[HN Gopher] Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD... ___________________________________________________________________ Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021 Author : bcaulfield Score : 350 points Date : 2021-10-20 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | runjake wrote: | The debate on whether Vikings were in Pre-Columbus America is | starting to sound a lot like the back and forth of "$food is | (good|bad) for you". | goto11 wrote: | There is no doubt Vikings were in Pre-Columbus America. | Thrymr wrote: | I do not think this has been in serious dispute in the last 50 | years. This paper just puts a more precise date on the | settlement in Newfoundland that was already well known. | nixpulvis wrote: | "Our new date lays down a marker for European cognisance of the | Americas" | | Is "cognisance" really the right term here? I didn't really | follow the whole article and it seemed mostly unrelated to my | question anyway, so sorry if I missed something. It just seems to | me that for there to be any European awareness, there would have | to be proof of a return voyage, no? | | Is this not really just talking about "European presence"? I'm | being highly pedantic, I'm well aware. | heikkilevanto wrote: | What I find most amazing in the article is the technology of | radiocarbon dating individual year rings in a piece of wood, | correlate that to known cosmic radiation events, and get the | precise year when the tree was felled. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | An interesting counter-factual that comes to mind - if the Norse | Greenlanders had brought smallpox or other diseases with them, | then Native Americans would have had 500 years to recover (and | keep immunity?) - The conquistadors would have faced millions of | not-dying-natives. A much different world would have resulted. | 29athrowaway wrote: | Most of the time, Europeans fought one tribe at a time, rather | than a large alliance of Native Americans. | | Then, in many cases, they made natives fight each other, and | they recruited "auxiliary indians". | | The siege of Tenochtitlan involved 200,000 Tlaxcalans fighting | on the European side. | | In other cases, such as the Battle of Cajamarca, they used | their horse + armor advantage to kidnap the leader and ask | everyone else to stand down. | | If natives had fought together as an alliance since the | beginning, they would have time to adapt and catch up. Like the | Mapuche did (they won the Arauco war). | sillyquiet wrote: | "They made" natives fight each other is a weird way of | putting it. Warring tribes were more than happy to use the | Europeans against their enemies. And many of those enmities | long predated the arrival of Europeans. | quadrifoliate wrote: | An almost identical story took place played out in (the | real) India, and is much better documented. Lazy Indian | monarchs who didn't really know or care about the world | beyond their borders perceived the East India Company as | just another ally, unaware that behind it was an incredibly | strong national identity and hereditary monarchy. | | Ended up winning the stupid prize of having large swathes | of territory being governed by the EIC and later Britain, | for a total of about 200 years. | | Source: Am Indian. | 29athrowaway wrote: | Yes, that characterization is a bit more accurate. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | Yes, many of the Central American tribes had been oppressed | by the Aztecs for a long time, and were happy to have an | advanced ally to fight against them. | toxik wrote: | There's something to learn here about calling on a bigger | bully to stamp out the local bully... | cestith wrote: | There are quite a few branching subthreads talking about the | spread of different diseases, different living conditions | leading to different immunity levels, and all sorts of ideas | around why it didn't seem to spread deadly illnesses back to | Europe as much as Europeans spread deadly ones to the Americas. | One I don't see much about is that in the initial exploration, | settlement, and colonizing groups the traffic of Europeans was | largely one way and screened for serious diseases as best they | could before being allowed on a ship. | | If Europeans became deathly ill in the Americas, they were | probably left in the Americas to die rather than being taken | back to Europe. The First Peoples from the Americas were not on | average traveling to Europe and staying there for months, | years, or lifetimes. They were staying among people in the | Americas where they could continue to spread the illnesses. | Healthy young soldiers, sailors, and merchants could bring both | asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases of illness across an | ocean to populations who weren't traveling nearly as much in | the opposite direction. When entire colonies of mixed ages, | genders, professions, and social roles moved permanently from | Europe to the Americas, likewise the trips back to Europe also | for former Europeans were far less common and included far | fewer than the number of people continuing to interact with | others in the Americas. | | In short, it was probably easier for mass migrations of | Europeans to spread one or more cases of a disease to the | Americas where it then spread from more prolonged contact with | the population than it was for a European to contract a serious | illness in the Americas and take it back to Europe on a | military or merchant ship. | | As to the Norse and smallpox, the Crusades of the late 11th | century and the 12th century were a big part of its spread to | most of Europe. There's a very good chance I think there was | little risk of a Norse ship spreading it in the early 11th | century. As you said, it could be a very different world if | they had. | steve76 wrote: | Turns out, it belonged to Columbus all along. Put his his | statue back up, or get off his land. Europeans did not have | smallpox then. Europe got hit with germs from foreigners too. | munk-a wrote: | Additionally - if natives had adopted and continued the | domestication of animals that norse greenlanders brought over | (probably pigs at least) then there might have been a counter- | plague when europeans again visited in 500 years. | [deleted] | kypro wrote: | Not quite a plague, but syphilis likely came from Native | Americans. | saiya-jin wrote: | maybe that 1/few ships just happened to didn't carry smallpox | and other nasties aboard | sillyquiet wrote: | yeah, unfortunately (I guess??!) smallpox didn't reach Europe | until the Crusades. | queuebert wrote: | Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant | still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries | later. | | And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the | colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of | the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for | example. | | I don't know how you get there. I'm pretty sure diseases went | ahead of the colonists in many cases and wiped out entire | civilizations before the colonists ever made contact. Even if | it didn't wipe out literally everyone, it would have | significantly destabilized or collapsed all significant | political or economic systems. | | Relatively speaking, any advantages of guns versus bows and | arrows seem small. If I were inclined to make arguments about | military technology, I'd speculate that plate armor and | horses were more significant advantages than guns, but all of | these pale in comparison to contagion. | polartx wrote: | >I'm pretty sure diseases went ahead of the colonists in | many cases and wiped out entire civilizations before the | colonists ever made contact. Even if it didn't wipe out | literally everyone, it would have significantly | destabilized or collapsed all significant political or | economic systems. | | This is absolutely what happened to the Incan empire | predatory to its subjugation to a few hundred conquistadors | led by Francisco Pizarro. For those interested check out | Last Days of the Incas. | dragontamer wrote: | In the context of military technology, ships and wagons are | the big thing. Ships and wagons to carry food to troops and | establish supply lines. | | Logistics wins wars. With exception of WW1 and WW2, | soldiers didn't really die in large numbers to the enemy. | Soldiers died to the cold, to disease, and deserted due to | lack of food / supplies / morale. | | There are occasional exceptions where large numbers of | soldiers died in battle... but those exceptions become | remembered for centuries. It certainly wasn't a regular | event (except in WW1 / WW2, which truly were horrific). | runarberg wrote: | Even in WW2 it can be argued that the Allies biggest | advantage on the western front was the USA build Liberty | ships, which were built really quickly and mainly used | for supply. | nitwit005 wrote: | Keep in mind that the technological advantage was eroded | rapidly. People happily sold all of it to the locals, | including firearms. There's something of a stereotypical | image of a native American warrior on horseback, but | that's not a native animal. | bakuninsbart wrote: | Was this generally the case for the native populations of | the Americas? I'd actually be very interested in some | works on native american supply line( problem)s. | dragontamer wrote: | I don't know much about Native American war theory. | | But I know that Medieval English Longbowmen were only | given something like 6 arrows per battle. And even that | was enough to stretch the capacities of Medieval | Britain's supply chain. 10,000 Longbowmen x 6 arrows is | 60,000 arrows per battle. | | IIRC, it was said that during wars, there wasn't any | gooses or ducks to be found in all of Britain. They've | all been killed, and their feathers plucked for the war | arrows. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | >>> Medieval English Longbowmen were only given something | like 6 arrows per battle. | | IIRC records for Henry in the Tower of London show a | total of 3/4 Million arrows paid for and collected for | the invasion that lead to Agincourt. With an estimated | 5,000 archers at Agincourt. | | Modern reconstructions show about 6 arrows per minute - | and again IIRC ten minutes of volley fire against the | French lines - something like 60 arrows per archer, or | around 300,000 arrows. Even in plate armour that shits | gonna hurt. | jnwatson wrote: | Between "discovery" and permanent settlement of the | continental US, an estimated 55 million Native Americans died | of disease. [1] | | The colonization of North America would have gone quite | differently with that many folks to contend with. | | 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-changed-after- | europe... | kibwen wrote: | In particular we can imagine it might look more similar to | how China, India, Africa, etc. turned out, with subjugated | local populations serving under foreign imperial governors. | The eventual collapse of the empire might then result in | most of the Americas being populated by ethnically Native | American states. | pasabagi wrote: | Not sure. China, India, Africa etc were colonized for | much shorter periods of time. | | One point of comparison would be Ireland. They didn't | suffer from colonist-brought diseases, because obviously | they had all the same diseases already, but they did | suffer a precipitous decline in population. | | Another example would be the west coast of Africa, which | was similarly colonized from early modernity on. | paganel wrote: | > but they did suffer a precipitous decline in | population. | | That was a TIL for me, because I was about to say tat the | "precipitous decline in population" only happened in the | mid-19th century, i.e. a couple of centuries after | Cromwell's campaign (the point where the English power | over Ireland really became a colonial one), but then I | skimmed through the History section of the Ireland | wikipedia page [1] and I read this: | | > This control was consolidated during the wars and | conflicts of the 17th century, including the English and | Scottish colonisation in the Plantations of Ireland, the | Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Williamite War. | | and | | > Physician-general William Petty estimated that 504,000 | Catholic Irish and 112,000 Protestant settlers died, and | 100,000 people were transported, as a result of the | war.[66] If a prewar population of 1.5 million is | assumed, this would mean that the population was reduced | by almost half. | | Again, I personally had no idea that Ireland's population | was reduced by almost half immediately after the English | conquest that happened during Cromwell's time, that's | kind of gruesome and imo not studied enough outside of | Ireland and the UK (I suppose that this subject is | studied in there). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland#The_Kingdom_of_ | Ireland | InitialLastName wrote: | In a lot of ways, though, the European subjugation of the | Americas was the "tutorial mode" for European subjugation | of Asia and Africa. Among other things, note that the | business end of European colonization of subsaharan | Africa and South and East Asia started ~a century after | the colonization of the Americas (thanks to proximity, | the Middle East and North Africa were much more tightly | coupled to European history, and colonization played out | differently there). The scramble for Africa and the | opening of Japan didn't happen until the mid-late 19th | century! | kibwen wrote: | _> Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have | meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several | centuries later._ | | Though by the same token it could also have produced a plague | that was devastating to the conquistadors, and might then | have been carried back to Europe for Black Death Round 2, | devastating the imperial powers and generating a long-lasting | fear of New World contact. Lots of interesting AU scenarios | to consider here. | queuebert wrote: | That's a very good point. | Y_Y wrote: | > And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of | the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for | example. | | That's quite the claim to toss out. I can certainly imagine | gunless conquistadors taking over New Spain in a slightly | longer span just by waiting for people to die. | Robotbeat wrote: | Also, the guns the conquistadors had kinda sucked and at | that time not massively better than bow and arrow (they | required less strength and skill, but skilled archers were | just as good, and the conquistadors could've sent them | instead). Arguably the steel swords and armor, plus horses, | were much more important. | irrational wrote: | Is that true? I've read that 90+% of the population died from | diseases, the vast majority without ever knowing about the | European conquerors (that is, they never saw a gun). Imagine | if 90% of the people in your nearest city died. How difficult | would it be for a new group, immune to whatever killed almost | everyone in the city, to move in and take over? | AlotOfReading wrote: | This is not accurate. Individual epidemics did not have | mortalities even approaching the 90% range. What actually | happened were dozens of epidemics over decades or | centuries. Moreover, outside the Northeast, Columbian | epidemics are closely associated with persistent European | contact and colonization. | | It should also be noted that human populations are | incredibly resilient to epidemics. In the absence of "other | things", populations suffering catastrophic virgin soil | epidemics will typically rebound to pre-epidemic levels in | decades. It's not a sufficient explanation for the | centuries-long decline of indigenous American populations. | The black death was no less severe and successor epidemics | continued throughout Europe in the 15th century, yet we see | nothing like the demographic collapse of the Americas post- | contact. | irrational wrote: | Isn't that because Europe was able to bounce back while | in the Americas, the diseases were immediately followed | up by the European colonizers who didn't give them time | or space to repopulate? | AlotOfReading wrote: | That's exactly the point. Epidemic disease alone is an | insufficient explanation for the demographic collapse of | indigenous Americans. | irrational wrote: | Yes, but guns are an insufficient explanation for the | complete overthrown of indigenous Americans. Or even the | primary cause. | kristopolous wrote: | I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. | Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? | | I know the imperialists weaponized their diseases and | intentionally tried to spread it and that may be the | difference. | | Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that | removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's | always struck me as remarkably convenient and quite | unbelievable; they were an idyllic people in some wondrous | land without their own disease. Oh really now ... we're | talking the Caribbeans here. | | Even the Wikipedia page on the matter (https://en.m.wikiped | ia.org/wiki/Influx_of_disease_in_the_Car...), does it cite | epidemiological sources with someone looking at like bone | sample DNA? No. It's economic and social science. Excuse me | for questioning the qualification of economists for being | able to authoritatively make confident statements about | historical virology. | | It may be true but I'd like more evidence than convenient | stories by the descendent of a conquerer about how by sheer | coincidence his/her ancestors were actually not guilty of | genocide and as of by miracle, North America became a land | without people; it just happens to follow Frederick Jackson | Turners Frontier Thesis a little too closely to be called a | coincidence. | [deleted] | space_fountain wrote: | I think parts of it are deeply controversial, but Guns, | Germs, and Steel argues this was because Europe had | higher population densities for longer + more | domesticated livestocks providing a more potent breading | ground for deadly diseases. I also think that disease | being a factor hardly removes culpability from the | conquers, there are plenty of quotes of some of them | saying things about how the plagues were a gift from god | and similarly terrible things. I also am not an export, | but I believe there was some transfer in the other | direction, particularly syphilis. | | If we're just speculating though, I wonder if the fact | that one group was traveling by boat could have insulated | the disease transfer a bit. Most really bad diseases | would run their course by the time a sailing ship made it | back across the ocean and certainly people knew to | quarantine ships with sick people on them in Europe. For | a disease the ship crews were resistant to reach the | Americas they just had to visit a village, where to go | the other way it had to survive an in built month plus | quarantine which is plenty of time for most diseases to | show up | dleslie wrote: | > Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? | | Not all diseases are equally harmful, right? Perhaps the | indigenous populations of the Americas simply lacked a | disease as deadly as those brought by the Europeans. | handrous wrote: | IIRC a lot of Eurasian diseases were a result of long- | term close contact with domesticated animals. Guess which | side of the Atlantic didn't really have domesticated | animals.... | antasvara wrote: | I think the key is density in Europe vs North America. | Europe was living in densely packed cities with | domesticated animals in close proximity, while North | America had smaller communities and less domestication. | As a general rule, this makes disease spread and zoonotic | viruses much less likely. | michaelbuckbee wrote: | IIRC that certain aspects of how livestock were raised in | Europe contributed to a long history of more virulent | illnesses so that when the European population eventually | met the North American it was the North American that | suffered. | not2b wrote: | It's possible that syphilis was brought back to Europe | from the New World by the Spanish. That hasn't been | proven though. | | From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis : | | The first recorded outbreak of syphilis in Europe | occurred in 1494/1495 in Naples, Italy, during a French | invasion ... | gameman144 wrote: | From what I've read, native populations had less frequent | interactions with livestock (through which many diseases | arise) and less concentration in poor-sanitation settings | (e.g. urban centers without sewers), both of which gave | European settlers more exposure to transmissible | pathogens in the centuries before settlement. | roywiggins wrote: | The usual explanation is that the Europeans lived in much | closer proximity with livestock... smallpox probably came | from cows, etc. | | Also it's generally believed that syphilis didn't exist | in the Old World before 1492, so there's at least one | disease that probably made the opposite journey. | | However, the disease narrative doesn't absolve the | Europeans. Nobody _forced_ the European powers to | colonize the Americas. If they 'd packed up and gone | home, even if the Americas had still been decimated by | smallpox, they would have bounced back, given the | opportunity. Human populations tend to do that. | | (The Black Death is sort of an exception, it suppressed | European population for a _long_ time, because it kept | coming back, killing a bunch of people, and then going | away again. But- Europe thrived during that period, the | Renaissance was coterminous with very bad bubonic plague | outbreaks) | [deleted] | LudwigNagasena wrote: | > I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. | Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? | | Cities are a breeding ground for diseases. America wasn't | densely populated at the time. | sharikous wrote: | Well, syphilis went the other way | sjburt wrote: | First, it was a two-way street. Syphilis, for one, is | believed to have originated in the new world and have | been brought to Europe post-contact. | | But Europe, Asia, and Africa combined was a much bigger | population pool, so more opportunities for mutation and | transmission leading to more types of infectious | diseases. | seph-reed wrote: | CPG Grey has a great video on this exact subject: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk | | In short, you need cities to develop these types of | viruses. Cities where the virus can just keep killing, | without ever hitting a dead end. | johncessna wrote: | I think the other, more important, factor CPG Grey | mentions in the video is domesticated animals. | seph-reed wrote: | Sorry. You're correct. I haven't watched the video in a | bit. | VHRanger wrote: | Fwiw that's based on "Guns, Germs and Steel" which is not | very respected as an academic work | seph-reed wrote: | So, I just went down a rabbit hole of criticisms on Guns, | Germs, and Steel... it's largely coming from the far left | and far right. Very few moderates. | | The far left says it's a cop out on racism, blaming white | evil on natural conditions. The far right says that it's | too PC, that plenty of other places had the right | conditions and gives no credit to culture or innovation. | | So both the far left and far right want to take credit | from chaos and put it on the people: either to hate them, | or to take pride. | | This in and of itself is not proof of anything. But if | something pisses off far left and right at the same time, | I tend to think of it as a green flag. | [deleted] | throwaway894345 wrote: | > I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. | Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? | | They did: syphilis! But the Europeans had far more | diseases to share because there was far more animal | domestication going on in the Old World. And most of our | diseases came as a result of that animal domestication, | so they had already spread through the population which | developed immunity in the millennia between the first | human infection and the Columbian Exchange. | | > Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that | removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's | always struck me at remarkably convenient and quite | unbelievable; they were an idyllic people in some welder | land without their own diseases, oh really now ... we're | talking the Caribbeans here | | Typically I hear "the smallpox theory" presented as | "Europeans killed 90% of Native Americans including by | disease" as though Europeans collectively set out to | exterminate Native Americans. To be certain, there was a | lot of brutality and genocide and even some _deliberate_ | spread of disease, but no European could have credibly | believed that the disease would spread throughout the new | world to such effect. | alwillis wrote: | _but no European could have credibly believed that the | disease would spread throughout the new world to such | effect._ | | Certainly not, but once they figured out what was going | on, they certainly aided and abetted the spread of these | new diseases. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | Which particular people? Was it like military people | under orders from European leaders? | | Maybe someone could help me understand -- with such a | prolific practice it must have been diaried and such? | What are the best primary/secondary sources detailing the | practice. | | I've heard the "they gave blankets but they knew the | blankets had smallpox infection". But we presumably know | who the they were. | | Presumably a lot of the colonists were sick as well. But | not sick enough that the indigenous population noticed | and stayed away. | | I guess people's capacity for evil is always greater than | one can imagine. | throwaway894345 wrote: | They didn't find out what was going on until the 20th | century... Before that they thought it was God's judgment | on the heathens or something. | tomrod wrote: | They sent blankets used by infected people. They didn't | understand germ theory, but they understood contagion. | heavyset_go wrote: | Population density and totals, and their proximity to | animals and their waste, matter. Extensive trade and | empire building exposes people to new pathogens and | allows new ones to develop, as well. | wbsss4412 wrote: | Source? Guns of the period weren't very effective in that | period. Most accounts I've seen attribute the conquistadors | success to disease and political instability. | Swizec wrote: | If I'm remembering Guns, Germs, and Steel correctly, a | popular/pluasible theory is that even without the disease | conquistador swords and armor were so much better than the | natives, they'd eventually win regardless. Something about | more advanced metallurgy. | | Having horses may also have helped. There were no beasts of | burden (iirc) in North America until the Spanish arrived. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | Well, there were around 3000 Spanish conquistadors. Could | they really conquer the whole Aztec empire (5 mln people) | without alliances with local tribes? | Robotbeat wrote: | Without local tribes? Probably not, but that's almost | always how conquering actually happens (by exploiting | existing fault lines). The situation with Alexander the | Great is kind of representative. Alexander the Great had | an army of about 30,000 people and conquered the Persian | Empire which had a population of about 50 million. The | Conquistadors had 3000 and conquered the Aztec Empire | which had a population of 5 million, although the | Conquistadors also had the benefit of disease traveling | before them and not just better tactics but also far | superior metallurgy. It doesn't necessarily take an | enormous advantage to conquer large territories, and the | Conquistadors had numerous advantages. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | The biggest advantage the Conquistadors has was everyone | else in the area fucking hated the Aztec. They were | horrible to have as neighbors and when any chance to fuck | them over, the Spanish, came everyone jumped on board. | queuebert wrote: | That was my point above that everyone seems to have | missed. Even if diseases wiped out 90+% of the local | population, they would still greatly outnumber the | conquistadors. So it wasn't purely a balance of manpower. | Sure, the diseases weakened the resistance, but it wasn't | the deciding factor. Diamond says as much in his book. | thehappypm wrote: | It would also mean smallpox would spread the other way. It's | interesting that the transfer of disease was so heavily one- | sided. | Robotbeat wrote: | It's not surprising at all. If you assume naively that | development rate of a novel disease is proportional to | population, then the World, which had a 6:1 greater | population would have 6 times as many communicable | diseases. Similar argument if you base it off of land mass, | number of wild animals, number of domesticated animals, | etc. | | (Actually, I do think the New World peoples were | particularly prolific when it came to domesticating | plants... they punched way above their population size in | terms of number of today's staple foods they | domesticated... plus chocolate, vanilla, etc...) | ProjectArcturis wrote: | You also had millions of years for diseases to evolve to | infect people in the Old World. Then there were fairly | small populations that traveled to the New World. If they | didn't bring the diseases with them, there was only about | 10,000 years for disease evolution, and a much smaller | population for much of that time. | thehappypm wrote: | I've read that most human viruses jumped from | domesticated animals. The pre-Columbian American peoples | notoriously had almost no domesticated animals, with I | think just one exception being the llama. So I think | that's supposedly the primary factor, less so raw | population. | Robotbeat wrote: | Indeed, I even mentioned that. ;) | | > _"Similar argument if you base it off of... number of | domesticated animals..."_ | | But again, I think that fact isn't surprising, either, | considering the Old world is much larger and had more | wild animals and more humans than the New World. | kens wrote: | The book "1491" describes the Americas before Columbus, and is | very interesting. In particular, the population density was | much higher than generally realized. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Especially in Aztec cities | mytailorisrich wrote: | Newfoundland is an island and it was, at best, extremely | sparsely populated when the Vikings arrived. According to | Wikipedia [1] the estimated local population when Europeans | arrived in 1497 was 700 (that's on an area only slightly | smaller than England). So I'm thinking that contacts were very | limited and the potential for any disease to spread minimal. | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_(island)#First_in... | BurningFrog wrote: | That's really interesting! | | Of course, if the native population died off around them, the | Vikings would probably have expanded their settlements and | perhaps ruled North America instead. | munk-a wrote: | It depends if they kept coming back. Smallpox worked to the | settlers' advantage because colonizers were establishing | themselves in the carribean and south america before any | serious ventures into north america got going - so there was | time for a pandemic to actually spread before folks really | started getting serious about settling. I think with | statistics and spread rates and all that it's likely that | viking settlers would need to stick around for a decade or | two to really see the effects in terms of population | thinning. | runarberg wrote: | I doubt it. The distances are simply too large to maintain a | supply lines needed for a self sufficient colonies to thrive. | The Norse needed the natives both to trade with and to learn | from if they were to settle these lands, they couldn't do it | on their own. | | Now you might think of Iceland and Norse Greenland as a | counter example. But Norse Greenland never really thrived, | and was eventually abandoned. Iceland however thrived, but it | is so much closer to Norway about 7 days at see with the | potential to stop at the Faeroe Islands. | | The voyage between Greenland and Iceland is similar (only a | bit longer + sailing up the west coast of Greenland). And | finally you need another week or two to cross the Labrador | sea from Greenland. However that route is much harder in the | winter then between Iceland and Norway, and Greenland is not | nearly as populated as Iceland or Norway and don't generate | enough surplus food which they can supply to a potential | colonies on the North American mainland. | | So the logistics of supplying a colony in North America | without help from the people already living there must | include a summertime only supply line from Iceland with | enough supplies to last the whole year. Where each voyage | from Iceland is going take maybe a month, maybe more, just | one way. These ships are still pretty small and not a lot of | room for cargo, so you'll need a few of them. I'm not sure | the economy on Iceland could have afforded such an expensive | endeavor. | gremloni wrote: | Maybe but the Viking's modus operandi seemed like it was | pillage/rape/kidnap the best looking women and then head out. | I can only think of one settlement the Vikings set up in | Gaul. | HarryHirsch wrote: | Not really - they had a three-pronged business model based | on ranching sheep, trading and, yes, raiding. Wasn't it | Erik the Red who had two brothers, and their father asked | all three what they were going to be when they had grown | up. Says the first he is going to be a farmer and his | sheepflock is going to be so large that he will have to dig | another waterhole. Says the second he will go trading and | he will have to build another barn to keep his wares in. | Says Erik, who was the youngest, he is going to be a Viking | and he is going to raid both of them. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | I don't think it works like that. | | There seems to be a need for a minimum primary settler | population and a decent amount of native assistance- it's | fairly easy to build a new town 10 miles from your last but I | am not aware of any long distance unsupported settlers. | | So if the natives around the Mayflower had all died, so would | the Founding Fathers. If the Norse diseases had killed off | the locals they might not have made it through winter. | ren_engineer wrote: | is there any explanation for why disease didn't kill in the | reverse direction? Why weren't Europeans wiped out by Native | American diseases? | sampo wrote: | According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond, | Europeans had a history of living in close encounters with | farm animals, so they had adopted diseases from the animals. | | And also the Eurasian geography made trade, and exchange of | both culture and domesticated animals, and also diseases, | easier in the east-west direction. Because in east-west | direction the exchange happens inside the same climate zone. | Cow, horse, pig, sheep, goat, donkey, chicken, duck, goose, | cat, dog, these didn't all originate in a single location. | But in Eurasia, people were able to adopt domesticated | animals and plants from their eastern and western neighbors. | | The geography in the Americas makes it more easy to travel | and trade in the south-north direction. But this is less | useful, because you would only get access to domesticated | plants and animals from different climate zones. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#Outline. | .. | headcanon wrote: | I do think about that idea as well, but population density (on | both sides) is an important factor though. Both the Vikings and | the native populations had far lower population densities than, | say, 15-century Spain and Italy, which is likely why the | diseases didn't spread in the first place. | | Mesoamerica a few centuries later did end up having the density | required for disease transfer as history shows, but it was also | helped along by the Spanish's active invasion. If the Spanish | hadn't ever set foot on shore and the Mesoamerican society was | allowed to develop, they would likely have developed their own | diseases and the subsequent immune response, which may have | helped fight Smallpox. But the Spanish got there before they | had that opportunity. | | If the Spanish invasion had been replaced by a smaller troupe | of Viking traders, I would be interested to see what would | happen, and you might be right if you only change that one | variable. But who knows? | AlotOfReading wrote: | Mesoamerica had high population densities long before Spain | was even a thing. | | Indigenous Americans didn't carry over many of the serious | diseases from the old world and the animals that were there | mostly didn't contribute serious new ones. There are a few | cases where we can see things like tuberculosis (from seals), | but they're limited and evidence of them largely hasn't | survived in extant populations. Likewise, Icelandic | populations were isolated and relatively healthy. Those that | survived the long trip to Greenland and the Americas would | have been even more so. | voz_ wrote: | > Mesoamerica had high population densities long before | Spain was even a thing. | | Citation needed? | nl wrote: | _According to NASA archaeologist Tom Sever, the Mayan | civilization in Mesoamerica was one of the densest | populations in human history. Around 800 A.D., after two | millennia of steady growth, the Mayan population reached | an all-time high. Population density ranged from 500 to | 700 people per square mile in the rural areas, and from | 1,800 to 2,600 people per square mile near the center of | the Mayan Empire (in what is now northern Guatemala). In | comparison, Los Angeles County averaged 2,345 people per | square mile in 2000._ [1] | | [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Maya | danjac wrote: | > the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute | serious new ones | | Aren't syphilis and Lyme disease of New World origin? | AlotOfReading wrote: | There's quite a lot of debate over the precise origins of | syphilis. I'm only peripherally familiar with the | literature, but my understanding is that recent work | suggests (but not concludes) that it might have been | endemic to afroeurasia rather than or as well as the | Americas. Lyme disease is indeed wholly American, but | it's not epidemic or even particularly mortal. | COGlory wrote: | I enjoyed this paper on the origins and distribution of | Treponema (the bug that causes syphilis and a few other | skin diseases). | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956094/ | klyrs wrote: | Lyme disease is not wholly American, though its incidence | may be in more recent times. | | "Otzi the iceman" had it 5kya: | https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-find- | ancient-ic... | | An ancestor to that bacteria was found in a tick that | lived 15Mya: https://www.livescience.com/46007-lyme- | disease-ancient-amber... | foxhop wrote: | Lyme is a scary to go through, I've had it twice now, | here is my latest encounter: https://youtu.be/xbPr7DHwSIw | bregma wrote: | There is evidence that syphillis came from the Americas. | There is evidence it was introduced to the Americas by | Europeans. One problem is that it's hard to distinguish | teritiary syphillis from tuberculosis or leprosy on | bones. | | As for Borreliosis, there are many variants of it endemic | to Europe and spread by ticks. No evidence that it came | from the Americas. | | Neither of those spirochetes are zoonotic. | vanattab wrote: | Why is a tic biting a human and transferring Borreliosis | not considered zoonotic? | lostlogin wrote: | According to everyone favourite source, Lyme disease is | zoonotic. | | I had never heard the term until today, so take the claim | with a pinch. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis | zeckalpha wrote: | Indigenous populations started dropping centuries before | Columbus and we don't know why. (Of course they dropped further | after Columbian contact) | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia#Decline%20(13th%20an... | | > The population of Cahokia began to decline during the 13th | century, and the site was eventually abandoned by around 1350. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | The Cahokia region did, certainly, but that would have been a | minor blip in the total North American population, especially | compared to the ~90% loss that happened following European | arrival. | barbacoa wrote: | The population decline of the Mayans happened around the | same time. This decline was steep enough to be called a | collapse. There has been much discussion as to the cause. | jcranmer wrote: | Yeah, no. The Classic Maya collapse dates to around 900, | which is before Cahokia even gets going. | beaner wrote: | I think by "around the same time" he probably just means | "plus or minus a few hundred years, before the | Europeans". Point being that native collapse happened at | large scale in multiple areas prior to European settling. | finiteseries wrote: | No, there's no indication of population dropping in that | article, only the dissolution of a city. | | I'm not read up on Cahokia, but it's probably more similar to | the dissolution/dispersal of the (lowland) Maya vs something | like a mass die off. | | Pre contact population centers were additionally in | Mesoamerica & northern South America, where most of the total | post contact population drop occurred. | gremloni wrote: | That's no indication at all. That's like saying everyone in | the old world was dying because gobekli tepe was abandoned in | 3000 BC. | wly_cdgr wrote: | Misread "1021" as "2021" and got excited | mseepgood wrote: | I misread it as "1024" and got excited, too. | beschizza wrote: | This was the era of the Anglo-Scandinavian Empire, formed in | Britain and Scandinavia under the king of England, Canute, a | Danish prince. It didn't outlast him by long (and Norway was | independent until the 1020s) but the coincidence of political | consolidation in northern europe with brief settlement in north | America is interesting. | sleepyhead wrote: | Norway was independent until 1397. | zw123456 wrote: | Apparently there is some evidence about Vikings bringing Native | Americans back to Iceland. https://phys.org/news/2010-11-vikings- | brought-amerindian-ice... | bingohbangoh wrote: | I've never understood the significance of this. | | The vikings were in North America for a few years and then went | back to Europe. They brought back (almost?) nothing, left a few | scattered settlements, and completely forgot about it. | | So what. | [deleted] | wnscooke wrote: | There are some who think that if the First Nations weren't "the | first", that diminishes modern day claims and grievances, | making it easier for modern day Canada and the USA to ignore | legitimate claims, and treat us as they've always wanted to | treat us. So, this sort of research is important for many. | goto11 wrote: | Since the Norse met native Americans (according to the Saga), | I don't see how this changes who was there first? It was only | a thousand years ago after all. | iammisc wrote: | It doesn't matter if they were first, or if they themselves | slaughtered whomever lived here before... being 'first' to be | somewhere doesn't give you automatic rights over something. | That is not how human civilization has ever worked. | stuff4ben wrote: | It begs the question then of what happened to them? Did they | integrate with existing Native Americans? Or did they just die | out? Are there stories from Native Americans in the area that | report Norsemen in the area? | aww_dang wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbY-GrM8pI | | There are different theories. I enjoyed this exploration of the | topic. | | >One of the most unlikely tales of a society's fall is the | incredible saga of the Vikings of Greenland. Find out how these | European settlers built a society on the farthest edge of their | world, and survived for centuries among some of the harshest | conditions ever faced by man. Discover how this civilization | was able to overcome the odds for so long, and examine the | evidence about what happened to cause its final and mysterious | collapse. Including Viking poetry, Inuit folktales and | thousands upon thousands of walrus. | uncertainrhymes wrote: | Neither the Dorset nor Beothuk people overlapped in that | particular place at that time. Newfoundland is an (enormous) | island, and while there were various migrations over time there | is no record of other peoples c1000 in that (rather | inhospitable) site. | belval wrote: | I wonder if they could check the DNA of the natives that were | originally from that area for any "old" Europeans markers or if | there was too much mixing from the colonization for such a | thing to work. | mig39 wrote: | Unfortunately, the aboriginal population of Newfoundland | didn't survive contact with subsequent European settlers: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk | BurningFrog wrote: | You can still get DNA from their bones. | larrik wrote: | They probably just went home. | amackera wrote: | They sailed home to Greenland, presumably, and wrote about | their adventures in sagas. | | Unfortunately the indigenous peoples of Newfoundland (the | Beothuk) were forced into starvation by the encroachment of | European fishermen, so we don't have a lot of knowledge of | their folklore or oral traditions. | fullstop wrote: | > Did they integrate with existing Native Americans? | | According to the article, no: | | "The Icelandic sagas suggest that the Norse engaged in cultural | exchanges with the Indigenous groups of North America. _If | these encounters indeed occurred, they may have had inadvertent | outcomes, such as pathogen transmission, the introduction of | foreign flora and fauna species, or even the exchange of human | genetic information. Recent data from the Norse Greenlandic | population, however, show no evidence of the last of these._ It | is a matter for future research how the year AD 1021 relates to | overall transatlantic activity by the Norse. Nonetheless, our | findings provide a chronological anchor for further | investigations into the consequences of their westernmost | expansion. " | | edit: re-reading this, they may have if they never returned to | Greenland | roywiggins wrote: | They probably went home and/or died out, like in Greenland. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_North_... | bcaulfield wrote: | Strange to think this discovery was made at the apex of the | Byzantime Empire under Basil II. The Roman Empire was still | somewhat of a thing. | sb057 wrote: | Even more interesting to consider is the imperial Varangian | Guard, comprised of Norse recruits. It's entirely possible that | one of these Viking explorers in North America (or their | descendants) later resided at court in Constantinople. | datameta wrote: | And it is also possible that a Varangian that visited North | America ended up as a chief or advisor of a slavic tribe. | davidw wrote: | It's interesting to contemplate some of these overlaps that | don't normally come to mind. The Republic of Venice, for | instance, was still a going concern, albeit on its last legs, | when the United States was founded. | ilamont wrote: | _The Icelandic sagas suggest that the Norse engaged in cultural | exchanges with the Indigenous groups of North America34. If these | encounters indeed occurred, they may have had inadvertent | outcomes, such as pathogen transmission7, the introduction of | foreign flora and fauna species, or even the exchange of human | genetic information. Recent data from the Norse Greenlandic | population, however, show no evidence of the last of these._ | | Is it possible the Vikings were not in that location long enough | for populations to mix? Or they were so remote (physically, | culturally, and linguistically) that limited opportunities arose? | Or something else? | sb057 wrote: | Genetic research suggests American Indian descendants in modern | day Iceland. | | https://phys.org/news/2010-11-vikings-brought-amerindian-ice... | zw123456 wrote: | you guys are too fast :) sorry for my dupe post. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | > the exchange of human genetic information | | This sounds like a parody of scientific jargon. Why do people | write like this?.. | arrosenberg wrote: | Reminds me of the all time great line from the Simpson's | House of Horrors episode where Kang and Kodos impersonate | Bill Clinton and Bob Dole - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgBFiCmYedc | zw123456 wrote: | oops just saw you post, you are way ahead of me. | https://phys.org/news/2010-11-vikings-brought-amerindian-ice... | hprotagonist wrote: | I think the consensus has been for some time that they showed | up, caught some fish, logged a few trees, decided it sucked, | and left, all in probably less than a decade. | ravenstine wrote: | _" On second thought, let's not stay in America. It is a | silly place."_ | mig39 wrote: | Sounds like my summer vacation in Newfoundland in July 2021. | | Not much has changed! Kidding. | | Unless they were fishing for cod (usually offshore), they | weren't doing so well on the Northern Peninsula of | Newfoundland. And the trees in that area of Newfoundland are | skinny, short, and useless for most construction. | | I think they just landed on the part of Newfoundland that has | the least to offer. It's still that way 1000 years later. | | Had they landed in one of the bays on the East Coast of | Newfoundland, they might have enjoyed better weather, better | shelter, better fishing, and more contact with the local | aboriginal population. | simonklitj wrote: | I love that idea. "Man, this is just like back home, let's go | boys." | Apocryphon wrote: | Newiceland | irrational wrote: | This is the part I don't get. These guys were awesome | sailors. It didn't occur to them to sail down the coast until | they got to the Florida Keys and set up a little surf shop? | pvaldes wrote: | The major sea currents run towards north here | kzrdude wrote: | And they had no base nearby to launch from. Go back home | and stock up? Noo.. home was Greenland, there's no riches | there, and they went to Vinland to try to stock up. | philwelch wrote: | According to some sources, one factor is that Newfoundland | was so heavily populated with indigenous people that there | wasn't enough room for a Norse colony to grow. By the time | the English made it back to Newfoundland, smallpox and other | epidemics had devastated the indigenous population. | mig39 wrote: | Can you cite one of these sources? The archeological record | doesn't seem to show a large aboriginal population in | Newfoundland around 1000 C.E. | | I don't think the Beothuk, for example, were ever very | numerous, certainly not as numerous as other aboriginal | people in Labrador and Greenland at the time. | | It wasn't just the Norse that had a hard time living in | Newfoundland at the time. It wasn't very hospitable to any | humans. | philwelch wrote: | A good start is the book _1491: New Revelations of the | Americas Before Columbus_ by Charles Mann. That book | fundamentally changed my understanding of the pre- | Colombian Americas. | | > It wasn't just the Norse that had a hard time living in | Newfoundland at the time. It wasn't very hospitable to | any humans. | | I don't think it was as crowded as, say, New England | (early explorers of the coast of New England, IIRC, wrote | that there wasn't enough open shoreline to even make | landfall on). However much or however little of | Newfoundland was habitable, though, was already inhabited | by the time the Norse got there. | [deleted] | datameta wrote: | There is a Norse description in the Saga of Icelanders of | what the indigenous skraelings looked like, as the norse | called them, as well as accounts of repelling assaults from | the native populations. | | > They were short in height with threatening features and | tangled hair on their heads. Their eyes were large and | their cheeks broad. | | > despite everything the land had to offer there, they | would be under constant threat of attack from its prior | inhabitants. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skr%C3%A6ling | 999900000999 wrote: | I can imagine an indigenous woman having a fling with a viking | and just rasing the kid in her village. No one the wiser. | | It would be impossible to know if this happened. Even if you | found someone with both indigenous and Viking genetics, you | don't know if it's because his great grandfather came from | Norway in the 1920s. | | The history of early American immigration is absolutely | fascinating, there was a story of a Chinese man who just told | everyone he was an indigenous American in order to avoid | discrimination. I've actually met people from Eastern Europe | who ended up working at Telemundo, no one can tell that they're | not ethnically Hispanic. In fact, who to say what Hispanic is. | There are plenty of Asians in Latin America, if some decide to | migrate to America are they not still Hispanic ? | hobs wrote: | > I can imagine an indigenous woman having a fling with a | viking and just rasing the kid in her village. No one the | wiser. | | Except everyone who saw the kid? | 999900000999 wrote: | Many mixed raced people can pass as being completely apart | of one race. | | I imagine a Norwegian/Indigenous American kid could just | look Indigenous American. | wolverine876 wrote: | > Even if you found someone with both indigenous and Viking | genetics, you don't know if it's because his great | grandfather came from Norway in the 1920s. | | Are you sure? My impression is that genetics are used to | determine when humans spread across the world and how | populations mixed. | Tagbert wrote: | Those findings are based on the genetics of larger | populations and specific samples of ancient DNA. If there | were a only a handful of children born of both groups, that | genetic trace would likely have faded out over time. | golemiprague wrote: | Hispanic is not a race, it is a combination of geographical | and cultural denomination loosely defined by the USA | perception of the lands south to their border. | chestertn wrote: | There are plenty of valid claims that many other civilizations | contacted America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre- | Columbian_trans-oceanic_co... | | But it is meaningless since they did not write about it nor they | stablished commerce. The fact is that before 1492, most | civilizations in Africa/Asia/Europe did not know that America | existed and that other humans lived there. After 1492, that | changed forever. | waserwill wrote: | > But it is meaningless since they did not write about it not | they stablished commerce | | Depends on what you find meaningful! There was almost certainly | exchange of goods between Polynesians and South Americans. The | presence of early sweet potato agriculture in Polynesia and | genetic admixture in both regions points to non-trivial | contact. There are even parallels in terms of folk-tales [0]! | (Though these are likely older events, more to do with ancient | dispersal). | | There are also possibly earlier relationships across the | Pacific, but these would have been ancient and interesting | largely from historical curiousity [1]. | | [0]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39445-9_ | ... | | [1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav2621 | mtoohig wrote: | I live in Vanuatu and is it very far to the west side of the | Pacific yet the almost southern most island of Vanuatu, | Aneityum, has stories of what they called the "Yellow People" | that were on the island before they, Melanesians, arrived | from northern islands. These people on the island were | excellent stone carvers and could make stone walls which the | current locals admit they never learned from the "yellow | people". Old engravings exist still of these original people | that to me sound like those may have come from the east, | South America. I don't have photos though, this is a story I | just heard recently from family members of that island. | koboll wrote: | Wow. You should really, really write a blog post about | this, and get some of them on the record about it. A Google | search for 'Aneityum "yellow people"' returns only 4 | results. | | However, one of those four is this dissertation: https://sc | holarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794... | | Which reads: | | >His canoe and his moiety were the first to adopt the | chiefly system, and it was brought to Aneityum by natimi- | yag (yellow-people), which he now believes to have been | Polynesian. | chana_masala wrote: | I don't think I've come across anyone on HN from Vanuatu. | If you're open to answering, I wonder if you work in tech? | What's the tech industry like there? | bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: | Could also be that last push of Denisovans that was | recently discovered through the genetic record. | avgcorrection wrote: | > But it is meaningless since they did not write about it nor | they stablished commerce. | | The first African to climb Mt. Everest, you say? Well he didn't | help build a network of base camps so I'm just going to say | that it's meaningless. | avgcorrection wrote: | Come to think of it: none of Buddha's followers even _wrote_ | about him or Buddhism itself until several centuries after | his death. Meaningless. | chestertn wrote: | Yes, but they continued the Buddhism tradition (orally). | The Vikings did not continue commercing and tell other | people... hey! there are humans in this place! its a new | continent! | MichaelMcG wrote: | "Meh--same climate, different continent. We'll stick to | raiding the shorter commute South, they have stuff worth | taking." | chestertn wrote: | Yes. Meaningless. 1492? Very meaningful. | | One of the most important feats if not the most important of | what we used to call the Age of Exploration: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery | | This led to global trade that changed the face of the earth. | It opened philosophical debates about human rights, the | legality of wars, etc., which are still important today. | | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school- | salamanca/#IusGent... | | These debates led to the prohibition of American Indian | slavery in... 1542! | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Laws | | The first recorded christian marriage in current United | States was an interracial union in 1565! | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_colonial_Spanish_Am. | .. | | I could go on an on. | chestertn wrote: | A nuance here. Why is this important? Slavery was very | common back then and the New Laws were revolutionary. | | The Ottomans were famous for their slave trade and did | capture tons of Europeans. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire | | Not only that, Aztecs and other indigenous peoples from the | americas had Slavery as an institution: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery | | Indigenous slavery ended with the New Laws | cschmidt wrote: | A monk in 14th-century Italy wrote about the Americas | https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2021/09/25/a-monk- | in-14th-century-italy-wrote-about-the-americas | | There was an interesting recent Economist story about that. | There is a 14th century Italian monk that _did_ write about | Newfoundland based on the oral testimony of "sailors who | frequent the seas of Denmark and Norway". It is possible | Columbus was aware of this. | chestertn wrote: | Colombus was trying to find India and he explored the area | trying to find proof that he indeed found India. | | Furthermore, Colombus brought an interpreter with him, Luis | de Torres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_de_Torres | | "Their task was to explore the country, contact its ruler, | and gather information about the Asian emperor described by | Marco Polo as the "Great Khan". " | | There is a lot of effort put today to downplay the importance | of what happened. I understand that it makes sense | politically. But the fact remains that what happened in 1492, | for good or bad, changed the world forever. | bebop wrote: | There is a possibility that this was known much earlier than | the 14th century. St. Brendan may have been speaking about | the americas as early as 500 AD. | | Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan Interesting | read: https://www.amazon.com/Brendan-Voyage-Sailing-America- | Explor... | Retric wrote: | It's not commerce but native peoples where apparently regularly | crossing the barring straight without realizing anything | unusual was going on. | | If this had gone on long enough we might have turned into a | ring species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species | hapticmonkey wrote: | That's like saying The Apollo moon missions were meaningless | because they failed to set up commercial hub on the moon. | runarberg wrote: | > But it is meaningless since they did not write about it | | The story of Leifur Eiriksson lived in the oral tradition and | was eventually written down in Graenlendinga Saga around 250 | years later (which is still another 250 years before Columbus). | | I bet that possible Polynesian contact would have lived in the | oral tradition in a similar manner. Though way more time passed | until the stories Polynesian were written down so I would | expect them to be a bit more fantastical with the added time. | singularity2001 wrote: | I find it highly likely that crucial bronze age inventions like | smelting, Eridu/Elamite 'pyramids' and writing were introduced | to America in one way trips between 4000 and 0BC, however until | we find artifacts or mummy DNA it's pure speculation. | Laremere wrote: | Civilizations around the world definitely acquired similar | technology with suspicious timing, but the common factor | doesn't need to be humans. One theory I'm fond of is river | deltas. The major ones all formed around 7,000 years ago (see | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A47ythEcz74) as a geological | result of the end of the ice age. After humanity spread to | the Americas during the ice age, the end of the ice age seems | to have created the conditions necessary for agriculture to | flourish. Once you have agriculture you get cities, writing | to track harvest numbers, pyramids from laborers working in | the off season, and metalworking from craftspeople . | privatdozent wrote: | Scandinavians are pretty proud of this fact. Look up Leif | Erikson, supposedly the first European to set foot in America, | 500 years before Columbus. | broof wrote: | I still would say that Columbus was the first to "discover" | America, in the sense that Leif Erikson showed up, left, and | didn't really make a big deal out of it. which to be fair, | makes sense if you look on google earth and zoom in and follow | from Iceland up to northern Canada. It just all feels more or | less the same, so eventually they turned around and left. | burkaman wrote: | Why do you think he didn't make a big deal out of it? I feel | like any event we know about from thousand-year-old sagas | must have been a big deal, otherwise it wouldn't have been | preserved and recorded. | avgcorrection wrote: | That dude who was first to the South Pole wasn't "really" | first, either; he just showed up and, you know, left before | some arbitrary time limit that I made up. | broof wrote: | well yeah Erikson was first, but he didn't "discover" it in | the sense that Columbus did. I would say they're | categorically different. See my comment below. | krapp wrote: | Columbus never even set foot in North America. He | "discovered" some islands in the Caribbean and Bahamas. | | The narrative of Columbus "discovering" the land that | would become the United States has never been anything | but propaganda[0]. | | [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/15/colu | mbus-n... | avgcorrection wrote: | Yeah yeah, you're just repeating yourself. Setting your | own idiosyncratic/arbitrary rules. | capableweb wrote: | Is "making noise about it" what we consider discovery now? | I'd say the first person finding and visiting the place is | indeed the discoverer of that place. Maybe Columbus | popularised it rather. | kypro wrote: | When I was a kid I remember seeing weird bugs in the garden | and wondering if I was the first person to find that bug. | I'm sure I wasn't, but in theory I could have "discovered" | loads of new species - but would it even matter if I wasn't | aware enough of my own discovery to share it? | | Did the Vikings even realise they were on a new continent? | My understanding is that they "settled" a tiny area and may | have thought it was just an island off of Greenland or | something. | burkaman wrote: | Columbus also didn't realize he was on a new continent. | If that's the standard, then Amerigo Vespucci discovered | it, because he's generally considered to be the first to | realize it was a new continent. | broof wrote: | I would say yes, "making noise about it" would be a | relatively important part of discovery. Did Erikson know | that there was an entire continent with advanced societies | completely seperated from the "old world"? Because that is | what Columbus discovered. I'm making the distinction | between Leif Erikson discovering a tundra-like landmass | beyond Greenland that they didn't think was significant, | and Columbus's actions which ended up connecting the old | world to the new. Those two things are very different from | each other. If I google "who discovered america" and got | Leif Erikson, I think that would be more confusing than | Columbus. | throwaway894345 wrote: | If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If | someone discovers something and nothing really comes of it, | is it really a more significant discovery than one which | changes the world profoundly, immediately, and forevermore? | zardo wrote: | By the standards of his culture, Leif Erickson's discovery of | Vinland had as much publicity as any distant event. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_the_Greenlanders | jfengel wrote: | Seems like a weird thing to be proud of. "We found this whole | new continent, sparsely populated and rich with all kinds of | resources, but only explored a tiny piece of it and then | basically ignored it/forgot about it." | | I suppose it's better than "We found a whole new continent, | killed vast numbers of inhabitants, and then brought over | millions of others to subject to horrific abuse". | jjtheblunt wrote: | also interesting: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarni_Herj%C3%B3lfsson | efa wrote: | I thought this has been known for awhile. I visited the site in | Newfoundland like 15 years ago. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows | [deleted] | wolverine876 wrote: | From the paper: | | > The received paradigm is that the Norse settlement dates to | the close of the first millennium9; however, the precise age of | the site has never been scientifically established. | | The paper is about more precise dating, afaict, not a | revelation that they arrived around then. | not2b wrote: | The news is the accurate dating, not the existence of the site | (which is so well known that it is a UNESCO World Heritage | site). | pvaldes wrote: | That depends entirely on the species of tree. Absolutely | crucial in this case. Do they mention this data in the | article? | roywiggins wrote: | Yes, at least two species of tree. You can read which ones | in the paper! | dboreham wrote: | From tfa: "However, it has thus far not been possible to | determine when this activity took place" | roywiggins wrote: | The research is about pinning the date down. | jonny_eh wrote: | > I thought this has been known for awhile | | What, in particular, are you referring to? | Afforess wrote: | Leif Erikson? Popularized by Spongebob, no less. | cguess wrote: | This is about nailing the exact date that this settlement | was built. Leif Erikson was almost certainly earlier | anyways. | z3c0 wrote: | According to Wikipedia, he died in 1020. | | So technically, you're correct. Which is the best kind of | correct. | thereddaikon wrote: | I was taught that Leif Erikson led an expedition to | Newfoundland over 20 years ago in public school. | | "Transatlantic exploration took place centuries before the | crossing of Columbus. Physical evidence for early European | presence in the Americas can be found in Newfoundland, | Canada1,2. However, it has thus far not been possible to | determine when this activity took place3,4,5. Here we provide | evidence that the Vikings were present in Newfoundland in AD | 1021. We overcome the imprecision of previous age estimates by | making use of the cosmic-ray-induced upsurge in atmospheric | radiocarbon concentrations in AD 993 (ref. 6). " | | Seems that before hand the evidence was circumstantial and | while everyone was confident it was the case, they can now | prove it with better dating techniques. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > Leif Erikson led an expedition to Newfoundland over 20 | years ago | | I guess that's technically not wrong. | elwell wrote: | > guess that's technically not wrong | | Hey, don't command me to guess things. | GauntletWizard wrote: | I'm just impressed that Leif Erikson was leading | expeditions while still in public school. | satvikpendem wrote: | I too love dangling modifiers | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier | e0m wrote: | Happy 1000th anniversary Vikings! | cheaprentalyeti wrote: | I was hoping they'd have found out more about other settlements | in Newfoundland besides L'anse aux Meadows. Did they ever find | out more about that possible settlement in SW Newfoundland? | justinzollars wrote: | This is so cool. So much earlier than I could have imagined! | newfriend wrote: | The media is really pushing this (and related) story hard this | year. Anything to delegitimize Columbus. | anthk wrote: | Columbus was a bastard by himself, and I say this as Spaniard. | The local Castillian-Aragonese kingdom (proto-Spain maybe) | punished Columbus because of his overseas behaviour. | arduinomancer wrote: | What is wrong with that? | | Don't you prefer accurate history? | Teknoman117 wrote: | A few of the other comments had me curious, but while it's widely | known that diseases brought over from Europe were devastating to | the native populations of the Americas, are there any notable | examples of transfer in the other direction - i.e. new diseases | the Europeans encountered in the Americas that got brought back | to Europe? | cogman10 wrote: | Syphilis is thought to be a new world disease. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis | staticfloat wrote: | Aha! A chance to plug one of my favorite CGP Grey videos that | explores this very question: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk | tschwimmer wrote: | Syphilis was thought to have been carried from the Americas to | Europe by Columbus' crewmen.[0] | | [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#History | 0000011111 wrote: | "These sudden increases were caused by cosmic radiation events, | and appear synchronously in dendrochronological records all | around the world" #### That is a pretty interesting method for | dating historical sites. I wonder how much it will change the | records as future research is done globally. | AlotOfReading wrote: | It's neat, but practically speaking it's an incremental | improvement over what already exists. Dendrochronology is | already capable of dating the felling year (which may be years | or decades removed from the actual construction date). This | allows you to date certain fellings to a particular season | under ideal circumstances, and to start local | dendrochronological records from a different fixed point. | [deleted] | olvy0 wrote: | Tangentially related: Kim Stanley Robinson's early story Vinland | The Dream, in which an archeologist discovers that those very | remnants here were actually planted there as an elaborate hoax | 100 years ago. | fijiaarone wrote: | Literally the article states that they know exactly when and | where Norse vikings were because of "cosmic rays" ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-20 23:00 UTC)