Alt. Hist. request, Vikings make a go of the "New World"?

[Anomalocaris]

What is the point of pointing out that the Norse conducted agriculture better than Inuit?  Agriculture as the Norse did it was hopeless, Inuit way of life meant survival.  In the context, Inuit technology and way of life was infinitely superior.   Yet the Norse leaned nothing and died out.

How many colonizing powers actually adapt to the ways of the indigenous?  European colonizers couldn't wait to exterminate the indians.

The leading edge of later European colonization wave did trade with and adapt a substantial number of Indian crops and agricultural practices. These were instrument to initial success of later European colonial successes. That they didn’t adopt more of Indian practices can be chilled up to the fact that their original accustomed practices were as demonstrably inadequate as the Norse agriculture had been to meet the minimum requirements of survival.

The key difference between the Norse in Greenland and later Europeans is later Europeans didn’t fail to adopt Indian practices when their survival depended on it.

[Minimalist]

They did transport any number of American products back to Europe ( some good- potatoes, coffee,) (some bad - tobacco ) but they had no intention of living like Indians.  They brought their own animals, plants and other less useful products ( like their fucking churches ) and erased the native culture.

[The Grand Nudger]

The island of greenland became inadequate, the method of agriculture the norse used is still used today - as in...it's -the- agricultural system used today (they introduced it to western culture in the first place).  The leading edge of later european colonization didn't acculturate at all, nor did their survival ever depend on acculturation.

You're asking why a bunch of late (and post) iron age people didn't revert to stone age hunter gatherers. That's ludicrous. Why would they?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Usually a history thread breaks out in alt-hist...

[Anomalocaris]

The island of greenland became inadequate, the method of agriculture the norse used is still used today - as in...it's -the- agricultural system used today (they introduced it to western culture in the first place).  The leading edge of later european colonization didn't acculturate at all, nor did their survival ever depend on acculturation.

You're asking why a bunch of late (and post) iron age people didn't revert to stone age hunter gatherers.  That's ludicrous.  Why would they?

Uh, Because reverting to Stone Age mean survival?

A sign of lack of adaptability is rigidity in categorizing thing based on preconceived notions of better and worse in defiance to what allows one to survive and what will make one die.

[The Grand Nudger]

The island of greenland became inadequate, the method of agriculture the norse used is still used today - as in...it's -the- agricultural system used today (they introduced it to western culture in the first place).  The leading edge of later european colonization didn't acculturate at all, nor did their survival ever depend on acculturation.

You're asking why a bunch of late (and post) iron age people didn't revert to stone age hunter gatherers.  That's ludicrous.  Why would they?

Uh, Because reverting to Stone Age mean survival?

 A sign of lack of adaptability is rigidity in categorizing thing based on preconceived notions of better and worse in defiance to what allows one to survive and what will make one die.

Did you get around to reading the link I posted? The idea that the norse in greenland didn't adapt to their environs or were less skilled or well geared for marine hunting than the inuit is untenable. Their settlements revolved around it. The figures referenced in the article are that..at it's inception, the greenland diet was 30-40% marine. By the end, 80%. They hunted seals. They did this with the benefit of late and post iron age tech. The pop likely peaked at 2500, far fewer towards the end, and people did leave. We don;t get the sense of impending doom in correspondence from either greenland or iceland. Nothing at all seems to have happened, apart from a hunting outpost falling into desolation when the market fell out.

[Amarok]

Tech that allowed us to live in one of the harshest places on earth .


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en...le-arctic/

Why on earth would the norse want an igloo or a kayak...additionally, are we imagining that they couldn't produce their own snowholes and skinboats if they wanted to slum it?  

Not knocking the inuits, or doubting their resourcefulness...but superior tools required for the main activities the norse were engaged in, in greenland..were all in the possession of the norse.

Because there better in many ways to the European designed houses and tools of the time for dealing with the cold .They couldn't  make them at least not to the same quality . An Igloo is not a hole it's a well designed well thought out structure perfect for the harshest winter . And it not just the fact it's made of skin it's the way it's tampered etc etc . And Vikings fucked up in Greenland while we prospered there . I wonder why?



Inuit range 


Vikings and those colonies failed

---

[The Grand Nudger]

The norse were building stone churches and monolithic barn structures on greenland (in addition to sod insulated dwellings), a snowhole is a snowhole...is a snowhole.   

The idea that they "fucked up" on greenland is fantasy.  They did very well. It would be more accurate to conclude that the outposts no longer served a purpose and so, were abandoned, rather than that they failed. They lost interest and left. "They" being a generous way to describe whatever tiny handful of holdouts remained by that time, and the even tinier handful that couldn't leave..later. We're talking about the shitters who stick around after the only factory in town closed down decades prior, and the last family with a car had already left while the snow was piling up armpit high... here, lol.

Otherwise, the norse day to day life on greenland was remarkably like later innuit life..with the exception of the norse possessing superior tools in addition to substantial agricultural ability. Tools that the inuit would trade for themselves when the chance arose later down the line.

[Amarok]

The norse were building stone churches and monolithic barn structures on greenland (in addition to sod insulated dwellings), a snowhole is a snowhole...is a snowhole.    

Not impressive and an igloo is still a better structure then both .

The idea that they "fucked up" on greenland is fantasy.  They did very well. It would be more accurate to conclude that the outposts no longer served a purpose and so, were abandoned, rather than that they failed. They lost interest and left. "They" being a generous way to describe whatever tiny handful of holdouts remained by that time, and the even tinier handful that couldn't leave..later. We're talking about the shitters who stick around after the only factory in town closed down decades prior, and the last family with a car had already left while the snow was piling up armpit high... here, lol.

Were still their they are not . Nough said .

Otherwise, the norse day to day life on greenland was remarkably like later innuit life..with the exception of the norse possessing superior tools in addition to substantial agricultural ability. Tools that the inuit would trade for themselves when the chance arose later down the line.

Were still using out tools not norse ones .

[The Grand Nudger]

  
Not impressive and an igloo is still a better structure then both .

No, it's not.  It's a better field expedient structure (and I have a huge softspot for those...I want to be able to say that some field expedient x is better than viking age construction..but it's just not true). The internal and external features of an igloo are meant to serve the same function as monolithic cob/sod, or rubble construction (which had also been used to great effect in those latitudes -by- the natives).  The latter are structurally superior and all of the benefits that come with that.  The internal space of either sumps cold, the mass of the exterior/structural banks heat and prevents exposure. Not only do the r values favor masonry construction, masonry can be heated well above the melting point of water and it will bank and release that heat over time.

Were still their they are not . Nough said .

They had no reason to be, and had much better places to go.  Meanwhile, their houses are.....but you won't find many ancient igloos left over.

Were still using out tools not norse ones .

Do you use steel or iron?  Do you live in a snowhole?  Do you not have a decent boat? Are you not relying on agricultural systems for sustenance? Conceeding that the norse were technologically superior to the inuit is the simple acceptance of the fact that technology literally thousands of years into the future and equally applicable is superior technology.