Towards a First Chronology for the Middle Settlement of Norse Greenland: 14C and Related Studies of Animal Bone and Environmental Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The so-called Middle Settlement (Mellembygden) of Norse/Viking Greenland has received far less attention than either of its larger Eastern and Western counterparts. The Greenlandic Norse occupation is nominally taken to date between AD 985 and about AD 1450 and it is generally assumed that the Western Settlement was abandoned prior to the Eastern, but where the Middle Settlement fits into the pattern temporally has hitherto been completely unknown. This paper presents the first absolute dating evidence from the Middle Settlement. In addition to providing the results (14C, δ13C, δ15N) of a radiocarbon dating and stable isotope measurement program from domesticated (Bos, Ovis/Capra) and wild (Rangifer) animal bone and cultural-environmental (coastal, possibly midden) samples, the paper also addresses some problems of14C estimation for the period of Norse occupation in Greenland. Investigations show a Medieval Scandinavian presence close to the start of the conventionallandnámperiod (after AD 985) and with occupation continuing up to at least the 14th century AD. The start of this activity, found at 2 sites, bears comparison with various locations in both the Eastern and Western Settlement areas. The terminal phase of activity in the Middle Settlement is represented at 1 site only, but despite this limitation, it shows that the Norse may have been present for most of the period that they occupied sites in both the Western and Eastern settlements. Caribou bone from separate contexts that also contained Thule Inuit material proves useful in indicating dates for a probable post-Norse Inuit presence. The position of age estimates on the calibration curve underscores the need to look critically at such evidence when making chronological inference during the Norse period owing to the existence of plateaus and wiggles. The inclusion of samples from both domesticated and wild fauna considered to be possibly modern, yet reported from archaeological assemblages, provides a warning to archaeozoologists to be especially vigilant when considering the potential non-contemporaneity of material.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".