Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mediterraneo10 | Hacker News Reader

This is a pop-sci article that is nearly as out there as the (well-debunked) fantasies of Gavin Menzies, suggesting that the Vikings made it down to Central America. Beware when pop-sci articles on history ask a constant series of questions "Could the X people have done Y?". Sometimes they act like they are being cautious about the answer, but they are never straight with the reader that among experts, even raising that question in a non-specialist venue seems inappropriate. To be honest and forthright that there isn’t even room for speculation with our current state of knowledge, does not sell copies and create ad impressions.

View on HN

The author literally starts by citing Menzies' Chinese discovery thesis, albeit weakly dismissing it by the end of the paragraph. (Interestingly, Menzies' theory is listed, but not the generally-accepted theory of Polynesian transoceanic contact).

That said, the article tends to actually instead spend more of its time talking about the well-accepted vast American trading networks. Sprinkling in the speculation of Viking voyages that aren't supported by anything more than a rosy interpretation of some data that requires some contexts that are slightly sketchy really does a disservice to the rest of the article. (If you're going to claim that a painting postdates the structure by a hundred years, I'm really doubtful of that unless you show that it's painting over something else, or otherwise demonstrate some reason why the wall covering would have needed to be changed).

Just to add here, the article's author is an expert on middle period (Tang-Song) China (her first book was on local deities, her second on contracts). She then shifted her focus a bit westward to the Silk Road. She has apparently shifted her focus yet again. I'm not an expert on pre-Columbian archaeology. But neither is she.

This particular category of "speculative" history raises red flags with me for another reason - it seems to be a tradition with white supremacists to push theories that say that "actually europeans were there first", and using said theories to downplay issues that indigenous people have.

You're certainly not the only one who is concerned about this. As an outsider, the fact that I have no idea how many modern political filters any piece of soft-science has to pass through makes me quite skeptical of all of those fields.

I don't think white supremacists would have much interest in some yarn about Vikings getting their asses kicked by Mayans.

But it would be a possible source of inspiration for Aztecs to make white dudes their gods in human form. Nevermind the fact that the Aztecs don't show up for another three centuries--internal consistency of these sorts of speculative theories isn't exactly a high priority, and especially if you can rely on ignorance to make the seams invisible.

Or you could just not mention the context of the evidence. It's not like most readers are going to bother following up checking it for themselves to see what it really says.

Well if they're just going to make up shit, I'd expect something like "Vikings met the Aztecs and taught them civilization and were then worshipped as gods", not "the Vikings got their asses kicked by Mayans and were never heard from again, except for this one mural where it shows Vikings as prisoners being drowned in the ocean."

The article seems highly suspect to me, a few hours ago I noted that it contains inaccurate statements about historical metalworking. That I caught that mistake makes me suspect there are other errors I didn't catch. But to insinuate some white supremacist motive without evidence doesn't make any sense to me.

Hilarious. Marxist are constantly trying to rewrite history of the Vikings to fit the modern political spectrum of migration & multiculturalism, but now suddenly rewriting history is problem because of "white supremacy", which is of course once again trying to fit history into our modern discourse.

> "Could the X people have done Y?”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

I find the “experts“ closed minded and dogmatic. The text book history of the world is seriously wrong...

"Text book history of the world" is very rarely written by history experts. And way too often, that textbook history is actually in direct contradiction to scholarly consensus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com