# Vikings in New Zealand **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 8, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185 "2003-09-08T00:28:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/21 "2003-09-08T04:00:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Not In Anger \* > \*\*There’s an allegation they reached Minnesota, which I find incredible in the sense of ridiculous and unbelievable. \*\* Or how about the [recent viking settlement](http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030831/1024701.asp) discovered in Utah? NB: insert 😃 or :rolleyes: as deemed appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Erroneous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71c47a/32.png) [@Erroneous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erroneous)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/22 "2003-09-08T04:00:53Z")
re. cannibalism in NZ, It’s not Captain Cook, but: > [@](#): > > The natives came to us sometimes, and behaved peaceably; but, to our surprise, we had adequate proofs that they are CANNIBALS. Some of our people, in the pinnace, went into a little cove, where one family resided, and saw several human bones which appeared to have been lately dressed and picked; and were told, that a little while before, six of their enemies had fallen into their hands; four they killed and ate;…The natives also brought us several human bones on board, and offered them to sale, sucking them in their mouths, and, by the signs which they made to us, evinced that they thought human flesh delicious food…We also found human bones in the woods, near the ovens, where they used to partake of their horrid midnight re-pasts: and we saw a canoe the baler of which was made of a man’s skull. The natives seemed even to take pride in their cruelty, as if it was the most laudable virtue, instead of one of the worst of moral vices; and shewed us the manner in which they dispatched their prisoners, which was to knock them down with their patta pattoos, and then to rip them up. From Sydney Parkinson’s [Journal of a Voyage to the South Seas](http://www.jcu.edu.au/aff/history/southseas/journals/Parkinson/124.html) (1773). Make of that what you will. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/23 "2003-09-08T04:14:11Z")
**Erroneous** and **Xema**. If DNA evidence for the Anasazi people eating human flesh is insufficient evidence for some anthropologists, they are hardly likely to accept a diary entry from over 200 years ago. I don’t know what happened way back when, but you need hard evidence (possibly more evidence than can reasonably exist) to convince people that canniblism took place. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/24 "2003-09-08T10:34:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor_ > […]say Denmark, on the globe Who who! Hold your ponies there folks! I was in NZ just a few years ago. And even though I opted for Thai Air instead of my trusty Viking ship, I’d say this is proof enough for anyone we have actually been to NZ. (Can you believe they wouldn’t let me carry my axe aboard in the hand baggage? :mad: ) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Xema_ > They were displaced/conquered/subsumed by the later-arriving Maori And while we’re on the subject, a Maori fellow, somewhat inebriated admitted, I met in a bar proudly told me that they had in fact eaten the previous inhabitants. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Not In Anger_ > “Vikings did not have navigation equipment” It’s very likely that the Vikings possessed some kind of primitive compass. Also they may have used a kind of crystal or rock, with which, when the sunlight was views through it, they were able to determine the latitude. Also it’s quite certain they knew how to navigate using stars and the sun. Also I heard, when they wished to sail to Island, they’d first sail to Bergen then point the ship in the right direction, trail a long rope after the boat – and by looking at the rope they could see whether they sailed straight. That’s also a kind of navigation equipment. - Rune ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/25 "2003-09-08T10:54:37Z")
Bullshit is it? So how do you explain [_this_](http://www.crowaptok.com/images/kiwi.jpg), then? ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/26 "2003-09-08T11:09:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*Bullshit is it? So how do you explain [_this_](http://www.crowaptok.com/images/kiwi.jpg), then? \*\* Tiny Viking loses helmet overboard one evening after coming back from a particularly good pillage. 20 years later, after it being tossed as flotsam across the globe’s oceans, tiny helmet washes up on the shores of New Zealand. A passing giant eagle (like they had in NZ) takes a fancy to the shiny object and picks it up. However, on the way back to the nest the eagle stops to pick up a kiwi takeaway. In the confusion of a bungled snatch, the tiny viking helmet becomes embedded on the escaping kiwi’s head. Tiny Viking dies a broken man, after being dubbed “Tiny No-Horn Head” by the other Vikings. Kiwi lives to a ripe old age of 1900, seeing off all preditors with its tiny helmet. See, the simplists answers are always the most likely. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/27 "2003-09-08T11:16:36Z")
Occam’s Razor triumphs again! > [@](#): > > **bungled snatch** Sounds painful. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/28 "2003-09-08T12:55:09Z")
If anyone is interested in the whacko racist site, it can be found [here](http://www.kilts.co.nz/mitancient.htm). Warning: I think they take **Jiimm’s** discovery \*very[/] seriously. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/29 "2003-09-08T13:44:46Z")
jjimm: > [@](#): > > Bullshit is it? So how do you explain this, then? It was carried there by a migrating swallow. ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/30 "2003-09-08T13:54:33Z")
Didn’t the Vikings get surprisingly far south tho (Mediterrian I think, or maybe to Sierra Leonne??) Brian ---
**Author:** ![Erroneous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71c47a/32.png) [@Erroneous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erroneous)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/31 "2003-09-08T14:02:44Z")
Christianised Vikings did make pilgrimages to Rome, IIRC, and I think there was also some good old-fashioned Viking plundering going on in the Mediterranean at some point. Haven’t heard about the Sierra Leone claims, but there are some who believe the Guanches of Tenerife and the other Canary Islands, encountered in the 16th century by Europeans, were descended from wayward Vikings. There are a lot of weird claims about the Guanches, though. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/32 "2003-09-08T14:12:03Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s very likely that the Vikings possessed some kind of primitive compass. Also they may have used a kind of crystal or rock, with which, when the sunlight was views through it, they were able to determine the latitude. Also it’s quite certain they knew how to navigate using stars and the sun. Also I heard, when they wished to sail to Island, they’d first sail to Bergen then point the ship in the right direction, trail a long rope after the boat – and by looking at the rope they could see whether they sailed straight. That’s also a kind of navigation equipment. You’re referring to the _solarstein_, or “sunstone”. It’s not really a compass, but a polarization-sensitive crystal used to locate the position of the sun when it’s below the horizon, and a fair patch of unclouded sky is available. It doesn’t tell you where North is – just where the sun is (reportedly to within about 5 degrees). There’s been a lot of negative writing about this, discounting the existence of such things. But the idea was originally proposed by analogy with an _existing_ navigation device, called the “Twilight Compass” , that did exactly the same thing, and was used by Scandinavian airlines for navigation. You can call it an "instrument: if you like, but that’s pushing it, I think. And it’s not really useful outside of the Far North, where the sun can disappear below the horizon for weeks or months at a time. All it’s telling you is where the sun is, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/33 "2003-09-08T14:29:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by N9IWP \* > \*\*Didn’t the Vikings get surprisingly far south tho (Mediterrian I think, or maybe to Sierra Leonne??) > > Brian \*\* See [this map](http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas/europe/static/map16.html). ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/34 "2003-09-08T16:40:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tapioca Dextrin \* > **Erroneous** and **Xema**. If DNA evidence for the Anasazi people eating human flesh is insufficient evidence for some anthropologists, they are hardly likely to accept a diary entry from over 200 years ago. > > I don’t know what happened way back when, but you need hard evidence \*\*(possibly more evidence than can reasonably exist)\*\*to convince people that canniblism took place. Emphasis in second paragraph mine. Some people will refuse to believe the evidence, no matter how reliable and copious it is. There is a very large amount of evidence for cannibalism in New Zealand, both by highly reliable eye-witnesses such as Captain Cook, and in Maori tradition itself. [Here:](http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6933/923/a) > [@](#): > > In fact there is reliable evidence of systematic cannibalism. It comes from that most trustworthy observer Captain James Cook . . . His journals are as reliable scientific observations as any made at that time. > > He visited New Zealand on each of his voyages and came across a mass of evidence that the Maori people ate the bodies of their enemies killed in disputes. On the second voyage (with two ships) Cook’s fellow commander Tobias Furneaux was unfortunate enough to have a boat’s crew of 10 men killed and eaten by Maoris. The boat sent in search of the missing sailors (commanded by Lieutenant James Burney, brother of Fanny Burney the diarist) found the remains of a cannibal feast including several baskets of cooked human flesh and hands and a head recognised as belonging to the slaughtered boat party. Cook later interviewed the ring-leader of the cannibals and extracted a clear account of the events leading up to the massacre, which had been triggered by a hasty use of their guns by the sailors. > > Cook’s own verdict was characteristically understanding. “This custom of eating their enemies slain in battle (for I firmly believe they eat the flesh of no others) has undoubtedly been handed down to them from earliest times and we know it is not easy to break a nation of its ancient customs.” [This site](http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/nzealand.html) quotes from Cook’s journals: > [@](#): > > Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men. . . > > Curiosity, however, got the better of my indignation, especially when I considered that it would avail but little, and being desirous of becoming an eye-witness of a fact which many doubted, I ordered a piece of the flesh to be broiled, and brought to the quarter-deck, where one of the cannibals ate it with surprising avidity. . . > > One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/35 "2003-09-08T17:05:01Z")
I’m not denying the observations of Captain Cook or Sydney Parkinson, but we are talking about cannibalism. It’s the ultimate taboo and accusations should be made very carefully. If anyone has actual physical evidence (such as charred human bones or human bones which contain evidence of systematic butchery) please post! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/36 "2003-09-08T17:59:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tapioca Dextrin \* > \*\*I’m not denying the observations of Captain Cook or Sydney Parkinson, but we are talking about cannibalism. It’s the ultimate taboo and accusations should be made very carefully. If anyone has actual physical evidence (such as charred human bones or human bones which contain evidence of systematic butchery) please post! \*\* Your statement seems contradictory. If you are not denying the observations of Cook and others, then you presumably accept that cannibalism took place. In any case, I don’t really accept the premise that because something is taboo _to us_ an entirely different standard of evidence is demanded than for any other occurrences in the historical record. Cook himself states his initial skepticism that the practice occurred. One might as well doubt any other incident recorded in his journals. [This site](http://sscl.berkeley.edu/~oal/background/pacislands.htm), by a professor of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, states: > [@](#): > > Although some anthropologists have expressed skepticism regarding European voyagers’ accounts of cannibalism in the Pacific, there is now direct archaeological evidence for cannibalistic or para-cannibalistic practices in late prehistory on Easter Island, the Marquesas, New Zealand, Mangaia, and Fiji. From other sites, this evidence at least in some sites includes exactly what you are asking for: charred human bones and indications of butchery. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/37 "2003-09-08T18:14:38Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Colibri \* \*\*Your statement seems contradictory. If you are not denying the observations of Cook and others, then you presumably accept that cannibalism took place. My position is that I don’t know what happened. If the only evidence was 200+ year old diary entry, then I would tend to be skeptical, but if there is hard evidence, then I’m a believer. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/38 "2003-09-08T18:36:06Z")
> [@](#): > > In any case, I don’t really accept the premise that because something is taboo _to us_ an entirely different standard of evidence is demanded than for any other occurrences in the historical record. I believe the taboo reference is to the anthropological community. Around thirty years ago (with a lot of evidence being discovered just over twenty years ago), a number of researchers began discovering that much of the literature on cannabilism was bad. Most of it was hearsay (often by opponents of those accused or by early white settlers or explorers who had a vested interest in painting the newly encountered people in the worst light). In other places, it was discovered that even among the peoples who claimed to have practiced it, it was always told that they _used to_ do that, but that they had abandoned the practice. At that point, the theory was put forth that all claims of cannibalism were actually propaganda pieces and, without hard evidence (no earlier writings), tales of cannibalism were to be treated as simply distortions by enemies of the supposed cannibals. This is probably an extreme position, but when one looks at the enormous amount of “evidence” collected before the 1970s that has turned out to be either erroneous–or, frequently, false–it is somewhat understandable. Ritual cannibalism (drinking some token amount of blood, eating an enemiy’s heart or liver) has certainly appeared in various places in the world. The objection is to the notion of killing, roasting, and eating a whole human as sustenance. I do not know that the extreme position is entirely justified, but it does seem to be the current default position in anthropology. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/39 "2003-09-08T19:46:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Not In Anger \* > \They did colonize Greenland, of course, and had a civilization for about 500 years, then disappeared in circumstances of the greatest mystery. :pinches self: Nope. I’m real, I’m here. We didn’t disappear at all. Still around a 1000 years later. We got religion, though, i.e. turned from Norse (misnomer) gods to the Christian god. And while we’re at it, a chance for me to debunk my pet peves: 1. Vikings did not have horns on their helmets. 2. They were not beserks or warriors 3. They _were_ explorers, merchants and sometimes used some force to get a good deal (‘An offer he couldn’t refuse’.) ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185/40 "2003-09-08T19:51:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > **At that point, the theory was put forth that all claims of cannibalism were actually propaganda pieces and, without hard evidence (no earlier writings), tales of cannibalism were to be treated as simply distortions by enemies of the supposed cannibals.** True that some early accounts were hearsay. However, there are a sufficient number of first-hand accounts, dating from Cortez to Cook and other explorers of the Pacific, that there really can be little doubt (except by some anthropologists who have an axe to grind on the subject) that cannibalism was regularly practiced by at least some human societies up until fairly recent times. If these allegations were merely propaganda, one would expect them to be more widespread than they were. In fact, in most regions the practice (as a habitual one) was attributed to only a few of the local ethnic groups (Melanesia and Polynesia being an exception). For example, the Arawaks - who were residents of the islands the Spanish most coveted - were not generally accused of being cannibals, while the Caribs (the original cannibals), who were a much lesser threat to the Spanish, were. Likewise, among mainland groups, the Aztecs were considered to be cannibals, but the Incas and Mayans were not. If the Spanish were using cannibalism to justify their conquests, why did they not accuse all their opponents of it? Likewise in Africa, some groups that were severe threats to European colonization, such as the Zulu, were not considered to be cannibalistic, while some Central Africa groups were (e.g. the Fang). In general, North American Indians were not considered to be habitual cannibals by the English, French, or Spanish. The Australian Aborigines, in general, were not accused of widespread cannibalism, whereas the Pacific Islanders were. (Caveat: _Some_ accusations of cannibalism may have been made against many ethnic groups encountered by Europeans, and some of such allegations may well have been propaganda by their opponents. The point I am trying to make is that only a few groups were accused of widespread and habitual cannibalism, and most of these groups - including the Aztecs, Fang, Fijians, and Maori - probably were, in fact, frequently cannibalistic.) > [@](#): > > **Ritual cannibalism (drinking some token amount of blood, eating an enemiy’s heart or liver) has certainly appeared in various places in the world. The objection is to the notion of killing, roasting, and eating a whole human as sustenance.** True. Ritual cannibalism is undoubtedly much more widespread than cannibalism for sustenance. Even for groups that practiced it, cannibalism may have been done as much to humiliate an enemy as for actual nourishment. However, I think that it is no coincidence that the region where cannibalism seems to have been most widespread, Oceania, lacks most other large mammals suitable for meat besides human. > [@](#): > > \*\*I do not know that the extreme position is entirely justified, but it does seem to be the current default position in anthropology. \*\* In my opinion, which is based in part on reading first-hand historical accounts, in part on the archaeological and anthropological evidence published in scientific journals, and in part on discussing it with members of some of the ethnic groups that supposedly practiced it in the recent past, including Maori, Fijians, and Fang (some of whom cheerfully acknowledge that their ancestors did so), the “extreme position” is just as much a distortion of the actual situation as its adherants accuse the traditional position of being. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vikings-in-new-zealand/200185.md?page=3)