Lands of Ice and Mice: An Alternate History of the Thule

[DG Valdron]

Let's not forget that unlike much of the rest of America, the Thule are fighting back with diseases. Bruce is already making its slow way deep into Asia and will add up nicely to syphilis in Europe soon. Mona
has not been covered fully yet, but I expect it causing a hell of a lot of damage to isolated commmunities in places like Iceland, Norway, Northernmost Russia and maybe even Scotland in the future.
Joan we still don't know, but may be a nasty surprise for Europeans.

I don't think that it's going to make that much of a difference. The Thule will still suffer appalling mortality from successive waves of disease. If there is a difference, it will be that they'll be a bit more sophisticated through their own trio and experience of transmission in animals, so they may be able to affect the timing and speed of epidemics, or ensure a higher rate of survival through more effective care measures.

 

[DG Valdron]

-The Sea.

Given the richness of the Northern Seas, I think the Thule would be much more involved with the sea than has currently been shown. Newfoundland is going to attract Thule fishermen just as much as it attracted the Basques, Irish, Scots, French, English, Spanish and Danes.

That's a whole untapped area that I need to get to obviously. We've talked about managing Walrus, Seals and Sea cows. A lot of the Thule fisheries are going to be coastal. But that's for further exploration.

-Sea Thule.

Also, why are the Sea Thule so obsessed with barren islands, when barely occupied areas like Lappland and Finnmark offer what would be to them Eden conditions? These areas were not really controlled by the southern kingdoms and barely occupied.

Two things really:

First, the distances are shorter, sometimes much shorter. From Svalbard to Franz Josef, and then from Franz Josef to Novaya Zemyla and Severnaya Zemyla, is on average less than 500 kilometers, and those jaunts are often reduced further by intermediate Islands.

Second, colonizing expeditions are across winter ice, which itself is pretty challenging, so the lands need to be bound by sea ice in the winter. The largest Thule boats are roughly the size of smaller or medium sized viking boats and somewhat more vulnerable to rough seas. In winters, over sea ice, they're equipped with runners and drawn by herds of caribou, accompanied by dogs and musk ox, and carrying supplies and provisions. Basically, in the winter they're literally transplanting their community across the ice, including the walking part of their resource base. At the best of times, sea ice crossings can be difficult.

That's one of the reasons why Iceland was colonized after Svalbard, despite being technically nearer. Iceland was far more prone to open water in the winter due to the Gulf stream, same as Norway, warmed by the Gulf Stream. The Sea Thule saw enough migratory birds that they know there's land to the south, but a 700 kilometer jaunt makes it difficult, and even then, there's usually not the winter ice to really support the winter crossing. You might have a few making it to the northern reaches of Norway and the Kola peninsula, but they're isolated from the overall resource/package that their culture requires.

The Iceland expeditions by the way, are huge in comparison to most Sea Thule colonizations. Average size of groups moving across the northern islands is in the dozens. The Iceland landings are often in the hundreds.

2) The Sea Thule are sending big colonization expeditions across the sea ice often. I expect the easiest way to move their boats in these expeditions is to attach runners to the boats and use them as big sleds. That would mean that lighter boats would be advantageous.

Exactly. The overturned boats that Gotti saw were huge skin Umiaks, with whale ribs lashed together to form a series of runners, and whale skulls or jawbones for prows to protect the leather from ice.

These boats, because of their ability to cross the ice are long persistent in Thule culture, well into the period of European contact, prehaps as late as the 19th century or later.

In open water, of course they're seriously inferior to European ships. It's not clear to me at this time whether the Labrador or Hudson Bay Thule will build wooden ships or boats, but if they do, its going to be a straight cultural borrowing from Europe.

-Fertilizer.

The Thule interest in propitiating the soil spirits is going to lead them to discover fertilizers soon enough. Seaweed and guano could be other potential trade goods to feed into the system.

Quite.

-Secularism.

I've seen a few people describe the Thule as having a secular shamanism. But really, aren't we seeing an intensely superstitious people who happen to have practical superstitions being described in secular terms by future anthropologists (i.e. DValdron)?

Partly my fault. I tend to focus on pragmatic issues. The Shaman's are, as noted, intensely mystical and superstitious. Their belief system is all about an endless array of spirits of every kind inhabiting every aspect of the world, only partially known to humans, and of capricious nature. Shamanism is all about jollying up these spirits through dance, chant, spells, magical episodes of various sorts, sacrifices and acts of propitiation.

There's a certain empirical quality to it, because their effort to earn the good will of spirits amounts to a lot of trial and error, some of which produces results and is kept. But a lot of the results are neutral or erratic, and also retained. You never know what the spirits will like. Over time, inspired trial and error, gifted empiricism and personal ambition advances them.

But they're fundamentally mystical and animist in outlook, although they're pragmatic animists.

By my own bent, I don't feel a strong need to explore the more mystical side of their life, just the empirical effects of their tradition on the world.

It seems to me these Thule will be intensely mystical and superstitious. Their mysteries and superstitions will work very well in their environment, and they seem to have a certain flexibility (so new things will be poked and experimented with to find out what the "new spirit" likes), but it isn't European critical thought, and if anything, the Thule will be more resistant to European rationalism. A belief system that doesn't include spirits will simply be anathema to them.

On the whole correct. As a whole, they're going to be pretty skeptical of Christianity. They're practical magicians, and Christ comes up short in that department. European rationalism may get mixed reviews, practical results speak for themselves, but the erasure of spirits is madness. That will trouble them.

-Crop adoption.

People are talking about the Thule crops are spreading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too fast. I would expect from how things have gone in our history, that the Thule package will spread to other cultures in a major way over about 300 years. Even that may be too fast. It could as easily take 600. Or 1000.

I hear what you're saying. There's a lot of enthusiasm for the spread of Thule crops and the transformative effects all over the place.

I'd like to be significantly more conservative. There are pro's and cons to that.

First, what enthusiasm tends to overlook is that in terms of production pound for pound, acre for acre, Thule Agriculture is significantly less productive than Euro or Asian agriculture, a third or a quarter or a fifth, depending. It's a package that works and succeeds because it works where nothing else will, but head to head, it loses.

So, it doesn't really have the potential to transform European agriculture, or temperate or north-temperate agriculture. You have to go a considerable distance north of the Baltics before it starts to make an impact.

Second, while the Thule plants work better and better as you go south, and you need less and less microclimate engineering, in the places where it gives the most advantage, you get the most benefit from incorporating the whole thing, not just the plants but the techniques.

The Icelandic Norse are probably in the best single position, but despite that, they only reproduce an approximate version of Thule techniques, there's noise in the signal.

There is one advantage that will drive adoptions of Thule crops. These are plants that are very good at growing in very adverse conditions, sometimes impossible conditions.

There are going to be rapid local adoptions or expansions, but I hope that when I get there you'll find them plausible and convincing.

So we took maize and we slotted it into our existing agricultural package, and even with the power of modern science telling us that we could farm maize better, or get more nutrition out of the maize by cooking it better, we don't.

Fascinating.

But again. WE STILL DON'T FARM THEM VERY WELL. People would rather farm potatoes they know poorly, rather than find a variety of potato that agrees with the soil and climate they have to work with. These are one of the biggest caloric contributors to the human race, and we farm them well enough to get by, and no better.

There's another issue at work there. McCain Foods is huge in the Atlantic maritimes, and basically, they're a single variety buyer. They only buy a single type of potato which is best for french fries. So dozens of local varieties of potatoes, including many optimized for particular soils and moisture conditions are abandoned in favour of a 'one size fits all brand' which doesn't actually fit the environment, but fits a particular market niche.

This is probably the most disturbing thing about modern agricultural economics. It's the wholesale rush to abandon diversity in favour of something resembling industrial production techniques. We don't meet nature half way, we go out of our way to bludgeon it with truckloads of fertilizer, insecticides, herbicides, irrigation, etc.

The success of these sorts of industrial approaches speak for themselves, but its all about making huge investments to force a return. We could probably get better efficiencies and better returns embracing a diversity tailored to a variety of situations. But that's not the way we're playing it right now. Maybe in a hundred years, when the equations are different, energy costs a lot more, maybe then. Who knows.

Anyway, good post. I'm still only a fraction of the way through in responding to you.

 

[Falecius]

I don't think that it's going to make that much of a difference. The Thule will still suffer appalling mortality from successive waves of disease. If there is a difference, it will be that they'll be a bit more sophisticated through their own trio and experience of transmission in animals, so they may be able to affect the timing and speed of epidemics, or ensure a higher rate of survival through more effective care measures.

Yes, slightly lower death rates, but what I had in mind was the demographic effect on the Europeans.

 

[Falecius]

A couple of points:
- Thule arctic crops have low yields, but give you agricultural yields where nothing else does. I can see a lot of places able to support higher densities because of that.
- the real gamechanger IMVHO won't be the Arctic package but the Subarctic one developed in the NWP. Cattail and Arrowhead (sweetflag, too, maybe?).
I toyed before here with the notion of wild rice entering this package before, that would be huge.
I have to confess that upon further research, this does not seem that likely. The plant appparently does not grow in the North American Subarctic except in the southernmost fringes well east of the Rockies, quite far away from the area where wetland Tlingit-Thule package is first developed, and probably not within the Thule sphere anyway.
Some of the most southerly Thule may be aware of the wild rice harvesting of the Ojibway: contact is almost assured, but probably hostile and occasional.
However, domesticated Cattail and Arrowhead can spread relatively easily in many parts of China, Russia, Central Europe and North America.

 

[DG Valdron]

- Thule arctic crops have low yields, but give you agricultural yields where nothing else does. I can see a lot of places able to support higher densities because of that.

There will be local effects. The biggest potential butterfly might be some effect on the 1695 famine in Finland. Probably won't stop it, but it may ameliorate it somewhat.

- the real gamechanger IMVHO won't be the Arctic package but the Subarctic one developed in the NWP. Cattail and Arrowhead (sweetflag, too, maybe?).

But how effective are they compared to other crops? Remember the North American 'three sisters' agricultural complex? They abandoned their domesticates for more efficient foreign domesticates. It's not clear to me whether the cattail/arrowhead package will spread.

I toyed before here with the notion of wild rice entering this package before, that would be huge.

I preferred to stay away from Wild Rice. Through most of the Thule range it's just not there, and there's just not enough water. I could see something like that emerging around the great lakes, or the swampy cree of Manitoba. But really, that's a separate timeline, a separate history.

Actually, I think some people have done wild rice timelines. Poke around.

However, domesticated Cattail and Arrowhead can spread relatively easily in many parts of China, Russia, Central Europe and North America.

I dunno. I'm just struggling to figure out the vectors and timing of transmission into Scandinavia.

 

[DG Valdron]

Let's talk about Iceland. When the Thule show up in 1515, how many people are there, what's the land use, what opportunities are there for the Thule, and what can it sustain.

We don't actually know. The first census for Iceland is in 1700 (50,000). There's an estimate of 70,000 way back in 1100 but I'm not sure how that's calculated. As for medieval and post-medieval productivity, that's anyone's guess. What were the crops, how much were they producing, where was it being produced, the numbers of sheep and cattle, in 1515, I don't have anything for that. So what we're going to do is work our way backwards.

First up, lets take a look at Iceland's basic stats: 103,000 square kilometers. Of this we have about 70,000 square kilometers of tundra; 21,000 square kilometers of productive land (either agriculture or grazing); and 12,000 square kilometers of glacier and frozen lake.

It's roughly comparable to the Falkland Islands in terms of precipitation and temperature. The Falklands are about 12,000 square kilometers. Offset for unuseable turf, and probably the Falklands represent about 1/2 the useable area of Iceland. So with that adjustment, we should be able to use Iceland as a control.

Modern times, there are 300,000 Icelanders. As I understand it, on the whole, they're importing between 40 and 70% of their produce, so they've likely outstripped their home grown agricultural capacity (bolstered by modern technological agriculture) at least in that respect. We could assume that industrial farm production could sustain about 160,000 Icelanders. Non-industrial farming might do.... half that? .... one quarter? (that's probably high) 40,000 to 80,000. That's actually fairly consistent with pre-twentieth century population figures.

Of course, Iceland is more than self sufficient, even at modern populations in fish and in domesticated meat - cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses and chicken, or their products, milk and eggs. One can assume that the pre-industrial icelanders tended towards a diet high in meat and fish, milk and eggs, which more than made up for shortcomings in agriculture. So even if actual subsistence farming was (likely) considerably less productive than modern agriculture by a larger margin than I estimated, its probably offset by fishing and husbandry. So the historical records of population ranging from 40,000 to 80,000 probably represent the realistic carrying capacity of the Island, at least with the technology and crop and animal package of the time. Note that this is mostly based on the 1/5th of the Island that is viable for the agricultural package.

It's worth noting that historically, Iceland wasn't exporting any vast quantity of meat or agricultural products. Actually, it still isn't. Most modern production is consumed internally.

Rather, historically Iceland's exports were wool and cod. Exports of wool and wool products - woven goods or knitware, suggest that the animal population biases heavily towards sheep. But apart from that we can assume that animal populations, and production of meat, milk and eggs was entirely for domestic consumption and probably tracked the population relatively well. I'll come back to that.

What are the modern animal populations? Excluding reindeer, which I'll come back to, it ballparks as follows:
* Sheep - 500,000
* Horse - 80,000
* Cattle - 70,000
* Pigs - 3,000
* Goats - 500.

Now, we can assume that a sheep or a cow is much larger than a sheep, and an average horse or cow represents several sheep, say three to five. So biologically, Iceland is carrying the equivalent of 1 million to 1.3 million sheep.

This fluctuates of course, in 1970, there were about 800,000 or 900,000 sheep, but commensurately fewer cattle and horses. Historically, I'd expect larger populations of goats. And the little ice age would have ground down pig populations. Chickens probably take up a some space. But I think overall, in terms of animal biomass, the modern figures are pretty consistent. The mix of animals changes, but big gains by one seem to represent declines by others.

Let's compare this to the Falklands. The Falklands supports a half million sheep, with maybe half the useful territory of Iceland. Adjusted for size, that's about a million sheep. Of course, a large fraction of Iceland's useful land seems to be more productive, being used for agricultural produce as well as animals. So the upper limit of 1.3 seems reasonable.

So lets assume that 1 to 1.3 million "sheep units" represents the production capacity of modern Iceland. Since there's not a lot of wiggle room - sheep gotta eat, that doesn't change over history - and since Iceland doesn't import a huge amount of fodder, we can assume that this is somewhat analogous to historical production limits.

So, if that's the modern capacity, or maximum capacity, how do we work backwards to some kind of guesstimate as to animal populations and how close they come to maximums carrying capacity.

Since Icelanders historically weren't exporting a lot, we can assume that their animal population tracked to the needs and size of the human population, with some surplus sheep.

So at a range of 40,000 to 80,000 people, we could assume a very rough range of 125,000 to 325,000 'sheep units', divided up among horse, cattle, goats and sheep. Pre-Industrial icelanders would be far more dependent upon animal labour for transportation, work and freight, so we'd probably see a real need for horse and cattle beyond their actual subsistence requirements - these animals would be working rather than being eaten, so the population would be higher. And of course, there's a need for wool for export, so the sheep population would be high. So let's assume a range of 250,000 to 300,000 heads of animals or 'sheep units'. Even if we assume an arbitrary increase of 1/3 the likely upper limit is 400,000 sheep units.

This implies to me that even allowing for more inefficient subsistence and pre-industrial production the animal population is probably maybe a third of the maximum in terms of sustainable land use.

But I suppose that implies a Norse population, based on animal husbandry production, could be higher than the pre-industrial ranges that we know of.

Possibly, but there's a few things to keep in mind. First, animal husbandry is pretty inefficient at sustaining a populations. You need tens of thousands of new animals to sustain a few thousand new humans.

The second thing is that there are other bottlenecks to consider. Humans can't live on meat and fish (or milk and eggs) alone. That leads to dietary deficiencies. So the agricultural production needed to supplement diet may have been a limiting factor. The Medieval Glacial period and the Little Ice Age may have been major limiters, reducing the productive capacity of Icelandic lands. We have several reports of pandemics decimating the population again and again. All of this would have kept pruning the population back.

Land use might have also been a population limiter. Basically, over 3/4 of icelands non-glacial land is unuseable. The useable land is highly variable. Non-industrial transportation is difficult. What likely happens is that people concentrate on the most productive lands and maximize with intensive use, which risks outrunning the carrying capacity of the land and bringing about collapse. When they expand its to less productive lands but try to maintain high levels of use, making collapses more likely. I'd bet that the agricultural/husbandry history of Iceland is one of variable use, endless local collapses or declines, followed by abandoned operations and farmhouses, and setting up shop in new locations, leaving the abandoned lands at much less intense use or slow recovery.

So, when the Thule start to show up, the Norse likely monopolize what they consider to be the most productive and accessible land, and the Thule tend to be diverted towards the least productive areas or Tundra. If the Norse are in fact on a model of overuse/decline/move and repeat then there may not be any land for them at all that the Norse are willing to part with, which basically means that they would be forced to be tenant farmers and labourers on wealthy estates, or possibly caribou herders in the Tundra. This probably puts them in the interior moving towards the south east.

But how many Norse will the Thule meet in 1515. Well, ballparking. The population was 70,000 in 1100. But that was the middle of the medieval warm period, barley could grow, it was still in the early phases of settlement so deforestation, soil exhaustion, etc. hadn't really kicked in. All of this would push the population downwards.

Around 1250-1300 we have the medieval glacial period, and that probably really pushes the population down. Let's say down as far as 50,000 or maybe even lower. 1400 to 1500 is a century long period of relative warmth, so the population would stabilize or recover - except that there's a pandemic that kills off half the population in 1415 - let's assume a drop to 25,000 or 30,000. There's 80 years to recover, maybe back to 40,000. But then there's another major pandemic that kills off as much as half the population in 1495. So let's assume that twenty years later, by 1515 the Icelandic population is probably recovered to somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000. Animal populations will be probably higher proportionately to the human populations.

All of this is very seat of the pants stuff. But suggests that there's room for the Thule, assuming that they can find some acceptance.

 

[Diez Mil Cantos]

so then with the Thule agriculture and husbandry being able to use more of the land, how many Thule would be able to live in Iceland, and how would this affect the Norse population (more agriculture, less deficiencies)?

 

[DG Valdron]

Reindeer in Iceland OTL

Did you know that in OTL there are Reindeer in Iceland? I did not.

All of Iceland's reindeer are introduced species, they weren't indigenous to Iceland at all. They were brought over by the Dane government through four separate attempts in the 1700's.

The first effort to bring Reindeer to Iceland was 1771, maybe 14 animals in the south from Norway. During this first venture, there were plans to bring Sammi to Iceland to teach the Norse about the intricacies of Reindeer herding. That didn't come about. The Sammi stayed home. The fact that this notion was about in the 1700's is interesting though, there's a recognition that it's not just animals or plants but the cultural knowledge or technology to use them that's important. That herd died out by 1786.

But meantime, in 1777, a second herd, also from Norway, was introduced to another part of the country in the Southwest. This was a group of 23, that went on to form a small herd. It died out in the late 19th century, the last of them vanishing around 1920.

In 1784 a group of 35 from Finnmark were introduced into the North of the country. This group prospered for a time, the population peaked out around 1850, but eventually vanished by 1936.

Finally, in 1787, another group of 35 from Finnmark were introduced to the East where they established themselves on the highlands. These seem to have been the group that survived and flourished, again peaking around the middle of the 19th century. None of the other Reindeer populations expanded or roamed sufficient to mix genetically with this group.

The current population of Reindeer differs by sources. But the estimate seems to be about 7000 animals, essentially confined to the Eastern Highland tundra area of Iceland. It appears that their territory is perhaps a third to a fifth of the Icelandic tundra, they're not interracting substantially with Iceland's domesticates and seem to be well away from human areas.

From the history, life for Reindeer seems to have been tough in the late 19th century, all of the three surviving herds dwindled rapidly, two of them into extinction around that time. It's notable that during the late 19th, Iceland's animal populations were also in severe decline as a result of cold weather and volcanic action.

But on the other hand, the three herds seem to have done quite well, numbers peaking around 1850. At their peak, we might assume roughly 10,000 to 15,000 wandering around as a maximum. It's worth noting that even at the maximum, the three herds were geographically isolated from each other. ie, that meant that they were occupying only a portion of the Icelandic tundra, with plenty of spare room.

Either this meant that the Reindeer still had plenty of room to expand, and that had the harsh conditions of the late 19th not intervened, the population might well have continued to grow and splinter off into new territories.

The herds seem to have been highly territorial. Migrating behaviour was only observed in one herd and that seems to have only become pronounced in 1940. So the herds tended to stay in their feeding areas and grow.


Alternately, the limited range of each herd may have been a suggestion that the surrounding Tundra was simply too harsh for them to survive in. Might be possible. But overall, I would be surprised if Iceland's tundra was markedly more barren or unproductive than Banks or Victoria Islands in the Canadian Archipelago.

But even if that is the case, then it invites the prospect that Musk Ox, which endure and thrive in territory too barren for Caribou might do well.

It also raises the possibility that the tundra might be barren because of species deficits - ie, the successful tundra species found in Siberia or the North American arctic might not have made it to Iceland. This implies perhaps some long term possibility of enrichment by Thule coming over, particularly if there's a Shaman travelling back and forth who makes the observation or sends the message.

The Icelandic herds were essentially feral or wild animals, not even managed. No one was looking after them. The southwest herd seems to have been hunted actively, and this may have helped their decline. I will make the fairly arbitrary assumption however, that a herd which is managed by humans would probably do better than a feral herd. In particular, I would assume that a herd managed by Thule employing proto-agricultural practices to maintain and expand forage would do much better.

I would assume then that Iceland during the 1500's/1600's, over 70,000 square kilometers of Tundra, might support between 25,000 and 50,000 reindeer or caribou (or equivalent head). Which would in turn support a population of herders of perhaps 4000 to 8000 Thule.

Assuming that the Thule reindeer herds impinge on the regions that are used for pasturage and agriculture, they might increase that population for 50% to 100% before they impinge on Norse priorities unacceptably.

But of course, it wouldn't get to that point in that way. The Thule in Iceland would enter in two ways -

Some would be enlisted as serfs or tenants in Norse farmholdings, probably at the bottom of the social pecking order. Probably they wouldn't enjoy it, and there'd be a strong incentive to leave for the outback

The others would probably follow Caribou herds into the tundra and remote pasturage. So the dominant Thule lifestyle for the first decades would be Caribou and perhaps Musk Ox herding. There's a lot of habitat/room to transplant and expand herds.

It takes Thule 5 to 20 years to get agriculture going. There's that three year crop cycle and the work of microclimate engineering to be done. So a minimum of three years after planting before a first harvest, and likely a lot of work to really have respectable harvests. A lot of caribou as draft domesticates means that there's the horsepower to do mounds or mound construction.

So in the most likely areas, you'll see herders establishing gardens as a long term project, over time, the gardens become centers of formal agriculture, as population expands. Thule Agriculture and Thule culture will re-establish on the Tundra and begin pushing towards the marginal pasture areas.

Herding will remain, but will be pushed to the more marginal land use areas by expanding agriculture.

 

[Shevek23]

So, with the Norse Icelanders so dependent on sheep, and sheep and caribou/reindeer being a poor mix, first of all the Thule/Norse contact is minimized, the Thule are going out where no Norse care to go, and the realization that sheep will decimate caribou encourages the Thule to stay out of the Norses' way.

Meanwhile it's taking something like a generation for the Thule crops to get established, on laboriously created earthworks in lands far from Norse regions of settlement.

You know I favor the idea of contact and mixing and all that good stuff, and was happy to see you come to the conclusion it would happen in Iceland.

But now it seems that, while I still trust it will indeed happen eventually, there will most likely be a long delay first where it's more like your earlier "two populations" scenario.

Presumably the Norse won't just totally ignore the Thule--aside from trying to take some as thralls (and I bet the Thule are just as likely to do that to the Norse!) the government, such as it is, is going to take some suspicious note of what they are up to. In this context this means agents of the Danish king, representatives of the Godils, and someone from the Church all showing up on various pretexts to get a look.

And meanwhile, the Thule will be interested in trading, reindeer/caribou and musk ox products for things the Norse do have, and they'll offer some of their spare crops as the yields get better, and that may perk up curiosity among Norse in general. And there will be curious Thule who will make reciprocal visits to the Norse settlements, some bearing trade goods, others as delegations from the recognized leadership on missions to the various authorities.

So it looks like a 50 year period or so, in the beginning little changes for the Icelander Norse while the Thule grow on "barren" lands mainly as herders, but the general volume of trade goods, including goods that can be traded to Denmark, increases gradually, and more and more of your "outliers" in both communities get more familiar with their opposite numbers in the other community. People with strong ties to both start to grow up, and become less uncommon. Toward the end of the period, Thule crops are slowly at first making their way into Norse diets; the Norse grow somewhat healthier and develop a taste for them and the notion of trying to grow some for themselves seems more attractive.

So all in all, it might not be until the 1570s or later we have bicultural Icelanders who are likely to spread among both Sea Thule and the Nordic Europeans, particularly to Norway. Norway won't plausibly have started adopting Thule crops on a serious scale, enough to start tipping some balances, much earlier than 1600.

Mind, while I am well aware that it takes time for purely demographic benefits to kick in--the Icelander population for instance will be larger mainly due to immigrating Thule until the end of the 16th century, only then will the Norse component start appreciably growing to approach the higher limits the Thule package offers, and of course the Thule are already occupying a lot of the larger niche---there are moral and political effects to consider from a better diet that is more suited to their climates and more sustainable. If first Iceland, then northern Norway, is less a land of hunger, and if the greater mix of different kinds of food, with more vegetables in it in all seasons means fewer deficiencies and a general upswing in individual well-being, the population will have better morale, more hope, more optimism, and more confidence they can face down enemies. So, the notion that the Thule package can transform politics in the far north of Europe does not have to wait a couple generations for the populations to build up. Obviously the Norwegians would be better off facing a Danish army with more numbers, but the Danes are still coming north into tough country to face people who have a track record of stubborn resistance OTL. If those Norse are eating better they might be able to perform even better than the most pessimistic Danish commander would have guessed.

Still we do have to wait until their Icelander half-cousins are showing up with the Thule goods, and then a couple decades for the crops to be established, and that will be delayed somewhat. The clock of Norwegian secession must start a bit later. But not so late as to have to allow for actual population growth, only for the clear prospect of it in the form of having visibly pushed back the hard limits on life hitherto known to them.

 

[DG Valdron]

It's a little bit more complicated than that. The point of this exercise was to get some kind of window into the Iceland that the Thule will find, and the opportunities or economic/environmental windows open to them.

The model of expansion of Thule high culture in the Post-Agricultural Revolutions era is one where herdsmen/horticulturalists move into an area displacing hunter gatherers by supporting a larger population; the herdsmen/horticulturalists either evolve into agriculturalists displacing those holding onto the old ways further to the margins, or by being displaced themselves by other agriculturalists slowly expanding into their territory.

Of course, as with any model, there are lots of variations.

Bad climate can reverse the model, as has somewhat happened with the Ellesmere, or in a sense took place in the Western Archipelago.

With the Sea Thule there was less of a displacement and more of an evolution as they ventured onto unexplored unoccupied Islands and rebuilt their local culture. Sometimes the Sea Thule skipped the herding/horticultural phase, and lived entirely off the sea while building up whatever Agricultural complex could be sustained. Sometimes the Sea Thule remained a herding/
horticulturalists on island.

In fact, the model is as much abandoned or disregarded as its followed in some ways. Certainly it is adapted to every situation.

The reason for the model is that Thule Agriculture takes time to establish itself. Full crops only mature after about three years. You might get some annual or early production and some land use. But the basic challenge is to support a population at some level as land use complexity builds up. Either by hunter/gathering, fishing/sea harvesting or herding/horticulture.

For the Thule, Iceland offers a way for the model to work. There is a vast unoccupied hinterland that can support a herding/horticultural population. The Sea Thule are coming over on boats which are in the winter, immense sleds pulled across sea ice by Caribou.

So there are starter populations of Caribou that can be driven inland, and start multiplying on their own, and a herder/horticultural population.

But this doesn't necessarily mean that all the Thule coming over will immediately become herders. There almost certainly not enough Caribou or too many Thule for that.

In Svalbard, Franz Josef, etc., the fall back was the sea - the Sea Thule there relied heavily on fishing and sea/harvest ranging from seals, walrus and whales, to mollusks and seaweed to support the population.

But here, the Norse are sitting on sea access, and fishing is a key part of the subsistence lifestyle of the Norse. They're also shut out of deep sea fishing in their own offshore waters by other European powers. So I'd be skeptical that the Norse would be tolerant of Thule crossing their fields and pastures to go and compete with them in fishing.

So the most likely prospect for many Thule entering Iceland at least in the early phases is going to be to enter the Norse economy/society. This is probably viable, since the Norse likely are experiencing a serious labour shortage on the heels of the 1495 epidemic, they need bodies and manpower.

But Thule entering the Norse economy are not going to be entering at the top of the heap for the most part. They're at the bottom, they're thralls or serfs, doing the most menial work, the most low status activities, and most marginal in terms of the Norse society and economy. It's not going to be pleasant.

But the presence of Thule in the Norse society, particularly at the margins are going to amount to a significant interface, and opportunity for introduction of Thule techniques and domestic plants to the Norse.

It won't be adopted immediately, and the low status of the resident Thule will be a social barrier to adoption, but in any community there are always dissenters, experimenters and unconventional types. There's a large enough Norse population that we can expect a fair number of these types, and if there are enough of them, they can establish enough of a presence that eventually some of the skills and plants will percolate generally through the culture. So over the course of a generation or two we can expect a pervasive influence and cultural transmission.

As the Tundra economy expands and consolidates, as Caribou and Musk Ox populations grow, and as agricultural centers emerge, these Thule are going to tend to gravitate along with more and more immigrants into that expanding economy.

It's probably not going to be a welcome development for the Norse, the departing Thule are probably going to take whatever they can bring with them, and there's going to be reputations for thievary, complaints of unpaid debts, abandoned obligations, pregnant daughters, etc.

The Tundra economy is not going to be isolated either. The Iceland Norse will have a lot of material that the the Tundra herders will want desperately. Rope and Iron, wood, etc. Herders don't have a lot of opportunity for handicrafts and items, so there's going to be trade or theft. As to what, if anything that the Tundra Thule have to trade, that's a question. It may be an unequal trading relationship, at least until Roseroot is coming online and produced in volume.

Nor are the Norse likely to simply ignore the Tundra economy. The Church won't allow a large non-christian population to establish itself, and they'll insist on the Christianization of immigrants, they'll also insist on tithes. The Norse Chieftains and Lords will insist on taxation or land rent. The herding Thule will be motivated to avoid taxes and tithes and be somewhat able to do so. As agriculture takes hold, it will get harder.

And given the geography of iceland, its not as if the Thule can fully ignore the Norse. You can cross the whole Island in only a few weeks. If necessary, in the summer, Norse can invade the Tundra and hunt down Thule, and they have the advantage in numbers, at least in the first few decades.

The likely relationships will be complex and evolving.

Over time, Roseroot will emerge as a key 'cash' crop traded by the Thule to the Norse. Because of this, it will start to filter through to traders and become a trade good back to Europe.

 

[Danbensen]

what I have to say is mostly tangential to the main conversation. I like how you're engineering a realistic Thule/Norse Iceland interchange and I don't have much to say about it than "very cool."

However this got me thinking:

With such a high initial investment for new colonies (3 years before you get a crop cycle, who knows how long before your new colony is self-sufficient), it seems there would be a big incentive to just stay home. The fact that the Thule didn't (and I like the fact that they didn't so I'm trying to find ways for them to expand) suggests a societal drive to develop colonization methods despite their cost. People have sat down and calculated how much fishing needs to be done in those first three years, how much the new colony will have to import, when it will need agricultural experts from established settlements to help the fishermen get the most out of their farms, etc.

To me that sounds like a society driven to expand. Why? Perhaps for religious reasons: there is a group of shamans who believe that the local spirits they propitiate deserve to be carried around the world, and transplanted into virgin soil. (maybe because non-Thule-worked land is seen as either empty, or infested with inferior spirits)

Such a belief would give the Thule a good justification for spending resources on spreading (a strategy which would be rewarded over time by the laws of economics anyway, but rewards of larger tax bases and economies of scale might not be obvious to Thule policy makers). It might, however, make Thule less welcoming of non-Thule crops into their traditional agriculture. Sheep and parsnips became standard before the expansionist revolution, so nobody worries about them, but by the time they are dealing with Iceland and Norway, we might expect the Thule to look at horses and barely with a suspicious eye.

(although now, come to think of it, the fact that proximity to sheep kills caribou and musk oxen might have been what prompted this religious philosophy in the first place)

 

[DG Valdron]

Well, a new colony needs to be self sufficient on its own terms. Which is why the model of hunting to herding to farming emerged.

As to how the Thule culture expands, that's different at different times.

The original Thule Agricultural revolution comes about because of an accumulation of widespread pre-agricultural practices over a large area. This produces higher populations throughout the Thule range, and eventually produces a tipping point.

Agriculture emerges in founding areas, and spreads rapidly, with many communities making the transition on their own or through contact. In other cases traditional communities being displaced or destroyed by expanding agricultural communities (displacement wars). Population expanded rapidly, potential crises or bottlenecks were pushed off by continuing innovations, new plants, new animals.

Eventually, however, they can't outrun the tidal wave. The medieval glaciation catches up with them, the range of effective agriculture and the level of productivity shrinks, and there are a lot of refugees. This is essentially the big push south that I describe. The mortality rate of the push south is extremely high, something like 50%. It largely comes to an end as climate, population and land use stabilizes and resistance of Southern peoples to further Thule encroachment consolidates.

Alaska's expansion into Siberia comes about as a demographic quirk, a rich land, a very slow or late shift to agriculture, and a later period population boom. More on the Alaskan expansion later.

The Eastern expansion? Well, that's a different story, but as much driven by necessity as desire.

I think someone mentioned a million Thule in Greenland? Not hardly.

Greenland is about 2.17 million square kilometers, which is a huge territory. Greenland's surface area is comparable to places like Argentina, Sudan and Congo, and perhaps 2/3 the size of India. That's a lot of space.

The bad news is that about 85% of it is glaciated. So of that 2.17 million square kilometers 1.85 is under ice, and there's no way to make a living on that.

That still leaves 320,000 square kilometers, or about three or four times the area of Iceland. Well, that's lots of land right?

But that 320,000 is essentially a coastal strip all around the Island. The Island is immense, it crosses 24 degrees of latitude - from 60 north to 84 north. In comparison, the distance between Gibraltar and Scotland crosses only 19 degrees of latitude.

Think of Greenland not as a single huge mass, but rather a giant ribbon, perhaps 50 to 100 kilometers wide on average that extends north and south, with people living different lifestyles along the ribbon as the local climate is relatively warm or cold.

Now, having established Greenland as a ribbon, what's that ribbon like. Well, the inland parts closest to the Glaciers are most likely perpetually high arctic all the way around, cold and tundra, fit only for hunter/gathering, if that. Moving further towards the coast, you get an intermediate area, viable for herding but not for agriculture. Moving further out towards the coast, you would get an area where agriculture is viable. Basically the ribbon has three zones between Glacier and the Sea.

The thickness of these relative zones can change rapidly over time, which can mean that groups employing different lifestyles can be advantaged or disadvantaged.

The ribbon crosses vast latitudes. Let's take our three or four 'Icelands'

There's an "Iceland" that runs across the North, between 78 and 84 degrees North. This is a ribbon of land that is unglaciated because the air is simply too dry to support glaciers. It's essentially an arctic desert, cold as Ellesmere, as barren and dry as the Canadian Archipelago. Up there, the ribbon has only one strip - dry barren tundra. That's Musk Ox country, some Caribou maybe, a very thin population of hunter-gatherers and herders, and people harvesting off of the sea.

Or it would be, but for two things: One is that its an Iron production center, due to the Cape York meteor, and the more southern Disko Island. The other is that it's a trade route, a valuable trade route which gave access to the Norse initially, and even after, gave access to the Southern Greenland Thule that inherited what they could of Norse technology (mainly sheep, weaving and soapstone), and later of european trade. As you can tell, its an unstable trade route, waxing and waning in volume and numbers of people and animals passing through as the south evolves.

So you get people in the north, a few of them staying, a lot passing through. The ones passing through are passing through barren lands, so they bring provisions, or their dead bodies contribute to the local ecology. Population density is very low at the best of times, but the continuing passage into and through both damages and enriches the local ecology, which leaves it with a population higher than it ought to be.

Politically and economically, this part of the ribbon is dominated by the Ellesmere trading network, which sees immense advantages to controlling access to Iron, Wool, etc.

The 'second Iceland' is the eastern coastal strip that runs from about 78 north down to about 64 north. It's the most unstable area, where the three strips emerge and are clearly defined, but the territory held by each strip varies depending on your travel south, and varies from year to year. Each of the lifestyles, or sub-lifestyles is found here, waxing and waning, their strength varying, looking at good years and bad, occasionally warring to displace their neighbors as their strength runs high or their neighbors run weak. The one constant of this iceland, the East Coast strip is that population is almost always too high.

Two factors complicate the economies of the coastal strip subcultures. One is trade. People and goods are moving north and south between South Greenland and the Ellesmere trading network.

But that's variable. Originally there was no trade. Then there was trade building up rapidly in intensity when the interchange began with the Greenland Norse. Then that died down a bit as the Greenland Norse's most valuable product, Iron, was exhausted from their culture and the Greenland Norse got very cagy with what they had left. Then it picked up again as the Greenland Norse trade expanded to soapstone and wool. Died down as the Greenland Norse declined. Picked up as the Thule of the south inherited and began producing their own wool and soapstone, carrots and turnips. Died down somewhat as Sheep, carrots (or parsnips), turnips etc. began to be established in Baffin Island and more accessible parts of Thule, picked up again as European contact began with south Greenland becoming a trading point, and died down again as the Europeans began to bypass Greenland for and sail towards Baffin Island and Hudson Bay.

For the east coast, trade when its running strong is a mixed blessings. It's harder on the environment, but then again, it offers wealth and opportunities. The East Coast Thule can see and meet a lot of people coming through, and as a result they're uncommonly sophisticated. Their agricultural package is very finely tuned, and the extreme-conditions adapted part, the parts that survive in Ellesmere, or the horticulture that emerged in the Archipelago is state of the art here. Literacy is high. The relative wealth, material goods and supplies of travellers and traders filter into the local economy/environment.

But as I said, it waxes and wanes. So against that, the third leg for the East Coast Thule is the sea. All groups - the hunter gatherers, the herders, the farmers (and the sub-subcultures or sub-groups among them) the travellers and traders rely on the sea, on fishing, seal and walrus harvesting, on seaweed to balance the unstable foundations of their local economies and excess populations. But even the sea can, from day to day, be unreliable. Some days you put out to sea and come back with full nets, some days you come back with nothing.

Do you see why the East Coast Thule would go out to deeper and deeper seas to hunt giant 50 ton sea mammals? They damned well have to!

Or why the overpopulated, erratic, fluctuating mix of subcultures might well find some uninhabited land across the ice to be attractive? Because, by golly, it is!

Which then brings us to the South Greenland Thule. Loosely, they occupy the region from about 64 latitude North on the east coast round the cape, and up to about 70 latitude north on the west coast. Beyond that on the west coast is glaciated for a long stretch until you get to the north.

South Greenland at its best was warm enough for the Norse to make a go of it for a while with their more temperate agriculture and domesticates package - they hit a population peak of about 5000, largely because the colonization effort was so sparse - the Norse were on the third or fourth leg of the leapfrog. At its heyday, it might have supported three to five times more, if there'd been enough Norse to fill it up. But that was then.

South Greenland is colder now, but responds very well to the Arctic Agricultural package of the Thule. It was the last major area colonized in Thule expansion, and the relatively inviting climate and environment, the presence of the Norse and the trading opportunities they presented, drew a lot of people into the region. North coast Greenlanders always moved south into the East Coast when times got tough. East Coast Greenlanders always sent their surplus population, their refugees, their displaced, south. Between trade, displacement and opportunism, the south Greenland population expanded rapidly, with a number of subcultures and lifestyles emerging literally on top of each other. This resulted in fairly savage displacement wars, delayed by initial prosperity and the deformations of the Norse trade. The hunters were essentially wiped out or subsumed, the agricultural communities dominated, and herders were forced into a marginal position.

South Greenland too is overpopulated, feeling a bit of strain, and relying more on trade than the sea harvest to sustain itself, although both tend to be somewhat unreliable.

The total population of Greenland around the 1500's is maybe between 200,000 and 300,000, with may 5 to 10% in the north, 20 to 25% on the East coast, and the balance in the South.

The Svalbard colonization comes through a perfected 'ice boat' technology which emerges from 'whale boat' technology from the East Coast peoples. The complexities of Island colonization are worked out between Greenland and Svalbard, and then from Svalbard to Franz Josef.

This 'knowledge' or these technologies and organizational techniques make their way south, where a mixture of lower East Coast and South Greenland Thule, using a refined and proven package, make their try for Iceland. Iceland, because of the Gulf Stream generally keeping the surrounding sea open, is much harder. At least until the advancing cold period starts freezing the sea ice around it.

Of course, once the Thule reach Iceland, returners start bringing stories back. These go along the lines of Iceland being an incredibly wealthy place, filled with Norse every household of which is loaded with Iron. The Norse are so few and so wealthy that they only bother with the absolutely best land to farm the worst crops and most delicate animals. The interior of iceland is filled with vast empty tracts, perfect Caribou or Musk Ox territory, but empty of Caribou or Musk Ox, unclaimed by any people. Why a family could go over there with a couple dozen head of Caribou, and they could practically be kings. There is so much room that in a generation, their herd could be hundred. There is ample room and good soils and locations for real farming as the Thule practice it. Basically, the usual 'the streets are lined with gold.'

So for the South and East Coast Thule of Greenland, which are overpopulated and subject to various caprices of nature and trade, Iceland is very attractive and you get very ambitious colonization efforts. Entire herds of Reindeer and Musk Ox are driven across the ice, families and clans travel over loaded with supplies and the elements needed to start a new life, including flocks of ptarmigan and hare, their own turnips and parsnips, as well as every reasonable plant species in seeds and roots that might be useful.

The Iceland colonization effort is far larger than that for the more Northern Islands. Again, Svalbard's expeditions amount to only a few dozens of people at a time. Iceland sees hundreds. And those hundreds come year after year.

 

[kilost]

Well during the last couple days I've read this entire history, and got very little else done.

It seems to me that it's getting a little carried away at the moment, as its essentially reaching out to influence Northern Europe. It might be more realistic to exert itself eastwards.

Having said that, its an amazing idea, and your writing is excellent, and you've clearly put in a huge amount of effort. *applauds*

 

[DG Valdron]

Yes, you're right. We've jumped ahead a hundred years in the timeline and are paying a lot of attention to the Norse Interchange. It's an interesting territory, there's a lot going on, and a lot of interesting stuff to research. It kind of got away from me. I figured initially that the Thule would meet the Greenland Norse, get some stuff from them, and then die neatly, but as things evolved, the interface extends through to Iceland and Norway, and touches on the Barents and White Seas.

But at some point, I'll have to get back to the main Thule Sphere, because there's a hundred to a hundred and fifty years of serious development to catch up on.

And there's some very interesting and significant things going on over on the west side, as the Thule fight their way through Siberia.

So patience, all things happen in time. If it gets a bit out of order at points, well. so be it.

 

[DG Valdron]

Just to line up the demographics of the Thule population around 1600. Here are my ballparks:

Alaska - around 1.5 million

McKenzie - around 1.5 million

Hudson Bay - around .7 million

Siberia - around .4 million

Baffin - .35 million

Greenland - .2 or .3 million.

Labrador - .1 million

Ellesmere - .09 million


Sea Thule - .09 million

Achipelago - .04 million

Iceland - .03 million

Subject to revision.

 

[Falecius]

Just to line up the demographics of the Thule population around 1600. Here are my ballparks:

Alaska - around 1.5 million

McKenzie - around 1.5 million

Hudson Bay - around .7 million

Siberia - around .4 million

Baffin - .35 million

Greenland - .2 or .3 million.

Labrador - .1 million

Ellesmere - .09 million


Sea Thule - .09 million

Achipelago - .04 million

Iceland - .03 million

Subject to revision.

IMVHO, these are more or less the lowest possible ends. I tend to agree with regional proportions, but I'd double absolute numbers more or less and I'd go with more people proportionally in Labrador and Hudson Bay. Also, there's lot of room in Subarctic North America that is supposedly into the Thule cultural sphere though the population may not be majority Thule (especially in what is today British Columbia, but also northern parts of OTL's Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba).
A total of five million sounds too low to me.
Unless you are reckoning that epidemics have already made their way through, which is possible in 1600.

 

[DG Valdron]

IMVHO, these are more or less the lowest possible ends. I tend to agree with regional proportions, but I'd double absolute numbers more or less and I'd go with more people proportionally in Labrador and Hudson Bay. Also, there's lot of room in Subarctic North America that is supposedly into the Thule cultural sphere though the population may not be majority Thule (especially in what is today British Columbia, but also northern parts of OTL's Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba).
A total of five million sounds too low to me.
Unless you are reckoning that epidemics have already made their way through, which is possible in 1600.

I'm chronically conservative. I'm not figuring on epidemics in this. I might revisit these numbers. Hudson Bay might be larger, but I wouldn't put Labrador much higher.

 

[Falecius]

I'm chronically conservative. I'm not figuring on epidemics in this. I might revisit these numbers. Hudson Bay might be larger, but I wouldn't put Labrador much higher.

Well, not MUCH higher indeed, about Labrador.

 

[DG Valdron]

Labrador in a sense is the most remote portion of the Thule realm, accessible largely only from Baffin, and on the fringes of the trade network that spread out from Ellesmere. Greenland is also remote, but closely tied to the Ellesmere trade network and the fulcrum of the Norse interchange. Labrador was one of the last Thule regions to adopt agriculture, and originally its adoption was a limited package derived from Baffin. It does have a renaissance when sheep and bog iron harvesting make their way there. But on the whole, it remains on the fringe.

 

[The Sandman]

So what about Newfoundland?

If nothing else, fishermen from Southern Greenland are likely to establish camps there for processing cod and whales taken from the Grand Banks. Which then evolves into something a bit more permanent as people find it more convenient to just keep the infrastructure supporting the fishermen there year-round rather than shipping it back and forth each year from Greenland and wasting time setting it up and taking it down.

And then you start to have trade there when the first European fishermen (Basque or otherwise) stumble in and find that they can pretty much name their price for any metal tools they can spare, or for any hard liquor they might have aboard.

Which is happening simultaneous to the English and French colonization attempts in the region, so the situation will be wonderfully chaotic as everybody tries to monopolize the fishery and the trade routes.