Where in the World is Asking Dr. LJ?
Mar. 11th, 2009 03:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Hey,
Before I break down and suffer the shame of asking a real person from Sweden (which is just like asking a guy from Norway), I wonder if my latte-sipping NPR's The World Geo-Quiz listening audience might have a suggestion.
I'm looking for an actual human settlement that meets the following criteria:
1.) Is North of the arctic circle (or right close to it).
2.) Has been inhabited since the Viking period right up to the present day (so we're probably talking about a place in modern-day Norway or one of its territories).
3.) Can only be reached by boat or plane, but usually boat and not terribly frequently even then. (i.e. wicked isolated)
4.) Fairly small population (although given the previous criteria, that's almost a given).
I was looking at Gamvik, but you can actually drive there. There are some islands north of Norway (that are owned by it) that might suffice, but a wikipedia/google search is a bit thin on details about what might be up there.
DO IT ROCKAPELLA!
Tom
Before I break down and suffer the shame of asking a real person from Sweden (which is just like asking a guy from Norway), I wonder if my latte-sipping NPR's The World Geo-Quiz listening audience might have a suggestion.
I'm looking for an actual human settlement that meets the following criteria:
1.) Is North of the arctic circle (or right close to it).
2.) Has been inhabited since the Viking period right up to the present day (so we're probably talking about a place in modern-day Norway or one of its territories).
3.) Can only be reached by boat or plane, but usually boat and not terribly frequently even then. (i.e. wicked isolated)
4.) Fairly small population (although given the previous criteria, that's almost a given).
I was looking at Gamvik, but you can actually drive there. There are some islands north of Norway (that are owned by it) that might suffice, but a wikipedia/google search is a bit thin on details about what might be up there.
DO IT ROCKAPELLA!
Tom
no subject
Date: 2009-03-11 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-11 08:15 pm (UTC)Well...yes and no. Most places I've looked at appear to have had continuous inhabitation (or close to it). One town was burned to the ground by the Nazis when they evacuated at the close of WWII. Norway wanted to resettle the inhabitants, but they refused and built shelters out of the wooden planks used in the construction of the runway. Tough people the Norse.
later
Tom
no subject
Date: 2009-03-11 10:41 pm (UTC)How about the Faroe Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands)? Too far south? (62 degrees N)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-12 12:14 am (UTC)Yeah, Iceland is too connected.
The Faroe's might do in a pinch, I've considered them.
later
Tom
no subject
Date: 2009-03-12 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-12 02:59 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega,_Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel%C3%B8y
Good luck. Most people don't want to live full time on tiny isolated islands above the arctic circle.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-12 03:02 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A6r%C3%B8y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8st
Evidence for continuous habitation is sketchier, but exists.