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

161–170 of 408 posts

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

#161

Post by barbacoa »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #145
zeckalpha wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The population decline of the Mayans happened around the same time. This decline was steep enough to be called a collapse. There has been much discussion as to the cause.

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

#162

Post by johncessna »

seph-reed wrote: post #101
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…

CPG Grey has a great video on this exact subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk In short, you need cities to develop these types of viruses. Cities where the virus can just keep killing, without ever hitting a dead end.

I think the other, more important, factor CPG Grey mentions in the video is domesticated animals.

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

#163

Post by throwaway894345 »

alwillis wrote: post #143
throwaway894345 wrote: post #79

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? 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.

They didn’t find out what was going on until the 20th century… Before that they thought it was God’s judgment on the heathens or something.

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

#164

Post by klyrs »

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.

Lyme disease is not wholly American, though its incidence may be in more recent times.

"Ötzi the iceman" had it 5kya: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-find-ancient-ic...

An ancestor to that bacteria was found in a tick that lived 15Mya: https://www.livescience.com/46007-lyme-disease-ancient-amber...

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

#165

Post by gremloni »

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.

That’s no indication at all. That’s like saying everyone in the old world was dying because gobekli tepe was abandoned in 3000 BC.

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

#166

Post by nitwit005 »

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…

Keep in mind that the technological advantage was eroded rapidly. People happily sold all of it to the locals, including firearms. There's something of a stereotypical image of a native American warrior on horseback, but that's not a native animal.

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

#167

Post by bregma »

danjac wrote: post #106
AlotOfReading wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mesoamerica had high population densities long before Spain was even a thing. Indigenous Americans didn't carry over many of the serious diseases from the old world and the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute serious new ones. There are a few cases where we can see things like tuberculosis (from seals), but they're limited and evidence of them largely hasn't survived in extant populations. Likewise, Icel…

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

There is evidence that syphillis came from the Americas. There is evidence it was introduced to the Americas by Europeans. One problem is that it's hard to distinguish teritiary syphillis from tuberculosis or leprosy on bones.

As for Borreliosis, there are many variants of it endemic to Europe and spread by ticks. No evidence that it came from the Americas.

Neither of those spirochetes are zoonotic.

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

#168

Post by avgcorrection »

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.

Yeah yeah, you’re just repeating yourself. Setting your own idiosyncratic/arbitrary rules.

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

#169

Post by chestertn »

chestertn wrote: post #149
avgcorrection wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/…

A nuance here. Why is this important? Slavery was very common back then and the New Laws were revolutionary.

The Ottomans were famous for their slave trade and did capture tons of Europeans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

Not only that, Aztecs and other indigenous peoples from the americas had Slavery as an institution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_slavery

Indigenous slavery ended with the New Laws

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

mig39 wrote: post #120
philwelch wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to some sources, one factor is that Newfoundland was so heavily populated with indigenous people that there wasn’t enough room for a Norse colony to grow. By the time the English made it back to Newfoundland, smallpox and other epidemics had devastated the indigenous population.

Can you cite one of these sources? The archeological record doesn't seem to show a large aboriginal population in Newfoundland around 1000 C.E. I don't think the Beothuk, for example, were ever very numerous, certainly not as numerous as other aboriginal people in Labrador and Greenland at the time. It wasn't just the Norse that had a hard time living in Newfoundland at the time. It wasn't very hospitable to any huma…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN