In sci.archaeology, t(nospam)kavanagh created a
message ID news:defvic$7ah$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Moreover, the population "collapse" in the surrounding areas
> explained (although there are questions about the numbers
> reference to immediate post-Columbus events than to alleged
> century before.
There is no evidence of massive depopulations of the
> northern areas where Norse from Greenland would have made
> contact. Indeed, despite of Inger's precious Crow Creek
> South Dakota, the Middle Missouri area saw no population
> contraction of occupation area.
To reiterate what tk said, disease cause a depression in
population that is restored generally within a century. The
issue with north american depopulation is that repeated rounds
of disease, measles, small pox, tuberculosis, etc and entry
points were numerous, after columbus. If the native americans
had been exposed by the Norse to these diseases, when the
iberians arrived they would have been immune to these
diseases. They were clearly not, according to the account of
Smith, entire colonies of natives were wiped out by measles,
NA in the central and western plains faired better because
they were spread more widely. Again if the Norse had brought
contagious diseases to minnisota and mississippi the most
immune groups would be the first and longest exposed,
certainly the atlantic sea coast.
Therefore you are drawn to reach 2 conclusions.
1. That the Norse did not reach far enough inland to spread
2. The frequency of european epidemic diseases amoung the
greenlandic norse was very low.