Ships carrying enslaved people wrecked amid revolts in 1700s. Now they're found
Centuries after Danish ships carrying enslaved people from West Africa disappeared in the Caribbean, the charred and destroyed remains have been identified for the first time.
In 2023, researchers and archaeologists from the National Museum of Denmark and the Viking Ship Museum put on their dive gear and visited two known shipwreck sites off Cahuita National Park in Costa Rica, according to an April 27 news release from the National Museum published in Ritzaus Bureau.
'For many years, however, they were thought to be pirate ships,' researchers said. 'But when American marine archaeologists in 2015 found yellow bricks in one of the wrecks, new questions emerged about the history of the ships.'
Hoping to find answers, the archaeologists brought samples of the bricks and wood to the surface to determine where it originated, according to the release.
The researchers used dendrochronology, or the study of tree rings, to determine the wood for one wreck came from the western region of the Baltic Sea, which included a region of Germany and Denmark, according to the release.
Dating of the wood showed it was cut down between 1690 and 1695, researchers said, and it was 'charred and sooty.'
When they analyzed the bricks, they found the brick matched Flensburg bricks produced in Denmark and the Danish colonies, and the clay used to make them was collected in Denmark, researchers said. The bricks were dated to the 18th century.
Among the wreckage, the divers also found Dutch-produced pipes with sizes and patterns suggesting they were made at the beginning of the 18th century, according to the release.
At this point, there was no doubt where the ships originated: Denmark.
But, how did they make their way to the Costa Rican coast? And how had their journeys come to such violent ends?
'According to historical sources, the two Danish slave ships Fridericus Quartus and Christianus Quintus were shipwrecked off the coast of Central America in 1710,' researchers said. 'Fridericus Quartus was set ablaze, while Christianus Quintus had its anchor rope cut, following which the ship was wrecked in the surf. Until now, it has not been clear exactly where the ships were lost.'
The ships are considered part of darkest chapters of Danish history, according to an April 28 Facebook post from the Viking Ship Museum.
The two ships were blown hundreds of miles off course as they traveled across the Atlantic from West Africa as part of the trade of enslaved people, according to the museum.
In the spring of 1710, the ships finally saw land, but the environment on board was dangerously tense, the museum said.
The crew and 600-700 enslaved people had resorted to eating only turtles caught off the ship by the end of the journey, and after the surviving West Africans were dropped on shore, there was a mutiny, according to the museum.
The anchors of one ship were cut, allowing it to crash into the coral reef and sink, and the second ship was set ablaze, eventually also reaching the seafloor.
Some members of the crew had boarded English vessels, eventually making their way back to Denmark and writing about their previous voyage, but none of the sailors wrote where the ships met their end, the museum said.
A video about the expedition was shared by the National Museum of Denmark on April 28.
Cahuita National Park is on the southeastern coast of Costa Rica along the Caribbean Sea.
Facebook Translate was used to translate the post from the Viking Ship Museum.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Hair Cortisone Predicts Metabolic Syndrome in Young Adults
Long-term biological stress, measured using hair glucocorticoid levels, was strongly associated with the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components such as waist circumference and triglycerides, with the association being particularly pronounced in younger adults for hair cortisone levels. METHODOLOGY: Researchers in the Netherlands conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the relationship between hair glucocorticoid levels and the presence of MetS and its components in 1405 adult participants (median age, 49 years; 73.6% women) from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety cohort. Levels of hair glucocorticoids (cortisol and cortisone) were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Outcomes were the presence of MetS and its individual components that included high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting glucose, and triglyceride levels; diastolic blood pressure; and waist circumference. This study also assessed whether age (≤ 49 vs ≥ 50 years) modified the relationship between hair glucocorticoids and MetS. TAKEAWAY: Hair cortisol (odds ratio [OR], 1.27) and cortisone (OR, 1.32; P < .001 for both) levels were strongly associated with MetS, with the association between hair cortisone and MetS being significantly modified by age (OR, 0.78; P = .003). < .001 for both) levels were strongly associated with MetS, with the association between hair cortisone and MetS being significantly modified by age (OR, 0.78; = .003). The link between hair glucocorticoids and MetS was stronger in younger participants than in older ones for both hair cortisol (OR, 1.52 vs 1.20) and hair cortisone (OR, 1.95 vs 1.14). Hair cortisol and cortisone levels were positively correlated with waist circumference ( P < .001 for both) and triglyceride levels ( P < .025 for both); hair cortisol, but not cortisone, levels were also positively associated with diastolic blood pressure ( P = .034) and negatively associated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels ( P = .035). IN PRACTICE: "In the future, [the study] findings can be used to identify individuals with increased cardiovascular risk," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Susanne Kuckuck, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on June 03, 2025, in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism . LIMITATIONS: The study population was predominantly Caucasian, which limited the generalisability of the findings to other populations and ethnic minorities. Information on diet was not collected; hence, the potential influence of nutritional factors on glucocorticoid metabolism could not be assessed. This study could not show whether elevated hair glucocorticoid levels caused MetS due to its cross-sectional design. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Stress in Action, a research project financially supported by the Dutch Research Council and the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.
American science appears to be in free fall. Donald Trump is eviscerating research funding, persecuting the universities on whose contributions countless scientific fields depend, and vastly complicating immigration for foreign scholars, even going so far as to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students. His administration has threatened to withdraw Columbia University's accreditation and moved to ban Harvard University from enrolling international students. If the United States was once among the best places on earth to do scientific research—home to some of the strongest universities, robust government investment, a spirit of innovation, and an openness to collaboration—scientists are now fleeing our shores in droves for China, Germany, or just about anywhere else. Many who had dreamed of spending at least part of their careers here are choosing not to come. The institutions—from universities to the relevant government agencies—are in disarray. It may take decades for them to recover. Some of this was predictable. Trump has made no secret of his hatred of immigrants, and certain areas of research—from climate change to racial disparities in health care to vaccines—have been stigmatized as 'woke' in MAGA quarters. But it's stunning that priorities like diabetes and pediatric cancer—hardly culture-war land mines—have been equally crushed by Republicans' cost-cutting rampage. How did we get here? 'Trump' is the correct one-word answer, but it's also true that over the last decade and a half, liberal exhortations to 'believe in science' have not helped. The implication is that if you don't believe in it, you're stupid. Trust the experts. Trust Harvard. It should surprise no one that this was not a winning line of 2016, Hillary Clinton declared, 'I believe in science,' when she accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Of course—ominous narrator voice—we all know the outcome of that election. Nevertheless, the slogan caught fire among liberals, and there quickly followed the 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science, inspired by Trump's attacks on climate policy and climate research. The rallies were well attended and well intended, but, as some scientists feared, to many they came across as 'another attack from a condescending elite' and 'a justification for the idea that science is somehow biased.' But the worst was yet to come. During the pandemic, as many Americans, some conservative, some just politically adrift, grew increasingly and often dangerously suspicious of public health recommendations like vaccination, the liberal shrillness on behalf of science reached unprecedented decibels. Reviving Clinton's smug proclamation of 2016, the even more grating 'We believe in science' often appeared on a sign preceded by the scolding reproach 'In this house.' To this day, you can buy pins, T-shirts, mugs, and keychains asserting the belief. And even more cringe variants exist: for example, a T-shirt that says, 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.' More an attitude than an argument, this 'belief in science' claim was snide. It suggested that those on the other side believed in what, witchcraft? Worse, the 'belief' was nearly as impervious to empiricism as its opposition. Few of its loudest adherents would acknowledge nuance or apologize for error, even as it turned out that the disbelieving dummies had at times been correct on some pandemic matters: It was probably never necessary to wear a mask outdoors, schools probably were closed for too long, Covid vaccines may indeed pose some heart risks to young men. These polarized discussions fueled the manifestly unfortunate rise of RFK Jr. and spawned the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has attracted yoga moms and fitness bros alike. Like those who dissented from liberal nostrums during the pandemic, MAHA has been right about some things (microplastics are terrible, our children's mental health is in peril, fluoride in our drinking water has risks as well as benefits) and horribly wrong about others (not vaccinating kids, deliberately allowing bird flu to spread). But the worst thing about 'I believe in science' is its cocky assumption that 'science' can be detached from opinions, interpretations, and, especially, values and politics. That attitude has helped fuel a culture war and left the majority struggling to defend science from the current crew of right-wing wreckers in the White House, who may be wrong about most things but understand that science takes place in an ideological rather than a theological attack on scientists and their institutions is philosophically consistent with his other positions. MAGA hates public goods and collective obligations, as well as foreigners and international cooperation. Without public goods and internationalism, 'science' becomes impossible. The values that MAGA objects to—the grounds on which science is under attack—are precisely the values we must defend. Science requires public money to succeed at scale and is undertaken primarily for the public good. Sure, private companies also do scientific research, but not at the scale that the federal government funds it, and if a private company does something important for society—as Moderna did when it developed Covid vaccines—it's federal government subsidies that make it possible. This system assumes rightly that science benefits all of us. Anyone could need a cure for cancer someday, desire to live in a thriving natural environment, or feel curious about what's going on in outer space. That sense of the public interest is anathema to this White House, which sees little value in the public sector. Trump's worldview is like Margaret Thatcher's—the U.K. prime minister famously said, 'There is no such thing as society'—but his individualism is more extreme because there is no subject more interesting to him, no interest group more pressing, than himself. What good is science to Trump personally? The right also hates science because it requires cooperation across borders. To most effectively advance knowledge and research, individuals from different countries must put their heads together, co-author studies, accept each other's postdoctoral students, visit, immigrate, speak. This sort of exchange makes no sense to MAGA. The assumption of the Trump White House is that people from other countries have nothing to offer us and are, in fact, dangerous to our national security. There's a third, more complicated ideological pillar to Trump's attack on science, and this is anti-elitism. Some science—though hardly the majority—takes place at Ivy League institutions like Harvard. This White House hates such places, not, as it claims, because of 'antisemitism'—MAGA doesn't mind antisemitism and bigotry in other contexts—but because the anti-elitism of attacking the Ivy League always plays well. Selective admissions breed resentment, since most people can't get in. Worse, the Ivies are overwhelmingly dominated by the rich, as extensive studies by The New York Times, Thomas Piketty, and others have found. While the research done by Ivy League scholars is a critical public good, it is also a scandal that institutions more exclusive than most country clubs are allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status and government funding. Those of us to the left of Trump need to welcome a more honest conversation about these institutions. Should they even enjoy nonprofit status? To keep their public funding and tax exemptions, should they have to do more public service? Serve more low-income students, turn their real estate holdings into affordable housing, institute open admissions? Or should they simply be nationalized and run as public institutions? But as usual, the Ivy League is a distraction. Most universities aren't highly selective, many are already public, and most bring substantial economic benefits to their communities. Scientific research is essential to the prosperity of many American cities and towns, where the university is the main employer. College-centered towns are some of the fastest-growing in the United States, and in many places higher education has replaced manufacturing as the industry that brings jobs, money, and vitality. You might say that before this year, science was making America great again. Trump's necrotic attack on all human inquiry imperils all that. What is needed in defense of science is not patronizing assertions of belief but, instead, clear arguments about why we need it. It's odd that the economic rationale is getting short shrift when so many communities depend on STEM and universities. We must also acknowledge that some of the reasons the right hates science are exactly the reasons to defend it. People who don't believe in public goods will not believe in science, but everyone else should. Science saves lives by advancing medicine; millions of Americans know someone whose life or health has been saved by an advance in medical research funded by the federal government. The internationalism of science should also be defended: Bringing the best minds together from around the world is not only crucial for science, it functions as citizen diplomacy, fostering the international understanding and cooperation that is much needed in a world of strife. Harvard University has a P.R. campaign, in defense of itself, making some of these arguments, especially for medical science, but I'm not sure it helps to hear these claims from institutions with so much elitist baggage. Better to hear from Penn State, or the United Auto Workers—full disclosure: my union—which represents not only autoworkers but thousands of scientists, and has been rallying in defense of scientists and science as a good benefiting—and belonging to—the working class. When we fight for science, it's worth going back to the foundations of the value system we are defending. Next month will be the eightieth anniversary of 'Science: The Endless Frontier,' a report made to Franklin Delano Roosevelt by his director for scientific research and development, Vannevar Bush, outlining the critical role that the government should have in the scientific project, and why. In asking for the 1945 report, FDR wrote: 'New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.' That's the kind of energy we need right now.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Get Ready to Hear a Lot More About Your Mitochondria
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s warning about mitochondria slipped in between the anti-vaccine junk science and the excoriation of pharmaceutical drugs as 'the No. 3 killer in our country.' He was speaking in 2023 to Joe Rogan, elaborating on the dangers of Wi-Fi—which no high-quality scientific evidence has shown to harm anyone's health—and arguing that it causes disease by somehow opening the blood-brain barrier, and by degrading victims' mitochondria. The mention of mitochondria—the tiny structures that generate energy within our cells—was brief. Two years later, mitochondrial health is poised to become a pillar of the MAHA movement, already showing up in marketing for supplements and on podcasts across the 'manosphere.' Casey Means, President Donald Trump's newest nominee for surgeon general, has singled out the organelle as the main casualty of the modern American health crisis. According to Means (who has an M.D. but no active medical license), most of America's chronic ailments can be traced to mitochondrial dysfunction. Should she be confirmed to the post of surgeon general, the American public can expect to hear a lot more about mitochondria. Among scientists, interest and investment in mitochondria have risen notably in the past five years, Kay Macleod, a University of Chicago researcher who studies mitochondria's role in cancer, told me. Mitochondria, after all, perform a variety of crucial functions in the human body. Beyond powering cells, they can affect gene expression, help certain enzymes function, and modulate cell death, Macleod said. When mitochondria are defective, people do indeed suffer. Vamsi Mootha, a mitochondrial biologist based at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute, told me that rare genetic defects (appearing in about one in 4,300 people) can cause the organelles to malfunction, leading to muscle weakness, heart abnormalities, cognitive disability, and liver and kidney problems. Evidence also suggests that defects in mitochondria directly contribute to symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and could be both a cause and an effect of type 2 diabetes. Other conditions' links to mitochondria are blurrier. Researchers see aberrant mitochondria in postmortem biopsies of patients with illnesses such as Alzheimer's, cancer, and fatty-liver disease, Mootha said; whether those damaged mitochondria cause or result from such conditions is not yet clear. But according to Good Energy, the book Means published last year with a top MAHA adviser—her brother, Calley—mitochondrial dysfunction is a veritable plague upon the United States, responsible for both serious illness and everyday malaise. In their view, modern Western diets and lifestyles wreck countless Americans' metabolic health: Every time you drink unfiltered water or a soda, or feel the stress of mounting phone notifications, you hurt your mitochondria, they say, triggering an immune response that in turn triggers inflammation. (Damaged mitochondria really can cause inflammation, Macleod said.) This chain of events, the Meanses claim, can be blamed for virtually every common chronic health condition: migraines, depression, infertility, heart disease, obesity, cancer, and more. (Casey Means did not respond to requests for comment; reached by email, Calley did not respond to my questions about mitochondria, but noted, 'There is significant scientific evidence that healthy food, exercise and sleep have a significant impact on reversing chronic disease.') Good Energy follows a typical wellness playbook: using a mixture of valid and dubious research to pin a slew of common health problems on one overlooked element of health—and advertising a cure. Among the culprits for our mitochondrial ravaging, according to the Meanses, are poor sleep, medications, ultraprocessed foods, seed oils, too many calories, and too few vitamins, as well as chronically staying in comfortable ambient temperatures. The Means siblings therefore recommend eschewing refined sugar in favor of leafy greens, avoiding nicotine and alcohol, frequenting saunas and cold plunges, getting seven to eight hours of uninterrupted sleep a night, and cleansing your life of environmental toxins. Some studies indeed suggest that mitochondrial function is linked with sleep and temperature, but they've all been conducted on cell cultures, organoids, or mice. According to Macleod, evidence suggests that diet, too, is likely important. But only one lifestyle intervention— exercise —has been definitively shown to improve mitochondrial health in humans. The Meanses are riding a wave of interest in mitochondrial health in the wellness world. Earlier this year, the longevity influencer Bryan Johnson and the ivermectin enthusiast Mel Gibson both endorsed the dye methylene blue for its power to improve mitochondrial respiration; Kennedy was filmed slipping something that looks a lot like methylene blue into his drink. (Kennedy did not respond to a request for comment; the FDA has approved methylene blue, but only as a treatment for the blood disease methemoglobinemia.) AG1, formerly known as Athletic Greens, formulates its drinkable vitamins for mitochondrial health. Even one laser-light skin treatment promises to 'recharge failing mitochondria.' The enzyme CoQ10 is popular right now as a supplement for mitochondrial function, as is NAD, a molecule involved in mitochondria's production of energy. NAD IV drips are especially beloved by celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Kendall Jenner, and the Biebers. These supplements are generally thought to be safe, and some preliminary research shows that NAD supplementation could help patients with Parkinson's or other neurodegenerative diseases, and that CoQ10 could benefit people with mitochondrial disorders. Patients whose symptoms are clearly caused or made worse by deficiencies in a specific vitamin, such as thiamine, can benefit from supplementing those vitamins, Mootha said. But little research explores how these supplements might affect healthy adults. In Good Energy, as well as on her website and in podcast appearances, Casey Means promotes a number of supplements for mitochondrial health. She also recommends that people wear continuous glucose monitors—available from her company, Levels Health, for $184 a month—to help prevent overwhelming their mitochondria with too much glucose. (According to Macleod, glucose levels are only 'a very indirect measure' of mitochondrial activity.) As with so many problems that wellness influencers harp on, the supposed solution to this one involves buying products from those exact same people. At best, all of this attention to mitochondria could lead Americans to healthier habits. Much of the advice in Good Energy echoes health recommendations we've all heard for decades; getting regular exercise and plenty of fiber is good guidance, regardless of anyone's reasons for doing so. Switching out unhealthy habits for healthy ones will likely even improve your mitochondrial health, Jaya Ganesh, a mitochondrial-disease expert at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told me. After all, 'if you consistently beat your body up with unhealthy habits, everything is going to fall sick,' Ganesh said. But the mitochondrial approach to wellness carries risks, too. For patients with genetically caused mitochondrial disease, lifestyle changes might marginally improve some symptoms, Ganesh said, but attempting to cure such conditions with supplements and a healthy diet alone could be dangerous. Means also calls out medications—including antibiotics, chemotherapy, antiretrovirals, statins, and high-blood-pressure drugs—for interfering with mitochondria. Macleod told me that statins really do affect mitochondria, as do some antibiotics. (The latter makes sense: Mitochondria are thought to have evolved from bacteria more than a billion years ago.) That's no reason, though, to avoid any of these medications if a doctor has determined that you need them. And yet, a whole chapter of Good Energy is dedicated to the idea that readers should mistrust the motives of their doctors, who the authors say profit by keeping Americans sick. The book is less critical of the ways the wellness industry preys on people's fears. Zooming in on mitochondria might offer a reassuringly specific and seemingly scientific explanation of the many real ills of the U.S. population, but ultimately, Means and MAHA are only helping obscure the big picture.
