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

171–180 of 408 posts

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

#171

Post by Robotbeat »

thehappypm wrote: post #137
Robotbeat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, I even mentioned that. ;)

> ”Similar argument if you base it off of… number of domesticated animals…”

But again, I think that fact isn’t surprising, either, considering the Old world is much larger and had more wild animals and more humans than the New World.

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

#172

Post by MichaelMcG »

chestertn wrote: post #151
avgcorrection wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, but they continued the Buddhism tradition (orally). The Vikings did not continue commercing and tell other people... hey! there are humans in this place! its a new continent!

"Meh--same climate, different continent. We'll stick to raiding the shorter commute South, they have stuff worth taking."

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

#173

Post by toxik »

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #154
sillyquiet wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They made" natives fight each other is a weird way of putting it. Warring tribes were more than happy to use the Europeans against their enemies. And many of those enmities long predated the arrival of Europeans.

Yes, many of the Central American tribes had been oppressed by the Aztecs for a long time, and were happy to have an advanced ally to fight against them.

There’s something to learn here about calling on a bigger bully to stamp out the local bully…

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

#174

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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.

Which particular people? Was it like military people under orders from European leaders?

Maybe someone could help me understand -- with such a prolific practice it must have been diaried and such? What are the best primary/secondary sources detailing the practice.

I've heard the "they gave blankets but they knew the blankets had smallpox infection". But we presumably know who the they were.

Presumably a lot of the colonists were sick as well. But not sick enough that the indigenous population noticed and stayed away.

I guess people's capacity for evil is always greater than one can imagine.

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

#175

Post by Apocryphon »

simonklitj wrote: post #7
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.

I love that idea. "Man, this is just like back home, let's go boys."

Newiceland

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

#176

Post by vanattab »

bregma wrote: post #167
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 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.

Why is a tic biting a human and transferring Borreliosis not considered zoonotic?

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

#177

Post by 999900000999 »

hobs wrote: post #39
999900000999 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine an indigenous woman having a fling with a viking and just rasing the kid in her village. No one the wiser. It would be impossible to know if this happened. Even if you found someone with both indigenous and Viking genetics, you don't know if it's because his great grandfather came from Norway in the 1920s. The history of early American immigration is absolutely fascinating, there was a story of a Chines…

> I can imagine an indigenous woman having a fling with a viking and just rasing the kid in her village. No one the wiser. Except everyone who saw the kid?

Many mixed raced people can pass as being completely apart of one race.

I imagine a Norwegian/Indigenous American kid could just look Indigenous American.

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

#178

Post by pasabagi »

kibwen wrote: post #83
jnwatson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between “discovery” and permanent settlement of the continental US, an estimated 55 million Native Americans died of disease. [1] The colonization of North America would have gone quite differently with that many folks to contend with. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-changed-after-europe...

In particular we can imagine it might look more similar to how China, India, Africa, etc. turned out, with subjugated local populations serving under foreign imperial governors. The eventual collapse of the empire might then result in most of the Americas being populated by ethnically Native American states.

Not sure. China, India, Africa etc were colonized for much shorter periods of time.

One point of comparison would be Ireland. They didn't suffer from colonist-brought diseases, because obviously they had all the same diseases already, but they did suffer a precipitous decline in population.

Another example would be the west coast of Africa, which was similarly colonized from early modernity on.

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

#180

Post by tomrod »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #163
alwillis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They sent blankets used by infected people. They didn't understand germ theory, but they understood contagion.
Post reply on HN