On how the failure of the Norse Greenlanders to settle Vinland was overdetermined

(This was originally a blog post of mine, made here.)

Last December, I wrote a short blog post about the latest study on the Greenland climate during the Norse era, suggesting that the temperature wasn't that much warmer than now. This, as was noted at the time, had substantial implications for the conventional model of Greenland's failure, and Vinland's abortive birth.

Climate change has often been cited as key element to this story — the basic notion being that the Vikings colonized Greenland in an era dubbed the “Medieval Warm Period,” which ran roughly from 950 to 1250, but then were forced to abandon their Greenland settlements as temperatures became harsher in the “Little Ice Age,” from about 1300 to 1850.

Yet in a new study published Friday in Science Advances, researchers raise doubts about whether the so-called Medieval Warm Period was really so warm in southern Greenland or nearby Baffin Island — suggesting that the tale of the Vikings colonizing but then abandoning Greenland due to climatic changes may be too simplistic. Their evidence? New geological data on the extent of glaciers in the region at the time, finding that during the era when the Norse occupied the area, glaciers were almost as far advanced as they were during the subsequent Little Ice Age.

“This study suggests that while the Vikings may have left Iceland when it was relatively warm, they arrived in the Baffin Bay region, and it was relatively cool,” said Nicolás Young, a professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and lead author of the study, which was conducted with three colleagues from Columbia and the University at Buffalo. “So for their initial settlement, and the first few centuries when they were there, they persisted and thrived somewhat during a relatively cool climate. And so it’s sort of a stretch to say that a cool climate is what drove them out of the region, when they demonstrated that they could be somewhat successful during a cool climate.”


The new emergent consensus seems to be that Norse Greenland ended quietly, without catastrophe. There were no bloody massacres by Inuit and/or pirates, no mass graves, no radical worsening of the environment. There was just a slow chipping away of a marginal colony in a marginal environment, perhaps with a slow drain of people to nicer climes--Iceland, say, or even mainland Europe. A Markland with a hostile environment, or a Vinland with a hostile population, would have been practically as distant from Greenland as the ancestral mother country of Norway, but that country was (comparatively) densely populated, a market for goods and a source for others and significant as the ultimate homeland of the Norse. Even a Vinland emptied of people would lack critical economic incentives for migrants.

There were good reasons for the Norse disinterest in Vinland. Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist's paper "The Significance of Remote Resource Regions for Norse Greenland" (PDF format) and Andrew J. Dugmore, Christian Keller, and Thomas H. McGovern's "Norse Greenland Settlement: Reflections on Climate Change, Trade, and The Contrasting Fates of Human Settlements in the North Atlantic Islands" make the very compelling arguments that the high Arctic was more economically important for the Greenlanders than Vinland: the High Arctic was the critical source of the narwhal tusks that were Greenland's main export that was a destination for regular hunting trips on an annual basis, but a more remote Vinland was a source of quality timber for shipbuilders that could be visited more rarely. (That, as Thomas W. N. Haine's "Greenland Norse Knowledge of the North Atlantic Environment" (PDF format) argues, Greenland's shortage of substantial stores of native wood was one of the factors dooming the Norse in the absence of regular trade, with Europe or with Vinland. Had this trade been here, the Greenlanders' exports to Europe remaining in vogue, the colony might well have survived.) What did remote Vinland offer the Greenlanders that was worth the trip?

All this brings us to the exciting reports of the discovery in southwestern Newfoundland of a potential Viking site, the second after world-famous L'Anse aux Meadows. That first site is located on the northern tip of the island of Newfoundland, opposite Labrador. Point Rosee, as the below map from the CBC shows, is located near the southwestern corner of Newfoundland, facing the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

aWlb5G8.png


If the Point Rosee site is confirmed to be Viking, this has huge implications for Greenland's history and potential. There has long been speculation that the Vikings travelled beyond L'Anse aux Meadows, deeper into Newfoundland and throughout the littoral of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There is some speculation that the Vikings visited Prince Edward Island, at least, if not the wider Maritimes. Then as now, the Maritimes offer a considerably more clement physical environment than Newfoundland. A Viking outpost at Point Rosee would be very well positioned as a base to explore the Maritimes, it being far closer to Cape Breton or the Iles-de-la-Madeleine or Prince Edward Island than L'Anse-aux-Meadows.

Why did the Greenlanders not take advantage of their knowledge of this land, more hospitable than their own sub-Arctic home? The hostility of the native populations to the interlopers was surely a factor, but I would argue that even more important was the Greenlanders' disinterest in Vinland. They knew about the territory for centuries, and indeed likely made semi-regular visits to acquire the timber resources that they needed. Beyond these visits, the Greenlanders had little interest in colonizing a territory that not only lacked the natural resources that their economy depended on, but was far too remote from their Nordic homeland and their European market for a sustainable colony to ever develop, If, perhaps, the Greenlanders had a greater surplus, perhaps they might have been able to splurge, to experiment. Such a surplus was never likely, not with their marginal sub-Arctic colony being so highly dependent on long-range trade.

Very frequently in alternate history, it's imagined that the decision of Greenlanders to not settle Vinland was chance, that if any number of factors had gone differently they might have continued the Norse migration further west across the Atlantic. The new picture that is forming, with Greenlanders apparently being aware of their Vinland and its potential for centuries, suggests otherwise. The Greenlanders did not colonize Vinland, it seems, because such a colonization was not likely and quite possibly not possible given the constraints that they faced. Much would needed to change for the Norse to ever make it to the Americas. Perhaps the Norse expansion would need to be different, not a product of anarchistic migrations but rather a product of planning by a medieval Norse monarchy, one that did command the resources that would be needed for such a distant colony as Vinland. Such an expansion, it goes without saying, would be very different from the migrations we know about.
 
Yeah, that makes sense. I thought it was well-known that Greenland didn't end in one or two catastrophic events, I knew the people there just emigrated back to Iceland or elsewhere in the Norse world over the course of a few generations. And they had no reason to go to Vinland precisely because they never put any settlements there.

Much would needed to change for the Norse to ever make it to the Americas. Perhaps the Norse expansion would need to be different, not a product of anarchistic migrations but rather a product of planning by a medieval Norse monarchy, one that did command the resources that would be needed for such a distant colony as Vinland. Such an expansion, it goes without saying, would be very different from the migrations we know about.

Which that would definitely be impossible, considering how little control over Iceland the Norwegian monarchy asserted until the 13th century. And Iceland itself was a rather disorganised, anarchical society. And even after the Icelanders accepted the King of Norway as their ruler, it isn't really like the King of Norway (or his Danish successors) ever took a particularly active part in Icelandic affairs. And I don't know if Greenland ever was actually under the control of the Norwegian crown--if so, the Norwegian/Danish kings probably took even less of an active role in the affairs there.

So it seems like you'd need the Norwegians to be more concerned about Iceland earlier on and then by extension Greenland and then finally, that chunk of land on the other side of the sea the Greenlanders sometimes visit.
 
A really nice post, I'll be reading these links for a while. Definitely appreciate the heads up on the latest discoveries.
 
Which that would definitely be impossible, considering how little control over Iceland the Norwegian monarchy asserted until the 13th century. And Iceland itself was a rather disorganised, anarchical society. And even after the Icelanders accepted the King of Norway as their ruler, it isn't really like the King of Norway (or his Danish successors) ever took a particularly active part in Icelandic affairs. And I don't know if Greenland ever was actually under the control of the Norwegian crown--if so, the Norwegian/Danish kings probably took even less of an active role in the affairs there.

The Kingdom of Norway claimed Greenland and there seems to have been at least some efforts on the part of royal and clerical authorities alike to exercise authority over the Greenlanders. The Greenlanders' own social organization, based on a chieftain system perhaps reinforced by the effects of the various hunts, was resilient in the face of these very long-distance efforts at control.

So it seems like you'd need the Norwegians to be more concerned about Iceland earlier on and then by extension Greenland and then finally, that chunk of land on the other side of the sea the Greenlanders sometimes visit.

How to get that is something I'm not clear on.
 
The Kingdom of Norway claimed Greenland and there seems to have been at least some efforts on the part of royal and clerical authorities alike to exercise authority over the Greenlanders. The Greenlanders' own social organization, based on a chieftain system perhaps reinforced by the effects of the various hunts, was resilient in the face of these very long-distance efforts at control.


But did they ever have Greenland even as much as they had control of Iceland? Because if I recall, Greenland was basically forgotten about until one day after the Protestant Reformation someone in Denmark-Norway worried the people there might still be Catholics and took action based on that.
 
The POD point for Norse Vinland would be Eric the Red, I think. The man _somehow_ managed to fast-talk Icelanders into throwing themselves at the edge of the world. If he got blown off course and explored Newfoundland instead of Greenland, we might get a *Greenland on the Avalon peninsula or something. Cape Breton if we are _really_ extravagant, maybe. A self sufficient colony that could easily expand and absorb excess Icelandic population could then work as a launching point for the colonization of the rest of the maritimes. I doubt Iceland would have resources to mount another expedition even if they wanted to and trying to colonize on shoestring budget, especially among hostile natives, would be hard. Even one thing going wrong could send your colony into a death spiral.
 
Last edited:
There were no bloody massacres by Inuit

while the Inuits didn't massacre all of them, there was at least one instance of it; the Icelandic Annals for 1379 mentions clearly that the 'Skraelings' killed 18 of the Greenlanders, and the Western Settlement was abandoned because of them...
 
while the Inuits didn't massacre all of them, there was at least one instance of it; the Icelandic Annals for 1379 mentions clearly that the 'Skraelings' killed 18 of the Greenlanders, and the Western Settlement was abandoned because of them...

That is not necessarily the case. There also seems to have been a long history of cooperation, even neighbourliness. At least as likely may have been the emigration of these Norse to points elsewhere, Iceland or even North America. The Western Settlement was viable mainly as a base for the narwhal trade, and as the trade collapsed its rationale declined.
 
It may have a been a combination effect, rather than a single distinct cause. Diseases had decimated Icelandic and European populations, so there was free land. Elephant ivory imports lowered walrus ivory prices. The little ice age. And then having a skirmish with the natives - maybe that skirmish was even provoked by incresingly marginal conditions? - and the Norse may have decided to just leave since there were places to go at the time.
 
Y'know, the Magdalens had an abundant walrus population which the Mi'kmaqs hunted on an annual basis.
Only disappeared completely in the 1800s, due to overhunting.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the fascinating entry! I'll have to check the blog soon. I too read about the second potential Norse ruins in Newfoundland. It's good to re-evaluate history from time to time.

One question, though: the accounts of Medieval wine being produced in Britain; if the temperature in the time frame being discussed was similar to today's, how could Britain sustain a reportedly highly regarded wine production?
 
I think the lack of timber was the real issue. And iron, but mostly timber. They did go on lumbering expeditions to Vinland but... at some point, over decades and centuries, some happenstance will leave you shipless. And then its all over because without ships, you cant go to Vinland for timber to make more ships.

I suspect, if they had had more ships to move more people, moving to Vinland would have been more feasible. They had fewer people than the natives, but much better population density.
 
Oh -guess whats heavily underrepresented in graves from the end of the Norse time on Greenland?

Women. Especially young ones. I don't know why, although several possibilities spring to mind.
 
while the Inuits didn't massacre all of them, there was at least one instance of it; the Icelandic Annals for 1379 mentions clearly that the 'Skraelings' killed 18 of the Greenlanders, and the Western Settlement was abandoned because of them...

Or, if you believe the other version of Western Settlement's abandonment, it would be because of taxes / church control (aka, the "church" owned a good chunk of the best lands by the 12-13th century). And because of this, they left for "greener" pastures where they wouldn't be so "enthralled"...
 
Y'know, the Magdalens had an abundant walrus population which the Mi'kmaqs hunted on an annual basis.
Only disappeared completely in the 1800s, due to overhunting.

This.

Mine and Bavarian's TL had those Islands be a very important place for Norse colonization (Although we both developed the Idea independently believe it or not). While it wouldn't be the first, I would say that it would be at a strategic point for any exploration and colonization of the St. Lawrence Gulf. Along with the Avalon Peninsula with it's easily accessible Iron deposits and close proximity to the Grand Banks and then along with the L'anse aux meadows area that was hilly enough for sheep herding and the actual OTL settlement was on a peninsula that could have been easily fortified.

Get the Those three Settlements up and going and Vinland in Norse Land
 
I think the lack of timber was the real issue. And iron, but mostly timber. They did go on lumbering expeditions to Vinland but... at some point, over decades and centuries, some happenstance will leave you shipless. And then its all over because without ships, you cant go to Vinland for timber to make more ships..

I'm more inclined to your view. I also think we can't ignore that the Icelandic Sagas give their own reason for Vinland's abandonment; hostile natives. Not sure why we should disregard the oral history.
 
The original Icelandic settlers were pretty wealthy, I think. They came by their own ships, and a lot of them were Norwegians escaping the increase of royal power in Norway.

But, Iceland needed to import, well, everything. Most notably timber and iron. And they exported, what, woolen cloth and maybe stockfish. So they bled money and lost ships over time. Maybe there was even lessening of the skills needed if they did not build a lot of ships. Greenlanders could send lumbering expeditions, but that could not have been trivial. Plus, trade was critical and ships were needed for trade.

I don't imagine the Norse were keen on reserving their ships on ventures that brought no immediate profit.
 
Top