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

371–380 of 408 posts

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

#371

Post by shele »

headcanon wrote: post #84
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.

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…

I remember that this is not the whole story, the Spanish invasion and then European invasion was on the larger scale moving slower than the diseases.

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

#372

Post by flyingfences »

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?

The species is actually not absolutely crucial in this case. The trees were dated by looking for solar flare activity in the rings; the trees are known to have been cut by Vikings because they were cut with steel tools.

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

#373

Post by CRConrad »

broof wrote: post #116
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.

I would say yes, "making noise about it" would be a relatively important part of discovery. Did Erikson know that there was an entire continent with advanced societies completely seperated from the "old world"? Because that is what Columbus discovered. I'm making the distinction between Leif Erikson discovering a tundra-like landmass beyond Greenland that they didn't think was significant, and Columbus's actions whic…

> Did Erikson know that there was an entire continent with advanced societies completely seperated from the "old world"? Because that is what Columbus discovered.

If knowing it was separate from the Old World is what makes it a discovery, then for all we know Columbus absolutely didn't discover any such thing. He went to his grave convinced he'd found a route to India, which was very much the Old World. Conquered by Alexander and everything; stuff doesn't get much older than that.

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

#374

Post by CRConrad »

nixpulvis wrote: post #206

"Our new date lays down a marker for European cognisance of the Americas" Is "cognisance" really the right term here? I didn't really follow the whole article and it seemed mostly unrelated to my question anyway, so sorry if I missed something. It just seems to me that for there to be any European awareness, there would have to be proof of a return voyage, no? Is this not really just talking about "European presence"…

The existence of Grönländinga Saga -- specifically, the bits in it about Vinland and Markland and Helluland -- is in itself proof of European cognisance of the Americas. And yes, obviously at least some of them must have made it back, or their exploits would never have been recorded in the saga(s?). There's a couple of timelines in the article, reconstructing the sequence of events both from the artefacts and from the sagas; ISTR the fact-based one also mentions the return trips.

I think what they mean by "lays down a marker" is that this finding marks that already-established-as-existing cognisance in time, since they established the exact year those trees were felled and the Viking settlement built. (And, nice coincidence -- or did they sit on it for a while to make it so? -- it's apparently exactly a millennium ago.)

OK, since the Vikings then had to winter in their in their new-built settlement before returning in the spring, and if you want to count "Europeans know of it" as pertaining to at least Icelanders in general[1], you could argue that the specific marker for "European cognisance" goes a year or two later. But that's academic -- literally, as in, let the academics discuss it. But now they have a starting year to hange their discussion on, so this finding marks not only the age of the settlement and discovery of North America, but ultimately also of Europeans' consciousness thereof.

___

[1]: Not just the also rather precarious settlement on Greenland, which I suppose could have died out after the return of the Vinlanders but before anyone went from there to Iceland, so without ever getting word back to Europe at large.

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

#375

Post by BurningFrog »

jcranmer wrote: post #325
PeterisP wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just wondering why the same process how vikings settled Greenland would not work in the (IMHO much more hospitable) North America.

That's an excellent question. The answer I would give is that the process by which the Norse settled Greenland did not actually ultimately work out in the first place. Colonization isn't a simple matter of gathering enough people to form a colonizing party, staking out an empty(-ish) piece of land, and building a new settlement there. Once that settlement is built, there needs to be a steady stream of consumable good…

The Greenland settlements had 2000+ people between 1000-1350. Last written record is from 1408.

Ten generations is completely sustainable by my standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#Norse_set...

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

#376

Post by tomrod »

wwtrv wrote: post #338
tomrod wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Didn’t the first documented cases of this occurs a hundred of more years after most of the natives had already died (18th vs the 16th century)? By the time Europeans started colonizing NA most of locals had already died to the diseases spreading from the south.

In my reference, I acknowledge that how I used "they" was ambiguous. I meant people practicing war before germ theory.

If we ignore this example, we still have dead and infected bodies/livestock being catapulted into cities.

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

#377

Post by noetic_techy »

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.

There are stories of Roman and Asian contact with the America's. Perhaps disease was brought over earlier then we thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_co...

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

#378

Post by xanaxagoras »

noetic_techy wrote: post #377
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.

There are stories of Roman and Asian contact with the America's. Perhaps disease was brought over earlier then we thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_co...

Is there a reason to assume disease couldn't have come into existence in this native population itself?

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

#379

Post by krrrh »

xanaxagoras wrote: post #378
noetic_techy wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are stories of Roman and Asian contact with the America's. Perhaps disease was brought over earlier then we thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_co...

Is there a reason to assume disease couldn't have come into existence in this native population itself?

If a disease native to the Americas emerged and became endemic, it would have infected Europeans when they arrived. There’s a good CGP Grey video on this called Americapox.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk

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

#380

Post by eurusd »

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.

It is exactly one of the starting points of this uchrony, Civilizations from Laurent Binet (in french, i believe not translated to english), where native get sick during first venue of Vikings then when Colombus appears they just don't get sick at all + kill him and get to Portugal back on their boats and then travel in Europe, meet Luther, Erasme & Charles Quint, convert people to Sun god religion and create an Empire in Europe. Good book btw
Post reply on HN