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

381–390 of 408 posts

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

#381

Post by Symmetry »

BurningFrog wrote: post #82
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.

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 dunno, the Norse settlers were apparently getting a lot out of trading red died cloth for native produce and if it hadn't been for the altercation that somehow grew up around that cow or bull the possibility of trade might have drawn a lot more Norse in, the way the fur trade did in French North America.

But then again farming populations can expand really fast with low population pressure. The 13 colonies were seeing their populations double every generation just from natural fertility even before immigration.

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

#382

Post by Telemakhos »

vidarh wrote: post #370
Telemakhos wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised that paper got published, considering the basic spelling errors ("jaws" for "yaws") and errors of fact ("Española Island…a part of the Galápagos Islands").

> considering the basic spelling errors ("jaws" for "yaws") Missing a single erroroneous instance of a word that won't get caught by spell check may be embarrassing, but it's hardly material. > ("Española Island…a part of the Galápagos Islands") https://www.galapagos.org/about_galapagos/about-galapagos/th... What is the error here?

There are several islands in the world that have had the name Española. The one that is relevant to the discussion about syphilis is now more commonly known as Hispanola, home to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Columbus visited in 1492/3 and supposedly brought back Syphilis in 1493. The Galapagos islands are in the Pacific, and were never visited by Columbus.

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

#383

Post by seph-reed »

jcranmer wrote: post #283
seph-reed wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went down another rabbit hole on r/badhistory. There's definitely plenty of holes in the theories of GG&S, if that's what you mean by "academics have problems with it" === "it is not a perfect theory." But overall, it seems most of the points hold more than enough water to be worth merit. None of them perfect, but vastly better than throwing the whole thing out. ----- Also, holy crap I'm giving you the benefit of t…

I don't read r/badhistory but occasionally r/AskHistorians instead (where why GG&S is bad is literally in the FAQ), and in perusing old threads there, I came across this take that might be interesting to you: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4o1n26/i_wan... While I think you are probably more likely to sympathize with restricteddata than anthropology_nerd, I do think that anthropology_nerd's comments m…

Thanks a ton for sharing that. This is -- so far -- the highest calibre of this debate I've seen.

I think both parties are talking passed each-other, having missed a very, very important statement:

> You recommended people read GG&S with a grain of salt, but the vast majority of casual readers lack that salt when it comes to understanding the flaws in the book.

Whether or not this salt is there seems like the addition / omission from which each side argues. With salt, it's a fine enough book. The broad strokes are close enough. Without salt -- as in "I'm a professional because I read this book" -- it probably gets really, really annoying.

I definitely agree that nuance is important, and the book should put more effort into not presenting itself as fact. But it's pop-history. It wouldn't be pop if it didn't, and what would be pop would be even worse IMO.

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

#384

Post by jfengel »

PeterisP wrote: post #317
jfengel wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Didn't Columbus die without ever claiming or even knowing that he found a whole new continent? As far as he was concerned, he succeeded in finding another trade route to Asia.

Yeah, though that was hardly the worst of it. He himself was personally involved in horrific abuse of the natives -- so much so that the Spanish imprisoned him over it.

Lots of other people realized what Columbus had found, even though he never did. He was wrong about the size of the earth, and everybody knew it. So he managed to find something he had no reason to expect, and didn't understand it. Others did.

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

#385

Post by runarberg »

BurningFrog wrote: post #375
jcranmer wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Stories of Norse Greenlanders visiting Iceland mention their poverty. They would come to Iceland and taste beer and bread for the first time in their lives. They lived, yes, but they definitely did not thrive over there. Perhaps they were sustainable, but they were on the very edge of being so, and when conditions worsened (worse climate, lost trade routes, competition, etc.), they weren’t any more and these settlements were abandoned.

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

#386

Post by tomjakubowski »

jeltz wrote: post #357
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…

Roman Spain had high population densities much earlier.

Not true. Large Maya cities existed hundreds of years before Romans colonized Hispania. Nakbe was abandoned, hundreds of years after its peak, ca. 200-100 BCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakbe

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

#387

Post by elwell »

elwell wrote: post #110
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Leif Erikson led an expedition to Newfoundland over 20 years ago I guess that's technically not wrong.

> guess that's technically not wrong Hey, don't command me to guess things.

> Downvotes

I was merely quoting mid-sentence as OP did

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

#388

Post by pradn »

One remarkable person from this time period is Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir, who had the first European child in the Americas (outside Greenland) and then made a pilgrimage to Rome. She's probably the most well-travelled woman of the 11th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudrid_Thorbjarnard%C3%B3ttir

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

#390

Post by mandmandam »

CountDrewku wrote: post #248
mandmandam wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Good. Listening to the story in school it was obvious there was some stuff being glossed over; like, how did he discover America if there were people there already? ... And those people just gave their land to Europeans because ... ? And, in the years since grade school, the answer to those questions have led to darker questions, with dark answers. And oh shit, we're actually still pulling this shit. So again - g…

Ok then fuck the Vikings too. Do you realize how much violence and destruction they wrought? At least keep your shit logically cohesive. While you're at it do a little research on "indigenous" culture and how they treated each other. I assure you it wasn't butterflies and kisses before Columbus got here. > how did he discover America if there were people there already He discovered it in relation to Europeans who did…

Do people credit the Vikings for discovering Ireland?

The fuck they do.

And I don't know why the fuck you're putting "indigenous" in quotes but man it looks kinda racist. As does the idea that "discovering things" is by default actually "discovered in relation to Europeans".

Post reply on HN