22 replies to this topic

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 16 January 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

Actually natural catastrophes can be the reason of the fall of a civilisation. For example,  The Mycenaean conquest of the Minoans occurred in Late Minoan II period, not many years after the eruption of Thera, and many archaeologists speculate that the eruption induced a crisis in Minoan civilization, which allowed the Mycenaeans to conquer them easily.

The Olmec decline is blamed on environmental changes caused by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes.
You are trying to bring it all down to one cause, trying to simplify it way to much. Besides bringing it all down to greed and moral decline is a bit too easy. Sorry but I don't agree with you on this.

Hi Searcher!

Im glad that beside Swede, checker and Raven , one gerat poster join to debate, you. Sorry but actually you say that is only one reason-climate change.
Natural catastrophe are never reason of the fall of civilization. I stated that civilization ALWAYS fall due complex reasons. There isnt only one reason. There are always few reasons which differs from culture and civilization. But one that persist and its pattern are: Greed and social turmoil.

There are few examples where this isnt case but historians for those still dont know reasons. Natural catastrophe often get people togheter to work, often unity appears. Look example of USA. Did huricanes cause decline in USA?

You mentioned Minoans. Their decline is mystery. There eruption dont have nothing with their decline. Minoans were not only in Akrotiri. Only Akrotiri was destroyed. Minoans lived 200 years after eruption, meaning that isnt reason of their decline. Those historians who claim it is , have outdated stance.
They possibly decline because decline of Hittite empire. Minoans were small. They depend on trade. Hittite fall then Minoans fall.
But why bronze age civilization fall in europe is mystery. No one know right answer.

Myceanaens were third world country to Mesopotamia and Egypt, China, Harappans, Peru in this moment.

Now I said, climate just push things up, but Vikings were on their decline.
They ruined themselves.




When they arrived on Grenland it was green. So Vikings start to harvest natural goods.
Birds, fish, grass, wild life. Vikings start to enjoy. with that enjoyment they ruin envoirment.
When they came they burn wood for pasture land. They start destroying nature plant life, ground erossion, cutting green lawn. Cut trees for building and fire. Trees coudnt regenerate because on that area livestock was walking. And Vikings cut them. Vikings felt strong,secured.
Small climate change happened and Viking colony on Grenland disappear. Atleast thats how physiologists Jared Diamond describe it in book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. He written well known book Guns, Germs, and Steel,Why Is Sex Fun and The Third Chimpanzee.
Anyway greed lead to collapse. Bad decisions of elites.

Climate did effect Inuits there too. But they persist. Vikings were stubborn. They were not flexible.

Bad historians somehow like Atlantis scenario. Thats irony.

Edited by the L, 16 January 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[DieChecker]

Is it a myth that Greenland was named so that people that visited there would think that Iceland was even worse, and thus not be worth invading?

[Swede]

the L, on 16 January 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

How come that Iniuts didnt abandoned Grenland?
How come they survive?

As you are aware, the "Inuits" were relative newcomers to Greenland (post-Scandinavian).

However, bear in mind that the Thule Culture (antecedents of the Inuit), and also the antecedents of the Thule culture themselves, had a long history of adaptation to, and survival in, polar/sub-polar environments. These adaptations included the full array of culturally adapted mechanisms ranging from domestic accoutrements to survival skills to social structure. And they were quite well adapted to a diet and procurement strategy based upon larger sea mammals.

Thus, they were, both technologically and culturally, in a qualified and experienced position to make advantageous use of the resource base that resulted from the climatic change which occurred during the time period under consideration.

The Scandinavian settlers of Greenland were not of a directly parallel cultural economy.

.

[woopypooky]

they were terrorised by polar bears

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

When they arrived on Grenland it was green. So Vikings start to harvest natural goods.
Birds, fish, grass, wild life. Vikings start to enjoy. with that enjoyment they ruin envoirment.
When they came they burn wood for pasture land. They start destroying nature plant life, ground erossion, cutting green lawn. Cut trees for building and fire. Trees coudnt regenerate because on that area livestock was walking. And Vikings cut them. Vikings felt strong,secured.

About the erossion bit, the Norse settlers had surprisingly good farming techniques. Up until the last few decades, the soil in most of the Norse fields was improving. That being said, the lack of trees was a serious problem and one of the reason for the numerous trips into Markland and beyond for supplies.

[the L]

Swede, on 17 January 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

Thus, they were, both technologically and culturally, in a qualified and experienced position to make advantageous use of the resource base that resulted from the climatic change which occurred during the time period under consideration.

Inuits were parallel culture in Grenland.

Vikings have had time to adopt. And more imprortantly they have role model. But their standards and ego didnt allow them. Greed and good life.
They learn to harvest more then they actually need. They were not rational. They spent more then they could earn. Luxory ruined them.
Climate just push their down fall.

Bavarian Raven, on 17 January 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

About the erossion bit, the Norse settlers had surprisingly good farming techniques. Up until the last few decades, the soil in most of the Norse fields was improving. That being said, the lack of trees was a serious problem and one of the reason for the numerous trips into Markland and beyond for supplies.

They cut all.

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

They were not rational

they were very rational... hence, why the younger generations began to leave 'en mass to "warmer" regions when the climate began to worsen. and hence why the later generations had diets almost identical to the Inuit towards the end. But when the youngsters are leaving faster then they are being produced, a city/colony/region is doomed...

[Swede]

the L, on 19 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

Inuits were parallel culture in Grenland.

Vikings have had time to adopt. And more imprortantly they have role model. But their standards and ego didnt allow them. Greed and good life.
They learn to harvest more then they actually need. They were not rational. They spent more then they could earn. Luxory ruined them.
Climate just push their down fall.



They cut all.

This would not be an accurate assessment. As previously noted, the Inuit and their ancestral lineage had an extensive period of adaptation to the arctic/subarctic regions. A brief and simplified summary:

The Inuit are descendants of the Yupik speaking groups that initially appear in the record in eastern Siberia:

Yupik > Thule Tradition > Thule Culture > Inuit.

Some sources date the presence of the Yupik speakers in the Bering Sea area as early ca 10,000 BP. By ca 3000 BP the progenitors of the modern Yupik speaking groups were present in western Alaska. The Thule Tradition began ca 2000 BP. This presents an extensive period of time during which these cultural elements became adept at coping with the rigors of their environment both technological and culturally. These adaptations included an exclusive to strong reliance on maritime resources.

On the other hand, the economy of the Norse colonists of Greenland was primarily based upon a pastoral/semi-agrarian subsistence economy supplemented to some degree by oceanic trade in such commodities as walrus ivory. Due to the nature of the pastoral/semi-agrarian economy, the Norse were tied to rather specific areas of the inland fjords that provided the necessary resources. Bear in mind that there were essentially only two settlement areas, the Western and the Eastern.

The Norse subsistence economy was also supplemented by the harvesting of terrestrial (e.g. caribou) and marine mammal resources. This latter was increasingly important in the later periods. In addition, the Norse, particularly after initial settlement, were part of a hierarchal social structure influenced by the church. As you can see, the cultures were hardly parallel. Now, timelines:

986 AD - First Norse settlement in Greenland.

~1200 > 1300 AD - Inuit move from Ellesmere Island to Greenland. McGovern (1991) places this date at 1170 AD.

*Note - By this time, the Inuit lineage had some 9000+ years of experience in arctic/subarctic resource procurement.

~ 1300 AD - End of the Medieval Optimum (or Little Climatic Optimum), beginning of the Little Ice Age (LIA).

!408 AD - Last written record of the Greenland colonies (the wedding at Hvalseg Church).

~ 1480 - 1500 AD - Norse population of Greenland disappears.

The LIA affected the Greenland settlements in a number of manners. Just a few examples:

1) The combination of the LIA and the increased trade in African elephant ivory significantly reduced the traffic of trade vessels to the settlements. This resulted in a lack of access to iron. This, in turn, resulted in the necessitated refinement of bog iron, which placed additional stress on the marginal woody-plant resources of the island.

2) As demonstrated by McGovern (1991), even a 10% change in the amount of available fodder could result in a thinning of the bovine and caprine stock of the settlements.

3) While the Inuit culture was accustomed to mobility in regards to resource procurement, the economy of the Norse notably compromised their ability to adjust to the shifting patterns of the marine mammal resources triggered by the LIA. This was particularly true of the ringed seal.

To loosely quote McGovern (1991), the LIA did not make Greenland totally inhospitable [as witnessed by the continuing presence of the Inuit]. The conditions did, however, become "significantly more hostile" to the Norse economic and social systems.

One last note - Is it possible that you have been influenced by the writings of Diamond? If so, bear in mind that his works have come under no small degree of critique by the anthropological community.

Edit: Typo.

Edited by Swede, 21 January 2013 - 12:35 AM.