Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Maps showing Greenland (1A) and the Comparative Island Ecodynamics (CIE)/Winter is Coming Project (WiCP) study area (1B) with indications of Norse settlement and hunting areas, as well as Norse sites and marine-shieling types discussed in the text (map by the author).
- Figure 2.
Conceptual Greenland Norse farm and land-/sea-resource use model (adapted from Øye 2013:Fig. 4). Besides the terrestrial resource zones suggested by Ingvild Øye, this model includes Greenland Norse marine-resource zones, the character of associated sites, and examples of the main marine resources harvested within these zones.
- Figure 3.
A. Site sketch overview plan of Late Dorset, Thule culture, and suggested Norse features (indicated) at NKAH 3789, Inglefield Land (modified after Appelt et al. 1998:Fig. 1). B. Detailed sketch plan of the suggested Norse feature at NKAH 3789 (modified after Torben Diklev 1993, with permission).
- Figure 4.
A recent photograph of the three collapsed cairns (NKAH 707) on top of Kingittorsuaq Island, where the famous Norse runestone was found in 1824 (photographed by Mikkel Myrup in 2009).
- Figure 5.
Detailed sketch plan of “The Bear Trap,” NKAH 3630, Nuussuaq from the 1953 investigation and “clearing” of the ruin. The slightly raised natural “platform” in the northern inside half of the room is indicated (after Meldgaard 1995:Fig. e6).
- Figure 6.
A recent photograph of “The Bear Trap,” NKAH 3630, Nuussuaq, looking northeast along the coast. Noticeable are the massive corner foundation stones and the small “stone wedges or pinnings.” Both architectural features are characteristic of Norse building customs (photographed by Bo Albrethsen, 2012).
- Figure 7.
Rough sketch plan of the suggested Norse feature at NKAH 3080, Innalik, indicating (marked with x) where a carved wooden figure resembling a Norseman was found (after Bjørgmose 1967:91). Here, the feature is interpreted as a Thule culture or later Inuit winter house, partly because of the feature’s layout that includes a long (cold-trap) passage with adjoining niches.
- Figure 8.
Detail survey plan of the suggested Norse feature at NKAH 1107, Mitsimmavissuaq (figure created by Mikkel Myrup, 2018).
- Figure 9.
A recent image of the suggested Norse feature at NKAH 1107, Mitsimmavissuaq, looking southwest. In the upper right, skerries at the edge of the open Davis Strait are visible (photographed by the author in 2017).
- Figure 10.
Site sketch overview plan of Norse site NKAH 1417 (M20), Naajaat. Ruins a and b are described and discussed in detail in the text (after Bruun 1917:Fig. 35).
- Figure 11.
Site sketch plan overview plan of Norse site NKAH 1415 (M19), Eqaluit. No. 1 shows the setting of the Norse ruins described in the text; No. 2 a Thule culture or later Inuit summer fishing camp (after Bruun 1917:Fig. 39)
- Figure 12.
Site overview plan on Google Earth satellite imagery (V. 7.1.8.3036, November 8, 2015, DigitalGlobe 2019. http://www.earth.google.com) of Norse site NKAH 5558, Qajartalik. The plan also shows the location of a nearby Thule culture winter settlement and the modern, unmanned lighthouse (figure compiled by the author).
- Figure 13.
A recent image of the Norse ruin at NKAH 5558, Qajartalik, looking southeast. Note the fairly large building and cornerstones and use of “stone wedges” to level the wall’s courses, all of which are architectural features characteristic of Norse building customs (photographed by Karsten Secher, 2009).
- Figure 14.
Site survey plan of NKAH 3528 (Ø321), Savingmiut, with indications of the possible Norse ruin and a later Thule culture winter house and smaller features, as well as the location of test pits excavated during the 2017 CIE/WiCP field campaign (figure created by the author).
- Figure 15.
Wintertime (March 27, 1993) LT05 Landsat satellite imagery (credit: U.S. Geological Survey, USGS. https://landsatlook.usgs.gov/viewer.html) of the middle CIE/WiCP study area with indication of marine shielings, farmsteads, and terrestrial shielings, as well a possible small polynya near NKAH 3774 (Ø156). Farmsteads mentioned in the text are numbered.
- Figure 16.
Site survey plan of NKAH 5557, Kuuk, with indications of the Norse ruin and nearby Kuuk River (map created by the author).
- Figure 17.
Site survey plan of NKAH 3774 (Ø156), Qajartalik, showing the two Norse ruins, Inuit graves inside Ruin 1, as well as the location of test pits excavated during the 2017 CIE/WiCP field campaign (map created by author).
- Figure 18.
Site survey plan on Google Earth satellite imagery (V. 7.1.8.3036, July 2. 2014, DigitalGlobe 2019. http://www.earth.google.com) of NKAH 3520 (Ø128b/Ø342), Nuukasik, with indications of the nearby Norse farmstead NKAH 3717, the later Inuit settlement of Qunnermiut. As seen in the imagery, drift ice clutters the inlet with the farmstead and settlement, making NKAH 3520 a more optimal landing site.
- Figure 19.
Photo looking southeast towards the small outcrop with the ruins of landing site NKAH (Ø128b/Ø342) and the remains of a dinghy once used by local Inuit from the nearby settlement of Qunnermiut (photographed by the author in 2014).
- Figure 20.
Site survey plan of NKAH 4468, Kangeq, showing the Norse ruin, as well as the location of test pits excavated during the 2017 CIE/WiCP field campaign (map created by the author).
- Figure 21.
Site sketch overview plan of the Narsaq plain with Norse site NKAH 1506 (Ø117)—“Rolf’s ruin”—and Thule culture site NKAH 1941 (after Mathiassen 1936:Fig. 1).
- Figure 22.
Previously unpublished sketch survey plan of the main Norse ruin at NKAH 1506 (Ø117) based on an original, coarser sketch in Poul Nørlund’s field diary (1932:23), both found in the archives of the National Museum of Denmark.
- Figure 23.
A. Site sketch overview plan of NKAH 3358, Timmiarmiut, showing the Thule culture settlement features and an indication of the possible Norse ruin test excavated by Nørlund in 1932 (after Mathiassen 1936:Fig. 13). B. Detailed sketch plan of the possible Norse ruin with indication of individual stones and the trench excavated by Nørlund in 1932 (after Gulløv 1999:23).
- Figure 24.
Plot of lengths, widths, and building materials (see Table 2) of the Norse ruins considered as possible marine shielings in Greenland, as well as three comparable features from L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. The two main clusters of dry-stone and turf/stone buildings are highlighted by red (solid) and blue (dashed) ellipses, respectively; other plot details are discussed in the text.
- Figure 25.
Site plan of the Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows (after Wallace 2003:Fig. 2). Note the similarity of Hall F with NKAH 4468 (see Fig. 19).
Tables
- Table 1.
Summarized classification scheme for the functional interpretation of archaeological surface remains of Greenland Norse architecture, which is applied to the individual ruins of marine shielings in present study. In addition to describing the type and original built of building walls, the table outlines the surface appearance of ruins and basic functional characteristics of each wall and building-material types.
Wall type and build Wall/building material type description Ruin surface appearance in the field Functional properties Type 1: Turf wall (and roofing) Wall built of turf blocks, directly on the ground or, more commonly, on a single- or double row stone foundation of one or a couple of courses, often with some soil/rubble/turf filling. Wall width(s) normally >0.80 m. Well preserved: grassy banks tracing the original feature wall lines; or, where the turf has disintegrated, as a distinct stone foundation of one or a couple of courses, and with no surrounding collapse stone.
Collapsed: grassy, uneven(farm) mounds or low hummocks. No or very few visible collapse stone.Heat insulating, water, wind, and moisture impermeable. Built for cold-period (or year-round) human and animal habitation. Type 2: Turf/stone wall Wall built in relatively regular, alternating layers of turf blocks and stones, raised on (rarely) single- or (often) double row stone foundation of one or a couple of courses. Wall width(s) normally ~0.6–1.0 m. Well preserved: easily traceable walls of stones set in turf and often preserved in several courses.
Collapsed: indistinct stone wall lines, sporadically standing a few courses high,and raised on single- or double-row stone foundations; or as grassy (farm) mounds or low hummocks many protruding stones. Considerable amounts of visible collapse stone.Turf is economical and stable, but less heat insulating and water, wind, and moisture impermeable than Type 1 walls. Built for seasonal warm-period human and year-round animal habitation. Type 3: Dry-stone walls Can be separated on following subtypes: 3a. Freestanding single-skin dry-stone wall Dry-stone walls built in often somewhat irregular courses/layers, at times with thin interlaying turf mats and turf wall superstructure, either directly on the ground or on a single row stone foundation. Wall width(s) normally 0.5–8.0 m. Well preserved: distinct stone walls, often including natural boulders or cliffs, and preserved in several, often irregular, courses.
Collapsed: indistinct, but identifiable walls of collapse stone, most sliding or tumbling down the stones, boulders or cliffs in the foundation. Some to considerable amounts of visible collapse stone.Expediently and easily procured building materials, partly sheltering, but heat draining. Used in pens, dikes, and other freestanding enclosure walls (e.g., pens, rock shelters, etc.). 3b. Dry-stone wall facing Dry-stone wall built in mostly regular courses/layers with no adhesive or, alternatively, with thin interlaying turf mats, against and to support/protect the interior or/and exterior of a turf wall (Type 1 or 2). Wall width(s) normally ~0.4–6.0 m. Well preserved: distinctstone walls in several regular courses lining a Type 1 or 2 turf wall.
Collapsed: more or less indistinct stone wall lines leaning against turfy banks, sporadically standing a few courses high, and inward/outward sliding collapse stone.Considerable visible collapse stone, most on one side of turf bank.Expediently and easily procured building materials, wind- and water protective and durable. Built for protection of insulating turf walls (i.e., increased stability and durability of human and animal habitation buildings). 3c. Roof-supporting dry-stone double-skin wall (double dike) Dry-stone double-skin wall built mostly in regular courses/layers with no adhesive, and at least one of the following traits: i) alternating thicker and thinner courses; ii) larger stones in the lower courses; iii) heavy foundation and, especially, corner stones; iv) stone wedges/pinning to level uneven stones in the courses; v) hearting with small to medium sized stones Wall width(s) normally ~0.8–1.0 m. Well preserved: distinctdouble-skin walls standing almost intact (see description) with few surrounding collapse stone.
Collapsed: faintly observable double-row wall foundations or lines standing up to a few stone courses high and surrounded by great amounts of collapse stone.Expediently and easily procured building materials, ventilated and cool, highly stable and durable. Built for airdrying and storage. Occasionally used in freestanding boundaries or enclosure walls. 3d. Roof-supporting drystone double-skin wall with (double dike) fill or hearting Dry-stone walls with all the elements of Type 3c, but with fill/hearting of the double-skin wall with small stones and rubble, occasionally some turf lumps, soil or gravel. Wall width(s) normally ~0.8–1.2 m. Well preserved: distinctdouble-skin walls standing almost intact (see description).
Collapsed: faintly observable double-row wall foundations or lines standing up to a few stone courses highand surrounded by great amounts of collapse stone.Expediently and easily procured building materials, somewhat ventilated and water impermeable, cool, highly stable and durable. Built for storage. 3e. Protective dry-stone (and turf) wall with fill or hearting Similar to Type 3d or with alternating courses of stone and thinner turf mats. Occasionally built to the height of the inner, roof-supporting wall, but more often with a superstructure of pure turf wall (Type 1). Same as Type 3d, but with considerably less collapse stone, often spilling outwards from the building. Built as a weather protective, water- and wind-impermeable casing of/shell for a wooden inner structure/building. 4: Wooden wall Wooden wall raised on single row dry-stone foundation/sill. Wall width(s) normally 0.3–0.5 m. Visible as single row dry-stone foundations with no surrounding collapse stones. Ventilated. Built for airdrying and storage. - Table 2.
Listing of feature-level functional observation criteria discussed in the text and applied to the 19 individual Norse r uins considered in present study, as well as three comparable features at L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland (LAM Hall A, D, and F). Observation criteria include: feature dimensions and wall width(s) (showing variation and average); wall and building materials identified using th e classification scheme in Table 1; number of identified rooms; orientation of buildings (if applicable); wind exposure; and building ground.
Site no. Ruin length (m) Ruin width (m) Wall width(s) (m) Wall/building materials No. rooms Building orientation Ruin exposure Building ground NKAH 3789 2.7 2.2 0.4–0.6 Type 3a dry-stone wall 2 SW/NE Partly exposed Soil/bedrock NKAH 3630 4.4 4.4 1.1–1.8 (1.5) Type 3c dry-stone wall 1 n/a Fully exposed Bedrock NKAH 3080 10.0 10.0 1.0 Type 1 or 2 turf or turf/stone wall? 4 n/a Partly sheltered ? NKAH 1107 4.0 1.7 0.4–0.5 (0.45) Type 3a dry-stone wall 1–2 NNE/SSW Partly sheltered Bedrock NKAH 1417 Ruin a 13.5 5.0 1.3 Type 1 turf wall (on multicourse stone foundation) or Type 2 turf and stone wall? 1? NW/SE Partly sheltered Soil NKAH 1417 Ruin b 20.0 6.5 1.3 Type 1 turf wall (on multicourse stone foundation) or Type 2 turf and stone wall? (at least) 4 SW/NE Partly sheltered Soil NKAH 1415 18.9 6.3 1.6 Type 1 turf wall on stone foundation 1? N/S Sheltered Soil NKAH 5558 3.8 3.7 0.8–1.2 (1.0) Type 3c dry-stone wall 1 n/a Fully exposed Bedrock NKAH 2329 15.0 12.0 — Type 2 turf and stone wall? ? ? Partly sheltered Soil NKAH 3528 5.5 3.8 0.5–0.9 (0.7) Type 1 double-row stone foundation for turf (or stone) superstructure 2 NW/SE Partly sheltered Bedrock NKAH 5557 4.4 2.9 0.8–0.9 (0.9) Type 3d dry-stone wall with fill 1 E/W Sheltered Soil NKAH 3774 Ruin 1 7.2 4.8 1.0–1.2 (1.1) Type 3d dry-stone wall with fill 1 N/S Sheltered Soil NKAH 3774 Ruin 2 8.0 4.7 1.0–1.4 (1.2) Type 1 double-row stone foundation for turf superstructure 1 WSW/ENE Partly sheltered Soil NKAH 3520 > 5.0 4.1 0.9 Type 3d dry-stone wall with fill 1 E/W Partly exposed Bedrock NKAH 4468 22.0 10,5 1.1–1.5 (1.3) Type 1 turf wall (at least) 5 SW/NE Sheltered Soil NKAH 1506 28.0 9.0 1.0 Type 1 turf wall (at least) 3 E/W Sheltered Soil NKAH 3304 5.0 4.0 — Type 2 turf and stone wall or Type 3 dry stone wall? ? ? ? — NKAH 2046 7.0 5.0 — Type 2 turf and stone wall or Type 3 dry stone wall? ? ? ? Soil NKAH 3358 10.0 9.0 — Type 2 turf and stone wall — n/a Sheltered Soil LAM, Hall A 29.0 9.4 1.6–2.5 (2.1) Turf 4 NE/SW — Soil LAM, Hall D 20.2 8.0 1.1–1.6 (1.4) Turf 3 NNE/SSW — Soil LAM, Hall F 25.5 16.0 1.3–2.1 (1.7) Turf 6 NNE/SSW — Soil - Table 3.
Listing of site-level functional observation criteria discussed in the text and applied to the 17 Norse sites consider ed in the present study and discussed in the text. Noted in the table is the presence/absence of midden, as well as other deposits where sites h ave been test excavated; site-level wind and sunlight exposure versus shelter/shade; and site landing conditions. Also, site interpretations shown in Figure 1A and B are summarized with tentative indication of orientation towards marine or terrestrial resources.
NKAH no. Midden Refuse or other cultural deposits Wind exposure Sunlight exposure Landing conditions Site interpretation 3789 No (“flint” blade) Exposed SW–NE ? Hunting shelter or cabin? Not Norse 3630 No Some shell, mussels, bone, one worked bone artifact Fully exposed Full Good* Norse marine waystation 3080 No Arrowheads, spoons, harpoon pieces, one wooden doll Partly sheltered SE–SW Good Thule culture or Inuit winter house, not Norse 1107 No ? Partly sheltered Full Poor Inuit shooting blind or shelter? Not Norse 1417 No No Partly sheltered SE-SW Good Norse specialized or provisional base camp, terrestrial? 1415 No Bits of charcoal Sheltered N, SW Good Norse specialized or provisional base camp, terrestrial? 5558 No ? Exposed Full Good Norse marine waystation 2329 No ? Partly sheltered NE-SW ? Norse specialized or provisional base camp, terrestrial? 3528 No Charcoal, piece of (window?) glass Partly sheltered S-NW Average Norse marine-hunting station? 5557 No ? Sheltered NE-S, W Average Norse landing site 3774 No A bird bone (upper layer), pieces of charcoal (lower layer) Sheltered NE-SE Good Norse marine-hunting station 3520 No ? Partly exposed NE-SW Average Norse landing site 4468 No A few flecks of charcoal Sheltered NE-SW Good Norse specialized or provisional base camp, marine? 1506 No ? Sheltered E-W ? Norse specialized or provisional base camp, marine 3304 No ? ? ? ? Norse? Marine waystation or hunting station? 2046 No ? ? ? Good? Norse? Marine waystation or hunting station? 3358 No Burned bone, charcoal, one piece of steatite Sheltered ENE-SW Good Norse? specialized or provisional base camp, marine?
In this issue
Jump to section
- Article
- Abstract
- Greenland Norse Settlement Landscapes
- Norse Shielings: A Definition
- Greenland’s Óbyggðir
- Marine Hunting in the Medieval Written Record
- An Interpretational Framework for Greenland Norse Architecture
- Norse Marine Shielings in Greenland
- Discussion of the Archaeological Evidence on Norse Marine Shielings
- Conclusion
- Endnotes
- Acknowledgments
- Footnotes
- References Cited
- Figures & Data
- Info & Metrics
- References