|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| just another day wrote: |
given that, occam's razor would rule out agrilcultural, weather, and inadaptability as an explanation. There are traces of vikings from 1000 - 1400... enough for many generations. they called the inuit skraeligs, which meant "frightening people". clearly they were scared of the Inuit.
the major factor was the mini ice age that pushed inuits from west to east. ultimately thats how occam's razor would apply. they had to push out the vikings for competition of resources.
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Hoffecker_Prehistory/excerpt.html |
Really?
That same site says:
"The reason for the retreat of the Vikings from these regions has been the subject of much debate. Economic competition and warfare with the Inuit seem likely to have been factors, along with declining trade and the isolation of the settlers from the larger Norse population. The primary cause, however, probably lies in the return of colder climates that heralded the beginning of the "Little Ice Age" in AD 1450-1500. Falling temperatures were almost certainly the reason for the economic decline that took place at this time and the reduction in population that followed. Conflict with the Inuit probably exacerbated Norse problems, but did not create them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From your own link (not a great one)
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Hoffecker_Prehistory/excerpt.html
| Quote: |
The reason for the retreat of the Vikings from these regions has been the subject of much debate. Economic competition and warfare with the Inuit seem likely to have been factors, along with declining trade and the isolation of the settlers from the larger Norse population. [b]The primary cause, however, probably lies in the return of colder climates that heralded the beginning of the "Little Ice Age" in AD 1450-1500. Falling temperatures were almost certainly the reason for the economic decline that took place at this time and the reduction in population that followed. Conflict with the Inuit probably exacerbated Norse problems, but did not create them.7
The real obstacle to Viking survival in the north was their inability to adapt to colder climates during the 1400s. The Inuit were also forced to make adjustments to their way of life at this time (for example, increased focus on seal hunting), but they seem to have accomplished this without major trauma and within the larger context of their existing adaptation.
Isotopic analyses of the skeletal remains of Greenland Vikings, combined with the study of food remains from their settlements, indicates that they gradually adopted a diet based more heavily on marine foods (and less on livestock).8 However, they never abandoned the fundamental traditions of a society and culture derived from medieval Europe. Dressed in woolen clothing, they were still struggling to maintain their farming estates as arctic climates descended on southern Greenland.9 [/b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
| Quote: |
In modern Icelandic, skr�lingi means a barbarian. The origin of the word is not certain but it is probably based on the Old Norse word "skr�" which meant "skin" and also (as a verb) "to put in writing" (which was done on dried skin in Iceland for example in the case of the Icelandic Sagas). This would refer to the fact that the Inuit (both Dorset and Thule) as well as the other indigenous people the Norse Greenlanders met wore clothes made of animal skins, in contrast to the woven wool clothes worn by the Norse.
There have also been guesses that the word comes from the Scandinavian word skral or the Icelandic word skr�lna. The word skral connotes "thin" or "scrawny". In the Scandinavian languages it is often used as a synonym for feeling sick or weak. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skraelings |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
R�sum� / Abstract
Bone samples from the Greenland Viking colony provide us with a unique opportunity to test and use 14C dating of remains of humans who depended upon food of mixed marine and terrestrial origin. We investigated the skeletons of 27 Greenland Norse people excavated from churchyard burials from the late 10th to the middle 15th century. The stable carbon isotopic composition (δ13C) of the bone collagen reveals that the diet of the Greenland Norse changed dramatically from predominantly terrestrial food at the time of Eric the Red around AD 1000 to predominantly marine food toward the end of the settlement period around AD 1450. |
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2023780
Inability to adjust to environment, or the food, are no longer viable explanations.
The only one left is they were booted out, kikced out. and most times, people do not get kicked out of their permanent settlemtn unless there is a war.
occam's razor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
| Quote: |
R�sum� / Abstract
Bone samples from the Greenland Viking colony provide us with a unique opportunity to test and use 14C dating of remains of humans who depended upon food of mixed marine and terrestrial origin. We investigated the skeletons of 27 Greenland Norse people excavated from churchyard burials from the late 10th to the middle 15th century. The stable carbon isotopic composition (δ13C) of the bone collagen reveals that the diet of the Greenland Norse changed dramatically from predominantly terrestrial food at the time of Eric the Red around AD 1000 to predominantly marine food toward the end of the settlement period around AD 1450. |
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2023780
Inability to adjust to environment, or the food, are no longer viable explanations.
The only one left is they were booted out, kikced out. and most times, people do not get kicked out of their permanent settlemtn unless there is a war.
occam's razor. |
Only the abstract? Did you read it?
It's interesting that the paper does not share your conclusions. A marine diet is in no way a clear indication that they were "kicked out." That is not the simplest explanation at all.
It would be reasonable to conclude only that the settlers stopped relying on agriculture. I can't see at all why the other explanations are no longer viable...
It's just as reasonable to assume that the Norse couldn't survive the transition from an agricultural society to a polar hunter gatherer one (although they tried by consuming more marine life). The other native people to the region (Dorset) didn't survive either. It's just as likely that the Thule (Inuit) people had very little contact with the Norse (or Dorset) at all, and just moved in from colder regions (with successful polar techniques/technology) and filled the gaps left by the failed Norse/Dorset after (or as) the climate changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Artic-cultures-900-1500.png
This study is only specific to Greenland.
You're too dull to make this discussion interesting or worthwhile anymore.
It's obvious that you have no interest in objective historical speculation, but instead are trying to impose your own racial agenda.
Last edited by nateium on Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
| Quote: |
R�sum� / Abstract
Bone samples from the Greenland Viking colony provide us with a unique opportunity to test and use 14C dating of remains of humans who depended upon food of mixed marine and terrestrial origin. We investigated the skeletons of 27 Greenland Norse people excavated from churchyard burials from the late 10th to the middle 15th century. The stable carbon isotopic composition (δ13C) of the bone collagen reveals that the diet of the Greenland Norse changed dramatically from predominantly terrestrial food at the time of Eric the Red around AD 1000 to predominantly marine food toward the end of the settlement period around AD 1450. |
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2023780
Inability to adjust to environment, or the food, are no longer viable explanations.
The only one left is they were booted out, kikced out. and most times, people do not get kicked out of their permanent settlemtn unless there is a war.
occam's razor. |
Occam's razor tells me you're an idiot!
Have you ever been to the norther tip of Newfound Land?
It's not particulary the greatest place to settle down, especially considering its distance from the closest Viking settlements in Greenland.
I don't think you're even reading the historical data presented.
You're just trying to make it fit your narrow fantasy of your sacred "ancestors" booting out the blond hair blue eyed Vikings 
Again there was no war fought between the Vikings and the Inuit and native populations.
Small skirmishes. Violent ones, but not full scale conflict.
Your belief that a bloodly war occured shows the you know essentially about this time in history.
And then you bring up occam's razor in the hope to mask your own ignorance.
Dude, you're f-ing sad. I wish I had the chance to see your face in real life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
actually vikings lived there for 400 years. plenty of time to get acclimated to the weather.
once again you are assuming that all of a sudden they wouldn't be able to live there anymore bc of weather. that is an extra assumption that occam's razor does not support.
inuit took over ALL of the viking's "territory". occam's razor applies here. the simplest explanation is that the vikings were kicked out by inuit.
its pretty simple.
if that makes you mad, then don't learn history and facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Antarctic island of South Georgia used to have several thriving whaling settlements during the first half of the 20th century, with a combined population exceeding 2,000 in some years. These included Grytviken (operating 1904-64), Leith Harbour (1909-65), Ocean Harbour (1909-20), Husvik (1910-60), Stromness (1912-61) and Prince Olav Harbour (1917-34). The abandoned settlements have become increasingly dilapidated, and remain uninhabited nowadays except for the Museum curator's family at Grytviken. |
I guess the native population of pengiuns must have chased the people away, eh?
There are thousands of places over this planet over thousands of years where people attempted to settle and evntually left.
And the primary reason is climactic factors and the inability to aquire the reseources necessary to survive.
Now the the geothermal forces under Icelands surface create much better conditions for permanent human settlement, than those in Greenland, Baffin Bay, and Labrador. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Antarctic island of South Georgia used to have several thriving whaling settlements during the first half of the 20th century, with a combined population exceeding 2,000 in some years. These included Grytviken (operating 1904-64), Leith Harbour (1909-65), Ocean Harbour (1909-20), Husvik (1910-60), Stromness (1912-61) and Prince Olav Harbour (1917-34). The abandoned settlements have become increasingly dilapidated, and remain uninhabited nowadays except for the Museum curator's family at Grytviken. |
I guess the native population of pengiuns must have chased the people away, eh?
There are thousands of places over this planet over thousands of years where people attempted to settle and evntually left.
And the primary reason is climactic factors and the inability to aquire the reseources necessary to survive.
Now the the geothermal forces under Icelands surface create much better conditions for permanent human settlement, than those in Greenland, Baffin Bay, and Labrador. |
they've lived there for 400 years before they got up and left.
you are making an assumption that all of a sudden the climate changed, when clearly the vikings were proven to ADAPT to their surroundings.
occam's razor says to make as few assumptions as possible. thats why ur explanation fails. u have to assume that climate changed and they couldn't adapt, when there is NO evidence of either happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
you are making an assumption that all of a sudden the climate changed, when clearly the vikings were proven to ADAPT to their surroundings.
|
It's not an assumption. It's a well established fact that the climate changed at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The vikings were proven to somewhat ADAPT to their surroundings, but not successfully.
Plus, we are not talking about thousand upon thousands of vikings in a thriving civilization along the cost. There were a few small villages (settlements), basically cut of from the rest of the viking world, that dwindled and disappeared after a couple hundred years.
DO you know anything about the Inuits? They are not exactly an asskicking group of people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nateium wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
you are making an assumption that all of a sudden the climate changed, when clearly the vikings were proven to ADAPT to their surroundings.
|
It's not an assumption. It's a well established fact that the climate changed at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The vikings were proven to somewhat ADAPT to their surroundings, but not successfully.
Plus, we are not talking about thousand upon thousands of vikings in a thriving civilization along the cost. There were a few small villages (settlements), basically cut of from the rest of the viking world, that dwindled and disappeared after a couple hundred years. |
| Quote: |
| Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1800/1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.[1] |
wrong time period. and also, vikings fished and ate marine life during their stay from 1000-1400 in eastern canada. are u saying fish freeze up 200 years before a mini ice age?
clearly they knew how to live on the land. enough to build what they considered to be a "permanent settlement". try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
| nateium wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
you are making an assumption that all of a sudden the climate changed, when clearly the vikings were proven to ADAPT to their surroundings.
|
It's not an assumption. It's a well established fact that the climate changed at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The vikings were proven to somewhat ADAPT to their surroundings, but not successfully.
Plus, we are not talking about thousand upon thousands of vikings in a thriving civilization along the cost. There were a few small villages (settlements), basically cut of from the rest of the viking world, that dwindled and disappeared after a couple hundred years. |
| Quote: |
| Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1800/1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.[1] |
wrong time period. and also, vikings fished and ate marine life during their stay from 1000-1400 in eastern canada. are u saying fish freeze up 200 years before a mini ice age?
clearly they knew how to live on the land. enough to build what they considered to be a "permanent settlement". try again. |
You are intentionally trying to be obtuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
it started cooling dramatically around 1300. Right time
Last edited by nateium on Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno. I guess they knew enough to do some damage in the pre gunpowder warfare of north america ages.
| Quote: |
| Although the victory is not widely appreciated, it is apparent that native Americans won their first contest with European invaders. By AD 1500, the Norse settlements in Greenland and elsewhere in the New World had been abandoned. The Dorset people had also disappeared by this time, and the Inuit inherited all of the arctic-and some of the subarctic-regions of the New World. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nateium wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
| nateium wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
you are making an assumption that all of a sudden the climate changed, when clearly the vikings were proven to ADAPT to their surroundings.
|
It's not an assumption. It's a well established fact that the climate changed at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The vikings were proven to somewhat ADAPT to their surroundings, but not successfully.
Plus, we are not talking about thousand upon thousands of vikings in a thriving civilization along the cost. There were a few small villages (settlements), basically cut of from the rest of the viking world, that dwindled and disappeared after a couple hundred years. |
| Quote: |
| Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th to the mid-19th centuries. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1800/1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.[1] |
wrong time period. and also, vikings fished and ate marine life during their stay from 1000-1400 in eastern canada. are u saying fish freeze up 200 years before a mini ice age?
clearly they knew how to live on the land. enough to build what they considered to be a "permanent settlement". try again. |
You are intentionally trying to be obtuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
it started cooling dramatically around 1300. Right time |
it seems like there are varying accounts of when it happened, as well as where.
and also if it affected FISH and MARINE LIFE, which consisted of 80% of Vikings diet.
Thats a lot of assumptions there. Occam's razor doesn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
I dunno. I guess they knew enough to do some damage in the pre gunpowder warfare of north america ages.
| Quote: |
| Although the victory is not widely appreciated, it is apparent that native Americans won their first contest with European invaders. By AD 1500, the Norse settlements in Greenland and elsewhere in the New World had been abandoned. The Dorset people had also disappeared by this time, and the Inuit inherited all of the arctic-and some of the subarctic-regions of the New World. |
|
| Quote: |
The first contact with Europeans came from the Vikings, who settled Greenland and explored the eastern Canadian coast. Norse literature speaks of skr�lingar, most likely an undifferentiated label for all the native peoples of the Americas the Norse contacted, Tuniit, Inuit and Beothuks alike. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Tuniit had abandoned Greenland around 200 AD. They reoccupied areas in the far north of Greenland sometime around 1000, but the Norse settlements were in the south and southwest of the island. It is likely that the area of the Norse settlements was unoccupied at the time they arrived. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
