3 ms·

It’s interesting the great man version of history and its hold on our consciousness. The “sandwich” was “invented” by the Earl of Sandwich’s servants. Erik th

by Affric 3y ago

It’s interesting the great man version of history and its hold on our consciousness. The “sandwich” was “invented” by the Earl of Sandwich’s servants. Erik the Red discovered Greenland (which is in North America) and Leif Erickson “discovered” Vinland and (I think) the American mainland. You can only discover things which already exist. Otherwise it’s invention. It’s more right to state he accidentally discovered that you could sail west from Europe and hit landfall after crossing the open ocean. He defied almost all expectations. I think most of the rest of the debate looks to diminish him due to his evils (and the evils that sprung from European colonisation in the modern period) rather than attempting to more accurately describe what he did. Regardless, a group of intrepid people migrating across the Bering land bridge is a little different in terms of the risks faced by a man blindly sailing west when everyone rightly said he was mad. He’s the first non-Pacific Islander to belong to the exclusive club of finding a route to land where he went through open ocean.

eesmith 3y ago
When you get into the nitty-gritty details, it is convention that Greenland is in North America while the western half of Iceland, which is on the North American Plate, is not. Leif Erickson did not discover Vinland. It was Bjarni Herjólfsson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarni_Herj%C3%B3lfsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarni_Herj%C3%B3lfsson . Leif Eriksson was the first to make landfall. > He defied almost all expectations. He followed the tradition that found the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland. I think the Norse expectation was you could find new land going west, but it wasn't easy. > He’s the first non-Pacific Islander to belong to the exclusive club of finding a route to land where he went through open ocean. I don't see how early Norse trips to the Faroes, Iceland, and Greenland don't count. In any case, Madagascar was discovered before even Iceland.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > > He’s the first non-Pacific Islander to belong to the exclusive club of finding a route to land where he went through open ocean. > In any case, Madagascar was discovered before even Iceland. The island of Flores is east of Wallace's line. Homo may have been doing this since before we were Homo spaiens. And Australia is east of Lydekker's line. I guess it's possible they were journeyed to by sight (thus not open ocean).
  - eesmith 3y ago
    "thus not open ocean" is my hypothesis as well. Otherwise there's Sri Lanka, Cuba, the Canaries, and whole bunch of other islands settled before the Norse.
    - Affric 3y ago
      Sri Lanka was likely connected by a land bridge to South Asia that eventually eroded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge How cool is that? With regards to defying all expectations, Columbus was called mad in his time by everyone and anyone who was doing much ocean going seafearing. He believed that he was going to reach Asia because he erred in his estimation of the Earth's circumference. I think throwing our knowledge of Norse knowledge into the situation is presentism. I take your points on Norse exploration history. The fact he came back alive is in many ways an incredible stroke of luck.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        I had no idea! That is cool.
  - Affric 3y ago
    My understanding is that the evidence points to Australia being reached by sight during times of lower sea levels but I can't find the exact publication I first read it in.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      From https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal > In either case, the first settlement would have occurred during an era of lowered sea levels, when there were more-coextensive land bridges between Asia and Australia. Watercraft must have been used for some passages, however, such as those between Bali and Lombok and between Timor and Greater Australia, because they entail distances greater than 120 miles (200 km). This is the earliest confirmed seafaring in the world. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211001248 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061821... > For all of hominin history the Australian continent has been separated by at least 70 km of water from other coastlines. Its colonisation about 50,000 years ago can therefore be considered the first true hominin ‘migration’ as opposed to the ‘dispersals’ that happened before it.\ "Wallace's line" is the faunal boundary line between Asia and Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line > However, with the rise of sea levels, both were split in two shelves. Consequently, for over 50 million years, deep water between those two large continental shelf areas created a barrier that kept the flora and fauna of Australia separated from those of Asia.

by Affric 3y ago

eesmith 3y ago

When you get into the nitty-gritty details, it is convention that Greenland is in North America while the western half of Iceland, which is on the North American Plate, is not. Leif Erickson did not discover Vinland. It was Bjarni Herjólfsson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarni_Herj%C3%B3lfsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjarni_Herj%C3%B3lfsson . Leif Eriksson was the first to make landfall. > He defied almost all expectations. He followed the tradition that found the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland. I think the Norse expectation was you could find new land going west, but it wasn't easy. > He’s the first non-Pacific Islander to belong to the exclusive club of finding a route to land where he went through open ocean. I don't see how early Norse trips to the Faroes, Iceland, and Greenland don't count. In any case, Madagascar was discovered before even Iceland.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> > He’s the first non-Pacific Islander to belong to the exclusive club of finding a route to land where he went through open ocean. > In any case, Madagascar was discovered before even Iceland. The island of Flores is east of Wallace's line. Homo may have been doing this since before we were Homo spaiens. And Australia is east of Lydekker's line. I guess it's possible they were journeyed to by sight (thus not open ocean).
- eesmith 3y ago
  "thus not open ocean" is my hypothesis as well. Otherwise there's Sri Lanka, Cuba, the Canaries, and whole bunch of other islands settled before the Norse.
  - Affric 3y ago
    Sri Lanka was likely connected by a land bridge to South Asia that eventually eroded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge How cool is that? With regards to defying all expectations, Columbus was called mad in his time by everyone and anyone who was doing much ocean going seafearing. He believed that he was going to reach Asia because he erred in his estimation of the Earth's circumference. I think throwing our knowledge of Norse knowledge into the situation is presentism. I take your points on Norse exploration history. The fact he came back alive is in many ways an incredible stroke of luck.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      I had no idea! That is cool.
- Affric 3y ago
  My understanding is that the evidence points to Australia being reached by sight during times of lower sea levels but I can't find the exact publication I first read it in.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    From https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal > In either case, the first settlement would have occurred during an era of lowered sea levels, when there were more-coextensive land bridges between Asia and Australia. Watercraft must have been used for some passages, however, such as those between Bali and Lombok and between Timor and Greater Australia, because they entail distances greater than 120 miles (200 km). This is the earliest confirmed seafaring in the world. From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211001248 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061821... > For all of hominin history the Australian continent has been separated by at least 70 km of water from other coastlines. Its colonisation about 50,000 years ago can therefore be considered the first true hominin ‘migration’ as opposed to the ‘dispersals’ that happened before it.\ "Wallace's line" is the faunal boundary line between Asia and Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line > However, with the rise of sea levels, both were split in two shelves. Consequently, for over 50 million years, deep water between those two large continental shelf areas created a barrier that kept the flora and fauna of Australia separated from those of Asia.