Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

getBusyChild t1_iysasfe wrote

Why did the Native Americans not suffer from disease etc. when the Vikings landed, and traded with the inhabitants of Vinland? Weren't they established there for a number of years?

5

RiceAlicorn t1_iysx8dv wrote

Disease prevalence was mentioned already, so I'll mention location.

While it has been extensively documented that Vikings had many settlements on modern day Greenland, the same cannot be said of modern day Canada. The only undisputed settlement on Canada is L'Anse Aux Meadows, located at the northern-most tip of the island of Newfoundland. It should be noted that this site is believed to have been rather short-term and small in scale — it was used for several decades, upwards of perhaps a century, and was significantly less populated than settlements in Greenland. This is because the site lacked features that are typically associated with permanent, constantly-populated settlements (animal pens, agriculture, burial sites, etc.).

Part of why the Europeans devastated the Native Americans with disease was because they established permanent, populated settlements on continental North America. The permanence of these settlements meant that by extension there was always a permanent source of disease to infect the Native Americans. Also, because the settlements were on continental North America, that made it a lot easier for trade and travel to occur, thereby spreading the disease. Much easier than if your settlement is located on a island, which would either limit you to trading just on that island or demand you having to get on a boat and go elsewhere to trade then boat back to the settlement.

12

TheGreatOneSea t1_iytilmc wrote

Adding to this, animals were (and are) massive disease vectors: if large numbers weren't present, that alone cuts down the risks dramatically.

Just as an example, one of the worst outbreaks in history came from the horses of nomads around China.

3

Mo_dawg1 t1_iz6zpkc wrote

Something you failed to mention is that the earliest mass disease deaths didn't occur in isolated native villages. The started in the relatively large urban areas of Central Mexico.

1

jezreelite t1_iysn92i wrote

One reason is that the disease most responsible for decimating Native American populations was smallpox and smallpox does not seem to have been nearly as common in Early Medieval Europe as was in the Early Modern Europe.

Among Eurasians and Africans, the mortality rate of smallpox was 30%, but among Native Americans and indigenous Australians, it was more like 90%.

6

[deleted] t1_iyv6vlm wrote

Is that based on genetics that the survival rate was so different? More natural immunity from a time before statistics were able to accurately record deaths? Unknown why Eurasians and Africans fared better?

1

Helmut1642 t1_iyxu0a6 wrote

Part of the answer is that the Vikings took longer to reach America, most sailed from Greenland. So a disease would have to start in the big towns in Europe, then be taken to Iceland, with a smaller population with no big towns which would limit spread. Then to Greenland with a smaller population before reaching the New World.

1