Collapse of Norse Greenland

1147 Words3 Pages

The Collapse of Norse Greenland The collapse of Norse Greenland has been widely disputed; did this society truly collapse, or rather did they choose to leave for a better life elsewhere? Many books have been written on this subject; from Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fair or Succeed to the corresponding Patricia McAnany and Norman Yoffee’s Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire. In Diamond’s Collapse, there are five main points of collapse that have to happen before a society will collapse. These points are: 1. Environmental damage, 2. Climate change, 3. Hostile neighbors, 4. Friendly neighbors, and 5. Society’s response to environmental damage. When comparing it to McAnany and Yoffee’s Questioning Collapse, they dispute how societies don’t collapse, in fact there is a resilience to the societies and that they adjust according to their environment and how their economy and personal life is going. In my essay, I will compare Diamond’s view of collapse against the resilience view of McAnany and Yoffee. Analyzing the Norse Collapse from Diamond’s view, the first factor that he examines is the environmental damage aspect. He states that “The Greenland Norse damaged their environment in at least three ways: by destroying the natural vegetation, by causing soil erosion, and by cutting turf” (Diamond, p.248). Diamond believes that when the Vikings arrived, they began burning woodlands to clear areas for their livestock, and cut many trees down for shelter and firewood. When the Greenlanders began raising animals such as cows, sheep and goats, the amount of fodder for the animals increased, which in turn increased the amount of farming they had to do to maint... ... middle of paper ... ...ught could be seen as arrogant, and had a condescending attitude as they thought the Inuit were “skraelings (a sick, weak person)” (McAnany and Yoffee, p. 56), all their encounters may not have been confrontational. They believe that their attitude simply could have come from a religious factor that it was the difference in being Christian compared to non-Christian. Though artifacts were scarcely found from the Norse in the Thule Inuit ruins and vice versa, the artifacts that were found could represent an encounter, but could as well have been from plundering abandoned homes. Also, when searching Norse settlements, no weapons were found, thus making them powerless against the Inuits if it had come down to a conflict between them. A scene on a small piece of bone did depict a battle, however it is important to note that it did not depict a Norseman against an Inuit.

More about Collapse of Norse Greenland

Open Document