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

141–150 of 408 posts

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

#141

Post by avgcorrection »

avgcorrection wrote: post #128
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.

> 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.

Come to think of it: none of Buddha’s followers even wrote about him or Buddhism itself until several centuries after his death. Meaningless.

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

#142

Post by jfengel »

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.

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".

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

#143

Post by alwillis »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #79
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…

> 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 bet…

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.

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

#144

Post by lifeisstillgood »

dragontamer wrote: post #88
bakuninsbart wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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, an…

>>> 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.

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

#145

Post by ProjectArcturis »

zeckalpha wrote: post #139
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.

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.

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

#146

Post by burkaman »

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.

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.

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

#147

Post by burkaman »

kypro wrote: post #113
capableweb wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 wa…

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.

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

#148

Post by krapp »

broof wrote: post #140
avgcorrection wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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/columbus-n...

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

#149

Post by chestertn »

avgcorrection wrote: post #128
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.

> 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.

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.

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

#150

Post by bebop »

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.

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...

Post reply on HN