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

351–360 of 408 posts

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

#351

Post by littlestymaar »

vanattab wrote: post #176
bregma wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My understanding is that if the tick was only a vector between two humans (for instance, malaria isn't a zoonosis, because the mosquito is just transmitting the disease between humans), then it would not be a zoonosis. But in most cases with Lyme disease, the tick is actually transmitting the disease from another animal to a human, therefore it is indeed a zoonosis.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Transmission

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

#352

Post by INTPenis »

sb057 wrote: post #25
ilamont wrote: post #4

The Icelandic sagas suggest that the Norse engaged in cultural exchanges with the Indigenous groups of North America34. If these encounters indeed occurred, they may have had inadvertent outcomes, such as pathogen transmission7, the introduction of foreign flora and fauna species, or even the exchange of human genetic information. Recent data from the Norse Greenlandic population, however, show no evidence of the las…

Genetic research suggests American Indian descendants in modern day Iceland. https://phys.org/news/2010-11-vikings-brought-amerindian-ice...

Yeah but it can only be traced back to the 17th century iirc. Around that time many native americans were stolen or just shipped out of north america for various reasons.

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

#353

Post by goodcanadian »

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?

This was the extreme end of the supply chain so to speak. Iceland was sparsely populated, Greenland even more so. They simply didn't have the people to set up new colonies further west, or much need to. Perhaps, if they had stumbled on a particularly rich area, they may have done so, but to get any significant number of settlers, they would have had to go all the way back to Scandinavia.

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

#354

Post by hnbad »

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.

Others have cited Guns, Germs and Steel but I hope I don't have to explain that its premises have in many parts been debunked by actual historians who specialize in these subjects.

It's easy to forget that most of the Indigenous peoples in North America didn't die simply from "catching" diseases but were directly and intentionally killed or worked to death. Most people are hopefully familiar with the extent of the genocide in what is now the US (with everything from "plague blankets" to eradicating the bison to literally paying bounties for dead Indians) but Columbus' treatment of the Natives was also so violent and brutal that other Spanish colonialists complained about it.

In other words, the problem wasn't so much settlers bringing their diseases with them than settlers capturing the natives, working them to death, destroying their livelihoods and then actively trying to genocide them.

Having some level of immunity to smallpox or other diseases wouldn't have changed much.

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

#355

Post by hnbad »

hapticmonkey wrote: post #189
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.

That's like saying The Apollo moon missions were meaningless because they failed to set up commercial hub on the moon.

In a way they're meaningless because they were just a way to extend the "space race" to an arbitrary milestone the US could claim for itself after having lost almost everything else to the reds.

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

#356

Post by eesmith »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #136
BurningFrog wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mad…

> long distance unsupported settlers

There were 18 years between the European settlement of Pitcairn island and the next visitors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands#European_sett... .

Your constraints are pretty strict. There aren't many places which could be settled (in recorded history) where there weren't already people living there, and where there was a reason for not continuing contact with the place of origin.

Another possibility is Te Pito O Te Kainga / Rapa Nui / Easter Island. The first explorers met one person already there (Nga Tavake), then they go back to Hiva, and a double canoe returns to Easter Island carrying the settlers. They left "because a rising tide was destroying their land" and/or a power struggle with the Hanau Eepe, if I read http://archive.hokulea.com/rapanui/hotu.html correctly. In either case, the oral history suggest little continued connection with Hiva.

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

#357

Post by jeltz »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #102
headcanon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think about that idea as well, but population density (on both sides) is an important factor though. Both the Vikings and the native populations had far lower population densities than, say, 15-century Spain and Italy, which is likely why the diseases didn't spread in the first place. Mesoamerica a few centuries later did end up having the density required for disease transfer as history shows, but it was also h…

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…

Roman Spain had high population densities much earlier.

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

#358

Post by afarrell »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #102
headcanon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think about that idea as well, but population density (on both sides) is an important factor though. Both the Vikings and the native populations had far lower population densities than, say, 15-century Spain and Italy, which is likely why the diseases didn't spread in the first place. Mesoamerica a few centuries later did end up having the density required for disease transfer as history shows, but it was also h…

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…

> before Spain was even a thing

note: Spain was unified in 1491.

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

#359

Post by anthk »

afarrell wrote: post #358
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…

> before Spain was even a thing note: Spain was unified in 1491.

Not all. Navarre was out, then it was conquered in 1512. And yet, it was not fully integrated into Spain. They had their own currency and customs. Also, they had no military service duties. That until mid 1800s.

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

#360

Post by anthk »

godelmachine wrote: post #331
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.

Greenland is a cold country. I doubt if viruses can survive there for so long unlike a tropical country like Spain.

Spain is not tropical. It has three main climates:

- Atlantic. Windy and coldish climate, with lots of rain. Like the UK, or worse.

- Continental Mediterranean. Hot Summers (over 40c) and cold Winters (below 0).

- Mediterranean. Overall a warm climate with a few days of slight cold in Winter, with OFC some spots of cold winter depending on the location.

- On top of that, the mountain climate, chill and always snowy in winter.

Then the Archipielagos (Canaries/Balearics) are their own thing, and Iberia has several distint microclimates and terrains everywhere because the highly mountainous orography distorts the overall climates a lot.

Think of Spain as a micro-condensed US, where you have near every climate in the Earth.

Post reply on HN