Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
NewFound Land
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
I’ve tried to get a story commercial published for a year. That was an unfortunate experience.
Now that I see a main-theme is being made a movie, I figured the story could as well be published free to read, rather than forgotten.
This fictional story’s main theme is about the so-called Greenland Colony that disappeared in the ninth century. In this story, they go very far west, and experience far more than any historian would say. Couldn’t it be true?
Any comment about the story, or related issue, will be much appreciated.
Thanking you in advance. -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
Hi
Isn't it true that the Viking colonies on Greenland were founded in the 10th C and disappeared during the 'little ice age' around 1500?
TP -
Message 3
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
Hi TP
Thanks for the interest.
It's true that according to some Icelandic saga, Greenland was discovered in 980. Originally, NFL was set to about 996.
Later, I took the artistic liberty to move the story a hundred years earlier to make a meeting with the Mayans possible. However, I have been careful not to do a ‘Gibson mix-up’ with Mayans and Aztecs. -
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
It's incredibly turgid to read Vidar - way too many errors. I gave up when the young early medieval Greenlander told Thorvald that whatever his friend had drunk was 'totally far out strong'. Way too much literary licence, I am afraid, without the benefit of literary merit to compensate for its use. I can see why you might have had a problem with it getting published.
The subject is fair game for a story however, as far as I can see. Perhaps if you storyboarded your concept and gave it to someone literate to write you might yet have at least a share in credit for a sucessful project. -
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
Hi Vidargander,
OK but you must understand that this is a history message board and many posters take a dim view of such alterations of the facts!
TP -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
...and many posters take a dim view of such alterations of the facts!
Ìý
And of syntax, punctuation, grammar and spelling. -
Message 7
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
As you probably see, English is not my native language, - but so weren’t the characters’.
Surely I’d like some English speaking person to correct the text, but I could not find the time and money for that. On the other hand, the characters did not speak like today’s British, and especially didn’t some norse teenagers. Surely a reader must look behind that to get a grip of the story.
The story is fictional. I think I make that clear in the introduction, and I certainly state it now.
I am really pleased that anyone has read so far as to the ‘newfound land’ chapter.
Unfortunately, I can promise much more literal and historical ‘errors’.
The point is, however, the ideas and the links to historical possibilities.
Bear the lack of perfection, and I can provide an interesting story. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
But as Twin Probe has remarked about participants on this thread, the same is true for the potential readers of your work. It won't be appreciated that you have departed so far from historic truth.
Historical-based fiction is conducted under certain ground rules. An author has liberty to be partial. He can opt to omit up to a point. He can opt to invent up to apoint. He can bend known facts, but with the skill not to bend them until they snap. In other words, he must write his story within the chronological and factual parameters that history has provided. Readers of such fiction are often as attracted to the work from curiosity in how the author has achieved this than to be necessarily informed further on the subject. Others simply will use the fiction as a vehicle to learn in an entertaining way something of the subject in question.
Your story lets down both these potential readerships, and in blatantly ignoring the parameters, will only further alienate critical opinion the more its presence is publicised.
I apologise if I made it sound that my primary objection was against the poor language in which it is written. That is indeed something that can be fixed (up to a point also). But Vidar, I must honestly say that regardless of how well it ends up being written, or how entertaining a read you succeed in cobbling together, it will all come to nought if you don't, through re-envisaging your project, haul it back within the rather unforgiving and strict parameters that history has already imposed on it.
As you said yourself, such aberration is best left to those who can afford the ridicule. We're not all Mel Gibson. -
Message 9
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Saturday, 10th February 2007
Nordmann
I can’t disagree in what you are writing. It’s all very general.
What exactly do you find out of the 'chronological and factual parameters that history has provided.’? -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 11th February 2007
Well chronologically you are (or should be) limited to a time-span from around 980AD to 1345AD with regard to the Norse habitation. To drag the foundation of the colony back further in time is to rob it of its raison d'etre, take Eirik Raude's important role out of the foundation story, and thereby undermine the symbiosis that the colony shared with Iceland in its early manifestation - or at least give yourself the uphill task of creating a whole new foundation myth that allows these known parameters to slot neatly in at a later date. Within that 450 year span you must also accommodate what is known about the landscape and how it was used by the settlers, especially since it was that very use that contributed as a factor in their decline. Finally, towards the end of the colony, you must accommodate religious and legal documentation that exists relating to the colony and the poor condition of its inhabitants. The demise of the colony was not exactly a total mystery to its contemporaries and the powers-that-be back in Scandinavia were cogniscant of its structure, its nominated leaders, and its failing economy in great detail. By the time official contact was lost with the colony after 1345 it was regarded as being too small and unproductive to matter anyway by these authorities. The only real mystery concerns the fate of those last few settlers who - in a medieval sense - seemed to have 'turned the lights out before they left', thereby indicating that the final abandonment of the last few sites was undertaken in an orderly fashion.
Other factual paramaters should shape your story also. The fact that the Norwegians effectively held a monopoly on sea trade at a crucial stage in the Greenland colony's development, thereby cutting it off financially at the same time as the eco-system began to fail them was a crucial factor in their demise. Similarly the fact that colonists failed to integrate in any sense with the Thule inhabitants further north, from which they might have learnt the error of their arable ways in time to arrest their own decline, indicates that the colony always regarded itself as a simple extension of Icelandic culture. It failed to adapt in other words. Your story on the other hand concerns individuals whose ability to adapt apparently knows no cultural bounds whatsoever. Finally, and notwithstanding Leif Eirikson's actual familial relationship with Eirik Raude so that any change to the foundation story can only therefore complicate the subtext in your story, there is the matter of the colonists' true response when their subsistence levels began to drop. Rather than unilaterally abandon their settlement they opted instead fo a 'feeler' approach. Eirikson's expedition (and here there is huge room for improvisation given the paucity of archaeological detail) was apparently simply an attempt to locate those very resources that were drying up in the locality. His western direction was decided first and foremost not out of a sense of adventure, but in order to lay claim to resources that it was known the Icelanders, Norwegians and Danes had yet to claim owenership of. It was an attempt at restructuring the economy along the lines that they were familiar with, in other words, and proof of their inability to adapt rather than proof of unlimited curiosity and willingness to 'try something new'. That they apparently found those resources, but too far away geographically to be of immediate benefit, must have disappointed the Greenlanders terribly.
The colony as it is known to have been operated in its final years (and which excavation has confirmed) is one that adapted only when faced with starvation as an alternative. It switched from forestry/farming to open field arable farming when the tree stocks were exhausted, and then to fishing and hunting when the soil was eroded through their efforts. It was at this final stage that they shared most in common with the northern neighbours of which they probably knew little or nothing, but ironically never had the opportunity or the intelligence to learn that they were doing things imperfectly. They dwindled and failed, through starvation and emigration (no figures exist for either), until at last they fell below the critical number required to regenerate.
Those are at least some of the parameters as I see them. There is still a lot of scope for a good yarn in there, but not one that shifts the colonists' time scale or attributes them with individual or collective abilities that they simply did not possess. -
Message 11
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Sunday, 11th February 2007
The Norse discovery of America has been a covered-up truth for a thousand years. The discovery of the Newfoundland settlement in 1960 was merely a confirmation of a thousand years deliberately false history writing.
Records show that Iceland was settled in 870, Greenland was settled in 970 and that America was settled around the year 1000. However, that does not prove that no-one went there earlier. There is no reason to believe that Erikson didn’t have detailed information about Vinland before he went, just like there is no reason to believe that Columbus didn’t.
In NFL there is a settlement around the year 900 that is forced out of Iceland of political reasons, forced out of Greenland due to a natural catastrophe and thereby, temporarily, goes to Canada. But that’s just the beginning of the story. There are far more 'chronological and factual deviations from official history writing in NFL, when they once again have to move.
Here is a link to some other related issues to the story.
-
Message 12
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 11th February 2007
Well Lief Ericson did have some information as even the sagas maintain that he was told about the existence of lands to the west of Greenland before he ventured out to set up a colony. Columbus didn't even think he had discovered new land for that matter, rather he felt he had landed in the Far East but there you go.
-
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 11th February 2007
Hi vidargander,
The discussion between yourself and Nordmann raise some interesting and important points concerned with the writing of historical fiction. For many historical eras it is simply impossible to write a connected narrative. We simply do not know enough about the activities, or motivations, of people in the past. This is where a good writer of historical fiction steps in; I am thinking of novelists like Mary Renault, Alfred Duggan and Robert Graves. Nonetheless the genre does have its rules. A HN can invent plausible minor characters, but not major ones. A HN can prefer the account or one historical source to another, but not invent an account that flatly contradicts both. A good HN should not invent episodes for which not even the faintest evidence exists, and should not depend on a deus ex machina, like time-travellers from the future, to resolve plot contradictions.
Turning to you own messages I would entirely agree that the achievements of the Scandinavian sailors in the Viking era were extra-ordinary, and are not yet fully documented nor explained. To say, however, that the truth of the Norse discovery of America has been ‘covered up’ for a thousand years seems excessive. Surely until the discovery at L'Anse aux Meadows it was possible to regard the evidence of the Sagas as heroic fiction, without being accused of ‘deliberately false history writing’? Also evidence purporting to confirm Norse involvement in America, I am thinking of the Kensington Rune Stone and the Vinland Map, seems likely to have been forged which acts to muddy the waters.
The involvement of Norse sailors in North Atlantic sites before traditional landnam dates is certainly possible but is a very controversial area, as I am sure you are well aware. Radiocarbon dates that were thought to be evidence of an earlier Norse arrival in Iceland have been heavily criticised, mainly by Icelandic historians. If you play fast and loose with Viking dates you are more likely to have trouble with Scandinavian than British readers. Nordmann is well-placed to have his finger on the Scandinavian pulse.
If you wish to place the Norse in America earlier and without concrete evidence then it opens-up opportunity for those who wish to have the continent discovered by the Phoenicians, Egyptians, or even the Welsh!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 14
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Sunday, 11th February 2007
lolbeeble wrote:
Well Lief Ericson did have some information as even the sagas maintain that he was told about the existence of lands to the west of Greenland before he ventured out to set up a colony.
-----------------------------
Here are some more info about the travels.
Grœnlendinga saga
Honestly, I didn’t know of the historical Thorvald. He should not be mistaken for my fictional character. -
Message 15
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Sunday, 11th February 2007
TwinProbe
Thanks for the tips about writing historical fiction.
All my characters are fictional, even though some of the names are real.
The story does not alter the dates of settlement of Iceland. But there is no evidence that there was an eruption at that time, because there are no such early recordings. The NFL colony does settle at Greenland and Newfoundland earlier than historical records confirms, though.
Being rather clear that the story is fictional, I do not claim that Norse items and myths in America are true or false. I have however; used them as guides to place events. -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th February 2007
Hi Vidar
Since what you are writing is fiction, and you claim nothing to the contrary, a lot of your presumption can be forgiven of course. Even the notion that "if it is not proven archaeologically not to have occurred then its probability is raised rather than lowered", which would be enough to lose you the ear of most reasonable empiricists, is almost permissible here. It is terribly faulty rationale but you are right to say that 'artistic licence' provides some mitigation for its use. There does, after all, have to be room for invention when constructing a fiction.
However, as said earlier, you stray from known truths at your peril with this tale since it purports through its fiction to offer an insight into Norse exploratory capabilities and achievements with this blending of fact and invention, and in order to deliver on that promise it is even more vital that the fiction not overrule the fact. Your characters are contextualised by their similarity to people who really existed (this is necessary in historical fiction for the characterisations to ring true) and the circumstances in which the real people lived (this is even more necessary since the reader will be coming to the story with pre-knowledge of those circumstances also, and will be trusting that your treatment of them offers fresh insight into the lives of people affected by them). To abandon that context to the extent that you do and replace it with a fictional one is to undermine whatever credibility you could have gleaned from the real events, and in my mind makes your story pointless, since its premise is pure fantasy. Worse, it is a premise easily demonstrated to have been impossible, and will therefore be understood by the average reader as a dishonest account. Fiction need not be that, and historical fiction should never be that.
So maybe it is best if I take your factual aberrations individually and explain why it would be best that you reconsider their suitability to your project.
1. You cheat on the years in order to bring your characters in contact with a race that in reality they could never have encountered at the height of their power. Why? By fast forwarding the Scandinavians through time you have already displayed that you regard the known historical timeline as expendable. Why honour the Mayans with temporal exactitude and not their visitors? This is not only a 'cheap trick' that will deter most readers for its transparent audacity, but it is also inconsistent and immediately calls into question your treatment of other facts. Put simply, there is no point roping in other verifiable contextual realities if the biggest one of all has already been abandoned.
2. Your chief character Thorvald shares a name with Leif Eirikson's brother, who according to the sagas was the first Scandinavian to 'winter over' in the new lands discovered to the west. You claim this is coincidence, but even if it is then that means you must change the guy's name all the more. Your guy's role and the real guy's role are already so similar as to invite comparison. Sharing a name simply compounds the problem.
3. Your narrative uses as a trigger a seismic event in Iceland of your own invention. You think you are safe in inventing such an event since it predates anything historically recorded in that line. This raises two glaring problems. The first is that you have inhabited the area with people already at this time. People = records. You have attempted to have the best of both worlds. You point to the true historical record to show that your presumption is at least plausible, but you then destroy all plausibility by hingeing the story on what would be an eminently recordable event in the context of your invented reality but for which no record exists. The second problem is that Iceland's volcanic and seismic history is well known, and not in any way dependent on sagas. I refer you to the Nordic Volcanological Institute ( and the sad news that nothing of the magnitude on which your story is predicated occurred.
4. You use the admittedly scant knowledge gleaned from the sagas to geographically map the terrain of the new world, and use a particularly inventive location in doing so for 'Vinland'. This is fine - the jury is out on Vinland in any case. The problem here is in the simplistic manner in which you have utilised the facts to fit your story. Even a person with the scantest knowledge of the sagas can see that the lands discovered were evaluated according to their habitable properties. Their names were derived from these properties. The reason behind this was because the Eiriksons entertained a notion that they could encourage sufficient numbers of sustainable population to inhabit these areas - not with a view to global domination but simply to further guarantee that the utilisation of the resources available in these parts could be put to the benefit of the (now) trans-Atlantic community on the whole. By establishing a strong commercial enterprise based on these resources they hoped to redress the imbalance in trade that the then Norwegian royal imposition of sea-trade monopoly had imposed on their nascent Icelandic economy. It was the opposite to Columbus, who claimed in the royal name. The Eiriksons were entrepreneurs, and in their borrowed merchant vessels not so much explorers as businessmen frantically trying to rescue what was fast becoming a failed economic experiment. Hence the inviting names to their base camps, and hence also the reasonably secure assumption that Vinland, for whatever reason it got its name, could have been no further south than present day New England. Your story rides roughshod over that whole aspect of Norse history with a vengeance, and your resultant location of Vikings in Florida becomes not a 'brave' prediction in the circumstances, but a laughably silly one.
My suggestions therefore are to re-write. And as a matter of priority amend your story with these guidelines in mind.
1. Change Thorvald's name.
2. Forget the Mayans. They're not worth the cruel distortion to the historical timeline that your story currently performs.
3. Ditch the idea of the 'group' wandering around the USA with the speed and ease of a modern traveller travelling alone.
4. Research Icelandic seismic history better. Who knows, maybe an event more conducive to a plausible trigger in your narrative actually occurred? If not, find a better one.
5. Don't use modern slang.
6. Motivate your characters a little better. People often do extraordinary things for very little reason. They don't even need giant explosions propelling them into action. The Greenland colony's history is chock-full of such motivations. Why invent implausible ones?
7. Either use known facts and beliefs in the context in which they are already understood or avoid reference to them like the plague. You can't have it both ways.
Hope that helps. -
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 12th February 2007
'totally far out strong'Ìý
Could I recommend, perhaps, substituting that with 'mighty powerful'? -
Message 18
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Monday, 12th February 2007
Hi youself nordmann
Yes it helps.
It would even be more convincing if there was some positive feedback as well.
1.I think I might change Thorvald’s name. That’s easy. Even though Thorvald is a very common name, I can see there might be some bad accusations by using it. (Madre mia, Harald is also a historical name too.)
2.I will definitely not exclude the Mayans. They’re important to the story.
3.I think the group of 1000, split into three groups, are just fine for the story.
4.I did investigate Icelandic seismic history at this site, . I have however cut the references to Hekla, that was in the story.
5.The modern slang is now substituted. The idea was that these Vanir tribe youngsters were a bit freaky, like some hippie’s kids.
6.I think the characters are motivated, in addition to being forced out.
7.I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Smallpox and plague are related. It’s also well known that they were ‘imported’ in the area.
However, there is not a ‘cheap trix’ in timing for the NFL tribe.
I think you might find the link to the ‘Grœnlendinga saga’ in my previous posting, interesting. -
Message 19
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Monday, 12th February 2007
Vizzer aka
'mighty powerful' it is. -
Message 20
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 12th February 2007
As long as you can get your guys in the USA a century ahead of the Eirikson possee in a way that doesn't make you look completely ignorant when it comes to norse exploration of North America, then best of luck to you (though you still have a big problem, I feel, in explaining the amazing coincidence in how both groups chose the same names for the same places).
What language is it written in originally by the way? It might be an idea to write to your strengths in the language you know best and let someone more familiar with English translate it.
Sorry if it all sounds very negative but, aside from your commendable enthusiasm, I am afraid there is little positive to say about it. It really needs a lot of work as it stands. -
Message 21
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 13th February 2007
Hi Vizzer,
Could I recommend, perhaps, substituting that with 'mighty powerful'?Ìý
He could really jazz it up a bit if he changed it to a "bitches brew"...
RF -
Message 22
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Tuesday, 13th February 2007
A main character is renamed to Thorleif from Thorvald to avoid confusion with the historical person.
-
Message 23
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Tuesday, 13th February 2007
Nordmann
I suppose that the best characterization you’ll give is; ‘doesn't make you look completely ignorant’.
NFL is originally written in English, as you see it. However, if I did write it in my native language, it would be Norwegian. There are differences in thinking and expressions in different languages. That’s what you see in the story. I think it’s important to realise that British English is not dominant English in the world, but rather 10% of it. My reason to choose English is that 100x more people understand that than my native language. -
Message 24
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Tuesday, 13th February 2007
RF
He could really jazz it up a bit if he changed it to a "bitches brew"...
---------------
It’s rather "witches brew". -
Message 25
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 13th February 2007
There are differences in thinking and expressions in different languages. That’s what you see in the story. I think it’s important to realise that British English is not dominant English in the world, but rather 10% of it. My reason to choose English is that 100x more people understand that than my native language.
Ìý
Ja, men god engelsk er det fremherskende språket blant bokforleggere som vil utgi på engelsk.
Jeg mener jeg hadde rett i hva jeg tidligere sa. Da jeg leste teksten din syntes jeg at den var en nordmann som hadde skrevd den! (Beklager om at jeg stjal ordet som et 'oppnavn' for øvrig!) Faktisk tror jeg at det hører veldig bra ut på norsk (men trenger fortsatt mye justering historie-vis), og jeg var helt seriøs når jeg foreslo at det ville være best at du skriver det på norsk og at noen som kan det (og som forestår engelske subtilitet) bør oversette det til en slags engelsk som forsterker historien din i stedet for å ødelegge den. -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 13th February 2007
It’s rather "witches brew".
Ìý
And that sort of proves my point above.
Seriously - I'm surrounded here in Oslo by Norwegians who think they speak perfect English. They don't. Not by a mile. Not by a Norwegian 'mile' (11.295km). Not by any stretch of the imagination - no matter how well they can impersonate an English dialect. It's passable use of a foreign language but it's not good. And your writing falls into that category. If you want to publicise it in English get it written in better English! -
Message 27
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
Hi vidargander,
RF
He could really jazz it up a bit if he changed it to a "bitches brew"...
---------------
It’s rather "witches brew".Ìý
ummm... Nope - if I meant "witches brew" I would have said "witches brew". Miles Davis, jazz trumpeter and genius released a groundbreaking album called "Bitches Brew" in 1969. Read the sentence again and look very hard at the word "Jazz" and then the words "Bitches Brew"...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 28
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
The guy needs a translator RF - fancy the job?
-
Message 29
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
Hi Nordmann,
Would a fellow Scandinavian of yours be more helpful? I strongly recommend this guy I noticed in Veekipedia (zee free-a incyclupedeea).
Bork Bork Bork!
RF -
Message 30
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 31
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
RF
I was thinking of giving the character Tuve, the Kvasir-blessed lyricist, more attention in an own paragraph. It wouldn’t be related to jazz though. -
Message 32
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
English was at that time some kind of medieval Esperanto.
Today’s English is based on a mix of German, French, and Scandinavian
True English is rather like Welsh, and true Scandinavian is rather like Icelandic.
No offence, but Imperial English is hard to get because of all the faults.
It’s like what the French and Danes do, - deliberately dope the language with internal faults to protect from external integration.
I don’t bother critics about that the story differs from the imperial English dialect. -
Message 33
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
Yes, but the trick is to find a publisher with the same rather singular view of language as yourself. I wish you luck!
-
Message 34
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
------------------------------------
Nordmann
It seems I have broken some houserule by answering your Norwegian posting in Norwegian.
The answer was:
Surely I can write the story in Norwegian. But I do not have any faith in the Norwegian publishers, - not when they don’t at the least show the decency to a comment the work after expecting 6w exclusive reader’s right. -
Message 35
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Wednesday, 14th February 2007
Normann: Yes, but the trick is to find a publisher with the same rather singular view of language as yourself. I wish you luck!
--------------------
I have found a publisher with the same singular view of language as myself.
- It’s me.
I have published the novel on the internet. -
Message 36
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Wednesday, 28th February 2007
ummm... Nope - if I meant "witches brew" I would have said "witches brew".
RF
---------------
Talking about the brew, I would like to explain some of the background to a grim scene.
Some of it is indirectly described in the story. There were probably Viking cultures that worshiped the nature and believed in magic. That execution by burning is described in Norse mythology.
Participation in a midsummer celebration in Denmark was upsetting to me. It’s obvious that the traditions of annually which-burning is strong here. (In the story, the execution of Rafka is inspired by that event.) Wood had been collected for days to make a huge bonfire. On the top of the wood, there was a true sized doll dressed up like a which. The crowd had gathered hours in advance and made it a picnic. When the sun went down, a long line of burning torches appeared in the distance. There were men, women and children marching towards the bonfire. When by the fire, they threw their burning sticks, one by one into the wood. Soon the fire took hold on the doll. Then fizzing and screaming came from her, because it was stuffed with firecrackers called something like ‘which wails’.
I remembered some explanations about cultural cleaning after the dark winter had finally gone.
The Norse myth about the Asir Gullveig might be where the which-burning stems from. (I find stories about American Indians executed women in which-hunter style at a pole, rather strange.) However, testing by drowning can be influenced by Babylonians and Egyptians, -
Message 37
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 28th February 2007
Midsummer bonfires are believed to be an ancient feature of European cultures dating back to before the time of Christianity. During the middle-ages the practice of burning witches, which often took place around midsummer, was a cruel and vindictive way that the Christian authorities would stamp their 'moral authority' on society with more than a hint of gleeful irony.
Although burning witches is now thankfully confined to history - midsummer bonfires are still prevalent on the feast of St John's which is widely celebrated in continental Europe. St John's, of course, is just another in a long line of Christian festivals which were super-imposed on existing Pagan holy days. Christmas and Easter are 2 of the most obvious others.
Interestingly in Northern Ireland the practice of lighting mammoth bonfires on 12 July each year to commemorate the Battles of Aughrim and the Boyne is believed to be similarly inspired by the ancient midsummer tradition. Wood is collected for days (if not weeks before) and there is a great deal of anticipation and excitment in the air in the run up to the lighting. The 12th of July is only 3 weeks after Midsummers Day and is still very much in the midsummer part of the year.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.