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

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

#71

Post by LudwigNagasena » 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…

> 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.

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

#72

Post by sharikous » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:46 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…

Well, syphilis went the other way

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

#73

Post by not2b » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

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

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).

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

#74

Post by kibwen » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:46 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.

> 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.

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

#75

Post by sjburt » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:47 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…

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.

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

#76

Post by z3c0 » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

cguess wrote: post #26

Afforess wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leif Erikson? Popularized by Spongebob, no less.

This is about nailing the exact date that this settlement was built. Leif Erikson was almost certainly earlier anyways.

According to Wikipedia, he died in 1020.

So technically, you're correct. Which is the best kind of correct.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:49 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…

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by runarberg » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #66

throwaway894345 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

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.

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

#79

Post by throwaway894345 » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:49 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…

> 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.

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

#80

Post by AlotOfReading » Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #49

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.

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?

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.