D3.2.9-12: Judging a Source by How Experts Value It

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Your family has a story that an ancestor won a medal in a war 150 years ago. Nobody alive saw it. Who could tell you how much to trust the story, and what would you want them to check?"

   List the answers: an archivist, a historian of that war, a museum curator, a genealogist. Then list what they would check: records from the time, the medal itself, other families' accounts, how the story changed over time. Tell students that this is exactly how they will judge a source today: not by deciding alone, but by examining how specialists value it and why.

2. Direct Instruction25 minutes

   Part 1: Key terms. Credibility is how far a source can be trusted as evidence for a particular question. An expert here means a specialist whose training and published work let others check how they reached a judgment. A consensus is broad agreement among such specialists. Corroboration is support from an independent source, one that did not copy from the first. Transmission is how a text passed down to us; oral tradition is history kept by retelling before it was written. A saga is a medieval Icelandic prose narrative, and a vellum is a manuscript written on prepared animal skin. Textual criticism is the scholarly comparison of manuscript versions to judge which is older and more reliable. The Norse were the medieval peoples of Scandinavia and their settlements in Iceland and Greenland.

   Part 2: The compelling question. Post it: How much can historians trust the Vinland sagas? Two Icelandic sagas tell how Leif Ericson and others sailed west from Greenland and found a land they called Vinland. The sagas were written down long after the voyages and survive in later manuscripts. Olson's introduction to the 1906 edition dates them: Hauk's Book, which holds Source 1, was written "probably during the period 1310-1320," and "the most important portion of the copying" of the Flat Island Book, which holds Source 2, "was completed about 1380." Read Sources 1-3, the primary sources, and mark one place where Sources 1 and 2 tell the story differently.

   Words in Sources 1-3: mausur (a kind of wood; the 1906 editor notes it is "Supposed to be maple"); eyktarstad and dagmalastad (Old Norse names for two points in the day, used to tell time); a prebendary (a clergyman of a cathedral) and ecclesiastical (of the church).

   1[...] Leif went to the court of King Olaf Tryggvason. He was well received by the king, who felt that he could see that Leif was a man of great accomplishments. Upon one occasion the king came to speech with Leif, and asks him, "Is it thy purpose to sail to Greenland in the summer?" "It is my purpose," said Leif, "if it be your will." "I believe it will be well," answers the king, "and thither thou shalt go upon my errand, to proclaim Christianity there." Leif replied that the king should decide, but gave it as his belief that it would be difficult to carry this mission to a successful issue in Greenland. The king replied that he knew of no man who would be better fitted for this undertaking, "and in thy hands the cause will surely prosper." "This can only be," said Leif, "if I enjoy the grace of your protection." Leif put to sea when his ship was ready for the voyage. For a long time he was tossed about upon the ocean, and came upon lands of which he had previously had no knowledge. There were self-sown wheat fields and vines growing there. There were also those trees there which are called "mausur," and of all these they took specimens. Some of the timbers were so large that they were used in building. Leif found men upon a wreck, and took them home with him, and procured quarters for them all during the winter. In this wise he showed his nobleness and goodness, since he introduced Christianity into the country, and saved the men from the wreck; and he was called Leif the Lucky ever after. Leif landed in Ericsfirth, and then went home to Brattahlid; he was well received by every one. He soon proclaimed Christianity throughout the land, and the Catholic faith, and announced King Olaf Tryggvason's messages to the people, telling them how much excellence and how great glory accompanied this faith. [...]

   1[...] There was now much talk about voyages of discovery. Leif, the son of Eric the Red, of Brattahlid, visited Biarni Heriulfsson and bought a ship of him, and collected a crew, until they formed altogether a company of thirty-five men. [...] They put the ship in order, and when they were ready, they sailed out to sea, and found first that land which Biarni and his ship-mates found last. [...] There was no lack of salmon there either in the river or in the lake, and larger salmon than they had ever seen before. The country thereabouts seemed to be possessed of such good qualities that cattle would need no fodder there during the winters. There was no frost there in the winters, and the grass withered but little. The days and nights there were of more nearly equal length than in Greenland or Iceland. On the shortest day of winter the sun was up between "eyktarstad" and "dagmalastad." [...]

   1Moreover he spoke of an island in that ocean discovered by many, which is called Vinland, for the reason that vines grow wild there, which yield the best of wine. Moreover that grain unsown grows there abundantly, is not a fabulous fancy, but, from the accounts of the Danes, we know to be a fact. Beyond this island, it is said, that there is no habitable land in that ocean, but all those regions which are beyond are filled with insupportable ice and boundless gloom, to which Martian thus refers: "One day's sail beyond Thile the sea is frozen." This was essayed not long since by that very enterprising Northmen's prince, Harold, who explored the extent of the northern ocean with his ship, but was scarcely able by retreating to escape in safety from the gulf's enormous abyss, where before his eyes the vanishing bounds of earth were hidden in gloom.

   [...]

   2Adam of Bremen was a prebendary and writer on ecclesiastical history. The Descriptio Insularum Aquilonis is an appendix to his Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum. For the preparation of his work on the "Northern Islands," Adam spent some time at the Danish court, where he obtained much information from the king, Svend Estridson (1047-1076), an unusually well informed monarch. Adam's work was undoubtedly completed before the king's death, which occurred in 1076. The Descriptio was first printed in Lindenbrog's edition of Adam's work, published in 1595, which thus contains the first printed allusions to Vinland. Rafn gives a facsimile of one of the manuscripts, for part of the passage.

   Part 3: The Five Expert Questions. Specialists rarely call a source simply "true" or "false." They ask five questions, and students can ask them too by reading what experts wrote.

   1. Distance: How close in time and place was the maker to the events?
   2. Transmission: How did the source reach us: through which copies, manuscripts and editors?
   3. Corroboration: Do independent sources, records or physical remains agree with it?
   4. Character: What kind of source is it, and which parts show the habits of its kind, such as wonder tales or speeches written later?
   5. Reception: What have specialists concluded, on what reasoning, and has that judgment changed?

   Then weigh the experts themselves: what training and method each brings, what evidence each cites, and whether other specialists accept the reasoning.

   How specialists in different fields value a source (general practices, not claims about any one source)

   Field	What specialists examine	Where students find their judgment
   History	Manuscript copies, dates, the writer's access to events, agreement with other records	Editions with introductions, scholarly histories, book reviews
   Archaeology	Where objects were found, how they were dated, whether results were repeated	Excavation reports, peer-reviewed journals, heritage agencies
   Economics	How data were collected, what was counted, how the numbers were revised	Agency methods notes, economists' studies, revisions tables
   Geography	Who drew a map, from what surveys, what it copied from earlier maps	Map libraries' catalog notes, histories of cartography

   Part 4: Read an expert. Source 4 is the introduction by Julius E. Olson, professor of the Scandinavian languages and literatures at the University of Wisconsin (as the 1906 title page says), who edited the translations in Sources 1-3. He reports how specialists such as Gustav Storm of Christiania ranked the sagas. Note the words vellum (manuscript) and circumspection (caution).

   1These sagas have in recent years been subjected, especially by Dr. Gustav Storm of Christiania, to most searching textual and historical criticism, and the result has been that the simpler narrative of Hauk's Book and AM. 557 is pronounced the more reliable account. In respect to literary quality, it has the characteristics of the Icelandic sagas proper, as distinguished from the later sagas by well-known literary men like Snorri. Where it grazes facts of Northern history it is equally strong. Thus, there is serious question as to the first sighting of land by Biarni Herjulfson, who is mentioned only in the Flat Island narrative, and nowhere else in the rich genealogical literature of Iceland, although his alleged father was an important man, of whom there are reliable accounts. On the other hand, the record of the "Saga of Eric the Red," giving the priority of discovery to Leif Ericson, can be collaterally confirmed. The whole account of Biarni seems suspicious, and the main facts, viewed with reference to Leif's discovery, run counter to Northern chronology and history. There are, however, two incidental touches in the Flat Island Book narrative, which are absent from the other saga, namely, the observation concerning the length of the day in Vinland, and the reference to finding "three skin-canoes, with three men under each." The improbabilities of the Flat Island Book saga are easily detected, if one uses as a guide the simpler narrative of the "Saga of Eric the Red," the only doubtful part of which is the "uniped" episode, a touch of mediaeval superstition so palpable as not to be deceptive.

   2Aside from such things as picking grapes in the spring, sipping sweet dew from the grass, and the presence of an apparition, the Flat Island Book account, when read by itself, with no attempt to make it harmonize with the statements of the "Saga of Eric the Red" or other facts of Scandinavian history, is a sufficiently straightforward narrative. The difficulty begins when it is placed in juxtaposition to these facts and statements. It should not be and need not be discarded, but in giving an account of the Vinland voyages it must be used with circumspection. From an historical standpoint it must occupy a subordinate place. If Rafn in his Antiquitates Americanæ had given emphatic precedence to the saga as found in Hauk's Book and AM. 557, had left to American scholars the Dighton Rock and the Newport Tower, and had not been so confident in the matter of identifying the exact localities that the explorers visited, he might have carried conviction, instead of bringing confusion, to American scholars.

   Part 5: Model the move. Think aloud through the four examples. Each one names what the experts concluded, the reason, and what that means for a student using the source.

   • History: the earliest written mention (Source 3)

     How do experts value Adam of Bremen's short passage about Vinland, and why?

     Result: Distance: the editor reports that Adam's work "was undoubtedly completed before the king's death, which occurred in 1076" (Source 3, paragraph 2), so it was written within a few generations of the voyages. Independence: Adam was a churchman writing in Germany, not an Icelandic saga-teller, and he got "much information from the king, Svend Estridson" (Source 3, paragraph 2). Experts therefore value the passage as an early, independent sign that a land called Vinland was known, while treating its short description with caution.

   • History: experts rank two versions of one story (Sources 1, 2 and 4)

     Two sagas tell the Vinland story differently. How had experts ranked them by 1906?

     Result: Olson reports that after "most searching textual and historical criticism" (Source 4, paragraph 1), "the simpler narrative of Hauk's Book and AM. 557 is pronounced the more reliable account," that is, Source 1. One reason he gives is corroboration: "Where it grazes facts of Northern history it is equally strong." By 1906, then, the specialists' consensus ranked Source 1 above Source 2, for reasons a student can quote and test.

   • History: what experts do with a legendary episode (Source 4)

     Source 1's saga, in a later chapter, includes a one-footed creature, the "uniped." Does that make the whole saga worthless?

     Result: No. Olson calls the uniped episode "a touch of mediaeval superstition so palpable as not to be deceptive" (Source 4, paragraph 1). Experts separate layers: a medieval writer could include a wonder tale and still preserve real names, routes and events. He applies the same test to the Flat Island Book, listing improbable touches such as "sipping sweet dew from the grass" (Source 4, paragraph 2). The question is never "is anything odd here?" but "which parts hold up when checked?"

   • History of scholarship: weighing an expert (Source 4)

     Olson's introduction notes that Rafn's Antiquitates Americanæ (Copenhagen, 1837) "contained all the original sources." Why did later experts not simply accept Rafn's conclusions?

     Result: Status is not enough; experts are judged by their reasoning. Olson argues that if Rafn "had given emphatic precedence to the saga as found in Hauk's Book," had left aside claims about "the Dighton Rock and the Newport Tower," and had been less confident about exact places, "he might have carried conviction, instead of bringing confusion" (Source 4, paragraph 2). When students examine how experts value a source, they also examine how other experts value those experts.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Source 5, by the historian John Fiske, in which he answers a committee of the Massachusetts Historical Society. They complete a two-row chart: for the committee and for Fiske, What does this expert conclude? On what grounds? Where does this expert agree with the other?

   1It is now time for a few words upon the character of the records upon which our story is based. And first, let us remark upon a possible source of misapprehension due to the associations with which a certain Norse word has been clothed. The old Norse narrative-writings are called "sagas," a word which we are in the habit of using in English as equivalent to legendary or semi-mythical narratives. To cite a "saga" as authority for a statement seems, therefore, to some people as inadmissible as to cite a fairy-tale; and I cannot help suspecting that to some such misleading association of ideas is due the particular form of the opinion expressed some time ago by a committee of the Massachusetts Historical Society,--"that there is the same sort of reason for believing in the existence of Leif Ericsson that there is for believing in the existence of Agamemnon. They are both traditions accepted by later writers, and there is no more reason for regarding as true the details related about the discoveries of the former than there is for accepting as historic truth the narrative contained in the Homeric poems." The report goes on to observe that "it is antecedently probable that the Northmen discovered America in the early part of the eleventh century; and this discovery is confirmed by the same sort of historical tradition, not strong enough to be called evidence, upon which our belief in many of the accepted facts of history rests." The second of these statements is characterized by critical moderation, and expresses the inevitable and wholesome reaction against the rash enthusiasm of Professor Rafn half a century ago, and the vagaries of many an uninstructed or uncritical writer since his time. But the first statement is singularly unfortunate. It would be difficult to find a comparison more inappropriate than that between Agamemnon and Leif, between the Iliad and the Saga of Eric the Red. [...]

   Weak sample (shared on purpose, so students can improve it): "Fiske was a famous historian, so the sagas are reliable." Ask what is missing. The answer names an expert but not the expert's reasons, ignores the committee's different view, and overstates Fiske's claim.

   Answer key. The committee concludes there is "the same sort of reason for believing in the existence of Leif Ericsson that there is for believing in the existence of Agamemnon" (Source 5, paragraph 1), yet it also judges a Norse discovery "antecedently probable." Fiske agrees with the committee's second statement, which he calls "characterized by critical moderation," and rejects the first because the Iliad and the Saga of Eric the Red are different kinds of writing. Both reject "the rash enthusiasm of Professor Rafn." So the experts agree that a discovery probably happened and disagree about how much the saga's details deserve: a student should report both judgments and the reasons for each.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Students read Sources 6, 7 and 8. Fridtjof Nansen, the Norwegian polar explorer, wrote a two-volume history of early northern exploration; G. M. Gathorne-Hardy translated the Wineland sagas and wrote a book-length study of them. Source 8 is an SVHS-written summary of later archaeological research, with the published sources named. Each student writes an Expert Valuation Brief of 200-250 words: how Nansen and Gathorne-Hardy each value the sagas, the reasoning each uses, whose reasoning holds up better in light of Source 8, and what is still uncertain. Students must quote each expert at least once and must not simply count experts on each side.

   1Before I recapitulate the most important features of these voyages, as they are described more particularly in the Saga of Eric the Red, I must premise that I look upon the narratives somewhat in the light of historical romances, founded upon legend and more or less uncertain traditions. Gustav Storm in his critical review of the Wineland voyages [1887] has separated the older authorities, which he regarded as altogether trustworthy, from the later narratives in the Flateyjarbók's "Grönlendinga-þáttr," which he thought were to be rejected. The last-named was written about 1387, while Eric the Red's Saga, which we are to regard as trustworthy, must according to Storm have been written between 1270 and 1300. The accounts of the discovery of Wineland and of the voyages thither are very conflicting in these two authorities; while the latter has only two voyages (after the discovery), the former has divided them into five; while one mentions Leif Ericson as the discoverer of the country, the other gives Bjarne Herjulfsson, and so on. We are led to ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that the traditions should have been handed down by word of mouth in such a remarkably unaltered and uncorrupted state during the first 250 or 300 years, when they have been transformed and confused to such an extent scarcely a hundred years later. This must rather prove that there was no fixed tradition, but that the tales became split up into more and more varying forms. Perhaps it will be answered that the Saga of Eric the Red was composed in the golden age of saga-writing, whereas the Flateyjarbók belongs to the period of decline. [...]

   1It will be observed, in the narratives here under consideration, that the great bulk of the supernatural happenings is confined to the part dealing with Greenland, the part, that is, which is in the main most conclusively established. Greenland of course was intended to be a permanent colony, and consequently for some time communication, of a more or less intermittent character, was maintained between that country and Scandinavia. As a further result of this protracted occupation of the country, traces were left which remain at the present time. Ruins of houses and churches have been discovered, together with the bones of horses, cattle, and other animals. Had the circumstances been different, had Greenland been merely the object of fleeting visits such as those of the explorers of Wineland, it may well be doubted whether the scepticism with which some have been disposed to regard the alleged exploration of the latter would not have been extended to the former. We should have had our attention drawn to supernatural episodes such as that of the apparitions in Lysefjord (see Thorstein’s voyage), the inclement climate of the locality and the inappropriateness of the name Greenland would have been insisted on, and the mention of horses and cattle would not improbably have been regarded as incredible. But the successful colonization of Greenland is an historical fact, and its story is chronicled in precisely those sagas which are here under consideration with regard to Wineland. It is therefore prima facie unlikely that writings found to be historical so far as it is possible to test them, in one respect should suddenly develop a character mainly fictitious, as alleged by Dr. Nansen and others.

   [...]

   2A certain degree of caution is necessary, therefore, in the scientific investigation of this as of all early historical documents. But Dr. Nansen is not content with such reservations as these. He goes so far in the direction of scepticism that the reader wonders in the end that the frail remnants to which he clings are sufficient to hold this author to any belief in the Norse discovery of America. His arguments, if sound, play havoc with the very foundations of the story, and if he sits unmoved among the ruins it is fair to doubt if he will find many to share his attitude, or to trust to the tottering remains. It is advisable, therefore, to examine Dr. Nansen’s arguments rather closely, and to see whether the records which we are investigating are really as unreliable as he has suggested.

   1This summary was written for this page. It reports what later research found and names where each finding was published.

   2In the 1960s, Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad led excavations at L'Anse aux Meadows, at the northern tip of Newfoundland in Canada, and reported the remains of a Norse settlement (their book The Viking Discovery of America describes the excavations). The site is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

   3In October 2021, a team led by Margot Kuitems published a study in the journal Nature on L'Anse aux Meadows, which the study calls the only confirmed Norse site in the Americas. The team studied pieces of wood from the Norse layers that had been cut with metal tools, which the Indigenous people of the area did not make at that time. Tree rings around the world record a sudden jump in radiocarbon in the year 993. By finding that year in the rings and counting the rings out to the bark, the team concluded that the trees were cut in the year 1021.

   4The site does not show where Vinland was, and it cannot confirm details in the sagas such as wild grapes or self-sown wheat. The study itself describes the site as a base camp from which other places, including regions farther south, were explored.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: In two sentences: "Experts disagreed about the Vinland sagas for decades. What should a student do with a source when the experts disagree?"

   Teacher note on the sources: Sources 1-7 are quoted exactly from the Project Gutenberg texts of the editions named; omissions are marked [...], and editors' footnote markers are left out. Source 8 is an SVHS summary, not a quotation; its findings come from the 2021 study by Kuitems and colleagues in Nature (published online October 20, 2021), and from the Ingstads' excavation reports. Source 1 describes Leif's mission to bring Christianity to Greenland; treat this as the saga's account of a historical event, without judging the faith. The sagas also describe meetings and fighting with the Indigenous peoples of the region, which the excerpts here do not include; if students read further, note that the sagas' word for those peoples is a Norse outsiders' term, and that the sagas give only the Norse side of those encounters. Score students' reasoning about the experts, not whether they side with Nansen or Gathorne-Hardy.

   Quiz passage. Questions 13-15 of the quiz use Source 10, an invented map offered to a museum.

   1This scenario is invented for this page. The map, the harbor and the people do not exist.

   2A seller offers a museum a hand-drawn map of Ashford Harbor. A note on the back says it was drawn in 1780 by a ship's pilot. The seller writes: "My family has owned this map for over two hundred years. It is the oldest map of the harbor and it is worth a great deal."

   3The museum asks three specialists to examine it.

   4The paper conservator reports: "The paper carries the watermark of the Brandt paper mill. The mill's own account books show that it opened in 1795 and first used this watermark in 1797."

   5The historian of maps reports: "The coastline matches a printed navigation chart of 1776 almost line for line. It even repeats a spelling mistake in one place name on that chart. Whoever drew this map copied the printed chart."

   6The local historian reports: "The map shows a lighthouse on North Point. The town council's records say the lighthouse was built in 1791."

   Homework passage. The homework uses Source 9, an invented store ledger examined by three specialists.

   1This scenario is invented for this page. The ledger, the town, the family and the three specialists do not exist.

   2A family in the invented prairie town of Lund Creek gives the county historical society an account book. Its cover reads "Halverson General Store, 1874-1876." It records what customers bought, the prices, and how they paid, in cash, in eggs or butter, or on credit.

   3The archivist, a specialist who preserves and catalogs records, writes: "The paper, the binding and the ink are the kinds used in the 1870s. The family also gave us letters from 1890 that mention 'Grandfather's store books.' The pages are numbered and none are missing."

   4The economic historian writes: "From month to month, the store's prices for flour, coffee and nails move in the same direction as prices printed in city newspapers of 1874-1876, though the store's prices are a little higher. I would use the ledger as evidence of what one rural store charged, not of prices across the state."

   5The county historian writes: "Most customer names match households listed in census records for the township. Six names appear nowhere else. The handwriting changes in March 1875. I want to know who kept the later pages before I rely on them."

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Olson (Source 4), why do experts doubt the Flat Island Book's story that Biarni sighted the new lands first?

   ABiarni's voyage is described in a later and much damaged vellum BBiarni appears nowhere in Iceland's detailed family records CAdam of Bremen names a different first discoverer of Vinland DThe Saga of Eric the Red says that Biarni never left Iceland

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Olson ranks Source 2 below Source 1. Which detail in Source 2 does he still treat as valuable?

   AThe thirty-five men who sailed with Leif BThe sweet dew that the sailors tasted CThe salmon in the river and the lake DThe note on how long the winter day was

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Adam of Bremen says that beyond Vinland "all those regions which are beyond are filled with insupportable ice and boundless gloom." How should an expert use this sentence?

   AAs a sign that Adam misunderstood the far north BAs proof that Vinland was a frozen land close to the North Pole CAs a reason to reject Adam's report that a land called Vinland was known DAs evidence that Adam copied his account from the Icelandic sagas

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which statement describes a real inconsistency between Sources 1 and 2 about how Leif reached the new lands?

   ASource 1 says he sailed alone, while Source 2 gives a crew of thirty-five BSource 1 says he was blown off course; Source 2 has him plan a voyage CSource 1 puts the lands near Norway, while Source 2 puts them near Iceland DSource 1 calls the land Markland, while Source 2 calls the land Vinland

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The editor's note to Source 3 says Adam learned about the north from King Svend, "an unusually well informed monarch." Why would a specialist care about this detail?

   AIt shows that Adam held the office of king himself BIt proves that every single detail Adam gives is true CIt identifies the channel by which Adam's information came DIt shows that the king himself wrote out the whole passage for Adam

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Olson writes that the Flat Island Book account "must be used with circumspection" and "must occupy a subordinate place." Which plan follows his valuation?

   AIgnore the Flat Island Book account and use the other saga alone BUse the Flat Island Book account first, since it is better known CTreat the two accounts as equal and average their differing details DUse it, but test its details against the Saga of Eric the Red

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   How does Nansen (Source 6) value the Vinland sagas?

   AAs copies of a lost eyewitness report BAs pure inventions with no basis in fact at all CAs records as exact as a ship's log DAs historical romances built on legend

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What is Nansen's main argument against Storm's ranking of the two sagas?

   AStorm could not read the Old Norse manuscripts himself BThe later saga is better because it describes more voyages CA tradition that changed so much later was never fixed DAdam of Bremen agrees with the Flat Island Book alone

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What is Gathorne-Hardy's main reason (Source 7) for trusting the sagas more than Nansen does?

   AThe same sagas hold up where they can be tested, as in Greenland BThe sagas contain no supernatural events, so they must be factual CNansen was an explorer, so his views on history should be ignored DArchaeologists had already found the Norse site in Newfoundland

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Gathorne-Hardy says Nansen "goes so far in the direction of scepticism" that readers wonder what still holds him "to any belief in the Norse discovery of America." What is Gathorne-Hardy suggesting?

    AThat Nansen secretly believed the sagas were fully true BThat Nansen's doubts, if sound, would undercut his own belief CThat Nansen never accepted that any Norse ship reached America DThat scepticism is never useful in historical research

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does the 2021 study summarized in Source 8 count as independent corroboration for the sagas' basic claim?

    AIt was written by a team of Icelandic saga scholars BIt quotes the sagas to date the Norse site CIt rests on physical evidence, not on the sagas DIt proves that every voyage happened as told

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 8 reports that the study describes L'Anse aux Meadows as "a base camp" from which other places were explored. What does this mean for the claim that the site was Vinland itself?

    AIt proves beyond doubt that the site was the Vinland of the sagas BIt shows that the Norse never went any farther south CIt leaves open that Vinland lay elsewhere, farther south DIt shows that the 2021 date for the wood was wrong

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 10, which two findings most directly challenge the claim that the map was drawn in 1780?

    AThe watermark and the lighthouse BThe seller's note and the spelling CThe coastline and the seller's note DThe spelling and the coastline

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    How much weight should the museum give the seller's statement in Source 10?

    AMore than the experts, since the family has owned it for two centuries BNone at all, and the museum should not even read it CEqual weight to each expert, since every view counts the same DLittle, since it is an unsupported claim from an interested party

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    The historian of maps in Source 10 shows that the map copies a 1776 printed chart. Does that finding by itself make the map worthless? Explain how a specialist might value the map once all three reports are in.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Nansen (Source 6) says the Flat Island narrative "was written about 1387," while Olson (quoted in Part 2 of the Direct Instruction) says its copying "was completed about 1380." Does this disagreement between experts change how much a student should trust Source 2? Explain.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using Sources 3, 4 and 8, explain how the credibility of the claim "Norse sailors reached North America around the year 1000" changed between the 1070s and 2021.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    A classmate says: "The experts disagree about the sagas, so the sagas are useless as sources." Respond, using at least two of Sources 4, 6 and 7.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Olson calls the narrative in Source 1 "simpler" and more reliable. Find one sentence in Source 1 that shows it is still a story told to honor someone, not a plain record, and explain how an expert can value the passage anyway.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare the Ashford map (Source 10) with the Vinland sagas. In which case did specialists' findings lower a source's credibility, and in which did later evidence raise confidence in part of a source? Explain what this shows about examining how experts value a source.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D3.2.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.