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.
No comments:
Post a Comment