Talk:Point Rosee/Archive 1

Other uses for fire
Smelting iron requires temperatures above 1200 deg. C. It can't be done over an open fire. Some sort of furnace is needed. See Bloomery. Is there any evidence of a furnace at Point Rosee?

A fire on a headland was often used as a navigational light, helping ships avoid a hazard. Just possibly, a fire on Point Rosee might have been used for signalling. I'm not sure whether it is possible to see across the Cabot Strait to the northernmost point in Nova Scotia. It would depend on how high the hills are on both sides. It would be interesting to look for a fire site on the Nova Scotia side of the strait.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Vikings Unearthed
I think that Wikipedia should discuss past events. Discussion of future events is very speculative because they may never happen, and if they happen, a reader would like to know when. I would like to know when.

Also, any discussion about what will happen will need to be modified after it happens requiring a lot of maintenance for Wikipedia. The last sentence of the article should be changed accordingly.

"Parcak's research was in connection with a Nova documentary called Vikings Unearthed, which will be shown on-line and on BBC and PBS television stations and will feature Point Rosee.[2][3][4][5]"

Sciencebookworm (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The broadcast is this week; dates can be found by checking the cited sources. It would be inappropriate for us to say that, it would be advertising. But any reader who wants to can easily find it - if they prefer, they can just look for that title. But it hasn't aired yet, and it would be inaccurate to write as if it had. I'll change it after the showing if no one else does first. A lot of Wikipedia articles need to be kept up to date - events that happen every year, for example. That's part of the task of writing a complete encyclopedia, and it's not very hard to update articles, compared to if we were a print encyclopedia! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and I've now updated it. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Second or third?
Patricia Sutherland argued for a settlement on Baffin Island. That still seems up in the air although disputed. If it is verified it will be the second discovered. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 2 Aprill 2016 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in several articles, eg Helluland and Baffin Island. Doug Weller  talk 18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just been informed about Sutherland and read some of the articles on her findings. I intend to write her up, but won't have time till Tuesday to do a good job. Politics aside, I see claims about trading posts but not long-term settlement. And the sources for this article are all saying it would be the second confirmed settlement, so we shouldn't import our own synthesis. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree no evidence has been presented for a settlement similar to l'ans aux Meadows, which itself doesn't seem to have been a long-term settlement. It's extremely unlikely that Sutherland's Helluland will be confirmed as a settlement. I obviously don't want synthesis and maybe I'm overthinking this. It's almost certain that if this is confirmed it will be the second. Doug Weller  talk 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Patricia Sutherland's article now exists, and I've updated a couple of articles where her research was mentioned, in addition to the one for her husband. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Bit of a mystery there but not for Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 12:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No big deal
I don't understand why people are getting so excited about this. Ever since the L'Anse aux Meadows site was discovered, people have speculated that it was used as a base for further exploration. It has been expected that traces of Viking activity would be found, around the Gulf of St Lawrence, maybe up the St Lawrence River, and down the Atlantic coast of North America. Now, maybe, the first such traces have been found at Point Rosee. It's not at all surprising - certainly not a game changer. Even if the Viking connection is confirmed, it it isn't going to bring a flood of tourists to the area, just to see a few cracked rocks. Plenty of tourists already drive nearby, using the ferry terminal at Port aux Basques. They will continue to drive by. DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sagas themselves indicate there was more than one site, but physical evidence to confirm it is quite interesting. Jonathunder (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

NOVA TV program
I saw the NOVA program this evening. Most of it was about general Viking history. Only a small part was about Point Rosee. The evidence shown for it being a Viking site was not at all conclusive. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. There was no evidence that iron was smelted there, although a piece of iron ore was found which seems to have been heated, but not hot enough to smelt it. I wonder of maybe it was heated in a forest fire. I don't feel I've learned anything new. Oh well... DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you saw it! On this and your earlier points, we have to go by what the sources say, rather than speculate ourselves about the topic, but the sources do say bog' iron and refer to boiling, so maybe that's the key. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an article about bog iron. Incidentally, the program showed her walking through a forest to get to the site, which is some distance, I think it said two miles, from the nearest road. It certainly isn't in, or very close to, a village. The site itself is level ground with no trees, and is on an isthmus quite close to sea level. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just watched a BBC 2 doc on this topic featuring Dan Snow. Probably the same program. Lots of ott drama and unrelated woffle, but very flimsy evidence. Me smells WP:Advertising/Fundraising. 1812ahill (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw the NOVA episode today. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're referring to a different program. Do you have a link? Jonathunder (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely the same program. Doug Weller  talk 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another site?
See (sorry if this is a repeat). Doug Weller talk 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added that article as a reference here and at Patricia Sutherland. The Sop's Arm pitfalls were new to me, but I see we reference them in that article using a primary source; I'll add this reference there too. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Another speculation
The site has nothing to do with the Vikings. It was a wooden fish-smoking hut that was built and used by French colonists in the 1700s. This hypothesis fits all the published evidence much better than the Viking one. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any sources for that? This talk page is for improving the article. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. As I said, it's a speculation. I think the article would be improved by being deleted unless and until better evidence becomes availsble. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominate for deletion if you must, but it will be kept as it's currently based on verifiable sources and meets the general notability guideline. Pure speculation, however, does not belong here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many talk pages include speculation, which can be constructive so long as it is clearly identified as such. In this case, most of the "verifiable sources" are themselves highly speculative. I think the article should be deleted, but I don't expect this to be done. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

second settlement
The point isn't about Newfoundland. The point is about the Americas - that this may be the second American settlement outside of Greenland.

I lifted my phrasing directly from the Norse colonization of the Americas article. Feel free to choose the alternate phrasing "mainland North America" (as also featured in the lede) if you like that better. But please do not make this out to be primarily about Newfoundland. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The phrasings "mainland North America" and "continental North America" are synonymous, and are both equally incorrect in describing insular locations (Newfoundland and Greenland are islands ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.10 (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to not just object, but to suggest an acceptable phrasing that lets us move forward. CapnZapp (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Location
I'm not sure where the precise coordinates are taken from; the sources seem to me to be deliberately leaving the exact location unclear to avoid people going there and destroying evidence (which is very easy to do—archaeologists build up a picture of the past of a site in part based on tiny and subtle details). I'm concerned, especially if the location/coordinates now in the article come from non-public information, such as local knowledge. If they are not supported by published sources, I request that we return to saying the location is approximate, and consider removing the coordinates until they are confirmed by a reliable published source. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That the area near Millville NL was the location of the site was noted in a comment in the online National Geographic version of the story by someone with local connections. A Google image search on 'Vikings' and 'Rosee' nets a more expansive satellite image of the Point that matched in detail some of the more cropped versions in media articles. Finally, a little searching in Google Maps matched that expansive satellite image with an actual location near Millville. Some more searching on existing maps and we have the actual name: Stormy Point. I have since published that information. If I hadn't, someone else would have. It's a little late to put the genie back in the bottle. Odont (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Searching on Google maps and satellite images is original research, not to mention deliberately circumventing the caution in published articles. I really regret that Wikipedia did this. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Removing unsourced claims is fine. Removing sourced claims because you feel for the archeology is not. Since the name of the location is public knowledge, our coordinates should point to where "Point Rosee" is on maps and not uselessly to the town of Codroy. Specifying coordinates to the place our own article talks about sure ain't original research. If we talk about Point Rosee our coord should damn well point to where Point Rosee is on maps. Anything else would be an insult to our readers. Also: just because we point to the Point Rosee peninsula doesn't mean we reveal the exact site location. If the peninsula is small enough that any visitor would find it just by going there, is an entirely different matter. Talking about Point Rosee but then sending map links to some town doesn't fool anyone, doesn't help anything and is merely useless overall. CapnZapp (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A local paper, The Western Star, published a map in this online article which places the site roughly at the village of Codroy. Instead of the amateur sleuthing here, I've relied on the cited source for the co-ordinates in our article, using the ones for the village, but rounding them to reflect that this is an approximation. Jonathunder (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It's also nice to have the local paper's article. I hope the site remains undisturbed till the archaeologists can get back to it. As one example that reallyhit home with me, when I researched gullgubber I was sad to read that many of them may have been lost&mdash;they are so tiny and thin, they are likely to have been overlooked in some earlier digs. Now they are being interpreted as indicative of the purpose of a building. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Western Star is published in Corner Brook, which is some 200 km up the coast from Point Rosee, so it's not exactly a local paper. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. As I wrote in my edit summary, the area near Millville is based on http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/03/31/vikingsnf/06-vikingnf.adapt.590.1.jpg found on http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/ which can very easily be found on satellite imagery. This straightforward translation into map coordinates of the information provided by The National Geographic amounts to a mere rewording of what The National Geographic says, and does not constitute original research. I really regret that Wikipedia allowed a mistaken location near Codroy to be mentioned in the coordinates template instead of the correct location near Millville. For reference :
 * No_original_research
 * Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. 
 * No_original_research
 * Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.
 * If you zoom with Google Maps on the location near Millville you can read "Point Rosee" written there, exactly where I put it. So we have now two sources pointing to that same location near Millville. Teofilo talk  00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you zoom with Google Maps on the location near Millville you can read "Point Rosee" written there, exactly where I put it. So we have now two sources pointing to that same location near Millville. Teofilo talk  00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Zooming around on Google maps and drawing conclusions is definitely original research, no matter how easy you think that is. Do not put your conclusions in the article. Jonathunder (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Picking two words - "Rosee" and "Point" - on a map is exactly the same as picking two words in a book. A map is a source exactly like a book. Have you tried to zoom on that headland west of Millville on Google maps ? Have you seen those two words ? Can you read them ? Are they not "Point" and "Rosee" ? Wikipedians always do this when faced with the task of providing an article with geographical coordinates. Please say how, in your view, the Wikipedians are supposed to proceed when tasked with providing a geographic article with coordinates. Teofilo talk  12:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Google maps contain user-provided information that is often unverified. A published map is a primary source. We are to follow reliable secondary sources. Jonathunder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the place is named "Point Rosee" on Google Maps, this name can't have been invented recently by the archaeologists to conceal the location. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the name was added by Google just a few days ago, after the archaeologists mentioned that name. Teofilo talk  13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the name was added by Google just a few days ago, after the archaeologists mentioned that name. Teofilo talk  13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Did the archaeologists tell Google Maps exactly which headland they were trying to prevent gawkers from visiting? DOwenWilliams (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An archaeologist who doesn't want a site to be visited should not have helped National Geographic in such a way that National Geographic published a map and : satellite imagery Teofilo talk  10:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The official name of the point of land from the Provincial government's geographical naming database is 'Stormy Point' for reference please check with the GEONAME database at http://miga.gov.nl.ca/lands/maps/digital_map.html HJKeats (talk)


 * So perhaps the first sentence of the article should be "Point Rosee is the name given by archeologists to a headland otherwise known as Stormy Point near Millville". See also this blog Teofilo talk  10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Am I the only participant here who has actually been to Newfoundland?


 * Many places there have two names, one English, the other French. This reflects the history of colonization by the French, followed by their defeat by the British. English is the official language there now, so names like "Stormy Point" have official status. "Pointe Rosée" (Pink Point, in French) is the same place. Maybe the word "pink" refers to the reddish colour of the bog iron that is common there. I doubt that the archaeologists had much to do with the name, except maybe by slightly Anglicizing the spelling. Some local people Anglicize it more, to "Point Rosy".


 * DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've re-removed locations sourced to examination of maps and Google Earth. This is by definition original research, and in any case pinpointing the location in relation to local settlements is of limited encyclopedic use; we're not providing a guide for tourists. Sources do vary on how many miles/km it is from L'Anse aux Meadows, but I returned the number to what the source cited at that point said when I last looked. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing our coordinates to the place on maps where the name we discuss really is, is nothing but a courtesy to our readers. No OR involved. I write this in November 2016. Give it up - it's over. Any solution that talks about "Hicksville" and then doesn't point to where Hicksville is placed on maps is unacceptable and indefensible. For us to not point to Point Rosee you would need the article to not talk about Point Rosee, and the only way to make that happen is to enter a parallel existence where no reliable sources place the dig at Point Rosee. CapnZapp (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As I explained above, examining maps or Google Earth amounts to routine calculation, which is allowed by the Wikipedia rules :

No_original_research ''Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.''


 * If you zoom with Google Maps on the location near Millville you can read "Point Rosee" written there, exactly where I put it. So we have now two sources pointing to that same location near Millville. Teofilo  talk  15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at a map can certainly be a "routine calculation" as for the naming issue (another section of this talk page). You find a map, you see what the geographical feature used to be called, bam, finished.
 * But I question the source here. The exact location of something not widely reported isn't a good source. Used-added labels on Google Maps are not a good source, while Google Maps itself might be (but I don't see a case where we want to rely on Google Maps when we can't use any of the other gazillion atlases available).CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The policy you cited for "routine calculation" applies if there is consensus for it. There clearly isn't. It's still original research. Jonathunder (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Another reference of Stormy Point
The headland is named Stormy Pt on the 1859 Frederick R. Page map issued with A concise history and description of Newfoundland : being a key to the chart of the island just published. London : R.H. Laurie, 1860.

Feel free to verify this yourself here: http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/ref/collection/maps/id/206 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

archiving
Per instructions: Y'all are hereby notified I'll set up automatic archiving in about a week's time. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead
WP:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The information that Dr. Birgitta Linderoth Wallace and Dr. Karen Milek, two of the top experts on the Norse in Newfoundland expressed doubt that Point Rosee was a Norse site, is one of the most important points and belongs in the lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in discussion, Jerry. However, let me point you to the pertinent section of WP:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This is why you should not outright move statements from the main body to the lead - as you yourself quote, you need to summarize the important points, which relies on there being something left to summarize. CapnZapp (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Magnetometer readings - citation needed
Wikipedia: "Magnetometer readings at the site showed high concentrations of iron." The bold is added. What is the source of the information that there were high concentrations of iron at the Point Rosee site? Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been looking around for this source and have not found anything peer-reviewed and citable. All that I have found so far is mention of magnetometer survey and high concentration of bog iron, with some caveats, in the video Possible Viking Site in Canada,The National. Paul H. (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Paul H., there is some excellent information in that video of the large 2016 follow-up excavation at Point Rosee. So although not the source of, "Magnetometer readings at the site showed high concentrations of iron." it does have some very good information about the turf wall, or more precisely, the lack of a turf wall. Jerry Stockton (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It has been over 2 months and no one has provided a source for the information "Magnetometer readings at the site showed high concentrations of iron" so I have removed it. Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Location
"Norse expert Karen Milek [Dr. Karen Milek, Department of Archaeology, Durham University, England] says Vikings usually chose settlements that had good landing sites for ships. Point Rosee's beaches are filled with large, unnavigable rocks and steep cliffs." On the trail of Vikings: Latest search for Norse in North America

Dr. Birgitta Linderoth Wallace is one of the foremost experts on the Vikings in North America. While viewing the ocean and shoreline with a reporter at Point Rosee, reporter: "You can almost imagine a longboat out there. But as you say it's pretty open to the elements." Dr. Birgitta Wallace: "Yeah, it is." Narrator: "The big concern for Birgitta Wallace is the location itself. A rocky shoreline, not easy to land boats, and no obvious signs of fresh water . . ." On the trail of Vikings: Latest search for Norse in North America Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Feel free to paraphrase that and add it to the article with source citations. Jonathunder (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Added that Point Rosee has a rocky shoreline. I would imagine that would be something explorers in wooden boats would probably want to avoid. Jerry Stockton (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

undermining article foundations
We need to stop making edits that undermine the entire foundation for the article.

Imagine a bird-related article that says "The swan is white". Now imagine an editor adding "Scientists believe swans are black". The result is low quality, since all it accomplishes is raise question marks in the head of the reader. Don't add contradictory sentences without attempting to integrate them into the article!

The article was written with the assumption that the site might be genuine. Now edits are made with the opposite assumption; that it probably is nothing. The article quality plummets as a result, since readers are confronted by contrasting and irreconcilable statements. We can do better. Don't make individual edits that make the article speak with two voices. Instead, either boldly rewrite the article to maintain quality or bring up your misgivings here at talk to discuss the continued notability and agree on phrasings that convey the site's status without compromising the article integrity.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the article is fine as written now. It presents Point Rosee as a possible Norse site that has not yet been verified and is still debated. That seems an appropriate summary of the sources to me. We don't need to present our readers with a single point of view. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jerry Stockton, you have made a flurry of edits and talk comments recently. Every single one of them cast doubt on the prospect, and undermine the validity of the possibility of Point Rosee being a Viking site. It is time to ask you what your agenda is, and/or ask you to disclose any affiliations you might have. If what you really want is to start an AfD discussion, maybe do that instead of chipping away at any remaining article quality? CapnZapp (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (comment) I would like to direct any reader to the subsequent section . To me, this discussions ends here. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Roasted Bog Iron
Bog iron is not attracted to a magnet. The high-temperature roasting of bog iron changes the crystalline structure of the iron in the bog iron and produces iron that is attracted to a magnet. It appears this would be a very simple test to perform to see if the items found near the cracked boulder (hearth?) were roasted bog iron or were something else. Does anyone have information about the testing of the items found near the cracked boulder that the researchers hoped were roasted bog iron? Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the YouTube video Making Iron Hamerslagdag, 2016, Roggel, The Netherlands.[] It shows the high-temperature roasting of bog iron ore (this is the same thing as bog iron and bog ore, just different names). After the bog ore has been roasted, and the crystalline structure of the iron has been changed, the roasted bog ore is crushed and the iron, now attracted to magnetism, is separated out using a magnet. This is all covered in the first 3 minutes and 25 seconds of the video. The rest of the video is interesting, but has little to do with the roasting of bog iron. Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Found it. At about 1 hour and 44 minutes into the Vikings Unearthed program, the metal analysis results for the items found in 2015 are shown. One item was just a billion year old stone, another was just some naturally occurring iron, but the third item was found to be roasted bog iron. This was very exciting news for Dr. Sarah Parcak. At that time Parcak and her colleagues believed that for there to be roasted bog iron, someone must have roasted it on purpose, and that would pretty much prove Point Rosee was a Norse site. Unfortunately, roasted bog iron does not prove Norse activity.

CBC NEWS: Newfoundland and Labrador, 1 April 2016 "Birgitta Wallace, considered the foremost authority on the Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, was equally unconvinced that the find was an authentic Norse site. 'The roasting of the ore could be accidental. All it would take is a camp fire on the ground where the soil is full of bog ore. Such areas are common in Newfoundland' she wrote in an email. Wallace was part of the excavation team at L'Anse aux Meadows."

Canadian archaeologist Frederick "Fred" Schwarz is shown in the 2015 excavation "Well, it's quite interesting, we have quite a large boulder, it's cracked, it's quite possible that it's fire cracked. It takes a pretty serious amount of heat to crack a boulder this size. . . . The fact that it's cracked suggests a lot of heat being built up at some point in the past." So although roasted bog iron was found at the Point Rosee site, Norse archaeologist Birgitta Wallace is unconvinced Point Rosee is a Norse site as the roasted bog iron could be accidental.

To roast bog iron all you need besides the bog iron is a good size fire. It does not require any kind of a boulder or hearth, and it appears that they would only get in the way. Please watch any of the videos of roasting bog iron, all that is ever used is a basic campfire. The boulder that the Point Rosee archaeologists described as a fire cracked boulder would not be needed to roast bog iron. The archaeologists described the ground surrounding the fire cracked boulder as having lots of bog iron. So there was a fire that was hot enough to crack the boulder, and the boulder was surrounded with bog iron.

So still no hard evidence that the Norse were at Point Rosee. Jerry Stockton (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Radiocarbon Dates
This Wikipedia article shows "Carbon dating indicated the site dates to between 800 and 1300 CE."

The reference for that information also shows "So far, radiocarbon dates from the Point Rosee site suggest that people lived there sometime between A.D. 800 to 1300, the researchers said."

However, the Nova special Vikings Unearthed at about 1 hour and 39 minutes in shows the actual radiocarbon dating report and it shows a much later date of between about AD 1600 and 1800. Jerry Stockton (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Presuming that's the same as Vikings Uncovered, that's backed by the transcript. Doug Weller  talk 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not presume :-) especially since that makes the carbon dating irrelevant to the article. In other words, this article has no use of some report about seventeenth century seeds, no? If you're ready to support that the 800-1300 claim is actually wrong/misleading, then we'll simply remove it (without replacing it with an irrelevant seed report). Only if you specifically want to throw shade on the whole Viking site theory do I feel its inclusion is warranted; assuming you have the sources to back that up. Reverting in anticipation of your next move. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lost my edit somehow. It was a joint BBC/Nova/PBS production. Right now the article contradicts what the program and the archaeologists said. It's not irrelevant as it's part of the story about the site. Doug Weller  talk 16:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm in mentioning the later date. It's from a reliable source (a BBC documentary film) and, as Doug says, is a part of the story. Reading the transcript, it doesn't "throw shade" on the Viking date of the site, it just highlights that the quality of radiocarbon samples on the site is poor. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then go ahead and say so - shifting the focus away from the actual dating numbers (the 1600-1800 span). What I want to avoid is just throwing an inexplicable factoid that, to the regular reader, pretty much says "this piece of evidence suggests a much later date". If we can find somebody stating on record "the quality of radiocarbon samples on the site is poor" that would be excellent - we could then use the factoid to support that. The article is telling a story, so yes, it's "part of the story about the site", but on its own it just invites confusion and doubt. The article becomes better if it would support such a claim so that the reader understands why it was included. I hope you see my point? CapnZapp (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As always, I think you can't go wrong by giving the reader as much as context and information as possible. The statement about the quality of the radiocarbon dating was also in the documentary. I'll have a go at working it in now. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that the reader isn't expected to be a scholar or somebody used to "just tell me the facts and I can make up my own mind". I don't intend to be insulting, but please keep in mind Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. All too many articles are of poor quality because well-meaning editors just pile on facts with no clear idea of what that makes the article tell the reader. That said, I do feel the recent edits were for the better since it became more clear why the article is telling me as a reader one fact or the other: the story being that the site's status remains unclear: here's evidence for, here's evidence against. At times, the article has veered into "it's all but confirmed" territory (again, by well-meaning editors) which makes any evidence against look very strange since it makes one part of the article go against the whole. I hope you see the difference: the first reads as a good article (just on an unclear subject); the second reads as a poor and confused article, just a jumble of facts. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I see articles saying the same thing in 3 different sections, each time with a different twist. Or add stuff where it stands out as a sore thumb because it doesn't relating to the paragraph. Doug Weller  talk 11:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: "It was initially reported that the site had been radiocarbon dated to between 800 and 1300 CE." That could easily be read as the first (initial) radiocarbon dating report showed between 800 and 1300 CE, and a later report showed between 1600 and 1800.The first radiocarbon dating report is the initial report and it showed a range of between about 1600 and 1800. The dates of between about 1600 and 1800 were then repeated by Sarah Parcak. Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to jump in again as a Wikipedian (not an archeologist or historian). While "it was incorrectly reported" is (probably) factually correct, at Wikipedia we require sources for our claims. Unless somebody states the first reports were actually wrong we should not portray them as incorrect. The only thing supported by our sources is that reports gave the 800-1300 date range, despite the fact this doesn't match the actual reports, as given by later sources. And this is what Joe Roe's version says. To claim incorrectness, please find a source that's actually talking about the incongruity between early and later reporting. Thank you all for your patience in creating great articles that are not only true, but verifiable, and thus meet Wikipedia policies! CapnZapp (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And jumping in as an archaeologist: I think what has almost certainly happened is that the set of dates shown in the documentary, on the charred seeds/berries, were the first submitted, and they came back as modern. But then they submitted more samples for dating (presumably after the documentary wrapped filming) which returned more reasonable results, and these were the basis of the 800 to 1300 estimate given to the media. This source (not a good reference for the article, but informative), explicitly states that there were 11 additional dates that "fall between the early 9th century AD and late 13th century AD".
 * Of course I'm not saying we should put that speculation in the article. As says, we can only go by what is in the sources. What we have is two sources that give conflicting dates, and nothing that says that one or the other is incorrect, so we should present both as possibilities. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To state that "It was initially reported that the site had been radiocarbon dated to between 800 and 1300 CE" is not correct and is not backed by the citation currently shown for that information. The initial (first) radiocarbon dating report is shown in the Nova special Vikings Unearthed at about 1 hour and 39 minutes. It shows the first radiocarbon dating report, that is the initial report, and it shows a date of between about AD 1600 and 1800. Later radiocarbon dating shows other dates, but the initial report showed about 1600 to 1800. Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we know which dates came first, because the documentary and media reports appeared at around the same time (April 2016). However, I take your point that the "initially" is not warranted. I only really put it in to improve the flow of the paragraph and because technically the article cited came out a few days before the doc. I have no objection to it being removed (but not replaced by "incorrectly"). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, View From space Hints at a New Viking Site in North America, by Ralph Blumenthal, March 31, 2016, "After two weeks of digging at Point Rosee, an unexpected find in a flooded trench excited the explorers — several seeds, or perhaps blueberries, which were hurriedly sent for testing. The dates came back wildly off — 700 years after the Vikings, maybe even contemporary. They seem to have migrated onto the site much later." Jerry Stockton (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As The New York Times article published on March 31, 2016, is the first published article to show radiocarbon test results, I have change the article to reflect that information. Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Move over, Point Rosee, there's a new challenger
This time it's Birgitta Wallace, suggesting that "A lost Viking settlement known as "Hóp," which has been mentioned in sagas passed down over hundreds of years" may have been found in northeastern New Brunswick. Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug. Live Science, Archaeologists Closer to Finding Lost Viking Settlement, by Owen Jarus, March 6, 2018. "If Hóp is found it would be the second Viking settlement to be discovered in North America. The other is at L'Anse aux Meadows on the northern tip of Newfoundland." Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed it said "second". Doug Weller  talk 13:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seed or Berry
Wikipedia article shows - "However, the 2016 documentary film Vikings Unearthed featured the radiocarbon dating of a charred seed from the site . . . " The Nova special Vikings Unearthed at 1 hour and 39 minutes shows the actual radiocarbon dating report that shows "berry" and about 1 minute later Sarah Parak states "That berry, those berries were not from a particularly strong context . . . " I added the bold. Suggest charred seed be changed to berry. Jerry Stockton (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They consistently refer to it as a seed in documentary (that's the only time "berry" appears in the transcript), but I finally found a written source (albeit not a particularly citeable one) that discusses the radiocarbon dating and that says it was two berries. It also mentions 13 other dates that were consistent with a Viking settlement, but I'm not sure about using this document as a reference and I can't find any other information on them. I do wish the excavators would publish some actual papers to go along with all the media coverage. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The date of the following comment is unclear, but it appears to be after August of 2017. The article is dated May 1, 2017, and the following comment was added later. Hammered Out Bits: Another season at Point Rosee ... but they still don't have much, by Darrell Markewitz:[] Robert said... "I travelled to the Codroy Valley in August and was told that NO ONE had shown up to do any archaeological work at Point Rosee over this past year. I talked to the local lighthouse keeper and also a local historian and they told me that the area was farmed / grazed for several years. So are we looking at some discovered ancient farming remains from the 1900's?" So the first (small) excavation was in 2015, the second (larger) excavation was in 2016, but there was NO excavation in 2017? Have archaeologists lost interest in Point Rosee as a possible Norse site? If Point Rosee was "farmed / grazed for several years" (and maybe plowed) in about 1900, could that explain the soil feature that the 2015 excavation thought was a turf wall? The 2016 excavation found the soil feature was too large to be a turf wall. If archaeologists have lost interest in Point Rosee as a possible Norse site, that might explain why it appears they have not published their conclusions about their findings. If any of the archaeologists who were involved with Point Rosee really thought it was a Norse site, wouldn't you think they would have published something by now that we could find? Jerry Stockton (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is a little more information about the 2015 excavation at Point Rosee by BBC / PBS / Nova: Vikings Unearthed "Uncover the truth behind the legendary Vikings and their epic journey to the Americas." Aired April 6, 2016, BBC co-production with the PBS science series Nova. This has information about the 2015 excavation and what they believed was the discovery of a turf wall and evidence of metal working. The 2016 excavation cast serious doubt that the soil feature was a turf wall or that there was any evidence of metal working. There is also information about the berry or berries that were carbon dated. The program is not currently available to be viewed at BBC but can be viewed at Netflix and is also available on DVD. The website does include a transcript of the show. Jerry Stockton (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Turf Wall?
National Geographic, March 2017, p.51, New Visions of the Vikings, by Heather Pringle: "During a small excavation in 2015, Parcak and her colleagues found what looked like a turf wall, as well as a large hollow where someone seemed to have collected bog ore for roasting—the first step in producing iron. But a larger excavation last summer cast serious doubt on those interpretations, suggesting that the turf wall and accumulation of bog ore were the results of natural processes. Today Parcak is waiting for additional test results to clarify the picture." I added the bold to Heather Pringle's work.

Please see: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/03/vikings-ship-burials-battle-reenactor/

Jerry Stockton (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed that, but given my experience with the radiocarbon dates didn't want to take it on right now! :-) Doug Weller  talk 20:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me, please read the continued discussion (above) - I sincerely hope you see I was at no point personally attacking you or your edits. Best regards and good luck with your continued wiki editing! CapnZapp (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I did find that revert confusing. Doug Weller  talk 11:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At about 6 minutes and 35 seconds into the video Possible Viking Site in Canada about the larger 2016 excavation at Point Rosee: "It turns out the soil feature extends much too widely to be a wall." This could be the reason for the statement in the March 2017 article in National Geographic: "But a larger excavation last summer cast serious doubt on those interpretations, suggesting that the turf wall and accumulation of bog ore were the results of natural processes." Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From Robert, "I talked to the local lighthouse keeper and also a local historian and they told me that the area was farmed / grazed for several years. So are we looking at some discovered ancient farming remains from the 1900's?" If Point Rosee was "farmed / grazed for several years" maybe it was also plowed in about 1900. That could explain the soil feature that the 2015 excavation thought was a turf wall, and that the 2016 excavation found was too large to be a turf wall. Jerry Stockton (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the main reason Parcak thought Point Rosee was a Norse site was what appeared on near-infrared images to be a Norse longhouse. Parcak "... that rectilinear structure shows up very clearly here. You can see the outline of what looks like a longhouse better here, but you can see actual internal divisions. It's 22 meters long, and 7 meters wide, the exact same size as the longhouses at L'Anse aux Meadows. This is the first site we've had in 55 years that merits closer examination and excavation, 'cause, I mean, its size, its shape, the fact that the soil's different, the fact that there are these clear rectilinear and oval structures, I mean, it screams, Please, excavate me!" At Wikipedia, L'Anse aux Meadows: "In 1960, George Decker, a citizen of the small fishing hamlet of L'Anse aux Meadows, led Helge Ingstad to a group of mounds near the village that the locals called the "old Indian camp". These bumps covered with grass looked like the remains of houses." The buildings at L'Anse aux Meadows left mounds where the walls had been. Do any of the programs or articles about the 2015 or 2016 excavations mention anything about mounds being found where the very large longhouse was thought to have stood? Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)