Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 408 posts

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

#91

Post by antasvara »

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 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.

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

#92

Post by wnscooke »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #33

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.

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.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

roywiggins wrote: post #70
kristopolous wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by 29athrowaway »

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.

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).

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

#95

Post by Robotbeat »

Y_Y wrote: post #47
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. 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.

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.

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

#96

Post by BurningFrog »

mig39 wrote: post #37
belval wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, the aboriginal population of Newfoundland didn't survive contact with subsequent European settlers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk

You can still get DNA from their bones.

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

#97

Post by pvaldes »

irrational wrote: post #53
hprotagonist wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

The major sea currents run towards north here

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

#98

Post by throwaway894345 »

capableweb wrote: post #48
broof wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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?

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

#99

Post by chestertn »

cschmidt wrote: post #61
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.

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.

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

#100

Post by sleepyhead »

beschizza wrote: post #30

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.

Norway was independent until 1397.
Post reply on HN