4 ms·

i was wondering, there is a lot of evidence of pre Columbian contact; the Vikings were in America, the Phoenicians were probably there, the Chinese too, but noo

i was wondering, there is a lot of evidence of pre Columbian contact; the Vikings were in America, the Phoenicians were probably there, the Chinese too, but noone thought of bringing back any tomato seeds. i mean without Columbus, we Europeans would still be eating garum with meat, and that without potato chips, without salad.

moksly 5y ago
Scandinavians were in America during the viking period, but there isn’t any evidence that suggest they returned. You have to realise that a lot of the people who went that route weren’t “vikings” as such. Going viking was something you did, but 90% of Scandinavians were just farmers. In fact the reason we are such a homogeneous people here is largely because most farmers even had little contact with the sea-sized settlements that did go Viking. The Scandinavian explorers who headed north from Iceland and eventually ended up in America were likely farmers who had lost their lands for whatever reason, and as such were likely settlers rather than warriors. Many who would have had no intention of ever going back, even if they hadn’t perished. I’m not a big expert on ecology, but I also think that the climate they landed in was basically worse than what they came from. So there probably wasn’t a whole lot of exotic foods to trade, even if they had wanted to.
- progre 5y ago
  Well, there are the Vinland sagas, and while the events in those are pretty wild, the mere existence of those suggests that some actualy did return. They where recorded sometime between 1220 and 1280 so even though this was well after the fact (about 200 years) it's still before the age of exploration. Edit: As for the tomato question, the sagas suggests that no or very little friendly interaction with the natives took place, so no real trade or exchange of knowledge. These where not full on atlantic voyages but mostly near coastal areas of Greenland and what is now northen Canada. I kinda doubt that the natives would be growing tomatoes that far north anyway. Though, they did claim to find grapes, which suggests that they ventured a fair bit south as well...
bbarnett 5y ago
A few of thoughts here. First, we have proof of Viking settlements, but they just seemed to die off completely. It may be that before they really got settled, they were just killed by natives. We don't have actual proof, it seems, of anyone else being here earlier. Outside of that, the tomato, potato, and a lot of other things, aren't native to Canada, or even the US. It's native to Central and South America, which is 4000 or so km in a direct line, and 7000 or 8000km "hugging the coast" travel from where a viking settlement was found on the coast of Canada. So just being in the "new world", won't even remotely put you in contact with everything. On the farming side, no one really understood much about soil management, conditions, crop rotation, fertilizing, drainage, fungus, "growing zones" etc, etc until the 20th century. Often, attempts to transplant crops would fail miserably, by: * placing them in the wrong location (some plants die with too much sun, others with too little) * same as above, but "requires a more southern climate" or "northern climate". Some plants literally cannot grow with short/long day cycles like the far North or South has. * placing a plant in too wet, or too dry soil for its growth requirements. One plant may rot in a certain type of soil (clay/wet/whatever), another thrive Well, there are many points like this. Farmers often knew their specific plants, but it was all guesswork compared to scientifically derived knowledge in the early 20th. So even if a handful of seeds somehow made it back to Europe earlier than Spain getting to the new world and back, there's no promise it would thrive on a first-try. Especially if it was just fishermen, not even interacting with the natives (maybe, earlier contact as you suggest). But beyond all that, superstition! When the tomato was first introduced, it was actually seen as a 'sign of the devil'. It was considered evil, and dangerous to eat. And if you look at corn, for a long time the Brits and much of Europe considered it only suitable as 'pig food'. Most humans wouldn't touch it, and likely this had also to do with taste, for the rural town I grew up had 'cow corn', which is corn hardier, quicker to grow, but not as succulent, or even very tasty (too starchy). Early farmed corn was like this, starchy, and it took centuries to get the human palatable breeds we have now. Natives in the new world used it just for flour, basically, not as a grain to eat on its own. And to speak to that, natives had to process corn in a special way: https://www.spiceography.com/corn-flour/ https://www.spiceography.com/corn-flour/ Otherwise, it severely lacked in nutrition. Yet, Europeans may have just thought it was "tradition" to prepare corn this way... I guess what I'm saying with all of this is, there's a lot of nuance here. Just taking a few seeds won't guarantee growth, or adoption. Erm, another thought: https://storytellergarden.co.uk/vegetables/when-potatoes-were-illegal/ https://storytellergarden.co.uk/vegetables/when-potatoes-wer... Potatoes were seen as deadly in some places and illegal, were seen as horrible in other places (and, people had to trick the commoners into eating them: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/07/28/prussian-and-the-potato/ https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/07/28/prussian-and-the-p... )
AlotOfReading 5y ago
There really isn't a lot of evidence of pre-columbian contact. Outside the Bering strait region, the only firmly established contacts are that of the Norse. Polynesian contacts may have occurred, but aren't considered definitive. Nothing else is considered remotely plausible. That means there weren't a lot of opportunities for anyone to get American plants back to Europe prior to Columbus.
- userulluipeste 5y ago
  "there weren't a lot of opportunities for anyone to get American plants back to Europe prior to Columbus" Thinking about this myself a while ago, I wondered - even if someone went there and back, and even brought something along, how could we tell? That Norse saga had a mythical status at most, and even with that it isn't necessarily clear for a casual listener that it may be about reaching another previously unknown continent. Other groups along the history may have also pulled it off, but then their contemporaries, in order to consemnate the event, had to take their word for it? Even with some seeds as evidence, the world was less connected untill very recently and there were plenty of isolated places, yet relatively close, for strange seeds to be found. After thousand of years, it's hard to tell if an annual plant was brought at some point in time by intercontinental explorers, or migrated by some other non-human related way, or has been local since before continents went appart. Then it was hard to discern the magnitude of a discovery. Even the Norsemen, like the later Spaniard colonists, couldn't tell how big their found body of land was, if the Vinland they reached was an island they haven't yet circumnavigated yet or happened to be a continent spanning south down to well into southern hemisphere. No, for a discovery like this to stick, with clear compiled inventories of imported plants, it had to be done by a government-like entity, that could afford the high risks of loss that an exploration program on the limits of available technology pose, and with enough logistics and cultural development to pursue a wide range of interests (as opposed to small groups, for which keeping track of traffiked plants may be of lesser concern).
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  Datura metei is probably the biggest pre-Columbian botanical mystery.
throw0101a 5y ago
> the Phoenicians were probably there No they were not: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Phoenician_discovery_of_the_Americas#Scholarly_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Phoenician_discovery... A list of other supposed contacts: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_co...

moksly 5y ago

Scandinavians were in America during the viking period, but there isn’t any evidence that suggest they returned. You have to realise that a lot of the people who went that route weren’t “vikings” as such. Going viking was something you did, but 90% of Scandinavians were just farmers. In fact the reason we are such a homogeneous people here is largely because most farmers even had little contact with the sea-sized settlements that did go Viking. The Scandinavian explorers who headed north from Iceland and eventually ended up in America were likely farmers who had lost their lands for whatever reason, and as such were likely settlers rather than warriors. Many who would have had no intention of ever going back, even if they hadn’t perished. I’m not a big expert on ecology, but I also think that the climate they landed in was basically worse than what they came from. So there probably wasn’t a whole lot of exotic foods to trade, even if they had wanted to.

progre 5y ago
Well, there are the Vinland sagas, and while the events in those are pretty wild, the mere existence of those suggests that some actualy did return. They where recorded sometime between 1220 and 1280 so even though this was well after the fact (about 200 years) it's still before the age of exploration. Edit: As for the tomato question, the sagas suggests that no or very little friendly interaction with the natives took place, so no real trade or exchange of knowledge. These where not full on atlantic voyages but mostly near coastal areas of Greenland and what is now northen Canada. I kinda doubt that the natives would be growing tomatoes that far north anyway. Though, they did claim to find grapes, which suggests that they ventured a fair bit south as well...

bbarnett 5y ago

A few of thoughts here. First, we have proof of Viking settlements, but they just seemed to die off completely. It may be that before they really got settled, they were just killed by natives. We don't have actual proof, it seems, of anyone else being here earlier. Outside of that, the tomato, potato, and a lot of other things, aren't native to Canada, or even the US. It's native to Central and South America, which is 4000 or so km in a direct line, and 7000 or 8000km "hugging the coast" travel from where a viking settlement was found on the coast of Canada. So just being in the "new world", won't even remotely put you in contact with everything. On the farming side, no one really understood much about soil management, conditions, crop rotation, fertilizing, drainage, fungus, "growing zones" etc, etc until the 20th century. Often, attempts to transplant crops would fail miserably, by: * placing them in the wrong location (some plants die with too much sun, others with too little) * same as above, but "requires a more southern climate" or "northern climate". Some plants literally cannot grow with short/long day cycles like the far North or South has. * placing a plant in too wet, or too dry soil for its growth requirements. One plant may rot in a certain type of soil (clay/wet/whatever), another thrive Well, there are many points like this. Farmers often knew their specific plants, but it was all guesswork compared to scientifically derived knowledge in the early 20th. So even if a handful of seeds somehow made it back to Europe earlier than Spain getting to the new world and back, there's no promise it would thrive on a first-try. Especially if it was just fishermen, not even interacting with the natives (maybe, earlier contact as you suggest). But beyond all that, superstition! When the tomato was first introduced, it was actually seen as a 'sign of the devil'. It was considered evil, and dangerous to eat. And if you look at corn, for a long time the Brits and much of Europe considered it only suitable as 'pig food'. Most humans wouldn't touch it, and likely this had also to do with taste, for the rural town I grew up had 'cow corn', which is corn hardier, quicker to grow, but not as succulent, or even very tasty (too starchy). Early farmed corn was like this, starchy, and it took centuries to get the human palatable breeds we have now. Natives in the new world used it just for flour, basically, not as a grain to eat on its own. And to speak to that, natives had to process corn in a special way: https://www.spiceography.com/corn-flour/ https://www.spiceography.com/corn-flour/ Otherwise, it severely lacked in nutrition. Yet, Europeans may have just thought it was "tradition" to prepare corn this way... I guess what I'm saying with all of this is, there's a lot of nuance here. Just taking a few seeds won't guarantee growth, or adoption. Erm, another thought: https://storytellergarden.co.uk/vegetables/when-potatoes-were-illegal/ https://storytellergarden.co.uk/vegetables/when-potatoes-wer... Potatoes were seen as deadly in some places and illegal, were seen as horrible in other places (and, people had to trick the commoners into eating them: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/07/28/prussian-and-the-potato/ https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/07/28/prussian-and-the-p... )

AlotOfReading 5y ago

There really isn't a lot of evidence of pre-columbian contact. Outside the Bering strait region, the only firmly established contacts are that of the Norse. Polynesian contacts may have occurred, but aren't considered definitive. Nothing else is considered remotely plausible. That means there weren't a lot of opportunities for anyone to get American plants back to Europe prior to Columbus.

userulluipeste 5y ago
"there weren't a lot of opportunities for anyone to get American plants back to Europe prior to Columbus" Thinking about this myself a while ago, I wondered - even if someone went there and back, and even brought something along, how could we tell? That Norse saga had a mythical status at most, and even with that it isn't necessarily clear for a casual listener that it may be about reaching another previously unknown continent. Other groups along the history may have also pulled it off, but then their contemporaries, in order to consemnate the event, had to take their word for it? Even with some seeds as evidence, the world was less connected untill very recently and there were plenty of isolated places, yet relatively close, for strange seeds to be found. After thousand of years, it's hard to tell if an annual plant was brought at some point in time by intercontinental explorers, or migrated by some other non-human related way, or has been local since before continents went appart. Then it was hard to discern the magnitude of a discovery. Even the Norsemen, like the later Spaniard colonists, couldn't tell how big their found body of land was, if the Vinland they reached was an island they haven't yet circumnavigated yet or happened to be a continent spanning south down to well into southern hemisphere. No, for a discovery like this to stick, with clear compiled inventories of imported plants, it had to be done by a government-like entity, that could afford the high risks of loss that an exploration program on the limits of available technology pose, and with enough logistics and cultural development to pursue a wide range of interests (as opposed to small groups, for which keeping track of traffiked plants may be of lesser concern).
selimthegrim 5y ago
Datura metei is probably the biggest pre-Columbian botanical mystery.

throw0101a 5y ago

> the Phoenicians were probably there No they were not: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Phoenician_discovery_of_the_Americas#Scholarly_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Phoenician_discovery... A list of other supposed contacts: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_co...