Factoid in my RSS feed this morning:

"Greenland was first settled in 1621 by a group of Danish fur trappers, who had been intending to land in Nova Scotia but had been blown off course."

Greenland was FIRST settled by the Dorset people, precursors to the Inuit, at least a thousand years before the Norse arrived in 980. The Norse can also be considered settlers; their settlement lasted until the 1400s when their deforestation of the settled area took its toll. (Source: Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.)

Thank you for your input!

The unstated portion of the factoid you quoted involves continuous or currently maintained settlement. Certainly the Dorsets settled Greenland in the years of approximately 80-20 BCE. No one argues that the Norse maintained settlements for nearly 500 years there. However, both of these societies failed, and their existence did not extend into our current era.

The society that began with a relative handful of Danish fur trappers in 1621 has been maintained to our current day. All chains of current, native population on Greenland lead back to these storm-blown fur trappers, while only archaeological evidence, story, and mythos (that is, for this purpose, verbal history) can be found to display the habitation of either Dorset or Norse cultures.

Thanks, and have a great day!

Posted By: Piggie8

What about the vikings? Did they just land there or settle?

In the above statements "the Norse" are what you call "the vikings".

Side note - There were no such group of people who called themselves "vikings". Viking was an actual word in old Norse languages that meant the ACT of going out and pillaging, or going to war.

I made no claim that the name is not fitting, and when describing my own ancestry among them (see aside1) I claim "Viking heritage". I said there was no group who 'called themselves' vikings. Most people call themselves "the people" "the <insert nation here> people" or simply, "people", even in today's interconnected world, but especially in pre-Industrial times.

Aside1: My maternal grandfather's family line can be traced directly back circa 30 generations, and one major branch of it leads to the general area in Southern Norway that (old tradition says) Eric the Red came from. Supposedly, when he went on Viking across the Atlantic, many men from the entire south of Norway went with him. It was a legendary viking that (if local mythos are to be believed) TWO FULL GENERATIONS OF MALES and many very young boys of the third generation joined, from an area that encompassed nearly 1/10 the entire population of Norway at the time. Hot damn. The point is, some member (multiple members?) of my long-back family line went on viking with Erik the Red.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

Posted By: Piggie8

What about the vikings? Did they just land there or settle?

In the above statements "the Norse" are what you call "the vikings".

Side note - There were no such group of people who called themselves "vikings". Viking was an actual word in old Norse languages that meant the ACT of going out and pillaging, or going to war.

Ahh, I see.

Or maybe vicarious?

Posted By: cmseagle

I believe that the derived verb.

I believe that the quoted sentence is an incomplete sentence.

I believe the quoted sentence's verb understood

I believe that if there are any more sentence fragments posted here, my brain will climb out my ears and perambulate away.

Or, eleven panthers in four velcro sacks.

Posted By: [Expletive Deleted]

Or, eleven panthers in four velcro sacks.

Or two Pringles hugging.