I thought this has been known for awhile. I visited the site in Newfoundland like 15 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows
[deleted]
Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
281–290 of 408 posts
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#282This was the era of the Anglo-Scandinavian Empire, formed in Britain and Scandinavia under the king of England, Canute, a Danish prince. It didn't outlast him by long (and Norway was independent until the 1020s) but the coincidence of political consolidation in northern europe with brief settlement in north America is interesting.
Norway was independent until 1397.
It was part of Canute's empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire) for a few years in the early 11th century, until his death.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, go to a place like r/badhistory where they actually cite sources for their problems with it for a start Actual academics have problems with it
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 may be able to elucidate a little bit why GG&S provokes such hostility among academics.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#284An 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.
Additionally - if natives had adopted and continued the domestication of animals that norse greenlanders brought over (probably pigs at least) then there might have been a counter-plague when europeans again visited in 500 years.
That's unlikely. Part of the reason for the one way transmission of disease is simply the fact that Europeans were the ones making the crossings. Plenty of europeans got sick in the new world, but they either died in the new world or died on the ships during the long return journey. For a disease to cross the ocean, a carrier who is adapted to the disease must make the crossing. A few natives did go to Europe, but they were likely to die en route while surrounded by Europeans in rather unsanitary conditions.
Further, the europeans making these journeys were typically young and fit individuals who, again, could survive long voyages at sea and the difficulties of setting up new colonies. The elderly and infirm stayed in Europe. Thus the europeans were far less likely to suffer an outbreak of disease simply by virtue of having fewer human incubators. For the natives, however, there was nothing to prevent their most vulnerable from being exposed, nor any way to stop isolated cases from blowing up into large scale pandemics.
The only ways for a counter plague to get to Europe would be for either large numbers of natives to successfully cross the atlantic, which is unlikely when their population is simultaneously being decimated by disease, or for the Europeans to pick up a disease that took a long time to cause serious problems and thus could survive the return journey, which may have been the case for Syphillis. Either way, an "America Pox" is highly unlikely.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#285What I find most amazing in the article is the technology of radiocarbon dating individual year rings in a piece of wood, correlate that to known cosmic radiation events, and get the precise year when the tree was felled.
Yeah that was the most interesting part to me too; we already knew about Vikings in Greenland, but now they have a specific year to pin it too.
The science that enables that is described in this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2783
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#286There 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.
I find it highly likely that crucial bronze age inventions like smelting, Eridu/Elamite 'pyramids' and writing were introduced to America in one way trips between 4000 and 0BC, however until we find artifacts or mummy DNA it's pure speculation.
I don't doubt there were "rafting" events, like that which brought over the new world monkeys, but I don't think isolated individuals can transmit culture like that.
"Connecticut Yankee" type stories underestimate how diffuse culture is, and overestimate the prevelence and prowess of "polymaths" in the weakest sense.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#287An 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.
Smallpox only spread in Europe starting in the 15th century. Before that it was known mostly in Asia (China and India). It was probably the increased trade with Asia that was responsible for spreading smallpox in Europe.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#288An 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…
They were "living in the future", but that doesn't always work out so well.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#289Earlier 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. That's quite the claim to toss out. I can certainly imagine gunless conquistadors taking over New Spain in a slightly longer span just by waiting for people to die.
Also, the guns the conquistadors had kinda sucked and at that time not massively better than bow and arrow (they required less strength and skill, but skilled archers were just as good, and the conquistadors could’ve sent them instead). Arguably the steel swords and armor, plus horses, were much more important.
Fun fact, the battle of Tenochtitlan was one of the last times trebuchets were used in war.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major sea currents run towards north here
And they had no base nearby to launch from. Go back home and stock up? Noo.. home was Greenland, there's no riches there, and they went to Vinland to try to stock up.
Greenland wasn't a frozen wasteland back then. The climate was warmer. Climate change is a large part of what drove the Norse out of Greenland.