"leto2" wrote in message
...


BTW, has anyone an explanation for the following :

Sometime in recent historical times, Greenland was, well : green. So there
was not much ice on it at this time, and this period is dated between 800
AC and 1000 AC, and it is the period when the Vikings ventured in Northern
Atlantic. Then later weather grew colder, and Greenland was not green
anymore (and the Vikings settlements in Vinland - Nova Scotia ?
Newfoundland ? - disappeared)
So if the Greenland ice sheet did shrink at the time, why on earth isn't
there a clue of a 10 to 20 feet variation of the sea level between 800 AC
and 1000 AC ? Was the ice thicker at the time in Kamtchatka ? Alaska ? the
Antarctic ?

Why they chose the name Greenland is an interesting question, perhpas (as
Josh implied) it was an early example of "spin" by Erik the Red to try to
attract more settlers. But clearly, Greenland has been almost entirely ice
covered for 100Kyrs. The best archealogical analysis indicates that the
Vikings settled in two locations, eeked out a rather harsh existence for
several centuries, deforested the small forests that were there, damaged the
fragile landscape with sheep and finally starved to death (one settlement at
a time) when they hit some bad winters. I think it is fair to say that was
a part of the onset of the Little Ice Age. They shared the island with some
Inuit, but apparently had almost nothing to do with them, not even learning
some of their useful survival skills. The only written account of contact
is a description of how differently "wretches" bleed to death.

This diplomatic skill is apparently why they never actually settled in
Vinland (North America). Apparently they landed, encountered a band of 9
Native Americans and promptly killed 8 of them. I guess the 9th one did not
speak highly of these new arrivals so they were unwelcomed after that.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")