If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   The Beothuk were well populated, well organized and proud enough defenders of Vinland that the Norse decided this new found land was a nice place to visit, but they wouldn't want to live there. Whodathunk   (cbc.ca) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, Newfoundland Beothuk, Norse, Vinland, First Nations, Atlantic Canada, Parks Canada, indigenous community, Society for American Archaeology  
•       •       •

3746 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jun 2013 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-09 02:31:23 PM
Vinland?
 
2013-06-09 02:35:55 PM
Vinland - what the Vikings called present-day Newfoundland.  It's a Viking term, go open a history book or something.
 
2013-06-09 02:41:11 PM
Not really a surprise. It's much easier to conquer a population after they have been softened up by a few good plagues.
 
2013-06-09 02:41:51 PM

SithLord: Vinland - what the Vikings called present-day Newfoundland.  It's a Viking term, go open a history book or something.


Or play games like Crusader Kings II and various games in the Total War series, or Europa Universalis etc. That's how I learn most of my geography and history.
 
2013-06-09 02:44:56 PM
They really should rename Newfoundland.

I mean, it's not really new found anymore, is it?
 
2013-06-09 02:59:05 PM

Ishkur: They really should rename Newfoundland.

I mean, it's not really new found anymore, is it?


And also rename New York and New Hampshire
 
2013-06-09 03:04:32 PM

texdent: And also rename New York and New Hampshire


No, to distinguish it from York and Hampshire. And Zealand, wherever the hell that is.

There is no older place called Foundland.
 
2013-06-09 03:07:35 PM

Ishkur: texdent: And also rename New York and New Hampshire

No, to distinguish it from York and Hampshire. And Zealand, wherever the hell that is.
There is no older place called Foundland.


We lost Foundland?
 
2013-06-09 03:14:43 PM

Wasteland: We lost Foundland?


It never needed to be found.
 
2013-06-09 03:19:43 PM
So this is where Bohunks come from?
 
2013-06-09 03:22:34 PM

Ishkur: Zealand, wherever the hell that is.


It's a province in the Netherlands (the Dutch were the first Europeans to reach Nieuw Zeeland, as they called it). Confusingly, it's also the name of Denmark's largest island (Copenhagen is there), but they'd given up the whole oceanic exploration thing by then. In both cases it means - would you believe it - "Sealand".
 
2013-06-09 03:44:02 PM

I Ate Shergar: Ishkur: Zealand, wherever the hell that is.

It's a province in the Netherlands (the Dutch were the first Europeans to reach Nieuw Zeeland, as they called it). Confusingly, it's also the name of Denmark's largest island (Copenhagen is there), but they'd given up the whole oceanic exploration thing by then. In both cases it means - would you believe it - "Sealand".


You know crap like that is exactly the reason I only hate 2 things in life. People being intolerant of other peoples cultures, and the dutch.
 
2013-06-09 04:02:52 PM

Fano: So this is where Bohunks come from?


From what I understand they are strictly a product of the early 80s.
 
2013-06-09 04:35:50 PM

I Ate Shergar: Ishkur: Zealand, wherever the hell that is.

It's a province in the Netherlands (the Dutch were the first Europeans to reach Nieuw Zeeland, as they called it). Confusingly, it's also the name of Denmark's largest island (Copenhagen is there), but they'd given up the whole oceanic exploration thing by then. In both cases it means - would you believe it - "Sealand".


Lew Sealand?
 
2013-06-09 04:46:41 PM

Fano: So this is where Bohunks come from?


I thought the Oily Bohunks were from Jersey...
 
2013-06-09 04:48:53 PM
It's a shame that original aboriginal NA culture has been so thoroughly destroyed.

Seriously, a culture that lived thousands of years and never actually needed to progress past the bow and arrow? What the fark, man, that's some hard core shiat.
 
2013-06-09 04:53:43 PM
Kevin Smith, chief curator at Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology ...

Silent Bob is a busy guy
 
2013-06-09 04:55:00 PM
"Something arrived in the viking settlement, that must have meant that the Vikings went all the way to get it!"

OR.

The Native Trade Routes were farking amazing. Yeah that's more likely, but you know, whatever.
 
2013-06-09 04:56:03 PM

Ishkur: texdent: And also rename New York and New Hampshire

No, to distinguish it from York and Hampshire. And Zealand, wherever the hell that is.

There is no older place called Foundland.


www.piccer.nl

It was already mentioned but now with image goodness.
 
2013-06-09 05:22:46 PM
What a Bo Hunk might look like:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-09 05:24:11 PM

DerAppie: Ishkur: texdent: And also rename New York and New Hampshire

No, to distinguish it from York and Hampshire. And Zealand, wherever the hell that is.

There is no older place called Foundland.

[www.piccer.nl image 755x763]

It was already mentioned but now with image goodness.


That's not Foundland.

www.newbury.net
 
2013-06-09 05:38:17 PM

Slaxl: DerAppie: Ishkur: texdent: And also rename New York and New Hampshire

No, to distinguish it from York and Hampshire. And Zealand, wherever the hell that is.

There is no older place called Foundland.

[www.piccer.nl image 755x763]

It was already mentioned but now with image goodness.

That's not Foundland.

[www.newbury.net image 327x245]


But it is Zeeland/Zealand
 
2013-06-09 05:48:45 PM

marius2: "Something arrived in the viking settlement, that must have meant that the Vikings went all the way to get it!"

OR.

The Native Trade Routes were farking amazing. Yeah that's more likely, but you know, whatever.


Well, one of the two parties involved have a written history that supports the conclusions in the article.

You know, runes aren't some kinda of role playing legend.


If you have a written record from the 12th century describing a land, before Columbus discovered it, find settlements in said land. And those writings also details their encounters with their locals whom they found to be not so friendly after some misunderstandings.

Then you know, whatever. Trade routes my ass.
 
2013-06-09 05:55:35 PM

starsrift: Seriously, a culture that lived thousands of years and never actually needed to progress past the bow and arrow? What the fark, man, that's some hard core shiat.


It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze
 
2013-06-09 06:03:01 PM

Ishkur: It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze


What a load of crap.
 
2013-06-09 06:07:56 PM
What happened is they met my relatives. Then they turned back saying "Thank Oden, we could have wound up with those guys as neighbors. I'll be perfectly happy with a volcano for my neighbor."
 
2013-06-09 06:10:10 PM

Ishkur: starsrift: Seriously, a culture that lived thousands of years and never actually needed to progress past the bow and arrow? What the fark, man, that's some hard core shiat.

It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze


The Mayan and Aztec civilizations disagree.
 
2013-06-09 06:18:08 PM
And yet it only took a couple of centuries for the British (and American bounty hunters) to hunt the Beothuk into extinction. The Vikings weren't as vicious as they're made out to be: they were farmers, traders, and fierce fighters, but they weren't genocidal maniacs. Well, except for the berserkers, maybe. Those guys were cray-cray.

Have you ever smelled a bear-skin shirt? Cray-cray.
 
2013-06-09 06:19:53 PM

Mad_Radhu: The Mayan and Aztec civilizations disagree.


Apparently their rivers didn't flood enough to support the manufacturing of plows.

/Can't harness a pack animal unless you're four foot deep in water
 
2013-06-09 06:37:51 PM

Ishkur: starsrift: Seriously, a culture that lived thousands of years and never actually needed to progress past the bow and arrow? What the fark, man, that's some hard core shiat.

It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze


The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers.  They were stone age farmers though.  For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age.  There was certainly some metallurgical knowledge in south America but they never took it to the bronze or iron level.
 
2013-06-09 06:44:26 PM

Mr. Eugenides: The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers.  They were stone age farmers though.  For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age.  There was certainly some metallurgical knowledge in south America but they never took it to the bronze or iron level.


I've heard this chalked up to a lack of domesticable pack animals.  There were no oxen / horses in the Americas.  The closest we got were llamas. Which were good for some things, but smaller and limited in scope.
 
2013-06-09 06:47:36 PM

Mr. Eugenides: The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers. They were stone age farmers though. For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age.


The Haida (west coast of Canada) did quite a bit with copper.
 
2013-06-09 07:03:36 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Ishkur: starsrift: Seriously, a culture that lived thousands of years and never actually needed to progress past the bow and arrow? What the fark, man, that's some hard core shiat.

It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze

The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers.  They were stone age farmers though.  For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age.  There was certainly some metallurgical knowledge in south America but they never took it to the bronze or iron level.


It also doesn't help that there's a theory that ironworking - that is, taking iron ore from the ground and turning it into metal - was discovered/invented only once, in Anatolia by the Hittites, and diffused from there.

Copper/Gold? Proven to be done independently all over the world.

//Not tooo certain how mainstream this theory is anymore.
 
2013-06-09 07:04:56 PM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: SithLord: Vinland - what the Vikings called present-day Newfoundland.  It's a Viking term, go open a history book or something.

Or play games like Crusader Kings II and various games in the Total War series, or Europa Universalis etc. That's how I learn most of my geography and history.


EUIV IS COMING

Currently waiting on the mods for CK2 to come up to speed. I think a few mods are incorporating Greenland and Vinland into questchains.
 
2013-06-09 07:05:05 PM

Wasteland: Ishkur: texdent: And also rename New York and New Hampshire

No, to distinguish it from York and Hampshire. And Zealand, wherever the hell that is.
There is no older place called Foundland.

We lost Foundland?


So, Lostandfoundland?
 
2013-06-09 07:09:36 PM

Summercat: EUIV IS COMING


If those games had a decent tutorial mode, I might get deeper into them. I didn't check out CK2, but I tried EUIII. The tutorials weren't very educational, and the game always crashed after each one.

Also, the fact that EUIII takes twenty years to actually start up, regardless of how fast your computer is doesn't help.
 
2013-06-09 07:13:10 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Ishkur: It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze

What a load of crap.


It would be more scientician of you to explain *why* you think it's a load of crap.

That native Americans did have highly-organized societies and cities despite not having periodical flooding? Or that the advent of agriculture etc was due to a different reason?

Be honest, this is for posterity.
 
2013-06-09 07:14:07 PM

Mr. Eugenides: The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers. They were stone age farmers though. For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age. There was certainly some metallurgical knowledge in south America but they never took it to the bronze or iron level.


Civilization has a lot more to do with geography and environment than anything else.

Agriculture is such a complicated and sophisticated framework of living that in the beginning nature itself had to pretty much do all the work for us in order to kickstart the whole thing.

Lots of rivers flood. Lots of rivers flood frequently. But only the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze rivers flood in the exact same way on the exact same day every year (for thousands of years, without much change), naturally irrigating the land. That's important: That means we can anticipate when the floods come and hang around the flood plains and collect the food they produced and kill/domesticate the animals they attract. From this comes permanent settlements.

Studying this phenomenon leads to an understanding of the seed and knowledge of plowing and irrigation. That requires division and organization of labor, which leads to specialization and mastery of distinct skill-sets such as farming, water-works and soil-works, harvesting and seed cultivation, animal husbandry and domestication (ploughs are heavy and oxen are strong), masonry and pottery (for the construction of granaries for food storage), and the creation of professions like merchants, traders and accountants to track and record food stores (and a militant defense force to protect it all).

Food surpluses produce healthier citizens and rapid population growth, necessitating the need for urban planning, resource allocation and administration. That requires leadership and management, which means social stratification, which means control and power and, ultimately, government and taxes.
 
2013-06-09 07:14:47 PM

Mad_Radhu: The Mayan and Aztec civilizations disagree.


Disagree about what?
 
2013-06-09 07:26:42 PM

Ishkur: Mr. Eugenides: The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers. They were stone age farmers though. For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age. There was certainly some metallurgical knowledge in south America but they never took it to the bronze or iron level.

Civilization has a lot more to do with geography and environment than anything else.

Agriculture is such a complicated and sophisticated framework of living that in the beginning nature itself had to pretty much do all the work for us in order to kickstart the whole thing.

Lots of rivers flood. Lots of rivers flood frequently. But only the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze rivers flood in the exact same way on the exact same day every year (for thousands of years, without much change), naturally irrigating the land. That's important: That means we can anticipate when the floods come and hang around the flood plains and collect the food they produced and kill/domesticate the animals they attract. From this comes permanent settlements.

Studying this phenomenon leads to an understanding of the seed and knowledge of plowing and irrigation. That requires division and organization of labor, which leads to specialization and mastery of distinct skill-sets such as farming, water-works and soil-works, harvesting and seed cultivation, animal husbandry and domestication (ploughs are heavy and oxen are strong), masonry and pottery (for the construction of granaries for food storage), and the creation of professions like merchants, traders and accountants to track and record food stores (and a militant defense force to protect it all).

Food surpluses produce healthier citizens and rapid population growth, necessitating the need for urban planning, resource allocation and administration. That requires leadership and management, which means social stratification, which means control and power and, ultimately, government and taxes.


Pretty much, this. 'Civilization', that is, a society with a surplus capable of supporting specialists (such as priests, rulers, etc) who were capable of focusing solely on their job, arose, IIRC, 7 times without impact/guidance/influence from other locations: The Yangtzee River Valley, the Indus River Valley, Mesopotamia (Tigris/Euphrates), the Nile River Valley, North America (Central), South America (Andean). In all seven cases, civilization arose as a response to pressures needing organization.

You'll see it in the foundation myths of the Xia Dynasty,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_the_Great , that the founder of the Xia controlled the floods.

t3knomanser: Summercat: EUIV IS COMING

If those games had a decent tutorial mode, I might get deeper into them. I didn't check out CK2, but I tried EUIII. The tutorials weren't very educational, and the game always crashed after each one.

Also, the fact that EUIII takes twenty years to actually start up, regardless of how fast your computer is doesn't help.

 
2013-06-09 07:32:57 PM

t3knomanser: Summercat: EUIV IS COMING

If those games had a decent tutorial mode, I might get deeper into them. I didn't check out CK2, but I tried EUIII. The tutorials weren't very educational, and the game always crashed after each one.

Also, the fact that EUIII takes twenty years to actually start up, regardless of how fast your computer is doesn't help.


FFFF my Weeners never got typed. This is why I rarely reply to two posts in one! D:

EU3 does take a while to start up, and the tutorials are rubbish. Crap. And the in-game and official documentation is sparse and not too helpful. They've been improving with later releases, though.

There are great player-made tutorials and walkthroughs on Reddit and the Wiki. It can be difficult to get in to, though... Then again, I had a blast playing the original Europa Universalis, so I can't say much :v

The forums are very helpful as well, and there's still mods coming out for EU3. If you've actually bought it, register ont he forums and go get A) the latest beta patch, and B) the Civilization Universalis mod. That, along with not being afraid to cheat (cash for extra money when you need it), should bring you through the basics, although it's one of those games with so much that goes on, I'm still learning stuff and I picked it up when it came out.
 
2013-06-09 07:34:31 PM

Ishkur:  Lots of words.

That's a pretty interesting theory. Is that what they're teaching at them there college places these days? With all their books and learning and foosball?

t3knomanser: I didn't check out CK2


I had one friend of mine, who's a ridiculously good gamer, give up because it was too hard. For me, I've had a great time with it. It is really complex and difficult, but if you like Machiavellian style scheming and plotting it's an awesome game.

Just one of the many cool things you can do is get an old spymaster, twisted and tormented in his view of the world, and get him to teach all the daughters in your dynasty. They'll emerge from their tutelage all twisted and tormented in their view of the world as well, most likely. Then you marry them into the houses of your enemies and potential rivals, where they cause problems from the inside all on their own. By murdering people they don't like. Who is pretty much everyone if your spymaster did his job right.

Or you could teach them to be paragons of virtue and humility and marry them into good houses for alliances and stuff (or marry them back into your own family if you want to keep the lines pure or whatever). But then your hunchback cripple deceitful cynical envious spymaster isn't going to have anything to do all day. Better keep an eye on him.
 
2013-06-09 07:51:44 PM

DrunkenBob: Mad_Radhu: The Mayan and Aztec civilizations disagree.

Apparently their rivers didn't flood enough to support the manufacturing of plows.

/Can't harness a pack animal unless you're four foot deep in water


They had ag, but no animals suitable for farmwork. They did amaking things with human power ag anyway, mostly swallowed by jungle before Europe found the place.
 
2013-06-09 07:53:07 PM
amaking = amazing.

Proofread = after post.
 
2013-06-09 09:02:18 PM

brantgoose: And yet it only took a couple of centuries for the British (and American bounty hunters) to hunt the Beothuk into extinction. The Vikings weren't as vicious as they're made out to be: they were farmers, traders, and fierce fighters, but they weren't genocidal maniacs. Well, except for the berserkers, maybe. Those guys were cray-cray.

Have you ever smelled a bear-skin shirt? Cray-cray.


As said before, a could of good epidemics softened the locals up a whole lot by the time the second and third waves of Europeans showed up.

Whether or not you agree all the arguments Charles Mann presents, his book 1491 is a pretty interesting read.
 
2013-06-09 09:09:04 PM

spawn73: marius2: "Something arrived in the viking settlement, that must have meant that the Vikings went all the way to get it!"

OR.

The Native Trade Routes were farking amazing. Yeah that's more likely, but you know, whatever.

Well, one of the two parties involved have a written history that supports the conclusions in the article.

You know, runes aren't some kinda of role playing legend.


If you have a written record from the 12th century describing a land, before Columbus discovered it, find settlements in said land. And those writings also details their encounters with their locals whom they found to be not so friendly after some misunderstandings.

Then you know, whatever. Trade routes my ass.


I'm not arguing whether or not the Vikings settled Vinland, I'm 100% certain they did. I'm saying that the article is claiming they traveled even further than they did based on the fact that items found at the site were from a tribe hundreds of miles away. I'm saying it's likely that those items got to the Viking settlement via trade.
 
2013-06-09 09:39:46 PM

Ishkur: Mad_Radhu: The Mayan and Aztec civilizations disagree.

Disagree about what?


They certainly didn't get along, so it must have been something. Probably about which way to hang the toilet paper.

/Not an anthropologist
 
2013-06-09 10:26:26 PM

Ishkur: starsrift: Seriously, a culture that lived thousands of years and never actually needed to progress past the bow and arrow? What the fark, man, that's some hard core shiat.

It's because there are only five rivers in the entire world that flood like clockwork which is necessary for the leap into agriculture and sedentary living/civilization, and none of them are in the Americas.

/Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Yellow and Yangtze


Whar Ganges Whar
 
2013-06-09 10:29:45 PM

Boris S. Wort: brantgoose: And yet it only took a couple of centuries for the British (and American bounty hunters) to hunt the Beothuk into extinction. The Vikings weren't as vicious as they're made out to be: they were farmers, traders, and fierce fighters, but they weren't genocidal maniacs. Well, except for the berserkers, maybe. Those guys were cray-cray.

Have you ever smelled a bear-skin shirt? Cray-cray.

As said before, a could of good epidemics softened the locals up a whole lot by the time the second and third waves of Europeans showed up.

Whether or not you agree all the arguments Charles Mann presents, his book 1491 is a pretty interesting read.


This. The Vikings never really got a chance to establish a toehold before the natives wiped them out. By comparison, the later waves of Europeans arrived to deliver a coup de grace to a decimated continent. You almost can't blame the Europeans for coming and seeing undeveloped wilderness and saying, "Jeez, why didn't these retards ever DO anything with all these lush goodies" in the same sense that a discovering force could find NYC 50 years after "Life after people" and immediately set to clearing out the people living in the sewers and ruins.
 
2013-06-09 10:43:04 PM

QT_3.14159: Mr. Eugenides: The natives in the eastern US were certainly farmers.  They were stone age farmers though.  For whatever reason, the inhabitants of the Americas never progressed as far as the bronze age.  There was certainly some metallurgical knowledge in south America but they never took it to the bronze or iron level.

I've heard this chalked up to a lack of domesticable pack animals.  There were no oxen / horses in the Americas.  The closest we got were llamas. Which were good for some things, but smaller and limited in scope.




Camels, horses etc were native to North America but the paleo-Indians choose to wipe them out before they could domesticate them
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report