Why do you think the Norse failed to adapt to changes in their environment and climate? Why did they fail to adopt any of the Inuit techniques for getting so much out of the un-forgiving arctic environment?
-
Brandon Davis
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
brenden, 
eddietastic, 
natashap, and 24 others are discussing.
sharonshi 7:37 pm on January 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that the Norse failed to adapt to changes in their environment and climate due to the fact that their culture was rigid and set. Such strict culture repels change, even though change is a key aspect needed to enhance and lengthen survival. For example, their unwillingness to eat fish caused starvation. On the other hand, the Inuit had substantial advantage, not only with their weaponry, but the fact that their food supply was of more a variety than that of the Norse. The climate change also affected the Norse because it limited their trading supply. This in end should cause the Norse to trade more with the Inuits. However, they failed to do that, which limited their supplies even further.
jenniefrench 1:33 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believed the Norse failed to adapt to changes in the environment and climate because they were a deeply traditional and conservative culture. They were also very European influenced, something that had become part of their culture, and it was a way of life they valued and identified with. They were unwilling to adapt to their environment, preferring to adapt their environment to suit them – sound familiar? As well, they did not seek help or information from the natives of the area, the Inuit, probably believing they were superior, in that they were European, to the “primitive” peoples. I think the Norse are a good example of a people unwilling to accept that they were changing their environment in a negative way, or that with the environment changing around them, they refused to be forced to change.
sampethick 6:55 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
My thoughts are along the same lines as yours Jennie.. probably a feeling of superiority towards the “non-Europeans” had something to do with the fact that the Norse were so unwilling to adopt any of the Inuit technologies and techniques for survival in the area. These feelings most likely created a large divide between the two groups which was neither side cared to fix.
jonl 2:26 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems pride is definitely entrenched in the European culture which the Norse chose to carry on in their settlement. I definitely agree with the point of viewing themselves as superior to the Inuit. I think the failure to adapt to eating fish is what really brought them to their downfall.
msmith92 4:13 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Norse valued their European roots very much, to the point where it may not have been practical to do so. For instance, they insisted on wearing European fashions even in the harsh cold of the Arctic. This may have been a major contributing factor as to why they did not think they needed to adapt. Additionally, they likely thought of the Inuit as inferior and so did not seek their help or knowledge on many topics that could have prevented their downfall. Lastly, their lifestyle had functioned so efficiently for so many years that they were reluctant to adapt as the climate began to shift. Their successful system probably made them complacent and less likely to change their ways.
roypat 4:35 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Norse may have failed (albeit, over a number of years) due to both changes in the climate, and an unwilingness to change or admit fault. An inherent stubbornness may have caused this – or just the fact that they were xenophobic and did not want to communicate with the Inuit and trade or learn their ways.
jlin 10:36 pm on January 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think my answer is pretty much the same as everybody else’s so I won’t repeat it again but yes! This unwillingness…possibly part of the implication of the environmental determinism we were talking about on wall 2.2 eh? Makes for an interesting comparison to our own society. The collapse of the Norse and other civilizations in the past, I wonder if it makes us think that somehow our world today and our society especially is immune from a “collapse” as well. Certainly that should not be the case unless we want to prove the validity of this quote: “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”-Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
brandond 2:00 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I like that quote Joyce! Obviously one of the key questions that should come up in this module is if we will be able to break such patterns. Unlike with previous environmental catastrophes, we have some ability to predict how climate change will shape the planet and can plan ahead. Yet whether or not we will be able to use this advantage and actually adapt is still an open question.
bgibson 3:23 pm on January 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I have a similar view to many of you in that I attribute the fall of the Norse people in Greenland to their conservative culture. While the European lifestyle that they tried to emulate in Greenland was successful for a number of years, it proved to be unsustainable. The European lifestyle and agriculture they imported depleted their natural resources (trees) and it is likely that the Norse would have experienced difficultly maintaining that lifestyle without making changes. However, the Little Ice Age exacerbated the problems and challenged the Norse to make wholesale changes. Due to their reluctance to abandon their European roots they eventually starved.
Someone above postulated that the Norse may not have been willing to learn from the Inuit because they viewed them as “heathens.” I think this is a valuable point since modern parallels can be draw illustrating how religion can sometimes prevent cooperation and understanding between different peoples. Furthermore, language barriers may have prevented effective trade or diplomacy. Additionally there are many historical examples of cultures being distrustful of others who look or dress differently. The inuit would certainly have looked strange to the Norse who insisted on wearing European fashions.
congo96 6:32 pm on January 18, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The readings mentioned that the Greenland Norse were very conservative and held on to their european tradition. If the Greenland Norse were so set in their ways they would not want to adapt to the ways of a different society. Furthermore if contact between the two societies mostly resulted in conflict it would make each group more reluctant to imitate the other culture in spite of the possible positive effects.
paige 12:11 am on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
If the Norse was so set in it’s European ways, demonstrated by wearing very inappropriate linens, then a shift in lifestyle towards the Inuit ways may have been look down upon. Clearly it would have helped, but cultures are what cultures are. I agree with what people have already been saying previously.
phoebe 1:36 am on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with the conservativeness of the Norse which led to their downfall. Their pride in their European roots likely prevented them from trading or recieving any advice from the Inuits which they would have considered different interior people. Possibly, the changes in the harsh climate along with the arrival of the Inuits made them just decide to pack up and go set sail for greener pastures and to leave what they considered harsh and inhabitable lands to the Inuits.
katehaxt 7:49 am on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As mentioned by everyone else the Norse’s inability to adapt to climate change and to learn from the Inuit was probably due to the fact that they were trying to hold onto a European culture (food, dress, sense of superiority) in a non-European climate. The stratification of the society may also have inhibited change. One can imagine the poorer Norse being hit first by difficulties but perhaps the few at the top were unwilling to consider abadoning a situation where they held all the power and wealth. When eventually the leaders started starving as well, it may have been too late to change. A more democratic, egalitarian society may have been motivated to address the situation sooner and by drawing on the intelligence of the whole community may have been able to respond better. Hmmm….
youngblutt 9:37 am on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Along the lines of other posts that suggest the Norse failed to give up their European values, some research suggests that they may have been in an economic trade bubble with North Europe over ivory. When Europe began exploiting Africa they suddenly had all the ivory they could ever want; they no longer required ivory trade with the Norsemen. So, it may have been that the Greenland Norse were able to sustain themselves for a short while but when trade dropped off the impacts of their deforestation, soil degradation and lack of necessary adaptation, set in.
Research by Kirsten A. Seavera – Desirable teeth: the medieval trade in Arctic and African ivory
tsung18 11:01 am on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Norse failed to adapt to changes to their environment and climate as they were unable to change or revise the values of their culture as well as their “way of life” through customs of eating and hunting Caribou and Seal. As a central component to this module, “humans are products of their environment,” the Norse has relied on a few resources far too much (such as wood) and didn’t bother looking into other resources. As the climate began to change, the Norse still continued to rely on certain resources and didn’t adapt accordingly. In comparison to the Inuit people who were willing to adapt and ensured survival, the Norse people seemed too proud of their Eurocentric values and didn’t want a change in their customs or way of life. Instead of using different resources in their surrounding environment, they relied on trade with Europe. In comparison, the Inuit people used any resources available in their surroundings and therefore, were able to survive. The Norse were simply too proud of their identity and were unwilling to adapt to the ever-changing Arctic environment that lead to their demise.
jaydee 5:14 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Is it possible that the climate change itself played a role? If the climate was becoming colder over time, the Norse would have become more and more constrained to residing in the warmer environments. Meanwhile, the Inuit, who are well adapted to living in these colder areas would be capable of living and surviving in the environments that the Norse could not. Between this and the inflexibility of the Norse culture, it is not surprising that they did not thrive.
Keaton Briscoe 6:17 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the Norse inability to adapt to changes in their environment and climate was do to their inflexibility and stubborness about their values. Their culture was dependant on cariboo and seals which they did not consider adapting and their culture was set a specific way. Their inability to set aside their cultural values and adapt to the changing environment clearly was the reason for their demise. It could have been possible that they were too proud of their culture to change the ways in which they lived.
lcoulthard 10:25 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems like climate change played a major role in the downfall of Greenland’s Nordic populations. Their over-harvesting of the trees drove them to run out of their fuel source, also contributing to a loss of cropland because of soil erosion. Also, since ~80% of their food came from seals by the 14th century the increasing sea ice from the temperature drop would have made providing a main part of their diet very difficult. On top of that it would have been harder to obtain fuel or food supplies from the mainland because of the ice. The Inuit, with more advanced techniques and previous arctic-like climatic experience, probably out-competed the Norse for what scarce resources there were. It doesn’t seem like the Inuit were explicitly aggressive towards the Norse, so it is possible that the Norse did not try to adapt or have relations with the Inuits because they may have been put-off by “outsiders” who used different types of tools and lived in igloos.
nytsuen 1:05 pm on January 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think there are 2 reasons to this question and the first one is how their culture is so traditionally rooted and conservative. Like the module has mentioned, they had developed practices that worked for hundreds of years so changing these might not be a good idea. However, if your people are dying out because of starvation, wouldn’t you change your ways to preserve your people from extinction. Thus, the second reason is that they probably wanted to preserve their pride. I believe that the Vikings probably carried the European attitude over to Greenland thinking that non-Europeans and indigenous peoples were babaric, and uncivilized. Therefore, they didn’t want to ask for help or associate with them because that would ruin their ‘reputation.’
yitailiu 2:49 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems that the Greenland Norse did have a deep rooted set of beliefs and values which would not be easily changed. The Vikings did manage to adapt to the Greenland climate during their early years of settlement in Greenland. During those early years, they still maintained trade with Europe but their way of living is effected by the environment, for example, they shifted from farming to hunting because the climate in Greenland is less suitable for farming. They were willing to adapt to the changes of their environment as long as the changes are not in conflict with their traditional European values. As the climate condition worsened, the Norse failed to adapt to the environment because they refused to any further actions that would challenge their traditional beliefs.
kimzzzy 7:02 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think it could be that the Norse did not want to take from the environment due to their beliefs about preserving nature. This meant that they were not able to adapt to the environment in Greenland and led to their starvation. Culture is important as it helps form ties between a group of people, so it was difficult for them to break free of their norms without being considered as an outcast. This is especially true for Norse since it was previously mentioned that it was more likely for individuals to conform than to not.
shalinb 9:12 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think there are two factors that related to the Norse failing to adapt to the changes in their environment. The first, the culture of the Norse most likely restricted them from expanding their food intake to include fish, which would have benefited them substantially seeing that there was an abundance of fish. However, it was a shared belief between the Norse to not eat fish, therefore probably implying it was some type of cultural belief. The second factor was that they still dressed in a more european type of way, which shows that they were still connected to their past beliefs of a european lifestyle. As a result of this, it showed they were not really adapted to broaden and accept the change that was necessary to live in a colder climate than they were used to. The environment impacted their lifestyle, but they were not completely able to adapt to the environment due to this bond they had with their european beliefs and lifestyle. This tie to european views was probably the reason they refused to get help from the Inuit that had seemed to adapt and live in the harsh cold climate. The view that europeans are superior to others was probably shared between the Norse, thus asking the Inuit for help would show a weakness for the Norse.
Danni 7:43 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Despite the climate change reason, the major causes are Viking’s living habits actually altered the environment, like cutting trees and turf; and their failure in learning from Inuit, who held their expertise in surviving in the Artic area for thousands of years. Animal resources are recover more rapidly than plant resources. Inuit used seal’s skin for kayaks making, seal’s oil for fueling, in lieu of cutting trees and using wood like Viking. In this case, Inuit’s living habit has far less impact on the environment than the Viking. Moreover, Viking’s diets were too rely on seal. When the temperature gradually dropped on the SW of Greenland, their hunting and trading had been slowing blocked. However, if they could adopt some surviving techniques from Inuit, their settlement could be managed longer. For example, they could overcome their taboo in fish free diet, or attempt to alter their habits in energy consumption, like using seal or whale blubber.
erikaw 1:56 pm on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It seems that the Norse failed to adapt to their environment because they were holding on to their past culture and habits (or their ancestors past habits and culture) from life in Europe. Wood houses and sustaining on meat and dairy were ideal for the location of Europe, and the time in which they resided there. The Norse did not adapt their ways to life in Greenland either because they were stubborn in thought and didn’t think changing their actions could suite them better in a new environment or because they were simply blind to the resources surrounding them.
Maybe they failed to adopt Inuit techniques because of thought processes that were engrained in them from back when they lived in Europe. Abrupt statements such as those by Montesquieu probably made huge impact, and caused some very narrow minded thought processes to develop.
natashap 11:04 am on January 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the Norse failed to adapt because they were so culturally European. When they moved to Greenland, they didn’t really try to use what the environment there offered them – they just tried to replicate their life from Europe.
I think they failed to adopt the Inuit techniques because they had been surviving using their own for so long. Since the Inuit showed up at the very end of their slow downfall, they probably seemed foreign and untrustworthy – perhaps if the Inuit were around a bit earlier, the Norse may have “warmed up” to them a bit more. Another reason they may have failed to use Inuit techniques is because some of the things that the Inuit did were taboo to the Norse – such as eating fish.
eddietastic 7:48 pm on January 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
looking at the culture of the Norse vikings, one would make the conclusion that their society was one that was both rigid and unforgiving. Weakness was probably not accepted due to the need for them to pillage and gain food and riches because their own land was unforgiven. Furthermore, vikings did not communicate as much as they should because of their need of plunder and as a result may have not gained many of the techniques which the Inuit used to survive
brenden 4:53 pm on January 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with the comment above that based on the picture of Norse culture presented to us, they seemed to be very rigid and conservative which likely led to their doomed society. The Norse tried to maintain their european culture in a country which was much different environmentally. Greenland was much less forgiving then other parts of europe and it gave the norse less to work with (forests ect.). While they did make some adaptations (feeding cows hay and seaweed in the winter and hunting seals and caribou) they did not adapt to the land they way the inuit did. Why they did not trade with the inuit is a bit of a mystery. Considering that they had access to european goods which would have likely been of great value to the inuit populations, it is odd that they did not develop a system of trade which would have mutually benefited both parties and provided the Norse with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. I assume that their stubborn nature and reluctance to change played some role in it.