4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. IO7 



and in the light of the researches of northern scholars among early 

 documents and archeological investigations of the Norse ruins in 

 Greenland, Leif and Karlsefni can no longer be classed with Agamem- 

 non, That they were historical characters cannot reasonably be 

 doubted, whereas, in spite of the tablets of Boghaz Koi, Agamemnon 

 remains in the domain of legend. The factual basis of the stories of 

 the Norse voyagers is tacitly admitted by later students in devoting 

 their attention almost entirely to studies of the locations which they 

 visited, though depending mainly, almost uniformly in fact, upon 

 the Saga of Eric the Red. Notable among later studies are those of 

 H. P. Steensby, Finnur Jonsson, W. H. Babcock, Juul Dieserud, 

 William Hovgaard, Halldor Hermannsson, and Matthias Thordarson. 



In addition to the above and to a number of scholarly publications 

 besides, there has been an exceptional output of uncritical literature 

 attempting to place Leif and his successors in all possible and im- 

 possible places, and to trace certain remains to them, some of it, 

 like the works of Prof. E. N. Horsford, elaborately and expensively 

 clothed. The fact of the matter is that the data are just strong enough 

 to tempt one to theorize and just weak enough to open the door for 

 an immense amount of speculation, especially if one has an undis- 

 ciplined imagination and a plentiful supply of local pride or wishful 

 thinking. In pursuit of their investigations students have emphasized 

 or questioned almost every statement of the narratives, picked up the 

 slightest hint, attempted to read the minds of the explorers and 

 chroniclers, and frequently to read into their minds things which 

 never occurred to them. Charts of the entire northeastern coast of 

 America have been microscopically examined, the fauna and flora in 

 its present distribution and possible past distribution haled into court, 

 and the precise meaning of this, that, and the other Icelandic word 

 discussed at length. It is one of those investigations which enable 

 men who pride themselves on their acumen to prove it by leaving 

 the problems ostentatiously alone or by registering skepticism, the 

 cheapest way there is to acquire a reputation for scientific ability. 



Yet, after all has been said, we may remark that — as with philoso- 

 phies — while all Wineland theories have been partly wrong, they have 

 not been entirely wrong. And it is but fair to add that some progress 

 has been made and that, although we are not optimistic enough to 

 believe, like Horsford, that we can determine where Leif and Karl- 

 sefni came ashore near enough to erect monuments, we can determine 

 areas within which beyond reasonable doubt the landings took place. 

 We must deal with areas instead of points and probabilities instead 

 of absolutes. 



