22 replies to this topic

[the L]

http://www.spiegel.d...d-a-876626.html

For years, researchers have puzzled over why Viking descendents abandoned Greenland in the late 15th century. But archaeologists now believe that economic and identity issues, rather than starvation and disease, drove them back to their ancestral homes.

[Hilander]

Same thing happened there that does to many small towns.  They young have nothing to do so they leave.

[Bavarian Raven]

This ties into the article I posted a week or so back. Finally, breaking the old-myth that the Norse were too stubborn to adapt to the changing climate - when in reality it was economics and people leaving for greener pastures that. Nice article btw.

I think a better question that needs answering is where did the last 1000 or so Greenlanders go? There appear to be no records of their arrival in Iceland/Norway or the like, and there is no evidence of a mass death or the such in greenland... personally, I believe they headed for parts unknown in the new world. Many were lost on the voyages and the remainders survived and either assimilated into the natives (who later died out due to old world diseases the norse did not have) or their new colony died for other reasons (bad luck), and we simply have not found said missing settlement yet.

Cheers.

Edited by Bavarian Raven, 10 January 2013 - 10:10 PM.

[wimfloppp]

I think that they would find living elsewhere much better then living in greenland. For one thing the weather elsewhere would be better.

[WoIverine]

wimfloppp, on 14 January 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

I think that they would find living elsewhere much better then living in greenland. For one thing the weather elsewhere would be better.

Yep, somewhere they wouldn't freeze to death would definitely be preferable.

Edited by WoIverine, 14 January 2013 - 04:24 PM.

[DieChecker]

As someone who's done some geneological research regarding Norway, there is really not a lot of good records from the 15th century. Other then church birth and marriage records, and political records, there is very little before the 19th century. These people could have easily returned to Norway and disappeared into the population.

It would be cool to be a decendant of one of these guys. Wonder if a homesteading claim could be filed??

[the L]

They failed as any other civilization. Greed and social reasons.

There are just few exception. Such as Khmers. They vanished due thier poop.

[Setton]

Nice to see the news being up to date. Had a lecture on this months ago...

[Swede]

the L, on 10 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

http://www.spiegel.d...d-a-876626.html

For years, researchers have puzzled over why Viking descendents abandoned Greenland in the late 15th century. But archaeologists now believe that economic and identity issues, rather than starvation and disease, drove them back to their ancestral homes.

L - The referenced research and the interpretation of such is indeed interesting. As Setton noted, this research has been available for some time now.

However, it may be worthwhile to bear in mind that, even by the authors' own evaluation, the environmental aspects played a notable [if not decisive] role in this and other related settlement activities. To quote from the article:

The Medieval Warm Period had made it possible for settlers from Norway, Iceland and Denmark to live on hundreds of scattered farms along the protected fjords, where they built dozens of churches and even had bishops.

The bone analyses prove that, when the warm period came to an end, the Greenlandic farmers and ranchers switched to a seafood-based diet with surprising rapidity.

Summer temperatures fell, violent storms raged around the houses and the winters were bone-chillingly cold. For the cattle that had been brought to Greenland, there was less and less to eat in the pastures and meadows along the fjords.

http://www.spiegel.d...d-a-876626.html

In short, the dietary, trade, and cultural isolation aspects can all be tied to the environmental changes that the colonists experienced.

When evaluating/interpreting archaeological research, environmental factors, in any given scenario, are worthy of due consideration and incorporation.

.

[the L]

Swede, on 15 January 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

L - The referenced research and the interpretation of such is indeed interesting. As Setton noted, this research has been available for some time now.

However, it may be worthwhile to bear in mind that, even by the authors' own evaluation, the environmental aspects played a notable [if not decisive] role in this and other related settlement activities. To quote from the article:

The Medieval Warm Period had made it possible for settlers from Norway, Iceland and Denmark to live on hundreds of scattered farms along the protected fjords, where they built dozens of churches and even had bishops.

The bone analyses prove that, when the warm period came to an end, the Greenlandic farmers and ranchers switched to a seafood-based diet with surprising rapidity.

Summer temperatures fell, violent storms raged around the houses and the winters were bone-chillingly cold. For the cattle that had been brought to Greenland, there was less and less to eat in the pastures and meadows along the fjords.

http://www.spiegel.d...d-a-876626.html

In short, the dietary, trade, and cultural isolation aspects can all be tied to the environmental changes that the colonists experienced.

When evaluating/interpreting archaeological research, environmental factors, in any given scenario, are worthy of due consideration and incorporation.

.

Thats what this article said. Why did they switch to sea food?
Also we often forget that they didnt want to adopt to new situation. Inuits survived.

Edited by the L, 15 January 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[Swede]

the L, on 15 January 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Thats what this article said. Why did they switch to sea food?
Also we often forget that they didnt want to adopt to new situation. Inuits survived.

Am rather unsure of the intent of this question. The causation of the dietary shift is quite apparent.

Edit: Typo

Edited by Swede, 16 January 2013 - 12:11 AM.

[Sundew]

This just seem apropos somehow:

A-ah-ahh-ah, ah-ah-ahh-ah
We come from the land of the ice and snow
from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow

The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde and sing and cry, Valhalla, I am coming

On we sweep with, with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore

Ah-ah-ahh-ah, ah-ah-ahh-ah
We come from the land of the ice and snow
from the midnight sun where the hot springs FLOW
How soft your fields, so green
can whisper tales of gore, of how we calmed the tides of war
We are your overlords

On we sweep with, with threshing oar
Our only goal will be the western shore

S-so now you better stop and rebuild all your ruins
for peace and trust can winthe day despite of all you're losin'
Ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh
Ahh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh
Ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh, ooh-ooh

The Immigrant Song  by Led Zeppelin

[DieChecker]

Swede, on 16 January 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

Am rather unsure of the intent of this question. The causation of the dietary shift is quite apparent.

Edit: Typo

I thought it was very clear.

[the L]

the L, on 15 January 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Thats what this article said. Why did they switch to sea food?
Also we often forget that they didnt want to adopt to new situation. Inuits survived.

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

Vikings ruin themselves due their greed and social turmoil. Climate chaange just speed up things.
It can be reason. Some historians like natural catastrophe as explaination why civilization fall.
Such as drought. But reasons are ALWAYS complex. Vikings on Grenland didnt vanished due Atlantis scenario.
Natural catastrophes are NEVER reason why one civilization fall.
Climate just push things.
If they wanted to surivive,to adopt to new climate they would survive. But their greed ruin them before climate.
Then they became relaxed. Secured. Which after they ruined themselves explode into moral decline.

[TheSearcher]

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

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

Vikings ruin themselves due their greed and social turmoil. Climate chaange just speed up things.
It can be reason. Some historians like natural catastrophe as explaination why civilization fall.
Such as drought. But reasons are ALWAYS complex. Vikings on Grenland didnt vanished due Atlantis scenario.
Natural catastrophes are NEVER reason why one civilization fall.
Climate just push things.
If they wanted to surivive,to adopt to new climate they would survive. But their greed ruin them before climate.
Then they became relaxed. Secured. Which after they ruined themselves explode into moral decline.

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.