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

131–140 of 408 posts

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

#131

Post by avgcorrection »

broof wrote: post #23
privatdozent wrote: post #8

Scandinavians are pretty proud of this fact. Look up Leif Erikson, supposedly the first European to set foot in America, 500 years before Columbus.

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.

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.

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

#132

Post by COGlory »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #117
danjac wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute serious new ones Aren't syphilis and Lyme disease of New World origin?

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.

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/

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

#133

Post by roywiggins »

pvaldes wrote: post #118
not2b wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That depends entirely on the species of tree. Absolutely crucial in this case. Do they mention this data in the article?

Yes, at least two species of tree. You can read which ones in the paper!

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

#136

Post by lifeisstillgood »

BurningFrog wrote: post #82
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.

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.

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.

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

#137

Post by thehappypm »

Robotbeat wrote: post #122
thehappypm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would also mean smallpox would spread the other way. It’s interesting that the transfer of disease was so heavily one-sided.

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…

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.

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

#138

Post by zardo »

broof wrote: post #23
privatdozent wrote: post #8

Scandinavians are pretty proud of this fact. Look up Leif Erikson, supposedly the first European to set foot in America, 500 years before Columbus.

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.

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

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

#139

Post by zeckalpha »

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.

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.

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

#140

Post by broof »

avgcorrection wrote: post #131
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.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN