Given the whole misconceptions a about "the earl of sandwich INVENTED the sandwich" and "Columbus DISCOVERED the new world" when other people already knew about those things, I think we should add "... For Europe" to the end of this stuff.
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.
Leif Erickson did not discover Vinland. It was Bjarni Herjólfsson. 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.
> 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).
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.
> 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/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
> 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.
I went and found the link regarding visibility in the timor straight with lowered sea levels.
> These islands were directly visible from high points on the islands of Timor and Roti and as close as 87km.
https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-to-australia-more-tha...
Here's the direct link to the paper. It's from 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02773...
The intuitive idea of inventors and originators is often wrong, and caused by narrow mindedness. Most inventuons are originated many times. I'm sure plenty of people raised a wolf puppy, just like lots of people find and raise wild pets today. Very few of these become a "domestication event."
For cuisine, the implication of "the earl of sandwich invented the sandwich" should be intuitively be a story about culinary fashions. The origin of the term "sandwich." How it became part of upper class cuisine. Why watercress sandwiches at high tea.
If you hear about prior art and react with "I thought England invented sandwiches! Lies!"... If that's the reaction, then your intuition needs refinement.
Every culture with bread will inevitably invent sandwiches. It might happen differently though. Maybe there is no name for it, and it's just what you do with bread and cheese. Maybe specific sandwiches (eg burger) have names... but there is no generic name. In that case, starting a sandwich shop and naming the nameless is "invention."
Most invention is conceptual. The sandwich will usually predate the idea of a sandwich.
And I hardly believe that no one in Europe (let alone the world) ever put a slice of meat in a bread before the 18th.
Those people were the first one to put it in the records that were not lost to the ages, so that's why we remember them.