Talk:Maine penny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Maine, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maine.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This section This is generally considered to have been the result of trade or theft or discovery by the Beothuk and the later invading Mi'kmaq from the Nova Scotian mainland but is entirely possible to have been left by the vikings as perhaps the indication of the furthest south they've ever been, eventfully preserved by the presence of the Mi'kmaq who were possibly involved in the coin being dropped, if not later picking it up and moving it to their settlement when visiting the shore. was written by Kenneth Alan. I've tried to keep most of the background on how the coin might've arrived at the site intact, but I do not know how much evidence there is for the identification of the native american peoples involved in this. We should elaborate this first on the talk page.

Martijn, it was an exercise to postulate what might have happened. Most people find it hard to draw conclusions without an idea to the background of the nature regarding obscure topics. I did, however, leave out the presence of the Penobscot by faulty memory and not intended omission. Lord Kenneð Alansson 05:43, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Are the Penobscot attested to have been at this site around 1200 AD? I mean, I realize the place is dead smack in the area so it's likely. I'll do some checking. Martijn faassen 06:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Penobscots have a bit of local prestige in Maine, from what I remember in summer vacations to southeastern Maine(excursive travel enticements). They never really talked about about Mi'kmaq or Algonquins in general. I know that the Mi'kmaq are in Nova Scotia though, and have been there for a long time. They invaded Newfoundland during European colonial history, from what I recall on the Newoundland heritage website. The Beothuk were reduced by the combined efforts of the European diseases and Mi'kmaq expansion. I believe it to make sense to state that it is possible the Mi'kmaq brought the coin to the Penobscot as something exotic for trade. That's my opinion from the data, but obviously that is a likely, not necessarily exact truth. In any case, the Mi'kmaq are directly between the Penobscot and (former) Beothuk. Also, the Innu of Labrador are in between what was the Beothuk of Newfoundland and the Inuit of Greenland. That's my understanding of the east coast, of these places where the vikings could have met these tribes. I don't really know much about other tribes in those areas. Lord Kenneð Alansson 06:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't find this confirmed so far. I checked "Ancient North America" by Brian M. Fagan but it has nothing about the Penobscot (but does mention the Goddard site briefly). "Goddard site" seems to be the right term, I can't find any reference to "Goddard Point" in my googling. I've found a timeline which mentions the Penobscot but only later, so I don't know. I've removed the identification as peoples can change quite a bit in a few centuries.

http://www.mainepbs.org/hometsom/timelines/natamtimeline.html

Martijn faassen 18:55, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The Penobscot would have influence in the site, regardless. They encompassed the area. I know for a fact that Penobscots are the only natives spoken about in that area. They are advertised in travel guides, but never any history of other natives. My Penguin Atlas of the Vikings says Goddard Point. This is a geographical area, not just the name of an archaeological site. Lord Kenneð Alansson 23:06, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It is quite possible that these (often semi-nomadic) peoples are moving around; or didn't have an individual identity yet; we're talking about a timeframe of centuries. I don't think we can make the positive identification of Penobscot unless we get some grounding in the literature about this.

I *was* talking about the 'Goddard site' in the article (which presumbly is at Goddard Point?), but I'll do some more research in the naming conventions for this stuff. Martijn faassen 05:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just found a few references that support your identification:

http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nagpra/DOCS/nic0185.html

Interestingly enough as part of an investigation on the protection of native graves. I did find other references indicating much older finds at this site as well (thousands of years ago), which means we have to be exact in our statement; not all of this might be penobscot ancestral. I'll rewrite to try to take this into account. Martijn faassen 06:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Naskeag gives me a whole trove of new content with google about this site. In particular I found this article which is somewhat skeptical about this coin. It claims it was accepted without much criticism in somewhat dubious circumstances:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/phantom/norsepenny.pdf

I've made the article a bit less definite about some matters to account for this. Martijn faassen 06:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Circumstances of the discovery and external links

There is not a single external link here, nothing to identify which archaeologists have worked the "Goddard site" or where the "Maine penny' is now etc. Some context would be more interesting. --Wetman 03:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maine penny the only artifact regarded generally as genuine?

I'm trying to find some material outside of wikipedia that can be cited to back up that the Maine Penny is the only Norse artifact in the United States that is generally regarded as genuine by experts. Does anyone have some references for me? Of course if other artifacts also have this status that would be good to find out too. There are of course other artifacts like the Kensington Runestone, but it's debated whether they're genuine. (such debate in fact exists for the Maine Penny too, but it appears to have a special status nonetheless) Martijn Faassen 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article biasing the other way now?

Originally the article was very positive about the Maine penny being a genuine Norse artifact. This is because I generally only ran into sources that didn't dispute this (the sources generally aren't very good, though). Finally I ran into the Carpenter paper, which is skeptical. While this paper's arguments are quite convincing, it's only one paper, and generally I do get the impression that it's been accepted. I originally just linked in the paper without modifying the article. Right now the article is leaning much in favor of skepticism. The comments in the history give me the impression that's because other people were convinced by the arguments in he paper and adjusted the article accordingly.

To balance the article, it would be worthwhile to find other careful examinations of the facts surrounding the Maine penny. If we find more skeptical ones, that's a good reason to keep the article as is. If we find well-reasoned articles arguing the other point, that's an indication we might want to adjust the article somewhat. Again, I did have the strong impression that the Maine penny has at least traditionally been accepted as genuine, but it's indeed hard to find sources on a statement like that. Martijn Faassen 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martijn. Balancing it out would be just fine with me, although I found the article very convincing, esp. the fact that there are no coins known from L'Anse Aux Meadows, Greenland, or Iceland from that period. Go ahead and make any changes that you think are necessary, and I'll look for more sources. Cheers. Alexwoods 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "allegedly" in the first line of the article suggests there is some sort of fraud or deception taking place - suggest this word should be deleted. I don't think there is any serious dispute that the coin was found where it was found - the dispute centres on whether the Vikings brought it there, or whether it was brought by indigenous peoples from somewhere further north (Baffin Island?) That there are no coins from l'Anse aux Meadows isn't relevant - the L'Anse aux Meadows site is both a lot earlier and was subject to an orderly evacuation, both reasons why we would not find coins there. We have to be rigorous in the standards applied to examining Viking finds in North America, but it is sometimes hard to avoid the view that we are seeking an impossible standard of proof. This is a coin of known date found within the context of an archaeological site as part of a proper dig. It is within a reasonable distance of a major known Viking site (L'Anse aux Meadows) in an area that literary sources tell us the Vikings visited. Furtermore the find of a butternut at L'Anse aux Meadows gives archaeological proof that the Vikings travelled south of L'Anse aux Meadows. How much more evidence do people want? Is it just that it is now fashionable to be sceptical? Graemedavis (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graeme. I suggest you read the linked article by Carpenter. It is considered highly unlikely verging on totally improbable that the penny is a trade item. Carpenter points out that there are no such finds from established Norse sites in Newfoundland and Greenland, and that coins like the penny are even incredibly rare in Iceland. Also, I believe the coin actually dates from after the collapse of the Greenland colony. I think in this case that skepticism is warranted, and that using 'allegedly' in the intro is appropriate.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone disputes that the Norse went south - possibly very far south - of L'Anse aux Meadows. I'd like to spend some time working on articles related to the Norse in North America, and maybe you'd be interested in helping out. Best regards. Alexwoods (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is somewhat biased the other way now. What I find missing is citations to papers discussing the find as authentic. I don't have access to the relevant subscriptions, so I keep hitting paywalls in my searching for academic literature. But this is clearly missing from the article as it now stands. (Incidentally, the Carpenter paper link had gone 404 on us; I've replaced it with a link to the same paper at a different site.) This 2000 NYTimes article describes the consensus on the penny as "Norse penny minted in the late 11th century turned up at an Indian site in Maine, but it is generally thought to have gotten there by trade." The Carpenter paper is dated 2003. So the current scholarly consensus may be different - but there certainly ought to be scholarly papers available that are supportive of the trade theory. If we found and used those, we'd be better able to assess the balance of reliable sources. GRBerry 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, additional sources to consider:

1. Spring 2005 American Numismatic Society Magazine non-scholarly
2. June 2002 issue of American Anthropologist, behind a pay wall
   1. June 2003 issue of same, with response to relevant article, also behind pay wal
3. October 1980 issue of of Current Anthropology, behind a pay wall
4. Maine State Museum page - better than popular press but not a scholarly paper, but probably should be an external link in the article regardless

(extend list as found)