just wondering, apart from a few small fishing villages (which i still dont understand, i mean, there are fish in WARM places too ya know) and scinetific posts, is there any real point to Greenland, aside from the whole glacier thing?

Why does this belong in History? :confused:

And according to the CIA Factbook (http://odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html), 56,361 people lived in Greenland, July 2006 (?) estimate.

So it's covered by ice...what of it?

The Inuit certainly consider it Home.

It's not exclusively ice. Big parts of the coastal area are ice-free and have their share of vegetation in the summer. There's more than just fish to get there too. It may not be the most hospitable land out there, but it certainly allows some settling. There's also a pretty flourishing Inuit culture on Greenland.
And to make it somewhat historical now, it's been colonised by Vikings for a while (I even think there are still descendants of them living there, but I'm not sure about that).

And to make it somewhat historical now, it's been colonised by Vikings for a while (I even think there are still descendants of them living there, but I'm not sure about that).
That's something I am curious about.
Are greenladers mostly scandinavian or inuit? Or mixed?

The majority of the Greenlanders are Inuit. According to the Fischer World Almanach 2003, 11,2% of the population was European in 2001. What I don't know is if these Europeans are descendants of the Viking settlers or of people who arrived later on. My guess is that it's a little bit of both.

The European greenlanders are not descenants of the vikings that settled Greenland, but rather descendants of the Danish colonials who came there later.
The viking descendants died out sometime during the middle ages, cause unknown.

The original Viking settlers died out due to climatic change which caused temperatures to fall. Their agricultural cultures, and wollen clothes, weren't well-suited to the increasingly harsh climate. The Inuit moved in and took over.

The original Viking settlers died out due to climatic change which caused temperatures to fall. Their agricultural cultures, and wollen clothes, weren't well-suited to the increasingly harsh climate. The Inuit moved in and took over.
There's a pirate-raids-theory as well. The climatic one certainly has more followers tody though.

I seem to remember something about a archeological digging in an old Greenland church, where they found traces of violence, a "last stand".

BTW, Kafka, did you give up on your blog? :(

just wondering, apart from a few small fishing villages (which i still dont understand, i mean, there are fish in WARM places too ya know) and scinetific posts, is there any real point to Greenland, aside from the whole glacier thing?

The question is what ever would compel you to WANT to live in greenland. Get out and visit the world. I wouldnt want to be some nomadic ice fisher my whole life. :lol:

Some people go North to fish because the oceans in warm places have been out fished ;) Inuit have also lived in the far North for centuries.

And all save a handful of Viking Greenlanders died in the High Middle Ages, mostly from a cooling trend eliminating thier pasture land. While it's concievable they could have fished like Norsemen of Europe, Sheltand or Orkney, they didn't. That, on top of the fact that they were so far from home, which they still felt cultural ties to, caused them to either die or leave the Island.

The other question is "why is it called Greenland?"

And about fishing. Gases are more soluble in cold solvents than in hot solvents, therefore cold waters have more oxygen than warm waters, so most kinds of fishes, specially big ones, prefer cold waters.

The other question is "why is it called Greenland?"
Because when the Viking chief first settled on Greenland wanted colonists, he gave it a name which would be irresistable to Viking settlers.

BTW: Am I the only person who thinks this thread was started as a bit of a joke? I mean look at the OP.

The other question is "why is it called Greenland?"

And about fishing. Gases are more soluble in cold solvents than in hot solvents, therefore cold waters have more oxygen than warm waters, so most kinds of fishes, specially big ones, prefer cold waters.
PR.

Erik the Red (father of Leif Eriksson) after having been outlawed on Iceland settled there in 962. (He went there as it had been discovered by a man named Gunnbjörn around 930.)

In order to attract prospective settlers for his new community he gave it a nice name.

Iceland is the opposite; first Scandinavian to find it thought it as a real hell-hole, hence the name.

Didn't Greenland have a warmer climate around the time Erik the Red settled there? I remember reading somthing about a Medieval warm period. Might that account for why Erik labled it Greenland? My memories failing me here, I can't remember the web address of the article.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period I'll just use the info WIKI has on it for now. I know I read a more in depth article about it somwhere though. I believe it was cited as an example to dismiss the theory of human activity producing global warming or somthing of that sort.

Let's not forget Thule Air Force Base, part of the "first line" of defense in the Cold War ...

Didn't Greenland have a warmer climate around the time Erik the Red settled there? I remember reading somthing about a Medieval warm period. Might that account for why Erik labled it Greenland? My memories failing me here, I can't remember the web address of the article.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period I'll just use the info WIKI has on it for now. I know I read a more in depth article about it somwhere though. I believe it was cited as an example to dismiss the theory of human activity producing global warming or somthing of that sort.

Yeah, there were several arable sections of land that were farmed and ranched by Viking Settlers. That's not possible today, due to both climatic change, and environmental damage by the Settlers.

No this wasnt a joke, people. You see all this stuff on here i didnt know, hence why i asked in hte first place. Im rather surprised to find there is vegetation in Greenland, I obviously had the impression it was a big ice cube. Being a history major, i think its rather important i know these things. I appreciate the feedback too, people.

The Vikings didnt completley die out..I remember reading that a DNA test on the Inuits showed some mixing, particuarly in a certian town I cant remember which, I have to see if I can find it.

The Vikings didnt completley die out. There was mixing..I remember reading that a DNA test on the Inuits showed some mixing, particuarly in a certian town I cant remember which, I have to see if I can find it.

greenland? where is that?? :p

The Inuit on Greenland are Thule Inuit. The Vikings were wiped out, causes unknown, but they did probably marry the Inuit, as bombshoo said.

Yes, people definitely live in Greenland.

Are you stalking me Kentharu?

No this wasnt a joke, people. You see all this stuff on here i didnt know, hence why i asked in hte first place. Im rather surprised to find there is vegetation in Greenland, I obviously had the impression it was a big ice cube. Being a history major, i think its rather important i know these things. I appreciate the feedback too, people.

Yeah, is definitely not a giant ice cube. I think the center of the island is, because there is a glacier sitting on top of it, but the Southern Coast has some (from a western viewpoint) habitable area.

I thought that the Viking colonies "died out" because of trade policies of the Hanseatic league (or perhaps its predecessor), that switched and stopped sending their trading vessels to Greenland, disrupting the flow of essential goods to the island (essential to the Vikings (successors) anyways).

I would imagine there are some fish that are in a greater abundance in the frigid Norths than there are in the South. But I don't know. Also, some people would rather not leave where they have lived for generations.

Im 50% Greenlander, livin in Denmark but I have spend a lot of time in Nuuk. Nice place in the summer, very nice nature and all. But it's boring in the winter. There's a lot of Danes in Nuuk, but in the villages there's mostly Inuit.

I don't understand the idea that no-one would *want* to live in Greenland because it's cold. I like the cold! I'd far rather be there than in the tropics.

The Vikings were wiped out, causes unknown, but they did probably marry the Inuit, as bombshoo said.


Apparently not to any great extent; AFAICT modern DNA studies have failed to find any evidence of medieval Norse ancestry among Inuit populations.

The Greenland Norse were apparently caught between a change in their living conditions (cooler climate, trade links dying out, a marginal situation deteriorating further) and their own cultural inflexibility. They could have adopted a lifestyle better suited to local conditions, but that would mean abandoning the good Christian ways of their ancestors in favor of emulating those pagans over there, and so on.

Why would adapting their lifestyle to their conditions have necessarily involved abandoning Christianity?

By the way, Greenland isn't that deserted. They've got several soccer teams, at least. And I bet there's at least one mansion is there so they shouldn't all be fishers. Well, you could own a mansion if you owned a large fishing company.

The Greenland Norse were apparently caught between a change in their living conditions (cooler climate, trade links dying out, a marginal situation deteriorating further) and their own cultural inflexibility. They could have adopted a lifestyle better suited to local conditions, but that would mean abandoning the good Christian ways of their ancestors in favor of emulating those pagans over there, and so on.

That's rather unfair to the Norse. When you're facing a sudden collapse in your agricultural system due to climatic change, and are facing starvation as a result, it's asking a lot to successfully adapt to a polar hunter-gatherer lifestyle before dying.

I hear they have some nice hot springs. No wait, that's Iceland. Hmm, they must be famous for something??

Why would adapting their lifestyle to their conditions have necessarily involved abandoning Christianity?
The interpretation is of course that at the time religious identity was primary to these people and considered part of a package. Meaning the expectation was that Christians live in a certain way, and diverging from it would bring your immortal soul into jeopardy, especially if you took up a "heathen" lifestyle.
It's got nothing to do with belief or dogma of course, but religion for most of history, for most of humanity, have always been about what you do, not what you think, know or believe.

That's rather unfair to the Norse. When you're facing a sudden collapse in your agricultural system due to climatic change, and are facing starvation as a result, it's asking a lot to successfully adapt to a polar hunter-gatherer lifestyle before dying.
Funny thing is, they might have.
If they successfully did so there's no way for us to know since then they would then have merged with the Inuit, which wouldn't leave distinguishable traces. Only the failure to adapt at all, or incomplete attempts, would.

The Inuit at least claim to have a store of stories relating to the old Scandinavian settlers. They seem to have been on rather amicable terms.

The interpretation is of course that at the time religious identity was primary to these people and considered part of a package. Meaning the expectation was that Christians live in a certain way, and diverging from it would bring your immortal soul into jeopardy, especially if you took up a "heathen" lifestyle.
It's got nothing to do with belief or dogma of course, but religion for most of history, for most of humanity, have always been about what you do, not what you think, know or believe.

Didn't they worshiped Odin anyway ?:hmm:

Didn't they worshiped Odin anyway ?:hmm:

Um, no. The Greenland settlements converted to Christianity about the same time as Iceland and Norway, i.e. about the year 1000. For most of the history of Norse Greenland, they had their own bishop (subordinate to the archbishop at Nidaros in Norway).

Um, no. The Greenland settlements converted to Christianity about the same time as Iceland and Norway, i.e. about the year 1000. For most of the history of Norse Greenland, they had their own bishop (subordinate to the archbishop at Nidaros in Norway).
Of course the Icelandic process of conversion was true to form. You got the Fighting Bishops of Iceland, i.e. men of God who would travel the land and when they found a homestead where the owner was not yet a Christian, they challenged him to a duel, friendly like (not to the death): If they won, as they usually did being professional fighters, the owner and all his household would accept the baptism.:lol:

That's rather unfair to the Norse. When you're facing a sudden collapse in your agricultural system due to climatic change, and are facing starvation as a result, it's asking a lot to successfully adapt to a polar hunter-gatherer lifestyle before dying.

I don't really think it's unfair. They had, apparently, a very conservative attitude to their lifestyle, and while they had contact with (or at least had many opportunities to observe) the Inuit for hundreds of years, they showed no inclination toward adopting any Inuit technologies whatsoever, even when those were clearly superior (such as using the kayak to get around and do hunting and fishing). Indeed many of their priorities make little sense to us modern observers -- the most egregious example being the near-total absence of fish from their diet, from the earliest generations of the settlement until its demise.

Now, when you are living in a mostly-closed economy in marginal conditions, a rigidly conservative approach may be the best or indeed only way to ensure survival for the next generation. But when those marginal conditions deteriorate, that approach comes around to bite you. Either you adapt or you die. If your culture is such that risk-taking and innovation are severely discouraged, you are at a disadvantage.

Anyway, Jared Diamond goes into the demise of Norse Greenland in quite a lot of detail in Collapse. Which is a quite interesting, if depressing, book.

Funny thing is, they might have.
If they successfully did so there's no way for us to know since then they would then have merged with the Inuit, which wouldn't leave distinguishable traces. Only the failure to adapt at all, or incomplete attempts, would.


DNA analysis would tell. Also, the phenotypes of the populations were different enough that you can tell quite easily which population an excavated skeleton came from, and there pretty much haven't been found any "half-bloods".


The Inuit at least claim to have a store of stories relating to the old Scandinavian settlers. They seem to have been on rather amicable terms.

Funny, then, that the only accounts we have preserved from the Norse side are brief and dismissive and barely rate the Inuit as humans.

DNA analysis would tell. Also, the phenotypes of the populations were different enough that you can tell quite easily which population an excavated skeleton came from, and there pretty much haven't been found any "half-bloods".
I'm not an expert of Greenland archeology, but I imagine the relationship between what's been found and what we would need to find to settle the question might be such that it's not at present possible to make a hard and fast call.
But if you know more I'd be interested in what the situation is with regards to the anthropology and archeology of Greenland?

What I'm suggesting might work for single individuals, as just that, individual solutions to the problem of survival, and not that many of them either. The Scandinavians as a group would be toast anyway.
Funny, then, that the only accounts we have preserved from the Norse side are brief and dismissive and barely rate the Inuit as humans.
The thing about the Inuit life-style is that if the climate gets to balmy, they're not interested. So when the Scandinavians settled, there were no Inuit around. The showed up later, as things cooled down, following the game.

And the greatests problem with the Inuit accounts, as with all oral history in non-literate societies, is that it isn't really dateable. The Inuit stories were all recorded in the 20th c. making them in fact 20th c. stories. We can't dismiss them out of hand but there's always the possibility of later invention/interpretation, during the three or four centuries the Danes have been in contact with them.

I don't really think it's unfair. They had, apparently, a very conservative attitude to their lifestyle, and while they had contact with (or at least had many opportunities to observe) the Inuit for hundreds of years, they showed no inclination toward adopting any Inuit technologies whatsoever, even when those were clearly superior (such as using the kayak to get around and do hunting and fishing).


I'm going to challenge that point. How can one be sure that there was considerable contact with the Inuit leading up to the climatic change?

It seems to make little sense to me. The dendrochronological evidence suggests that the Norse-occupied Greenland was not experiencing anything close to polar climatic conditions at the time- therefore why would the (migrant polar hunter) Inuits be there? When there would be no seal-bearing ice-floes in the vicinity? Wouldn't they be further north, around Ellesmere or Baffin Island?

When your agricultural culture is doing well in the local climate, why would you be considered unduly conservative for failing to learn polar hunting techniques?

Funny thing is, they might have.
The Inuit at least claim to have a store of stories relating to the old Scandinavian settlers. They seem to have been on rather amicable terms.

I struggle to believe that. The Inuit were brutally unsentimental when it came to matters relating to their own survival, and in a polar environment I don't think they'd have welcomed competition from struggling norse survivors.

I'm going to challenge that point. How can one be sure that there was considerable contact with the Inuit leading up to the climatic change?


Their hunting ranges would overlap.


It seems to make little sense to me. The dendrochronological evidence suggests that the Norse-occupied Greenland was not experiencing anything close to polar climatic conditions at the time- therefore why would the (migrant polar hunter) Inuits be there? When there would be no seal-bearing ice-floes in the vicinity? Wouldn't they be further north, around Ellesmere or Baffin Island?


Oh, there is ample archaelogical evidence of Inuit occupation of Greenland just a bit further north than the Norse settlements. As the climate grew colder, they expanded south.


When your agricultural culture is doing well in the local climate, why would you be considered unduly conservative for failing to learn polar hunting techniques?

But the Norse Greenlanders' agriculture wasn't really "doing well" for most of their history. They were reduced to depending on a fairly small subset of the agricultural toolkit, as it were, of their Icelandic and Scandinavian relatives -- none of the staple human-food crops would grow usefully in Greenland, but they could raise livestock. They couldn't subsist on that alone, and during the whole period they also had to hunt both land and sea mammals to supplement their diet, and as the years passed and the climate worsened their diet gradually became dominated by seafood (mostly seals, as they did not fish). But they clung to their own hunting methods, which were considerably less effective than those of their neighbours and competitors.

the near-total absence of fish from their diet, from the earliest generations of the settlement until its demise.

as they did not fish

Where do you have this from? It sounds completely bizarre to me. The Vikings ate plenty of fish! Why wouldn't the Greenlanders? Do you have a proper reference?

From http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/15/article1/article1.html


As a result of 80 years of excavations in Greenland, The Danish National Museum possesses a large collection of bones from burials in churchyards in the old Norse colonies. Stable-isotope analysis of selected parts of this bone material has enabled us to determine which kind of food each individual has eaten - or more precisely: the balance between terrestrial and marine diet (Box 3). At the same time, we have 14C dated the bones by the AMS technique (Box 1 and 2). We cannot claim to have solved the enigma of the disappearance of the Norsemen from Greenland, but we can at least exclude some hypotheses. The isotope analysis indicates that the Norsemen changed their dietary habits. The diet of the first settlers consisted of 80% agricultural products and 20% food from the surrounding sea. But seafood played an increasing role, such that the pattern was completely turned around towards the end of the period—from the 1300's the Greenland Norse had 50-80% of their diet from the marine food chain. In simplified terms: they started out as farmers but ended up as hunters/fishers. Some archeologists have claimed that the Greenland Norsemen succumbed because they—being culturally inflexible—either could not or would not adapt to changing conditions and therefore came to a catastrophic end, triggered by deteriorating climate. This hypothesis may now be refuted.


Even at 20% in the early days, that's still an important food source which indicates habitual fishing.

Thanks Kafka. That's what I thought.