Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 1st, 2010, 01:23 AM
Evil Tristin Evil Tristin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 78
WI Native Indians were not lactose intolerant?

Several theories abound as to why the Norse settlements in North America failed and vanished. One theory postulates that they were wiped out or driven out by the native-Americans. This theory further claims that it all started with Native Indians being lactose intolerant. At some point during first contact, a Norseman gave a native Indian a drink of milk as a gesture of friendship. Needless to say things just go down hill from there with the Indians thinking they were poisoned.


POD
Assuming the above theory is true let's
Suppose Native Americans are were Lactose intolerant, in fact they freely accept milk and other dairy products as an addition to the native diet?

Norse and Natives get along relatively well and trade ensues giving the Greenland and Vineland colonies support from the local natives about how to survive the harsh winters. The result is that the Spanish explorers meet a well organized, firearm equiped, VNA infantry and calvary when they arrive in the West Indies.
The Britsih and French in Noth America have a similar experience.
IOW, no Western Hemisphere Spanish Empire, no French and British North American colonies, and no North American conflicts between them.
Some trading posts perhaps, but no 'gunpowder' superiority over the Native Americans.
The discussion should center on how Europe develops from the 1500s onward without North/Central/South America to expand into and the wealth derived from the Americas.
I know that a similar theme was covered in a novel whose name and author I forget, but that was based on Europe being almost completely depopulated by a plague, resulting in there being no European country able to 'discover' and colonize the New World, and an Asian presence in North America.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old August 1st, 2010, 02:14 AM
Cecil Cecil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Tristin View Post
Several theories abound as to why the Norse settlements in North America failed and vanished. One theory postulates that they were wiped out or driven out by the native-Americans. This theory further claims that it all started with Native Indians being lactose intolerant. At some point during first contact, a Norseman gave a native Indian a drink of milk as a gesture of friendship. Needless to say things just go down hill from there with the Indians thinking they were poisoned.
I have never seen a shred of evidence for that story. Suffice to say the vikings of the age had some "problems" interacting with not only the skraelings but also the inuit cultures. This combined with the low numbers avaliable for colonization makes a permanent presence unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Tristin View Post
POD
Assuming the above theory is true let's
Suppose Native Americans are were Lactose intolerant, in fact they freely accept milk and other dairy products as an addition to the native diet?
Isnt most of the viking presence in NA very far north? Not exactly prime cattle land. The reason it was even present in greenland was that cows was a high status animal in viking culture and even then it took some pretty extreme sacrifices to keep cows alive in that cold climate. I fail to see how the natives are going to think keeping herds of cattle is going to be a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Tristin View Post
Norse and Natives get along relatively well and trade ensues giving the Greenland and Vineland colonies support from the local natives about how to survive the harsh winters. The result is that the Spanish explorers meet a well organized, firearm equiped, VNA infantry and calvary when they arrive in the West Indies.
Wat? You think they can teach them anything the greenland inuit couldn“t have tought them? Some pretty fucking weird cultural taboos seems to have stood in the way of survival such as that the vikings refused to fish at all despite having some of the worlds richest fishing waters avaliable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Tristin View Post
The Britsih and French in Noth America have a similar experience.
IOW, no Western Hemisphere Spanish Empire, no French and British North American colonies, and no North American conflicts between them.
Some trading posts perhaps, but no 'gunpowder' superiority over the Native Americans.
Wat? Gunpowder armies and equipment weren“t exactly commonplace in northern europe at the time of Columbus. Greenlander vikings which are at the end of the freaking world as europa is concerned will probably not have more than a few muskets avaliable if that. I“m not even sure there were any horses avaliable in greenland at any time.


Edit: Don“t let me go all down on your TL though I mean go for it if you feel like it but don“t make the mistake of thinking the the viking colonies in NA was failiures just because of some bad luck and quirks of fate. There were very strong and compelling reasons why they didnt take.

Last edited by Cecil; August 1st, 2010 at 02:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old August 1st, 2010, 09:08 AM
von Adler von Adler is offline
Generallöjtnant
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via ICQ to von Adler Send a message via AIM to von Adler Send a message via MSN to von Adler Send a message via Yahoo to von Adler Send a message via Skype™ to von Adler
The vikings refusing to fish? Where does that come from? The trade of dried cod from Norway was very extensive.

The Greenlandic vikings had little hemp and wood for their fishing vessels and nets and did not adept to inuit fishing techniques. Their ships and boats slowly decayed.

Edit: Also, the Swedish peasantry was using small cannons and arqeubuses frequently from the late 1300s and early 1400s.
__________________
September 1811: The final showdown between Napoleon and Kutuzov is nigh in A different Finnish War!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old August 1st, 2010, 06:03 PM
Cecil Cecil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Adler View Post
The vikings refusing to fish? Where does that come from? The trade of dried cod from Norway was very extensive.

The Greenlandic vikings had little hemp and wood for their fishing vessels and nets and did not adept to inuit fishing techniques. Their ships and boats slowly decayed.

Edit: Also, the Swedish peasantry was using small cannons and arqeubuses frequently from the late 1300s and early 1400s.
Yes its actually one of the biggest wtf? of the excavations of the greenland settlements. No bones from fish at all. They simply didnt fish despite it would have been the clearly easiest form of foodsupply avaliable. And they did still use boats and ships. They hunted for walrus whos ivory was a major source for income for the settlements, needed to buy the iron and other trade goods not avaliable. Speaking of which its been all but confirmed that the greenlanders continued to visit the NA coast for wood and iron which they could extract from there even in later centuries.

And the swedish peasantry using cannons and arqeubuses in the 13 and 14 hundreds. Colour me sceptical to that. I would require direct sources before I believe in any widespread usage because they were barely used on the continent that early and scandinavia was on the arse end of europa.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old August 1st, 2010, 06:48 PM
Atom Atom is offline
Snapes on a plane
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Amber
Posts: 1000 or more
But why would Native Americans be lactose tolerant? What's the explanation? Lactose tolerance is a mutation that developed well after migration to the Americas, and only by pastoralists who could have drunk animal milk. Why would Native Americans develop this?
__________________
My brain is open. - Paul Erdős
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old August 1st, 2010, 07:07 PM
Valdemar II Valdemar II is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Copenhagen; the Kalmar Union
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil View Post
Yes its actually one of the biggest wtf? of the excavations of the greenland settlements. No bones from fish at all. They simply didnt fish despite it would have been the clearly easiest form of foodsupply avaliable. And they did still use boats and ships. They hunted for walrus whos ivory was a major source for income for the settlements, needed to buy the iron and other trade goods not avaliable. Speaking of which its been all but confirmed that the greenlanders continued to visit the NA coast for wood and iron which they could extract from there even in later centuries.
You know there copuld be a somewhat different explanation like they boiled the fish, fish bones which has been boiled degrade faster, and wouldn't leave any traces today, and funny enough today Scandinavia normal eat a quite specific fish boiled; the cod, the main cold water fish.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old August 1st, 2010, 08:14 PM
Grimm Reaper Grimm Reaper is offline
Desperate But Not Serious
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The previously unknown tenth ring of Dante's Inferno...
Posts: 1000 or more
Despite plenty of time to learn the Vikings in Greenland never thought to adopt any of Inuit's customs and practices which probably explains why one group still lives in Greenland today and not the other.


Native Americans are descended from Asia, in large portions of which over 90% of the population is lactose intolerant. Without the adaption Atom mentioned, which is predominantly in Europe and parts of Africa, there would be no reason to expect Native Americans to be able to digest such products and the record shows that only regular exposure leads to that change.
__________________
P.J. O'Rourke: We also elected some amateur politicians. However, politics is like vivisection—disturbing as a career, alarming as a hobby.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old August 1st, 2010, 08:37 PM
The Kiat The Kiat is offline
Now 20% Holier!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Left side of the State.
Posts: 1000 or more
I'm not sure what sort of evidence exists for lactose intolerance, but given that they have no cattle nor have been exposed to them, it would make sense. I remember a story that the Indians assumed the Vikings tried to poison them.

I'm not sure what sort of impact it would have on the big picture. I don't think the Norse influx of population would be anywhere as big as the English migrations of the 17th Century.
__________________
Check here for my works:

My Books

Wing Commander rebooted
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old August 1st, 2010, 09:30 PM
Cecil Cecil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valdemar II View Post
You know there copuld be a somewhat different explanation like they boiled the fish, fish bones which has been boiled degrade faster, and wouldn't leave any traces today, and funny enough today Scandinavia normal eat a quite specific fish boiled; the cod, the main cold water fish.

True but then why are fish bones so common in digs in Iceland or northern Norway and the Shetlands? Greenlands ground is also especially excellent at preserving items apparently so that explanation doesnt really fly. Besides greenlands rivers and lakes were teeming with fish as well, other spieces of fish rather than the cod.

And even if they didnt want to eat the fish themselves they could have fed them to the dogs which would leave the bones lying around.

Don“t sweat it though apparently every scientist arriving on greenland apparently at first refuse to believe that they didnt eat fish but noone has been able to find any evidence of anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old August 1st, 2010, 09:33 PM
Cecil Cecil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Anyho if you wanna go with some non ASB more advanced indians through contacts with vikings I“d suggest some earlier PoD involving some sort of migration from the mainlands or a bigger migratory exodous from Norway pushing people further west because the Greenland colony alone isnt enough make big enough of a difference.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old August 28th, 2010, 05:20 PM
Dathi THorfinnsson Dathi THorfinnsson is offline
Daši Žorfinnsson
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Syracuse, Haudenosaunee, Vinland
Posts: 1000 or more
Lactose tolerance evolved 4 times, e.g.
http://blogsci.com/science/humans-are-sill-evolving

I saw a good article on this a couple of years ago, but can't find it now. Basically, Indo-European/Semitic/African (one group had 2 mutations).

Each of these groups were pastoralists (herders). You don't get lactose tolerance unless you herd dairy animals (cows, goats, camels, doesn't matter).

So, 'north americans being lactose tolerant' means 'north americans having large domestic mammals' as an absolute precondition. Which means MUCH bigger butterflies than Skraeling/Norse interaction,
__________________
David Houston
un Canadien errant
my TL: Canada-wank (99% ASB-free) or here.
Turtledove 2010
updated: 30 Aug '13
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old August 28th, 2010, 07:01 PM
Polish Eagle Polish Eagle is offline
Resident Martian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Great and Noble State of Long Island, Actually
Posts: 1000 or more
What about American Buffalo? Could the Native Americans domesticate those and milk them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCaulay View Post
This just in: Majority of Americans Couldn't Pour Piss Out Of A Boot If There Were Instructions On The Heel.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old August 28th, 2010, 07:52 PM
robertp6165 robertp6165 is offline
Confederate Troll
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Carolina: The Cradle of Secession
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil View Post
Wat? You think they can teach them anything the greenland inuit couldn“t have tought them? Some pretty fucking weird cultural taboos seems to have stood in the way of survival such as that the vikings refused to fish at all despite having some of the worlds richest fishing waters avaliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Adler View Post
The vikings refusing to fish? Where does that come from? The trade of dried cod from Norway was very extensive.

The Greenlandic vikings had little hemp and wood for their fishing vessels and nets and did not adept to inuit fishing techniques. Their ships and boats slowly decayed.

Edit: Also, the Swedish peasantry was using small cannons and arqeubuses frequently from the late 1300s and early 1400s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil View Post
Yes its actually one of the biggest wtf? of the excavations of the greenland settlements. No bones from fish at all. They simply didnt fish despite it would have been the clearly easiest form of foodsupply avaliable. And they did still use boats and ships. They hunted for walrus whos ivory was a major source for income for the settlements, needed to buy the iron and other trade goods not avaliable. Speaking of which its been all but confirmed that the greenlanders continued to visit the NA coast for wood and iron which they could extract from there even in later centuries.

And the swedish peasantry using cannons and arqeubuses in the 13 and 14 hundreds. Colour me sceptical to that. I would require direct sources before I believe in any widespread usage because they were barely used on the continent that early and scandinavia was on the arse end of europa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valdemar II View Post
You know there copuld be a somewhat different explanation like they boiled the fish, fish bones which has been boiled degrade faster, and wouldn't leave any traces today, and funny enough today Scandinavia normal eat a quite specific fish boiled; the cod, the main cold water fish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil View Post
True but then why are fish bones so common in digs in Iceland or northern Norway and the Shetlands? Greenlands ground is also especially excellent at preserving items apparently so that explanation doesnt really fly. Besides greenlands rivers and lakes were teeming with fish as well, other spieces of fish rather than the cod.

And even if they didnt want to eat the fish themselves they could have fed them to the dogs which would leave the bones lying around.

Don“t sweat it though apparently every scientist arriving on greenland apparently at first refuse to believe that they didnt eat fish but noone has been able to find any evidence of anything else.
Well, there still are other possible explanations besides a cultural taboo.

1) The population on Greenland was quite small.
2) Fishing is a relatively labor intensive activity.
3) The Greenlanders might have found it easier to hunt for walrus ivory, sell it at a high profit margin, and then simply buy dry cod from Iceland and Norway rather than fish for it themselves.
4) Dry cod normally arrives with the bones, or the vast majority of them, removed. The bones are removed during the process of preparing them for drying. Therefore no fish bones in Greenland.
5) If they were doing the above, the need to maintain a fishing fleet in being disappears. Their fleet gradually withers away due to lack of maintenance.
6) The Little Ice Age arrives and the waters around Greenland ice up.
7) Cut off from supplies of dry cod from Iceland and Europe, and unable to build ships to fish for themselves, they perish.

Remember...the Greenland settlements existed for nearly 400 years. Clearly the fact that they weren't fishing for themselves...if that's true...wasn't a major issue until the Little Ice Age put paid to the trade routes which sustained the settlements.
__________________
England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty, the adventures of Horatio Nelson in Anglo-Saxon England, is available on lulu.com and on Amazon.com!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old August 28th, 2010, 07:59 PM
pa_dutch pa_dutch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil View Post
I have never seen a shred of evidence for that story.
It's actually written in the Vinland sagas.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old August 28th, 2010, 10:05 PM
Cecil Cecil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertp6165 View Post
Well, there still are other possible explanations besides a cultural taboo.

1) The population on Greenland was quite small.
2) Fishing is a relatively labor intensive activity.
3) The Greenlanders might have found it easier to hunt for walrus ivory, sell it at a high profit margin, and then simply buy dry cod from Iceland and Norway rather than fish for it themselves.
4) Dry cod normally arrives with the bones, or the vast majority of them, removed. The bones are removed during the process of preparing them for drying. Therefore no fish bones in Greenland.
5) If they were doing the above, the need to maintain a fishing fleet in being disappears. Their fleet gradually withers away due to lack of maintenance.
6) The Little Ice Age arrives and the waters around Greenland ice up.
7) Cut off from supplies of dry cod from Iceland and Europe, and unable to build ships to fish for themselves, they perish.

Remember...the Greenland settlements existed for nearly 400 years. Clearly the fact that they weren't fishing for themselves...if that's true...wasn't a major issue until the Little Ice Age put paid to the trade routes which sustained the settlements.

I“ll just sum it up like this.



No offense.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old August 29th, 2010, 12:58 PM
LurkerNo.9 LurkerNo.9 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A decaying New England seaport
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polish Eagle View Post
What about American Buffalo? Could the Native Americans domesticate those and milk them?
Well, yes and no. Bison are a much harder animal to domesticate than Aurochs (the ancestors of modern cattle) were, but they are domesticable. The sundry plains tribes were well on there way to doing it in the 19th century, and it was only the near elimination of both bison and plains Indians that stopped 'em. In the past century, Anglo ranchers have been picking up where they left off, and bison meat is now a regular (if expensive) feature in U.S. supermarkets. However, based on how little progress the plains Indians had made by the 19th century, and given how much modern bison-ranching is dependent on motor vehicles, I suspect that horses or some equivalent are a necessary prerequisite for even semi-domestication of bison. So, unless the Vinlanders bring large quantities of horses with them, too, the American Indians are still SOL when it comes to domestic bison.

As for milking bison...well, to the best of my knowledge, nobody does that. But that's mostly because bison aren't fully domesticated yet, and so they won't put up with being milked. I have no idea whether fully domesticated bison would be capable of producing edible milk in regular quantities. It would certainly be a challenge...even the nicest of semi-domesticated bison are still mean-tempered animals. But, then again, horses aren't known for their kindness, and yet...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old August 29th, 2010, 05:51 PM
Workable Goblin Workable Goblin is online now
Spacepony
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Low Equestrian Orbit
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil View Post
I“ll just sum it up like this.

No offense.
Why? That's pretty much what most modern, developed countries do, they import most of their food in exchange for non-food items they produce. It doesn't strike me as impossible that Greenland did something of the same nature (trading their valuable non-food products for food).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old August 29th, 2010, 08:05 PM
Valdemar II Valdemar II is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Copenhagen; the Kalmar Union
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth is life View Post
Why? That's pretty much what most modern, developed countries do, they import most of their food in exchange for non-food items they produce. It doesn't strike me as impossible that Greenland did something of the same nature (trading their valuable non-food products for food).
Especially when Island, Faroe and Norway did the same thing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.