Greenland's mystery?

[Angakuk]

I just ran across this (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1128/p13s01-stgn.html?page=1) article about Greenland. Thought some of you might find it of interest.

The Greenland Norse colonized North America 500 years before Christopher Columbus "discovered" it, establishing farms in the sheltered fjords of southern Greenland, exploring Labrador and the Canadian Arctic, and setting up a short-lived outpost in Newfoundland.

But by 1450, they were gone, posing one of history's most intriguing mysteries: What happened to the Greenland Norse?

There are many theories: They were starved off by a cooling climate, wiped out by pirates or Inuit hunters, or perhaps blended into Inuit society as their own came unglued.

Now scientists are pretty sure they have the answer: They simply up and left.

[godfry n. glad]

See Jared Diamond's Collapse.

He has an entire section on the collapse of the Greenland colony.

It was abandoned due to climatic cooling, which adversely affected the fishing/hunting product, in combination with clashes with the native "greyling" (Inuit?) cultures, in competition for the dwindling supplies. IIRC, the last colony was nearly entirely wiped out by a bloody raid by the native peoples.

[Ymir's blood]

Interesting, thanks.

"I imagine this old Norse man standing in his sodden, graying field with a couple of scrawny cattle and saying to his son, 'One day, this will all be yours,'What, the curtains?

[Watser?]

Very interesting (and kinda appropriate for your user name) :thankee:

[Guinevere]

See Jared Diamond's Collapse.

He has an entire section on the collapse of the Greenland colony.

It was abandoned due to climatic cooling, which adversely affected the fishing/hunting product, in combination with clashes with the native "greyling" (Inuit?) cultures, in competition for the dwindling supplies. IIRC, the last colony was nearly entirely wiped out by a bloody raid by the native peoples.

In addition, the North American colonies were very very small, and thus it was much more difficult for them to become sustainable. While they were based on Newfoundland and north, they probably explored into New England and New York --- they called their colony Vinland, referring to grape vines and wine, most likely.

I happen to be reading Collapse right now, and am in the midst of the Viking chapters . . .

[ShottleBop]

See Jared Diamond's Collapse.

He has an entire section on the collapse of the Greenland colony.

It was abandoned due to climatic cooling, which adversely affected the fishing/hunting product, in combination with clashes with the native "greyling" (Inuit?) cultures, in competition for the dwindling supplies. IIRC, the last colony was nearly entirely wiped out by a bloody raid by the native peoples.

In addition, the North American colonies were very very small, and thus it was much more difficult for them to become sustainable. While they were based on Newfoundland and north, they probably explored into New England and New York --- they called their colony Vinland, referring to grape vines and wine, most likely.

I happen to be reading Collapse right now, and am in the midst of the Viking chapters . . .

IIRC, one of the issues was that Vikings didn't eat fish.

[Farren]

As a side note, apparently many modern Norse are offended by the term "Viking" to refer to the historical Norse. "Viking", apparently was a dishonorable profession, similar to "Pirate" - not an ethnic group. A king of Sweden actually tried to put an end to that profession, IIRC.

[Angakuk]

Would it be fair to say that all vikings were norsemen, but all norsemen were not viking's?

The suggestion that viking's (or the Norse) did not eat fish simply does not ring true. Fish is certainly a staple of the modern Scandinavian diet and I can't imagine that same was not also true 1,000 years ago. The viking longboat was developed from much smaller fishing boats. Why would they catch fish if not to eat them? Perhaps someone was confused by the fact that lutefisk, in its final form, does not much resemble fish (in either appearance or taste).

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

They were starved off by a cooling climate

too bad they didn't have al gore to save them.

[godfry n. glad]

As a side note, apparently many modern Norse are offended by the term "Viking" to refer to the historical Norse. "Viking", apparently was a dishonorable profession, similar to "Pirate" - not an ethnic group. A king of Sweden actually tried to put an end to that profession, IIRC.

Yeah...it was my understanding that one went "viking". So Norse, Danes, Swedes all went "viking", or pillaging and looting. It was just a handy method of resource redistribution. They also went a-colonizing, as Greenland, Iceland and all those "Norman" (aka Northmen) communities, like Normandy and Sicily, attest. They also founded the Rus communities, which when absorbed by the native Slavics, became Russia, and got as far as Constantinople and were there in enough numbers that the Byzantine emperor could find enough to form his elite personal guard of huge Scandinavians - the Varangian Guard.

I'd say that the viking and the colonization efforts by the Scandinavian peoples must have been impelled by some relatively rapid population changes which increased the number of people on a very limited amount of arable land. What was that change in approximately the seventh or eighth century?

[godfry n. glad]

Would it be fair to say that all vikings were norsemen, but all norsemen were not viking's?

The suggestion that viking's (or the Norse) did not eat fish simply does not ring true. Fish is certainly a staple of the modern Scandinavian diet and I can't imagine that same was not also true 1,000 years ago. The viking longboat was developed from much smaller fishing boats. Why would they catch fish if not to eat them? Perhaps someone was confused by the fact that lutefisk, in its final form, does not much resemble fish (in either appearance or taste).

Me neither. I think it had to do with the decline in a certain kind of preferred fish, which brought a competitive conflict with the greylings, who seemed to grow in number in the Baffin Island area at the time. Either our current reader can enlighten us, or I can check tonight.

(Lutefisk is an abomination of the face of all civilized cuisine.)

...and a lot of us barbarians aren't impressed, either.

[erimir]

The term was skraeling or skræling... not greyling...

Carry on...

[Angakuk]

The term was skraeling or skræling... not greyling...

Carry on...

Nevertheless, an interesting mistake since grayling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayling_(species)) is a species of fish that is eaten by skrælings. I was served freshly caught grayling for breakfast in an Inupiat home in Alaska.

From the article I linked to in the OP:
And while there are plenty of seal bones in Norse dumps, virtually no fish bones have been recovered, leading some to argue that they never took advantage of the ample fish resources in the streams and fjords, even in times of famine.

Gisladottir, a native of Iceland, scoffs at the notion, pointing out that Norse in other lands ate fish in quantity. "Of course they ate fish," she says. "One common way of preparing cod was to gut it, dry it, and then cook it in a pot for three or four hours and eat your porridge, bones and all."