Colonization of unihabitied Americas?

[frogcurry]

In the absence of civilisation, and assuming no Viking settlements either, the original Spanish expedition under Columbus will be an economic failure and a political embarrassment (no trade goods, no gifts, no first contacts). That might lead to a switch in emphasis from the Castilian goal westwards to the more Aragonese (Ferdinand) objective south & eastwards towards Moorish Africa in the first few years immediately after discovery.

A new continent might not be suspected from the discovery of some uninhabited lands so the scale of the opportunity would seem less initially, at least until the Portugese hit Brazil by accident the following year (experimenting with swinging out wide to avoid unfavourable winds while en-route round tp the south of Africa).

[Thanas]

I don't know about that - it was at the end of a long supply line for the technology of the time. The Greenland colony died out, and not because the other humans there killed them but purely from refusal to adapt their culture to changing conditions (well, as near as anyone can tell that's what happened).

They couldn't adapt. The climate change happened to fast for that and you do not really have that many options in Greenland.

[Broomstick]

I don't know about that - it was at the end of a long supply line for the technology of the time. The Greenland colony died out, and not because the other humans there killed them but purely from refusal to adapt their culture to changing conditions (well, as near as anyone can tell that's what happened).

They couldn't adapt. The climate change happened to fast for that and you do not really have that many options in Greenland.

No, Thanas, they were not WILLING to adapt. The current native population of Greenland was living in Greenland at the time the Norse colony died out - there are written records of contact between the two groups. The current Greenlanders continued to live there despite the climate because their technology, although stone age, actually WAS adapted and allowed them to adapt to the climate and local resources. There is NO reason the Norse couldn't adopt those techniques except stubborn refusal to change. They didn't want to act like the Inuit, seeing them as sub-human and, among the Christians in the Norse colonies, they were also loathsome pagans/heathens/primitives. Culturally/psychologically they couldn't adapt, although there was no physical reason they couldn't. The Norse eventually starved/froze to death while their neighbors continued to hunt, raise families, and survive all around them.

In the colonies that later became the US and Canada there were Europeans willing to adopt the customs and techniques of the locals, enabling them to survive the local conditions. Those that did frequently survived better in the early years than those determined to remain wholly European.

[Thanas]

^Source for that statement, please. Because it goes against everything that I just heard six weeks ago in a lecture.

[Broomstick]

>sigh< OK, I'll dig up some cites. May take a bit.

[TheKwas]

Just by the existence of the Inuit in Greenland, wouldn't that indicate that there was always the possibility of learning their ways and adapting to the climate through those means? What was the relationship like between the Viking Colonies and the Inuits?

[Thanas]

Just by the existence of the Inuit in Greenland, wouldn't that indicate that there was always the possibility of learning their ways and adapting to the climate through those means? What was the relationship like between the Viking Colonies and the Inuits?

Unknown. Depending on how you interpret the less than good archeological evidence, it either was antagonistic or a relatively peacful coexistence. Some written sources write about Inuit attacks, though.

[Broomstick]

OK, I reviewed some history, and this much is easily obtained from multiple on-line sources, including the official Greenland website. Greenland has had several waves of inhabitants arriving from both east and west. The Dorset whale-hunters of originally North American origin were already present along all the Greenland coast when the Norse showed up. The Dorset were latter supplanted by the Thule, who continued to live there after the Norse died out. The Thule were also from North America and had the Inuit suite of hunting/fishing/boating technology. The Thule are also the direct ancestors of the current Greenland Inuit.

Jared Diamond is most people's introduction to the "failure to adapt" theory, although he gets some things wrong - for example, he has stated that the Norse refused to switch to marine protein when farming European livestock became problematic but later investigations show that the proprotion of marine-origin food does rise significantly towards the end of Norse occupation. Even if the Norse valued pork and mutton over fish they would rather eat fish than starve. The problem is that they eventually did seem to starve in the very end.

To my mind, the fact that the Thule did remain in Greenland continuously from the Norse period to the present would negate the theory that the climate made it impossible to survive there - obviously, people DID survive and live there. As the Norse and Thule were entirely human it should be equally possible for individuals of either group to survive there - so what was different other than culture? Especially as the Norse in some ways had more advanced technology, including metal-working.

So, Thanas - if the Thule could survive why couldn't the Norse? Explain that, while I try to dig up something more substantial. Really, it boggles my mind that anyone could make the claim that the climate change was "too extreme" when thousands of people living alongside the Norse continued to make a living in Greenland.

[Broomstick]

Just by the existence of the Inuit in Greenland, wouldn't that indicate that there was always the possibility of learning their ways and adapting to the climate through those means? What was the relationship like between the Viking Colonies and the Inuits?

Unknown. Depending on how you interpret the less than good archeological evidence, it either was antagonistic or a relatively peacful coexistence. Some written sources write about Inuit attacks, though.

Well, the Norse did refer to the Dorset and Thule as "skraelings", which apparently wasn't a particularly nice label, and apparently didn't make a distinction between them. There are apparently no records of intermarriage of any sort but as we know people are a randy lot and there is always the possibility of rape, but either affairs or rape were probably rare. The Inuit outnumbered the Norse, definitely, but the Norse had superior weapons. They probably weren't friendly towards each other, and there probably were both open conflicts and occasional trade, but on the whole the two groups seemed to avoid interacting much though as Thanas states we don't have a lot to go on.

It is possible the Thule attacked enough of the Norse to drop their numbers below survival levels, except there also is no evidence of it. Remember, the Norse were literate and kept records. If there were attacks where are the records of them? They reported births, marriages, and deaths to Denmark, if Inuit attacks were common you'd think that would show up in the records. I also recall at least one article in National Geographic on what is believed to be the final site of Norse habitation in Greenland where unburied bodies raise the possibility of the people there being the very, very last of the colony. There were many signs of famine, but none of violence. There is no question that even the most well-adapted Inuit peoples of the arctic suffered severe famine at times, but they didn't die out from it. The Norse did. Why? What was the difference?

I don't doubt that climate change was a major stressor on the Norse culture, and any conflict, armed or not, with the Thule would have been an additional burden to a transplanted European culture at the ass end of a long supply chain. I don't doubt that interruption in ship travel was a big factor for the Norse demise as well, and it certainly raised the issue of inbreeding in the colony. There were, no doubt, multiple factors at work here, but again, it seems ridiculous to say "the climate became too harsh to survive" when the Thule managed to continue to live there. If the Norse had adopted Thule customs/techniques they, too, should have survived, but they didn't. Why didn't they make that change? What other than culture could be the answer?

The Norse could have intermarried with the natives, as later European colonists in North America did - but they didn't. The Norse could have adopted Thule hunting/fishing/boating techniques well suited to the arctic but apparently they maintained European maritime tech which arguably at the time weren't so well suited to the local ocean; they could have adopted Inuit attire, which is unquestionably well suited to the local conditions but they insisted on keeping wholly European clothing (contrast that to the North American "frontiersman" of European descent and native clothing). Combined with their metalworking and literacy that might have resulted in a modern Greenland population that look Danish but act like Inuit. It didn't happen that way, though. Even if they had switched to a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle they probably still could have maintained stone structures and at least the ability to salvage and reuse metal until Europeans returned with fresh supplies even if intervals between ships were measured in decades. The interval between the last of the Norse and the return of Europeans wasn't that long.

[Thanas]

So, Thanas - if the Thule could survive why couldn't the Norse? Explain that, while I try to dig up something more substantial. Really, it boggles my mind that anyone could make the claim that the climate change was "too extreme" when thousands of people living alongside the Norse continued to make a living in Greenland.

I am arguing against your statement that the norse were unwilling to adapt. Something that is completely at odds of any norse culture we know. Everywhere else they went they adapted very quickly to the circumstances of the lands they then inhabited.

The theory of the norse being unwilling to adapt to survive is very, very odd considering that everywhere else they did adapt - even when they didn't have to and even when they had conquered a land.

Well, the Norse did refer to the Dorset and Thule as "skraelings", which apparently wasn't a particularly nice label, and apparently didn't make a distinction between them.

That doesn't say much - please notice that you refer to danes and swedes as norse. Labels are just that, labels, I wouldn't read too much into that especially as in those times, the labels were commonly understood to mean a whole different lot of terms within one word.

There are apparently no records of intermarriage of any sort but as we know people are a randy lot and there is always the possibility of rape, but either affairs or rape were probably rare. The Inuit outnumbered the Norse, definitely, but the Norse had superior weapons.

Superior weapons is a bit debatable as well, considering that the norse hardly could do a lot of forging on Greenland.

They probably weren't friendly towards each other, and there probably were both open conflicts and occasional trade, but on the whole the two groups seemed to avoid interacting much though as Thanas states we don't have a lot to go on.

It is possible the Thule attacked enough of the Norse to drop their numbers below survival levels, except there also is no evidence of it. Remember, the Norse were literate and kept records. If there were attacks where are the records of them? They reported births, marriages, and deaths to Denmark, if Inuit attacks were common you'd think that would show up in the records.

Well, we do have "a lot" of Norse artifacts in Inuit settlements, which either means trade or extensive raiding. I also know that there is at least one instance mentioned in the viking histories which does mentione the inuit attacking a greenland settlement and carrying of the survivors into slavery.

I don't doubt that climate change was a major stressor on the Norse culture, and any conflict, armed or not, with the Thule would have been an additional burden to a transplanted European culture at the ass end of a long supply chain. I don't doubt that interruption in ship travel was a big factor for the Norse demise as well, and it certainly raised the issue of inbreeding in the colony. There were, no doubt, multiple factors at work here, but again, it seems ridiculous to say "the climate became too harsh to survive" when the Thule managed to continue to live there. If the Norse had adopted Thule customs/techniques they, too, should have survived, but they didn't. Why didn't they make that change? What other than culture could be the answer?

Many things. First, some scholars say the diet of the Norse was composed of up to 80% fish. So they already did a lot of fishing - certainly enough to survive in the 13th century.

Inuit hostility also plays a part in it. As the norse were very much dependent on livestock, a single raid had the potential to be devestating. Usually, they would be able to survive on the meagre farming until replacements with ships arrived - but no ships came and the climate change hit farming hard.

The Norse could have intermarried with the natives, as later European colonists in North America did - but they didn't.

Intermarriage only happens when two societies have equal strength or one society is superior to the other. Clearly the norse were not the dominant society here, in which case their culture would have been lost over the ages.

Even if they had switched to a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle they probably still could have maintained stone structures

Greenland is very low on wood. Infact, several viking sources tell us that they had to import even firewood, which is needed for stone structures to be livable.

and at least the ability to salvage and reuse metal until Europeans returned with fresh supplies even if intervals between ships were measured in decades. The interval between the last of the Norse and the return of Europeans wasn't that long.

That depends how you define long, for a society in need of urgent supplies it might have been too long.

In the end, IMO it was a perfect storm waiting to happen. We already know from Viking sources that Greenland was very, very hard to live in. Combine that with increased inuit raiding and no ships, as well as probably a reverse exodus the decades before that as land elsewhere became a better deal and you have a society on the brink of collapse. Include in that climate change which makes farming and livestock keeping unavailable and the society is then unable to feed itself.

Would they have survived if they had immediately switched to Inuit ligfestyle? Maybe. But then they are not norse anymore, but inuits. Also, there is the possibility that the inuit did already occupy the fishing grounds and the norse didn't have access to them. However, I am no expert on greenland fishing so I don't know if that was the case.

[Bilbo]

Reading all of this I get the impression that whether or not the Vikings could adapt was a moot point. There was just not enough enticement for the Vikings to try and adapt and survive as the climate got worse. The climate change made it harder on the Vikings, it also made it harder on the Inuit who would see the Vikings at least short term as an easy target for food and other supplies.

As Thanas said it was a perfect storm. A bunch of things culminated that made the vikings rethink living on Greenland and they decided the place was just not worth the effort.