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

51–60 of 408 posts

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

#51

Post by AlotOfReading »

0000011111 wrote: post #14

"These sudden increases were caused by cosmic radiation events, and appear synchronously in dendrochronological records all around the world" #### That is a pretty interesting method for dating historical sites. I wonder how much it will change the records as future research is done globally.

It's neat, but practically speaking it's an incremental improvement over what already exists. Dendrochronology is already capable of dating the felling year (which may be years or decades removed from the actual construction date). This allows you to date certain fellings to a particular season under ideal circumstances, and to start local dendrochronological records from a different fixed point.

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

#52

Post by thehappypm »

queuebert wrote: post #46
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.

Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries later. And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

It would also mean smallpox would spread the other way. It’s interesting that the transfer of disease was so heavily one-sided.

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

#53

Post by irrational »

hprotagonist wrote: post #5
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…

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?

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

#54

Post by kristopolous »

irrational wrote: post #49
queuebert wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries later. And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

Is that true? I've read that 90+% of the population died from diseases, the vast majority without ever knowing about the European conquerors (that is, they never saw a gun). Imagine if 90% of the people in your nearest city died. How difficult would it be for a new group, immune to whatever killed almost everyone in the city, to move in and take over?

I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share?

I know the imperialists weaponized their diseases and intentionally tried to spread it and that may be the difference.

Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's always struck me as remarkably convenient and quite unbelievable; they were an idyllic people in some wondrous land without their own disease. Oh really now ... we're talking the Caribbeans here.

Even the Wikipedia page on the matter (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influx_of_disease_in_the_Car...), does it cite epidemiological sources with someone looking at like bone sample DNA? No. It's economic and social science. Excuse me for questioning the qualification of economists for being able to authoritatively make confident statements about historical virology.

It may be true but I'd like more evidence than convenient stories by the descendent of a conquerer about how by sheer coincidence his/her ancestors were actually not guilty of genocide and as of by miracle, North America became a land without people; it just happens to follow Frederick Jackson Turners Frontier Thesis a little too closely to be called a coincidence.

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

#55

Post by Swizec »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #50
queuebert wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries later. And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

Source? Guns of the period weren’t very effective in that period. Most accounts I’ve seen attribute the conquistadors success to disease and political instability.

If I'm remembering Guns, Germs, and Steel correctly, a popular/pluasible theory is that even without the disease conquistador swords and armor were so much better than the natives, they'd eventually win regardless. Something about more advanced metallurgy.

Having horses may also have helped. There were no beasts of burden (iirc) in North America until the Spanish arrived.

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

#56

Post by ravenstine »

hprotagonist wrote: post #5
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…

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.

"On second thought, let's not stay in America. It is a silly place."

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

#58

Post by dleslie »

kristopolous wrote: post #54
irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I've read that 90+% of the population died from diseases, the vast majority without ever knowing about the European conquerors (that is, they never saw a gun). Imagine if 90% of the people in your nearest city died. How difficult would it be for a new group, immune to whatever killed almost everyone in the city, to move in and take over?

I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? I know the imperialists weaponized their diseases and intentionally tried to spread it and that may be the difference. Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's always struck me as remarkably convenient and quite unbelievable; they were an idy…

> Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share?

Not all diseases are equally harmful, right? Perhaps the indigenous populations of the Americas simply lacked a disease as deadly as those brought by the Europeans.

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

#59

Post by throwaway894345 »

queuebert wrote: post #46
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.

Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries later. And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

> And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

I don't know how you get there. I'm pretty sure diseases went ahead of the colonists in many cases and wiped out entire civilizations before the colonists ever made contact. Even if it didn't wipe out literally everyone, it would have significantly destabilized or collapsed all significant political or economic systems.

Relatively speaking, any advantages of guns versus bows and arrows seem small. If I were inclined to make arguments about military technology, I'd speculate that plate armor and horses were more significant advantages than guns, but all of these pale in comparison to contagion.

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

#60

Post by michaelbuckbee »

kristopolous wrote: post #54
irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I've read that 90+% of the population died from diseases, the vast majority without ever knowing about the European conquerors (that is, they never saw a gun). Imagine if 90% of the people in your nearest city died. How difficult would it be for a new group, immune to whatever killed almost everyone in the city, to move in and take over?

I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? I know the imperialists weaponized their diseases and intentionally tried to spread it and that may be the difference. Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's always struck me as remarkably convenient and quite unbelievable; they were an idy…

IIRC that certain aspects of how livestock were raised in Europe contributed to a long history of more virulent illnesses so that when the European population eventually met the North American it was the North American that suffered.
Post reply on HN