Greenland

[snopes]

Comment:
I wonder if you could do a report on the myth that 1,000 years or so ago
Greenland was green. I heard this said several times on the news
recently, by politicians who should know better, using it to support their
opposition to the theories of global warming. Last night I heard it
repeated on the Bill Maher HBO show. I searched on the internet, and it
is a commonly reported "fact" that Greenland was once green, and that's
obviously how it got its name.

In school I was taught that Erik the Red, banished from his native
country, founded a colony there and purposely gave it an attractive name,
albeit misleading, in order to attract colonists. This may or may not be
true, as other historians claim the original name was "ground-land," and
some old maps use the Norwegian term for this. As it has shallow bays
that would fit this description, there is some logic to this theory. In
either case, however, no history suggests that "Greenland" was so named
because it was once green.

In fact, the Greenland Ice Sheet, has covered virtually
the entire region for over 100,000 years. Were Greenland to have actually
been "green" a thousand years ago, the 2.85 million km3 of ice that covers
it would need to have been melted, making the worldwide sea level some 26
feet higher than it is today. That would mean there wouldn't be much of
Great Britain, and most coastal cities throughout the world, although they
seem to have happily existed 1,000 years ago when people think Greenland
was green.

[Aud 1]

This isn't an all-green or no-no green proposition. There were settlements along the southern coast of Greenland in the Middle Ages. Most of what I know about it comes from the intro to this book. Greenland was still mostly an icy place 1000 years ago.

[DarkFeline]

As far as I know, Greenland is icier than Iceland and Iceland is greener than Greenland.

*Ducks to avoid a flying tomato*

[jw]

Originally Posted by DarkFeline

As far as I know, Greenland is icier than Iceland and Iceland is greener than Greenland.

IIRC that's the legend I was taught in school.
The first invaders called Iceland and Greenland as such, to make the next lot go past the greener Iceland, and find Greenland instead, thinking it was a warmer place, even if it was further northward.

[NewZer0]

Bryson, Bill. Made in America. New York: Avon Books, 1994.

5: "Anyone who has ever flown over the frozen wastes of Greenland could be excused for wondering what they [the Vikings] saw in the place. In fact, Greenland's southern fringes are farther south than Oslo and offer a grassy lowlands as big as the whole of Britain."

The endnote says that comes from James Robery Enterline, Viking America, Garde City, NJ: Doubleday, 1972, pg 10.

--NewZer0

[Troberg]

5: "Anyone who has ever flown over the frozen wastes of Greenland could be excused for wondering what they [the Vikings] saw in the place. In fact, Greenland's southern fringes are farther south than Oslo and offer a grassy lowlands as big as the whole of Britain."

It's not all about latitude. Oslo has the warm gulf stream that keeps all of Scandinavia more or less survivable, even in the winter. Greenland, on the other hand, has a cold stream going past it.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by jw

IIRC that's the legend I was taught in school.
The first invaders called Iceland and Greenland as such, to make the next lot go past the greener Iceland, and find Greenland instead, thinking it was a warmer place, even if it was further northward.

Not really. Iceland was called Iceland because one of the first sighted features on the island was the large glacier Vatnajökull. The name, however, was not good from an advertising point of view as it didn't attract many settlers from Norway, so when land was discovered further West people had learned the lesson and called it Greenland instead, despite the fact that it was mostly covered with ice.

[Floater]

Of course the first vikings that sighted it had no idea it was called Vatnajökull. They discovered that later.

[Joostik]

Originally Posted by Floater

Of course the first vikings that sighted it had no idea it was called Vatnajökull.

Maybe the Irish told them?

[JFB]

Originally Posted by snopes

[O]ther historians claim the original name was "ground-land," and some old maps use the Norwegian term for this.

This would be consistent with Eric the Red's dubbing his longboat "Boat Vessel", and the sea he traversed in it "Sea Ocean", a naming convention he acquired from poorly translated Japanese electronics manuals.

Just this morning I finished the Greenland chapters in Jared Diamond's book Collapse. (Diamond also wrote the Pulitzer-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel, so his credibility is good.) According to Collapse, Greenland was founded during a relatively temperate period, and there was originally much more vegetation - but the settlers clear-cut it, and poor livestock-grazing choices led to further loss of topsoil. (Iceland had similar problems but Viking settlements there survived.) I don't recall Diamond addressing the PR aspect of the name directly, but it seems to have been a much greener place at the time it was named.

[vison]

Greenland was once more temperate than it is now, it was settled first during a warm period that ended with the Little Ice Age that began around 1150 IIRC. Northern Europe experienced a population explosion in that warm period since crops could be grown in areas that now, even after all these years, cannot support agriculture. The "younger sons" of Scandanavia had to go viking to find land. The British Isles had a slightly different history during that era, since as a former Roman colony the inhabitants had to deal with the collapse of the Roman Empire. (And then with the incursions of the scary Danes.)

Jane Smiley's excellent novel "The Greenlanders" is worth a read.

Originally Posted by Traveler in Black

Just this morning I finished the Greenland chapters in Jared Diamond's book Collapse. (Diamond also wrote the Pulitzer-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel, so his credibility is good.) According to Collapse, Greenland was founded during a relatively temperate period, and there was originally much more vegetation - but the settlers clear-cut it, and poor livestock-grazing choices led to further loss of topsoil. (Iceland had similar problems but Viking settlements there survived.) I don't recall Diamond addressing the PR aspect of the name directly, but it seems to have been a much greener place at the time it was named.

I hate to nitpick but as I too read Collapse, the was little if any tree cutting in Greenland. The Norse Greenlanders had to sail to Markland (Labrador) for lumber. I remember from that book that Iceland once had forests but today there are no trees.

Wikipedia is unsure as to the entymology because some maps name it as "Gruntland" or groundland. The sagas refer to it as "Graenland" or greenland.

My stereotype of Vikings doesn't include prowess in the field of Public Relations. But then again it was the fierce PR that made their raids into Europe a lot easier. People ran away instead of fighting them.

Alas, if the Greenland Norse had good advertizing skills they may not have lost their narwhal and walrus ivory trade to African and Asian Elephant ivory trade newly opened to Europe by the Italians. Loss of trade contact was one of the factors, along with climate change, and over grazing et al. that Diamond contributes to the Greenland Norse collapse.

[Logoboros]

The actual saga text (in translation) from Eirik the Red's Saga is:

"In the summer Eirik left to settle in the country he had found, which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it had a favourable name." (from the very end of Ch. 2)

I don't remember the history of the Vinland sagas as other Islendingasogur, but bear in mind that many of these sagas are being written in the 13th century, two hundred years after Eirik the Red's time. So maybe they reflect an authentic oral history of Eirik's motives, or maybe they're conveying exactly the same kinds of mythical explanations that this board is trying to examine.

--Logoboros

Quoted from "The Sagas of Icelanders," Penguin 2001.

[Troberg]

Northern Europe experienced a population explosion in that warm period since crops could be grown in areas that now, even after all these years, cannot support agriculture. The "younger sons" of Scandanavia had to go viking to find land.

"Go viking"? They were vikings, even if they stayed at home and just plowed their fields. You don't "go viking anymore than you "go celt" or "go roman".

My stereotype of Vikings doesn't include prowess in the field of Public Relations. But then again it was the fierce PR that made their raids into Europe a lot easier. People ran away instead of fighting them.

That's an unfair view of them. Mostly, they were traders and occasionally settlers, and while they did not miss a good opportunity for plunder, plundering your neighbouring "nations" (this was before the creation of what we today would call a nation) was a common pasttime for most peoples at the time. The vikings' reputation was mainly based on their ability to launch surprising hit&run attacks and that they were large, often as much as 30 cm taller than their opponents on the average. They also had a different religion, which is always a good base for demonising your opponent.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Troberg

"Go viking"? They were vikings, even if they stayed at home and just plowed their fields. You don't "go viking anymore than you "go celt" or "go roman".

No, no, you don't understand. They went viking inland so that they could find a nice vill to build a vouse on.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Troberg

"Go viking"? They were vikings, even if they stayed at home and just plowed their fields. You don't "go viking anymore than you "go celt" or "go roman".

No - they were Norse. Their occupation was being vikings. It actually means something like raider or pirate.

(edit) At least, that's how I understood it.

[Andrew of Ware]

Richard's explanation is what I have heard as well. Some politcally correct historians want to call Vikings 'Norse' because the Vikings did more than just raid. (But trying that to tell a eighth century Lindisfarne monk about to be killed.)

[Dara bhur gCara]

Originally Posted by Richard W

No - they were Norse. Their occupation was being vikings. It actually means something like raider or pirate.

(edit) At least, that's how I understood it.

Ooh! Ooh! I know this!

The root etymology of the word "viking" is almost certainly vikingr, an anglo-French word which means "pillager." The word entered Norse as wiching a descriptor for the expeditions that led to raiding and pillage rather than the people who took part in said expeditions. It wasn't until about the 16th or 17th century that the Norse raiders who preyed on Europe became themselves known as "Vikings."

While it is common now to refer to Norse raiders as "Vikings," it is entirely etymologically incorrect. It should more properly be "Viker" or "Vikinger," ie someone who Vikes or engages in the practice of Viking.

[Jay Tea]

You git Dara', I wanted that one!