Population decline and adaptation

My earlier blog posts on environmental degradation and climate change have presented the fate of Norse Greenland as environmentally determined, but this isn't the whole story. The other part of this thrilling tale of societal collapse is the question: why didn't the Norse adapt to their environment and the colder climate? Whilst the cooler climate was distressing the Norse settlements,  the Inuits were thriving and their settlements were actually expanding. Therefore it was possible to survive in those conditions, but the Norse for some reason didn't. Many scientists and governments argue that contemporary climate change won't lead to our extinction because we will adapt to the warmer temperatures. However, the Norse analogue shows that it is very possible for a society to fail to adapt to such changes, which paints a rather bleak picture of our future. Dugmore et al.'s (2007) paper suggests that the Norse couldn't adapt successfully because of their decreasing population. This decrease was due to Inuit attacks, plague and emigration prompted by reduced economic opportunity because of changing trading patterns.

The model above is environmentally deterministic and so is similar to the earlier arguments about the impacts of environmental degradation and climate change. It emphasises the change in climate, maladaptation and dependence on pastoral agriculture. However, Dugmore et al. (2007) disagrees with this model and argues that there is evidence that the Norse did manage their environment by conserving animals and regulating grazing. In addition the article shows that as the climate worsened the proportion of the Norse diet from marine sources increased. This demonstration of sustainable practices and changes to their lifestyle indicates that the Norse did at least partially adapt to their new home. However, problems with predicting climate and misleading memories of the past are used to explain why the Norse couldn't better adapt to their changing conditions.

Instead, Dugmore et al. (2007) proposes this alternative model to explain the end of Norse Greenland. The model shows that the "commercial revolution" caused trade relations with Europe to change unfavourably (2007:18). This reduced the economy of the colony and so caused increased emigration to take place. The decrease in population reduced the stability of the community structure that had enabled the Norse to adapt to the changing climate and survive in the first, this lead to the rapid collapse of the settlements. 

Dugmore et al.'s (2007) model challenges the assumptions surrounding societal collapse in Norse Greenland. The first assumption being that humans are fundamentally bad for their environment and that this leads to its inevitable destruction as well as our own. This assumption often portrays past societies as inept stewards of their environment which leads us to dissociate our contemporary environmental issues with those past analogues. The second assumption is that the Norse chose not to adapt to the colder climate. However,  the evidence of changes in their diet and farming practices indicate that the Norse were somewhat aware of their declining circumstances and did try to adapt and survive.  

This article doesn't ignore or down play the environmental and climate factors in the collapse as others who have looked at Norse adaption have, rather Dugmore et al. (2007) critically untangle the different pressures climate change can have on a society. This helps to more precisely determine the influence climate change had in causing the collapse. In addition the argument that the Norse couldn't adapt successfully proposes some interesting questions about our own ability to adapt to 21st century global warming. 

Trade with Europe

One of the common features of societies that have collapsed is isolation, for example Easter Island is described as the “most isolated inhabited island” on earth (Flenly and King, 1984:47). Geographically, you could argue that Greenland isn’t isolated at all, as evident by its Viking colonisation. However, there is a strong argument that changing trade relations with Europe caused Greenland to become economically isolated from the rest of Europe. This is a rather Euro-centric way of examining the situation which contrasts with the Greenland-centric investigation into changes in climate, environmental degradation and relations with the Inuits.

Greenland was a colony of Norway (1264) and so must have been dependent on Norway to a certain extent. The increased competition in the ivory trade from Asian and African suppliers decreased the demand from Greenland and resulted in a waning of attention from Norway (Arneborg, 2000). Keller (1990) argues that this loss of trade would undermine the authority in the colony and lead to the breakdown of the the hierarchical structure. However, the authority of the colonies leaders wasn't reliant on trade for money or power, rather their power stemmed from the size and output of their farms. However, I do agree that the loss of ivory trade would have been very damaging to the Greenland economy especially as it meant that they couldn't import as much timber (which was a very limited resource).

  

Diamond's (2005) opinion on Norse Greenland’s dependence on Norway differs from Keller’s. Whilst Norway largely had a monopoly of trade with Greenland, contact between the two countries was interrupted often by climate. The Greenland colony lasted until 1450, so that's about 200 years of inconstant trade. Therefore, Greenland couldn’t have been as dependent on Norway as originally thought.

After looking at both sides of this argument, I conclude that I don’t think it was worsening trade relations that directly caused the decline of Norse Greenland. However, I do think a stronger trade relationship with mainland Europe could have sustained the colony for much longer, for example greater imports of timber would have reduced environmental pressures on the land. In addition, the impacts of the loss of the ivory trade to Africa reminds me of the decline of coal mining villages in this country. After WWII, the increase in cheaper fuel alternatives such as North Sea gas together with increased costs of extracting the coal meant that many mines were closed down. This resulted in the decline of mining villages as people moved elsewhere in search of work and better opportunities. It may have been the case that the lack of trading opportunities resulted in the emigration of people looking for a place where it was easier to survive. I'll examine this theory in more detail in my next post, when I review Dugmore et al.'s (2007) theory on why Norse society in Greenland collapsed. 

Jared Diamond: Collapse

Jared Diamond gave a talk about collapsing societies which I've posted below. In the video he focuses on the Norse Greenland example and provides a good overview of the reasons for the collapse of society. It well worth a watch - so enjoy!

"Skraelings"

My title - Skraeling: means “weakling” or “scrawny” and was used as an insult by the Norse to describe their Inuit neighbours (Diamond, 2005). It is indicative from such as label that Norse-Inuit relations weren't always friendly but what role did these “Skraelings” have in the collapse of Norse society?

Greenland Inuit

Assimilation

Fridtjof Nansen theorised that the Norse peacefully assimilated into the Inuit population. However, archaeological investigations into this hypothesis show little evidence of offspring between the Norse and Inuit populations (Lynnerup, 2000). Only three of the numerous bodies excavated in Norse graveyards were found to contain bone structure and features characteristic of the Inuit people.

Archaeological excavations of Norse skeletons.

Massacre

Until the 20th century, the prevailing theory explaining what caused the decline in Norse population was hostile engagement with the Inuits (Seaver, 1996). This theory originated from Hans Egede, the minister who was in charge of the recolonization of Greenland in 1721 (Gullov, 2000)  He found evidence of the destruction of the original Norse Settlements. McGovern (1985) acknowledges how little is known about Norse-Inuit contact. The evidence we do have demonstrates that for 300 years the Norse and Inuit cultures co-existed relatively peacefully (Gullov, 2000). However, modern analysis does not support this theory as archaeological excavations in the Western Settlement didn't reveal any indication of a violent end (Seaver, 1996).

Trade

170 objects of Norse origin have been found at Inuit sites. These include metal used to make blades, ornamental pins and gaming pieces (Gullov, 2000; Diamond, 2005). This leads to the debate about whether such items had been traded or stolen. The fact that some of these objects have been found in areas that the Norse wouldn't have ventured to suggests that their was trade between the Inuit and Norse societies, but that the Norse mainly exported goods (Gullov, 2000).

The distribution of Norse objects and evidence of Inuit contact

In contrast, there haven't been any Inuit objects found at Norse sites (McGovern, 2000). This is rather mysterious; surely as the Norse population declined they would have reached out to the Inuit and traded items in return for food, knowledge of better hunting methods and equipment. The failure of the Norse to adopt Inuit techniques which were better suited to the Greenland environment is a key reason for their decline and will be covered next time...