WI: Norse Greenlanders learn how to live like Inuit

[Mort the Reaper]

While it's not clear exactly why the Norse settlements in Greenland eventually failed, the fact that the Norse never adopted Inuit techniques for surviving in the Arctic can't have helped. They never learned how to hunt ringed seals or navigate in kayaks. Since they couldn't do these things, they couldn't adjust to the cooling of the climate, and so the Thule Inuit were the only human inhabitants of Greenland by 1600 at the latest.

But what if the Norse did learn how to do these things? Would it have saved Norse Greenland? Or would it have just prolonged the inevitable?

 

[Aelfwine]

They could do these things, but there was strong opposition from the Greenlandic church at the time, as many of the shamanistic practices incorporated by the Inuit into their activities would be seen negatively. Remove the influence of Christianity, and you could potentially see the Greenlanders adopt these practices.

 

[Umbral]

Greenland was not all that christian at the best of times. At least one bishop are recorded as having wept and begged not to be sent there. When the western settlement went dark, the prevailing opinion in Scandinavia was that they had reverted to paganism and fled to Vinland. I would not be surprised to discover there were pagan elements there until quite late.

I could see a pagan strain being more open to mixing with the Inuit, leading to internal strife.

 

[Richard V]

But why would they? Why would people go from farming and raising livestock to becoming hunter gatherers? The whole point of setting up Norse colonies was to acquire good land to live the life of your choosing, not conform to a different way of life in an inhospitable environment.

When Greenland got too cold people just left for other Norse lands.

 

[Kerney]

Greenland was not all that christian at the best of times. At least one bishop are recorded as having wept and begged not to be sent there. When the western settlement went dark, the prevailing opinion in Scandinavia was that they had reverted to paganism and fled to Vinland. I would not be surprised to discover there were pagan elements there until quite late.

I could see a pagan strain being more open to mixing with the Inuit, leading to internal strife.

The two last communications out of Eastern Settlement were a wedding and a witchcraft trial where they burned the guilty party at the stake.

They were quite even detrimentally Christian. Gander Cathedral was as large as the one in Oslo. Something like 1/4 of the imports were stained glass and chalices or anything that might be useful. Also, early on Lief Ericson learned his Christianity working for Olaf Trygvason, a hardcore fanatic. Sure, I could see him waiting for his dad to pass away before he "encouraged" conversion, but what we know of him suggests he was a bit of a fanatic. It was also 400 years later. How many places have you seen revert to paganism en masse 400 years after conversion.

As for a Bishop not going, it is basically like being made Bishop of the Yukon, only you can never leave, so I can see a lot of Priests not wanting to be 'promoted'.

As for Western Settlement going pagan, it sounds like the snobbish opinion of a New Yorker speculating about what's going on in Yellow horse and with as much understanding. "Yeah all 20,000 got eaten by polar bears" and the guests at the dinner party nodding sagely.

The thing is if they started acting like Inuits, pretty soon they are Inuits or fighting with Inuits, so I don't see how they could remain separete. I could see an alternate ending of Eastern Settlement of some half starved survivors, mostly women and children, wandering into an Inuit camp and hoping they were fed rather than shut out.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

... As for a Bishop not going, it is basically like being made Bishop of the Yukon, only you can never leave, so I can see a lot of Priests not wanting to be 'promoted'. ...

Indeed, one must remember that bishops back then were usually the 2nd or 3rd sons of the high nobility, real princes of the church with the emphasis on princes, who received their posts due to daddy the earl or duke buying it for them, not due to any increased amount of piety. And if you happened to (also) be bishop of this arse end of the world you more often than not wouldn't reside there since that also meant being far from (both your other bishoprics and) Rome and thus any chance to take part in internal ecclesiastical power politics.

 

[Byzantion]

Indeed, one must remember that bishops back then were usually the 2nd or 3rd sons of the high nobility, real princes of the church with the emphasis on princes, who received their posts due to daddy the earl or duke buying it for them, not due to any increased amount of piety. And if you happened to (also) be bishop of this arse end of the world you more often than not wouldn't reside there since that also meant being far from (both your other bishoprics and) Rome and thus any chance to take part in internal ecclesiastical power politics.

The Greenlanders sometimes had no Bishops for years or decades before a new one arrived.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

The Greenlanders sometimes had no Bishops for years or decades before a new one arrived.

No Bishops at all or merely no resident Bishops. Keep in mind that well into the 18th century it wasn't unusual for Bishops to hold multiple espiscopal sees simultaniously, usually residing in their most important see and visiting some more remote sees just for their investiture, and some possibly never at all.