In 983, the brave Viking Erik the Red discovered new uninhabited lands west of Iceland. Cleverly calling them Greenland, that is, "Green Land", he persuaded a group of compatriots to leave with him. The Scandinavian colony existed for about 450 years, but at the end of the XIV century, for not entirely clear reasons, the connection with the mainland was cut off. A century and a half later, the Europeans again arrived on the island, but did not find any traces of the first settlers. What happened there?
Let's try to figure it out, but for the sake of completeness, let's start from the starting point - the Norman conquests.
The Vikings terrorized medieval Europe for several centuries. The very word vikingar in Old Norse meant either "pirate" or "man from the fjord", but also, in principle, a robber.
And the Scandinavian expansion, admittedly, was quite successful. One of the most successful in history: the Varangians founded dynasties throughout Europe - from Sicily to England. And in some places they contributed to the formation of entire states - in Normandy or here in Russia, for example.
They were also pioneers in the exploration of the North Atlantic, becoming the first Europeans to set foot on American soil around 1000 AD. A well-known story.
But the “discovery” of the New World was essentially just a by-product of another bold project - the colonization of Greenland. The Viking settlement lasted on this land for about 450 years (or maybe 500) and all this time it was almost the most remote corner of Europe. And then it disappeared.
It is unfair: in those heroic times, the laurels of the brave conquerors and other epic honors went exclusively to the southern outpost of Christendom - the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Recently, however, interest in the history of Scandinavian Greenland is perhaps no less than in the chronicles of the Crusades. Scientists ask the question: how could an entire country disappear near Europe's side, what was the reason, what are the limits of human adaptation to the climate and can the negative impact of humans on the environment lead to the death of our species?
Promotional video:
In general, the Vikings would love it, because above all they valued the opportunity to glorify themselves for centuries.
The prelude to the colonization of the world's largest island was the incredible revitalization of the ancient Scandinavians from the second half of the 8th century.
At that time, the Vikings literally lived on the outskirts of Europe: the Roman influence practically did not touch them, and all the achievements of civilization penetrated there last.
The expansionist ardor of the bulk of the Germans, which resulted in the well-known "Great Migration of Peoples", was a little late among the Scandinavians. And that is why, probably, it became such a noticeable phenomenon: in the VIII-XI centuries, the Norman-Danish-Varangians were one of the most noticeable forces on the political map of Europe.
The local population had two advantages: firstly, these were valuable resources - furs, skins of sea animals and wax, and secondly, the bizarre coastline, which contributed to the fact that the northerners became skilled navigators. They also had access to the sea - and no windows had to be cut.
Gradually, Scandinavian merchants established routes to the final markets - to where they paid generously in gold for their products.
The wealth of the foreigners so turned the heads of some comrades that one fine day they decided not to take anything from the consumer goods with them. But in excess they stocked up with melee weapons and other unkind devices.
This is how the successful merchants turned into “Vikings” - sea robbers. Note, meanwhile, that they still put material benefit at the forefront in any of its manifestations. In modern terms, they were risky and at the same time not very choosy businessmen.
During fishing expeditions on the high seas, some of the ships were knocked off course and carried away to the northeastern part of the Atlantic. Once a sailor named Gunnbjörn noticed new lands there and told his relatives about it.
These stories were not disregarded by one of the most restless Vikings of that time - Eirik Thorvaldsson, better known as Erik the Red. To get some idea about him, it is enough to mention that he was twice deprived of his registration: first in Norway, and then in Iceland. Both times for murder.
Finding new "no-man's" lands, Eric returned and invited a group of Icelanders to join him in their development.
They sailed by an impressive flotilla of 25 ships at that time, of which only 14 reached their destination - with 400 settlers on board.
The Vikings founded two settlements - East and West. These names, by the way, should not mislead you - they are rather South and North, or North and Even More North. Subsequently, the total number of islanders was, according to various estimates, from two to five thousand people.
The last documentary evidence of the "living" Greenlanders dates back to 1410. It casually describes how a certain captain Torstein Olafsson arrived on the island, lived there for 4 winters, married a girl named Sigrid Bjornsdottir and sailed back safely.
When in 1585 (according to other sources, in 1540), the Europeans again arrived in a distant colony, they did not find anything there, except for a few dilapidated buildings.
The overly emotional impressions of the second wave of "discoverers" added an excessive aura of mystery to the problem. In fact, modern science has found (and continues to find) numerous evidences about the way of life and living conditions of the ancient Scandinavians in Greenland. Including the last of them.
But this does not change our interest. Moreover, the latest research gives rise to a completely opposite question: did anything happen to the Vikings at all?
Let's try to figure it out.
The oldest is the version of death at the hands of the Inuit. They are Eskimos, they are also representatives of the Thule people culture. The Vikings did not go into ethnographic subtleties and called them skraelings, which according to one version meant "villains", and according to the other - "stumps" or "churochki".
So, the expeditions sent in search of the disappeared settlers were confident that the latter still roam somewhere among the pagans, feral and restless.
At the same time, according to legend, the "blue-eyed skrelingi" were glimpsed - the descendants of the Vikings who allegedly mixed with the local population, and the Inuit themselves seemed to tell about the battles with the "pale-faced" that took place.
Alas, the latest data of geneticists indicate that most likely there was no mixing with the Scandinavians of the Thule people. Back in 2005, Gísli Pálsson from the University of Iceland (Háskóli Íslands) published the results of decoding the DNA of Greenlandic and Canadian Inuit, in which traces of European haplogroups were not found.
Other scientists did not find them either: when analyzing hereditary combinations and connections between the Paleo- and Neo-Eskimos, as well as in a comparative study of genetic markers extracted from the remains of the Vikings and taken from a control group of Inuit.
By the way, about the "local": the Eskimos seem to us the natural inhabitants of Greenland. But the fact is that the Vikings considered themselves to be the indigenous population. The Thule people came to these lands only around 1300. And the so-called Paleo-Eskimos - representatives of the Dorset culture - did not climb so far south.
And what does it do? Small, and even alien natives wiped out the warriors who terrified all of Europe from the face of the earth? It doesn't fit in my head.
Everyone knows the history of the Spanish conquest of America, when hundreds or even dozens of conquistadors defeated many thousands of Inca or Chibcha Muisca armies. And here?
In Scandinavian sources there are several testimonies describing encounters with aliens. The last documentary record really tells us about the grim events of 1379, when the Skrelingi who attacked the settlement killed 18 men and took "two children and one concubine" with them.
Moreover, the events unfolded already in the Eastern settlement - a key outpost of the Scandinavian society. It's like letting Napoleon go to Moscow. And 18 adult men for such a small society is a significant number.
And yet, military clashes were not the reason for the disappearance of the Vikings - after all, no archaeological or genetic evidence was found in favor of this version.
The absence of mixed marriages, by the way, can have a very original explanation.
The author of the book "Collapse" (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed) and one of the most famous researchers of the Scandinavian colonization of Greenland in recent times, Jared Diamond (Jared Diamond) believes that the Eskimos did not need "white" wives. As well as the Vikings "Skrelingskie".
Previously, the issue of marriage was approached more thoughtfully and thoroughly. Efficiency was paramount. After all, the union of two (at least) people was literally a vital necessity, and not some kind of affect.
From childhood, Scandinavian wives were taught to weave wool, take care of cattle and look after crops. Inuit - to prepare kayaks and butcher carcasses. There were not so many common ground.
In general, leaving the people of Thule alone, the scientists switched from looking for traces of possible battles.
The "climate" theory quickly became one of the most popular: the Little Ice Age was well established in the minds of Europeans.
Today, the average annual temperature in Greenland is 5-6 degrees Celsius on the coast and about 10 degrees in the fjords. According to eyewitnesses, living conditions there and now, in a warm era, are not sweet.
A relatively mild climate prevailed in the North Atlantic during the first centuries of colonization, between 800 and 1300. It is possible that he was even softer than now. But already in the XIV century, conditions began to gradually deteriorate, and by 1420 the Little Ice Age reached a lower temperature plateau.
In more temperate latitudes, such changes would not be so critical, but in Greenland the climate is too fragile and the growing season for plants is too short. A slight change in temperature was enough to upset the balance.
As another famous Viking explorer, Thomas McGovern, gracefully put it, "it got cold and everyone died." Or they, weakened, were finished off by the Eskimos.
But was the climate so severe?
In the illustration above, you can see that the temperature fluctuated around the optimum line.
And there are no accurate generally accepted estimates of the average annual temperature yet. There are three main sources of information on this matter: written evidence (sagas in this case), pollen and plant spores in bottom sediments (at the bottom of swamps) and ice cover.
For the world's largest island, the latter is, of course, the most relevant. Moreover, large-scale studies of the history of the European climate as a whole are currently being conducted there.
As you can see, the estimates for temperature fluctuations differ quite noticeably. At least on a scale critical to the ecology of the island.
Most modern researchers believe that until the disappearance of the settlements, no catastrophic temperature changes occurred. Yes, and the Icelander neighbors have adapted to the even colder climate of the 17th century!
Nevertheless, the climatic theory had good reasons and served as the foundation for a more detailed and pragmatic study of the issue of the death of the Viking colony.
In a global retrospective, the climate and geographical position of various peoples and territories probably had a decisive impact on their evolution and, to one degree or another, laid the foundation for the unevenness of historical development.
Studying the climate and the consequences of its deterioration, some scientists came to the conclusion that from the point of view of a formal assessment, the problem of the disappearance of the Scandinavian civilization in Greenland is not solvable. There are too many independent variables, and it is simply impossible to estimate the specific weight of each of them in the final result.
Therefore, to begin with, the "disappearance" was divided into two stages: the successive deterioration of the living conditions of the Greenlanders and, in fact, their mysterious disappearance.
One of the most advanced analysis models was proposed by the already mentioned Jared Diamond. He said, okay, the climate is too fundamental; it is necessary to highlight a few more focused reasons for the collapse of the Scandinavians.
There were five of them.
An American biologist and anthropologist paints a sad picture: he believes that already in the early years the settlers caused significant damage to the fragile and unstable ecology of the island, and then there was only a stubborn struggle for survival, aggravated by the deteriorating climate and attacks of the Inuit.
The supplies were vital for the islanders as they didn't have much. Iron for example. The Icelanders were amazed once they saw a Greenlandic ship with wooden nails and other parts. Hmm … And the weapon? A Viking without a sword is no longer a Viking. Valhalla doesn't accept them.
Lack of resources undermined economic development and lowered labor productivity.
By the way, unlike the Greenlanders, the Icelanders maintained contact with Norway even during the Little Ice Age. Fortunately, the paths were not so impenetrably flooded with icebergs, as in the case of Greenland.
In general, a very significant factor.
The Vikings also had difficulties with livestock breeding and agriculture: the settlers' diet changed from the original 80/20 in favor of the traditional “European” menu, to 20/80 in favor of the “local” one (primarily seals).
Evidence from the Norwegian archives suggests that most Greenlanders have never seen wheat, bread, or "normal" meat in their lives.
However, all of the above factors (from the first to the fourth) pale in comparison with the "cultural prejudices" of the Scandinavians. At least according to Jared Diamond and a number of other experts.
The Vikings, for example, instead of the things they needed in the household, imported very expensive church utensils and erected churches (there were no other completely stone buildings on the island).
They were also unable to adapt to year-round hunting for seals and reindeer.
An interesting fact: according to the data given in the Collapse, fish bones make up only about 0.1% of all bone remains found during archaeological excavations on the island. In Norway, the situation is exactly the opposite - they are up to 50%.
A bit strange for hereditary fishermen. Based on this, some scholars have come to the conclusion that some kind of "cultural prejudice" or taboo made the Vikings starve.
In such trifles, as usual, contradictions arise. In Sweden, for example, evidence was found that fish bones were used to add to livestock feed, and, possibly, without a trace.
As a result, ecological, agricultural, cultural and other “variables” turned out to be so complex and confusing that archaeologists found a similar counter-argument for each argument.
That is why some researchers decided to move away from the position "they did not do enough to survive, and they deserved a fate."
The opposite pole of perception has taken shape: "abandoned settlements - a conscious choice." The Vikings did a lot for adaptation, took care of the environment to the best of their ability, but then decided that it was simply unprofitable to continue living there.
What if Eric the Red's Green Land is not a beautiful hoax, but an offer to make money on walrus bones and furs? What if the settlements were something like a shift camp?
Thus, for example, was the reasoning of another popular Viking scholar, Andrew Dugmore.
Indeed, who would have settled in Taimyr or Yamal without their rich natural resources?
Subsequently, the demand for walrus bone - the main export resource of the Greenlanders - decreased, and in Norway, during the plague of 1349-1350, about half of the population died. In general, for the metropolis Greenland simply ceased to be a profitable enterprise: its supply became more expensive and exceeded the income from trade.
No, in general, the climate has played a role, of course. However, by and large, people simply did not see the future - the island turned into something reminiscent of a "depressed region" in the Russian tradition.
In this regard, the loss of the prestige of the Greenlandic nobility could have occurred. Food riots and other unpleasant things have been very possible in recent years. So much for the "mysterious" disappearance.
But, most likely, this was not the case. The youth simply "voted with their feet." A demographic modeling of the island's situation, carried out by Danish biologist and anthropologist Niels Lynnerup, showed that the island's population was apparently declining not so much due to natural decline as due to emigration.
In the end, it was reduced to a level where it was impossible to provide all the functions necessary for survival. According to calculations, this could have been caused by the successive annual emigration of only ten settlers!
It is possible that people sailed in neat little groups and settled throughout Scandinavia. Then no one perceived it as a "collapse of civilization." And the rest could not cope on their own.
And then many scientists, under the influence, apparently, of the ecological trend, as an indisputable proof of the "guilt" of the Europeans point to their inability or unwillingness to adapt - after all, the people of Thule "flourished" after the disappearance of the Vikings.
However, the adaptation of Inuit to cold includes both an increased level of basal metabolism and corresponding "modifications" of the physiological characteristics related to it. Plus, part of the knowledge is passed on from generation to generation - you need to learn the language. That is, to become an Inuit.
The question, of course, is a philosophical one, but the Vikings hardly wanted to stop being Vikings, just as the Eskimos did not occupy "more comfortable" dwellings after the depopulation of the Eastern and Western settlements.
By the way, we completely forgot to talk about the fact that the Western Settlement ceased to exist long before contact with the mainland was interrupted. This may provide some insight into what the mystery actually looked like.
A priest named Ivard Bardarson was sent in 1362 as a tax collector and superintendent to Greenland. When he returned, he wrote, as if casually, that "the whole Western settlement is now in the hands of the Skreling." Apparently, he did not find anything mysterious there - this mention was so mundane.
A flying squadron was sent to fight the "pagans", but no traces - neither the Scandinavians nor the Eskimos - were found there.
Recent research has shown that the settlement was abandoned in several stages.
But you can also remember Vinland, the American colony of the Vikings. They held out there for ten years, and then methodically packed up and left: “Although this land can provide enough, the settlers will always be under the threat of attack by those who lived here before. Everyone got ready to sail to their native land. To Greenland that is.
So what happened there?
Some of the Vikings emigrated, some probably really died of hunger or disease.
The secret, perhaps, is not where the last settlers went, but how they managed to survive in such harsh conditions for almost 500 years.
Are we getting close to finding the truth? Apparently, yes. In the sense that the supporters of both approaches - “the Vikings could” and “the Vikings could not” - are right to some extent.
This may be the main conclusion: the world is too complex and not everything depends on the person. Changes in the environment, climate for example, occur so slowly that no one of our contemporaries will really notice the “collapse of civilization”. Moreover, it will not even feel it as such.