histo-Sci

by **smcginnis** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:39 am

HenrytheV wrote:
Histo-Sci wrote:Oh, I meant "Norman" as in William the Conqueror...you see I am a Saxon sympathizer, dat means me no likee William!

Histo-Sci

So, I guess that means you'd call good ole' William by one of his not so nice but true titles. You know, William the B*****d. And anyone who figures it out and tells me not to swear, it's true and historical so get over it.

Jonathan

Well, the actual meaning used to be an illegitimate child, which could be percieved as a bad word in some religions.

~smcginnis

P.S. Sorry for the off-topic post admins.

by **HenrytheV** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:23 am

smcginnis wrote:
HenrytheV wrote:
Histo-Sci wrote:Oh, I meant "Norman" as in William the Conqueror...you see I am a Saxon sympathizer, dat means me no likee William!

Histo-Sci

So, I guess that means you'd call good ole' William by one of his not so nice but true titles. You know, William the B*****d. And anyone who figures it out and tells me not to swear, it's true and historical so get over it.

Jonathan

Well, the actual meaning used to be an illegitimate child, which could be percieved as a bad word in some religions.

~smcginnis

P.S. Sorry for the off-topic post admins.

That's what I meant by it.

And yes, I've read Wulf The Saxon.

On Topic:So why did they file their teeth again? Fashion? They were bored?

Also, I think it's interesting that the Vikings tried to take over parts of England, but never did (unless you consider the Danes as Vikings). But their French speaking descendants did, aka Normans.

Jonathan

News Release - New Findings show Vikings did what?

News Release - New Findings show Vikings did what?

Who is online