The case of the alleged disappearance of Vikings from Greenland about 1500 AD has puzzled students of mankind for centuries. Many hypotheses have been offered based on medieval historical documents, which are, to say the least, only tiny bits and pieces of the puzzle and very sketchy ones at that. But bits and pieces are what good stories are made from, and even now, with all the advantages of modern science to support the historical sleuths, we are still left with a curious story, although one that appears very prosaic and objective since it relies on a modern quasi-scientific myth used to explain and justify just about anything: evolution.

Current researchers believe the Vikings simply failed to "adapt" to the harsh demands of the Greenland environment. And this after 500 years or so! Of course, there was apparently a mini ice age to contend with, judging from ice core studies. According to the current hypothesis, what the Vikings should have done was adopt the hunting and fishing tools and methods of the Eskimos who were almost fully adapted – they missed their old ice hole fishing ways of the Arctic. Instead, the Vikings insisted on keeping their European tradition with its hierarchical religion, which, of course, prevented intercourse with the local pagans.

Incidentally, the Vikings paid their tithes with walrus ivory, a big hit in Europe, especially for making crosses, but demand fell off with the influx of African ivory. And trade in general fell off because the Hanseatic League took over the shipping lanes. The big ships did not come to Greenland anymore – merchants lost interest. Once in awhile some lost ship might flounder in, or, perhaps a rogue vessel with pirates might arrive. Norway of course did the best it could which was not much. Alas, Greenland was cut off from the imports that it lived on.

Hence the Vikings, wearing fashionable European clothes unsuitable for the climate, were pretty much on their own. Their sheep, goats, and cattle overgrazed the land. They used the few trees and shrubs for firewood. The scarce arable land was eroded beyond redemption. The young were moving to Europe to fill jobs created by the Plague. So the Vikings were left starving in Greenland. They ate their young livestock and their dogs, something no Viking would do unless desperate. Disease increased. Housing conditions were deplorable; in fact, some rooms were used for latrines; rats apparently gnawed on bodies stored in other rooms, and so on.

So there the Vikings were, perishing, but alas, they could not associate with the pagans who were living off the fat of the land! Their religion simply forbade it. So the Vikings disappeared. A traveler noted, without coming ashore, that Viking livestock were running around a Norse settlement, but no people were seen there. It is a mystery why the livestock were not eaten. Sometime later the last Viking was found dead, with his knife by his side, because his kin failed to "adapt".

Well, it's no wonder. Everybody knows what sort of inadaptable people Vikings were, how they wanted the world to adapt to what they wanted, not vice versa. Many of us are descended from their raping and pillaging of Europe. Encyclopedias point out how they lived off of plundering interspersed with some trading when circumstances were inappropriate for stealing. In any event, since they were notorious for their "insane rampages", it is also no wonder that modern researchers might unconsciously take some revenge for murdered ancestors by implying that the Vikings were too stupid to adapt to the Greenland environment – as a matter of fact, they were clever enough, however, to build good ships, navigate, establish far flung colonies, found the Russian state, and to do other trivial things.

And of course it us no wonder that we find scant discussion of the fact that a prodigious quantity of early European blood is found in Greenland's local residents, too much to be explained away by the return of Europeans some time after the Vikings had disappeared. Certainly no matter how low the Viking morality might have been in comparison with European moral standards, they would not have married "beneath" themselves – the very thing the Church was complaining about at the time. That would be unthinkable. No, we do not hear too much about the "amalgamation" hypothesis anymore. Maybe the Vikings did not disappear, after all. Maybe they are still there, having adapted by marriage. So much for extinction, then. But evolution is still good for something after all.

Whatever the cause of the alleged Viking disappearance is, it probably is not as neat as it seems when presented as a good story backed up by scientific research. No doubt the causes in our case are multiple. The current explanation tells us more about the political, academic, and scientific biases of our time than about what really happened to the Vikings of Greenland. In the meantime, we are left wondering what happened to the disappeared.

Vanished!

Honolulu 1997