Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021 • Hacker News Board

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#61

Post by cschmidt » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

chestertn wrote: post #41

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.

    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.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#62

Post by not2b » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #54

irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 idy…

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 ...

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#63

Post by gameman144 » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #54

irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 idy…

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.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#64

Post by jnwatson » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #46

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #28

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.

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.

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...

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#65

Post by kypro » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #42

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #28

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.

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.

Not quite a plague, but syphilis likely came from Native Americans.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#66

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #59

queuebert wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 pol…

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).

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#67

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

thereddaikon wrote: post #19

efa wrote: post #10

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

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 w…

> Leif Erikson led an expedition to Newfoundland over 20 years ago

I guess that's technically not wrong.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#68

Post by Retric » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

chestertn wrote: post #41

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.

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

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#69

Post by Tagbert » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #43

999900000999 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Chines…

> 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.

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.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#70

Post by roywiggins » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

kristopolous wrote: post #54

irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 idy…

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)