Peopling the Americas

[Victor Galis]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by BlackCat


The most straight route from scandinavia to NA would actually be close to Iceland, so it wouldn't be that much of a diversion to go for supplies there.[quote]

The problem is more one of range of the ships and seaworthiness over long journies. They would have to sail to Iceland, Greenland, then down along the islands in North America. Sailiing straight across the open Atlantic Ocean like Columbus would have been a bad move. The trouble is that Greenland couldn't really support such an armada for any length of time.

Ehrm, no. They managed fine for several hundred years. There are theories that climate change made it impossible to stay, but a recent says that because of massive deaths due to various epidemies, there were room back in scandinavia, so they resettled there.

Possibly true, but they also did some stupid things like refusing to eat fish and trading for church bells instead of other things that might have helped them survive longer. It's also possible that they may have overfarmed the area or that nothing they could have done would have prevented the cold period from the 1400s onward.

Well, those armadas did exist, but they were busy in taking land in closer savage areas such as britain, france and russia

Or getting horribly slaughtered at Stamford Bridge

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Possibly true, but they also did some stupid things like refusing to eat fish and trading for church bells instead of other things that might have helped them survive longer. It's also possible that they may have overfarmed the area or that nothing they could have done would have prevented the cold period from the 1400s onward.

That fish tale sounds pretty fishy - fish was a normal part of scandy diet, so I really don't understand why they wouldn't eat such on greenland. Do you have any sources ?

Or getting horribly slaughtered at Stamford Bridge

Well, it was norwegians. so what else to expect

[Berzerker]

Crossing the North Atlantic is a hard and lengthy voyage compared to hopping along the coast of a Berents land bridge, much less crossing on foot. Following the edge of icepack is dangerous. Ferrying women and children requires greater supplies, probably more than they could carry in whatever vessels they had.

During the ice age an ice shelf covered the N Atlantic so voyagers could hug the coastline and make use of the rich wildlife all the way to the New World. After the ice age ended and the ice shelf melted away the open water became a major obstacle. Early Euros may have made the trip when they had the ice shelf but once it was gone the trip was much more hazardous and maintaining any colonies became more difficult. The Vikes enjoyed the warm period from 1000 to about 1350 but the mini ice age started up and that probably ended the Greenland colony.

Nova did a docu on the Lost Red Paint People (known for the use of red ochre in burials, etc) ringing the N Atlantic. By studying middens (piles of garbage left by these people) archaeologists determined they had an advanced maritime culture (maritime archaic) with deep sea fishing capabilities going back to the end of the warm period 9 - 5K BC. Their tools show close affinities to tools found in Denmark and the Euro coastal areas facing the Atlantic. These people placed standing stones along the coastal areas for navigation which may have translated into the megalith cultures of Spain, France and The British Isles. Archaeologists have found evidence in both England and the New World of a not so common means of "burial", the dead was placed on a wood scaffold above ground and the body was exposed to the elements until the flesh withered away. Its possible the Solutreans made the trip during the ice age, traffic slowed when the ice melted, and their colonies became absorbed or integrated into the more populous Indian cultures which then moved eastward up and around the Atlantic eventually meeting with Euros doing the same thing on their side of the Atlantic. Eventually both cultures met around Iceland, Greenland, or the British Isles.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by BlackCat


That fish tale sounds pretty fishy - fish was a normal part of scandy diet, so I really don't understand why they wouldn't eat such on greenland. Do you have any sources ?

Read Collapse by Jarred Diamond. Apparently no fish bones were found in Greenland, though similar sites from Iceland and Norway have such remains. He speculates that something must have happened post landing in Greenland to make them give up fish.

His chapter on Greenland basically says the Vikings died out in Greenland because they pretended they were living in Norway, and didn't realize their new home was way more ecologically fragile. This led to things like overgrazing and agriculture that was too intense for the poor soil and climate, but really their greatest failure was not learning from the Inuit that lived even further where it was even colder how to survive when the weather got worse. Fishing and eating fish would have helped alleviate food shortages when the farming started going badly.

Well, it was norwegians. so what else to expect

Why, rape and pillage of course

[Straybow]

There is some evidence of exploration of NA prior to Vinland colony, but no evidence of successful long term settlement of the interior. One of my friends is a doctor who studied under a prof who did forensic anthropology with DNA from various tribes. I'll try to find some sources.

[Arrian]

I dunno if Diamond's explanation for why they didn't eat fish in Greenland works, but yeah, apparently the Viking middens contained no fish remnants. Odd, considering they ate fish elsewhere and fish would seem to be a logical food source in Greenland.

-Arrian

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Read Collapse by Jarred Diamond. Apparently no fish bones were found in Greenland, though similar sites from Iceland and Norway have such remains. He speculates that something must have happened post landing in Greenland to make them give up fish.

His chapter on Greenland basically says the Vikings died out in Greenland because they pretended they were living in Norway, and didn't realize their new home was way more ecologically fragile. This led to things like overgrazing and agriculture that was too intense for the poor soil and climate, but really their greatest failure was not learning from the Inuit that lived even further where it was even colder how to survive when the weather got worse. Fishing and eating fish would have helped alleviate food shortages when the farming started going badly.

Wasn't aware of this fishy fact, but it's apparently true - found this :

http://www.geocities.com/salmonforgey/CD/GreenlandNorse.pdf

but according to that, they did a lot of seal hunting.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Arrian
I dunno if Diamond's explanation for why they didn't eat fish in Greenland works, but yeah, apparently the Viking middens contained no fish remnants. Odd, considering they ate fish elsewhere and fish would seem to be a logical food source in Greenland.

-Arrian

Jarred's explanation is that it was that it was probably something silly like some of them getting sick from eating the fish shortly after arriving and deciding the fish wasn't good to eat there.

At any rate, it was a stupid move given that fish would have helped them supplement their diet.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Read Collapse by Jarred Diamond. Apparently no fish bones were found in Greenland, though similar sites from Iceland and Norway have such remains. He speculates that something must have happened post landing in Greenland to make them give up fish.

I doubt one event of food poisoning would be enough to turn an entire people permanently off of sea food. More likely it was some sort of failure to adopt/holding on to strongly to old traditions which didn't work in their new surroundings. There are very few trees or lumber in Greenland so traditional Viking ship building was impossible. The Inuit got around this by making small boats of bone and leather with the seams sealed by melted animal fat. Thus Inuit were able to hunt marine mammals and fish while the Vikings were still not sure how to build fishing boats in Greenland and while the supply of domesticated animals brought from Europe slowly died out in the arctic and crops failed due to poor conditions.

I remember a documentary where archaeologists examined trash heaps left at Viking settlements and at native villages. The Viking trash heaps showed very little waste occurring and every bone being broken open to extract the marrow which most people don't even bother with unless they were desperate. The natives on the other had so much excess food that they tossed out internal organs and things like bone marrow selecting only the best parts to eat. This was taken to mean that the Vikings were having trouble as they attempted to recreate medieval Europe on a frozen island thousands of miles from home (little food, etc) while the natives seemed to have developed methods of not just surviving in the same conditions but actually thriving and having so much food they could afford to throw stuff away just because they preferred other foods.

If the Vikings had been smart enough to learn how the other people of the Island made a living their settlements might not have died out. However, they tried to recreate a European agricultural and social pattern that was entirely unsuitable for a place like Greenland. That the Vikings and the Inuit seemed to spend most of their time fighting each other couldn't have helped things (or at least a great many human remains showed signs of violent death as well as malnutrition).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Jarred's explanation is that it was that it was probably something silly like some of them getting sick from eating the fish shortly after arriving and deciding the fish wasn't good to eat there.

At any rate, it was a stupid move given that fish would have helped them supplement their diet.

I know, I read the book. I said I dunno if the explanation works (makes sense).

It's possible, I suppose, but I have trouble buying it.

-Arrian

[Victor Galis]

It's hard to say, because sometimes history really turns on single very random events.

Remember his explanation in GGS for why unity is weakness? The Chinese seafaring and exploration basically broke down when the faction that supported it lost in a civil war. In Europe, several people told Columbus no, but he kept going to the next sovereign until one was willing to take a risk.

[Dinner]

That's a great example however I doubt the scattered and sparse settlements on Greenland ever had a powerful central authority like China had. They were on the knife edge of starvation and eventually they did die out.

Norway was one of the poorest and least populated states in Europe plus it's political development during the middle ages just wasn't up to the level other colonial powers had 5-6 centuries later. It just couldn't support such a far away colony located in such a barren place much less enforce any really central political control.

[BlackCat]

Oerdin, try read my link - it doesn't exactly describe a society of scattered settlements without government.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Jarred's explanation is that it was that it was probably something silly like some of them getting sick from eating the fish shortly after arriving and deciding the fish wasn't good to eat there.

At any rate, it was a stupid move given that fish would have helped them supplement their diet.

What sources does Jarred use? It seems very odd to mje, given that Vikings were fully used to fish diet and Icelanders even eat quite a bit of rotten shark.

[Arrian]

He does note that it's odd. He comes up with a possible explanation, but I do think he was clear he's just guessing. It's the sort of thing that there will not be a rational (from the standpoint of survival) explanation for.

Diamond figures that societies do irrational things all the time for cultural/religious reasons, and takes a shot at a plausible explanation: that some bigwig got sick off of some fish and thereafter they shunned fish (could be more than just a bigwig. Maybe a whole settlement got hit hard by food poisoning).

-Arrian