Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 October 1

= October 1 =

Sumptuary excess in Norse Greenland
Something like 15 or 20 years ago, I ran into an argument in a book that part of the economic downfall of the Norse colonies in Greenland was believed to have been excessive spending on impractical luxury goods from Europe, including fancy clothing that was not suited for the climate, and which ate into their profits from walrus ivory (their main export), a trade which was already under stress due to European imports of walrus ivory from Russia and elephant ivory from Africa. But I can't remember what it was I was reading (much less what sourcing it was based on). I do remember ploughing through Mark Kurlansky's Cod and Salt back-to-back around the same time, and both did touch on the Norse and what they were up to in the Arctic Sea. Anyway, I'm wondering if there's readily accessible material on this, perhaps in journals I'm not familiar with. If there's evidence for it, I think it might relate at least peripherally to other material I've seen about sumptuary excess in Scandinavia and even in the pre-modern Scottish Highlands (which were strongly Norse-influenced), with west-to-central continentental European fashion having a strong influence and market in the north, earlier than people would probably typically think. Also reminds me of a hypothesis I encountered in another work that part of the downfall of the Roman empire was excessive, "addictive" consumption of luxury goods from Asia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Norse colonization of North America:
 * The Little Ice Age of this period would have made travel between Greenland and Europe, as well as farming, more difficult; although seal and other hunting provided a healthy diet, there was more prestige in cattle farming, and there was increased availability of farms in Scandinavian countries depopulated by famine and plague epidemics. In addition, Greenlandic ivory may have been supplanted in European markets by cheaper ivory from Africa.[15]
 * Also, had Norse individuals used skin instead of wool to produce their clothing, they would have been able to fare better nearer to the coast, and wouldn't have been as confined to the fjords.[19][20][21]
 * History of Greenland talks about the fall of the Norse. It mentions ivory and other proposed causes but does not mention luxury.
 * Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire: In 1984, Alexander Demandt enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell, and new theories have since emerged.[1][2]
 * Fall of the Western Roman Empire: "Formerly, says Ammianus, Rome was saved by her austerity, by solidarity between rich and poor, by contempt for death; now she is undone by her luxury and greed (Amm. xxxi. 5. 14 and xxii. 4.). Salvianus backs up Ammianus by affirming that greed (avaritia) is a vice common to nearly all Romans".[60] However, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (consul 133 BC) had already dated the start of Rome's moral decline to 154 BCE.[61]
 * Sumptuary law: During the height of the Empire, expenditure on silk imported from China was so high, Imperial advisers warned that Roman silver reserves were becoming exhausted.[10]
 * --Error (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's consonant with what I'm seeing in recent mass-media articles about Norse Greenland's decline, but there was a really specific claim that it had to do at least somewhat with import–export disparties and in particular with a fixation on impractical but expensive clothing. Just wish I knew where that had come from. It's not vital to anything, just one of those nagging mental notes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why Did Greenland’s Vikings Vanish? adds that the market for walrus ivory in Norway collapsed in the 14th-century (their principal trade item), partly due to the arrival of elephant ivory in Europe and partly because the Black Death had killed half the Norwegian population and nobody was buying ornaments. Alansplodge (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish, the first two sources I inspected both cited – as their first footnote! – claims regarding failure to adapt to Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, a pretty popular book from about 15 or 20 years ago. It's early in the search, and I haven't found the import/export disparity thing you're looking for, but I thought I'd drop this tidbit here in case the source cited happened to be the one you were vaguely recalling. Folly Mox (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right; thanks. I was also going through a bunch of Diamond's stuff in that period.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the claim "Greenlandic ivory may have been supplanted in European markets by cheaper ivory from Africa.[15]" from Norse colonization of North America I've just tagged cn. The source failed verification, as did the source's source, but it was usable for a previous sentence.The major scholars I'm seeing go on about the economy of the Norse Greenland colonies and the economic factors for population decline are Else Roesdahl, Jette Arneborg (alt), her colleague Niels Lynnerup, and Karen Frei, but I might just be going in circles with one school of thought and there's another completely reputable one out there that talks about import / export disparity.The theme I've been seeing is that – like always – multiple factors were at play, but when the walrus ivory stopped being worth it, people quit Greenlanding. Folly Mox (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, "Greenlandic ivory may have been supplanted in European markets by cheaper ivory from Africa" (and Russia) is easily sourceable to other works. I just read what turned up in Google's first few hits of recent articles on modern re-examination of the "end of the Norse Greenland colonies" question, and that specific claim was made in all or most of them. Anyway, I agree with your gist, that it was a multi-cause collapse. I wasn't intending to controvert that, or even elevate sumptuary trade imbalance as a more important reason; rather, I was trying to find it again in relation to Greenland at all, and possibly (dpeending on what sources are available and what they have to say) relate it to similar conspicuous consumption habits in Scandinavia and north Scotland in roughly the same period.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yeah, I didn't read your question as attempting to assert a single cause you had read somewhere once as the one true cause of death of Norse Greenland; my rambles above were more just a status report for the whole audience here and anyone who might find this discussion in a future search, although I was hoping one of the academics I mentioned by name might ring a bell for you. I ended up citing the African ivory sentence to a paper by Kristen Seaver, whose name I remembered being mentioned History of Greenland for her 1996 book The Frozen Echo. Folly Mox (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lyennerup sounds familiar, but I don't think I got this idea from a journal paper. Hoping to find one or more that whatever I read was relying on. Will probably start by re-reviewing that Diamond book, since it seems the probably source of what stuck in my head.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arneborg skates right by what I was after without quite touching it: "The [1400s Herjolfsnes] dress is of contemporary European fashion and clearly shows the importance the Norse Greenlanders attached to their European identity." [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Error -- Greenland didn't have great wealth accumulations like the Roman Empire. The economic objection to importing silk into the Roman Empire was that it largely had to be paid for with precious metals, and a continual drain of silver was thought to be nationally impoverishing.  The British had a similar problem in their trade with China, until they hit on the expedient of exporting large amounts of opium there... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but a trade imbalance, including one related to purchase of impractical goods for status reasons, doesn't require "great wealth accumulation". Hell, I live in a neighborhood plagued by poverty but in which innumerable people have expensive sports cars they can't really afford. The urge to acquire and display pretty things beyond one's practical means is universal and timeless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that I don't think that Greenland's possible economic problems had much in common with Rome's. In ancient Rome, wealthy people mainly spending within their means bought luxury goods (silk) which ended up causing unbalanced trade relationships for the Roman empire as a whole.  A few moralists were annoyed by the ostentatious display and/or the steady drain of silver, but I don't think it had much to do with the eventual fall of the Roman empire... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And Rome's trading links were not dependant on a hostile 1,500 mile ocean voyage in an open boat. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)