Fine Line Between History and Alternate History

[John Mortimer]

Newport Tower Unsettled History by B. Lynn Brant makes the claim that the Newport Tower in Rhode Island is pre-Columbian. Normally, such a topic would be considered alternate history, but Lynn Brant turns preconceived notions upside down. Another controversial author is Gavin Menzies, writer of 1421 The Year China Discovered The World, and 1434 The Year China Sailed to Italy and Ignited The Renaissance. Of course, both authors express fringe views.

Yet, calling them crackpots would be unfair. They may have insufficient evidence to prove their claims. Nevertheless, archaeology is better off with such potentially groundbreaking hypothesis.

What are some other examples of serious works which could potentially overturn entrenched assumptions about history? Are there historical precedents to writers like Gavin Menzies and Lynn Brant?

While beyond the scope of history, debunking the myth of the Brontosaurus is comparable to what these authors set out to accomplish. Are there any other comparable examples?

 

[CJD]

While beyond the scope of history, debunking the myth of the Brontosaurus is comparable to what these authors set out to accomplish. Are there any other comparable examples?

I thought they decided that Brontosaurus was an actual dinosaur again?

 

[Catsmate]

Newport Tower Unsettled History by B. Lynn Brant makes the claim that the Newport Tower in Rhode Island is pre-Columbian. Normally, such a topic would be considered alternate history, but Lynn Brant turns preconceived notions upside down. Another controversial author is Gavin Menzies, writer of 1421 The Year China Discovered The World, and 1434 The Year China Sailed to Italy and Ignited The Renaissance. Of course, both authors express fringe views.

Yet, calling them crackpots would be unfair.

I'll cheerfully call Menzies a crackpot. He makes lots of claims and produces no evidence to support them, ignored contradictory evidence and runs a fan-site that's definitely cultish. And 1434 is even worse nonsense.
Brant does not "turn preconceived notions upside down". Her claims are equally nonsensical; the tower (which Menzies also claims was built by his Chinese explorers) dates from the late seventeenth century.
I recommend applying the Crackpot Index to their claims.

Oh, and what is the "myth of the Brontosaurus" you refer to?

 

[Catsmate]

I thought they decided that Brontosaurus was an actual dinosaur again?

Indeed. Thought it was relegated to a mere species it's not commonly held to be a genus of its own.

 

[wilcoxchar]

It's been a while since I read 1421 but IIRC Menzies's evidence was variably anywhere from lacklustre to nonexistent.

 

[John Mortimer]

dates from the late seventeenth century.

This is what Lynn Brant set out to debunk. Does anyone on this site have any respect for Lynn Brant and Gavin Menzies or is the consensus that they're conspiracy theorists?

Imo, Lynn Brant supported his claims better than Gavin Menzies. However, criticizing his opponents methodology, then going on to use the same methodology was a bit problematic. Typically, carbon dating isn't challenged. That was probably what was most surprising of his work.

However, it's plausible that sampling mistakes could have been made such as testing portions that were patched up in the 17th century, rather than material that allegedly was much older. Lastly, the claim that "any one of Brant's arguments debunks the Arnoldian theory" seemed a pit premature. The author does seem to pat himself on the back a little too much, especially towards the end of the book.

Moreover, it's worth noting the popularity of his book. Type "history" on your reading device, adjust the list according to ascending cost, scroll down a bit, and it won't take long to find Newport Tower Unsettled History. Out of a list that contains 300k or so books, the book is in the top 300 or so.

Oh, and what is the "myth of the Brontosaurus" you refer to?

Brontosaurus was once the archetypal sauropod. Everyone could picture what someone was talking about when the name "brontosaurus" was used. Now the "thunder lizard" has been dethroned.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Wow Menzies inspiration for the fictuon is even more ridiculous than I thought. From Wikipedia:

"Gavin Menzies had the idea to write his first book after he and his wife Marcella visited the Forbidden City for their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. Menzies noticed that they kept encountering the year 1421 and, concluding that it must have been an extraordinary year in world history, decided to write a book about everything that happened in the world in the year 1421."

Or maybe 1421 is an important year to the Forbidden City because that was when the Forbidden City finished constructuon and when the Ming moved the capital to Beijing...

Nope must have been because China circumnavigated the globe that year! No other possible explanation for it!

 

[Dave Howery]

Are there historical precedents to writers like Gavin Menzies and Lynn Brant?

oh yes. There are several books that discuss pre-Columbian contacts with the new world, ranging from crackpot to skeptical. Charles Boland ("They All Discovered America") and Patrick Huyghe ("Columbus was Last") think that damn near everyone around came to America before Columbus. Hans Holzer ("Long Before Columbus") and Berry Fell ("America B.C.") are both convinced that ancient peoples from Europe came here. An older but more serious discussion is "The Quest For America", by assorted authors, which takes a much more critical look at such theories.

 

[Catsmate]

This is what Lynn Brant set out to debunk. Does anyone on this site have any respect for Lynn Brant and Gavin Menzies or is the consensus that they're conspiracy theorists?

I doubt it. Certainly no actual historians have any respect for that pair.

Imo, Lynn Brant supported his claims better than Gavin Menzies.

That's rather like saying 0.0100 is bigger than 0.0099, faint praise. Neither has supported their claims with valid evidence, countered the mass of contradictory evidence or stood up to scrutiny.

However, criticizing his opponents methodology, then going on to use the same methodology was a bit problematic. Typically, carbon dating isn't challenged. That was probably what was most surprising of his work.

Those who believe in the authenticity of the Turin Shroud also deny the reality of the carbon dating.

However, it's plausible that sampling mistakes could have been made such as testing portions that were patched up in the 17th century, rather than material that allegedly was much older.

No, actually it's not at all "plausible". Not at all.

Lastly, the claim that "any one of Brant's arguments debunks the Arnoldian theory" seemed a pit premature. The author does seem to pat himself on the back a little too much, especially towards the end of the book.

It's self-published drivel.

Moreover, it's worth noting the popularity of his book. Type "history" on your reading device, adjust the list according to ascending cost, scroll down a bit, and it won't take long to find Newport Tower Unsettled History. Out of a list that contains 300k or so books, the book is in the top 300 or so.

So what? Popularity has nothing to do with accuracy or authenticity. Or worth for that matter.

Brontosaurus was once the archetypal sauropod. Everyone could picture what someone was talking about when the name "brontosaurus" was used. Now the "thunder lizard" has been dethroned.

Yes, and?

 

[LSCatilina]

They may have insufficient evidence to prove their claims.

They not only have zero evidence to back up their claims, all of what they advance as such are considered bogus or charitably taken as misunderstood (more realistically willingly falsified). Either literally any scientist that worked on the topic is wrong or dishonest because reasons, or the extremely minority tenants of their thesis are blatantly wrong especially giving their lack of peer-reviewed checking.

Nevertheless, archaeology is better off with such potentially groundbreaking hypothesis.

No. Archeology as a scientific historic method works alongs methods and empirically tested theory : X-TENT model is a controversial method but still at least passing trough peer review would it be only to the questions it touches, namely mapping the political networks in prehistoric and protohistoric periods with relatively few historical sources. It is built non on theories built on "In my guts I feel it's that and I'll look at everything along this line of tought" (which you might recognize as the antithesis of scientific method), but on hypothesis built on multiple empirical evidence, then tested yet again on evidence by the authors AND critics alike.

This is not how archeology or history works : this is science-fiction trying to pass itself as genuine. It's arguably less trash because it doesn't have the heavy ideological trappings of retarded theories as Glozel, Sun Pyramid or the worst of Afrocentrism, but that's really the best that can be told about it.

What are some other examples of serious works which could potentially overturn entrenched assumptions about history?

There is : generally, tough (and especially as archology and history are functioning on peer reviewing and exchanges) they weren't controversial in the sense of "Man totally foreign to archeological/historical mafia wins everything while conservative scholars withdraw in agony" than "Already known person build theories, hypothesis and models that can be checked by everyone, and that mostly works". This is what Thomas Kuhn called a change of paradigm : it's less about an individual than whole groups with one or two leading figures.

This is why Schliemann is villified by archeologists, while Colin Renfew is not. One was barely better than a plunderer, the other is a scientist.

As for actually consensus challenging studies in archeology, they're generally more focused on providing models than Truth (R) : Willard Libby, thanks to its use of radiocaron dating, certainly revolutionized things.
For history, Marc Bloch and the Ecole des Annales certainly represented a perspective shift.
But again, all of this worked within universitary and peer-exchange networks : I don't have a real memory of the contrary.

Are there historical precedents to writers like Gavin Menzies and Lynn Brant?

The dustbins of history are full of these. The main difference is in the existence of mass media and particularly the internet that allows any Gallileo wanabee to find an overly trusting audience and self-publication.

 

[John Mortimer]

The criticism of Lynn Brant is quite harsh here. Yet, none of his specific arguments have been addressed. On the issue of carbon dating, Brant claimed that the shape of the building could not sustain a windmill. His claim was that there was severe structural damage when Benedict Arnold converted the building into a windmill. Therefore, some carbon dating attempts were wrong because mostly refurbished parts of the building were tested. Brant accused one study of not counting at least one data point showing a pre-Columbian date. He went on to say there weren't enough data points, particularly from the interior. From the 1992? study there were only two data points from the interior of the building, if I recall correctly. Not counting the data point that was discarded. Further, discrediting carbon dating attempts, Brant stated that dates of different portions of the building varied wildly. Even within the same study, there was an inconsistency of dates spanning centuries. Brant also claimed there were some carbon dating studies which supported a pre-Columbian date.

One of his points related to carbon dating was a bit ambiguous to the lay reader. Something about calibration. Statistical manipulation? Although, she didn't use such harsh accusatory language. Whose to say scientists didn't calibrate carbon dating in favor of Brant's argument? The same argument he used against his opponents can be used against himself.

Although, to Brant's credit, she actually cites scientific research, and the professional opinion of architects, engineers and scientists.

One critique however of Brant is inconsistency in his thesis. Originally, his argument seemed to be that the building was pre-Columbian. In contrast, his conclusion focused on proclaiming the Arnold hypothesis was debunked. There is a middle ground. Europeans could have built the beautiful structure after Columbus, but before Benedict Arnold converted it into a windmill.

Another peculiar claim of Brant was that the small size of the town was a deal breaker. Certainly, the population would have been smaller, the farther back in history one goes. In and of itself, this would undermine Brant's argument. However, there was more to the story. For some reason, there was allegedly a shortage of men in the town. War was the reason? Can't remember. In any case, Brant claimed there was a shortage of stonemasons. She went on to say that a stone wind mill would cost ten times as much as a wooden wind mill and that everyone else in the new world built wooden wind mills.

Brant cited architects when stating that the architecture of the wind mill (or observatory) looked circa 14th century or earlier. Photos of similar Norse buildings were shown as well. Knights Templars were mentioned too.

Back to carbon dating, Brant claimed there wasn't an adequate control. If true however, surely this argument can be applied to discredit carbon dating studies which support the pre-Columbian thesis. Evenstill, the fact that a Finish church was one of the controls used for carbon dating, again supports a middle ground. Finland instead of Benedict Arnold could have built the observatory, which would be consist with Brant's conclusion, but would not necessarily be consist with the pre-Columbian thesis.

Having a thesis at odds with a conclusion is very amateurish. Maybe the book needs a rewrite or Lynn Brant needs an editor. Nevertheless, there was lot of scientifically testable information. Opinions of experts from multiple fields were consulted. A reasonable request for a more thorough and well funded archaeological analysis was made. Professionals in the field would appreciate the last one. Everyone likes getting paid.

The history channel would be wise to take on this debate as well. Certainly isn't too fringe of a topic or too alt-history for them these days. While popularity doesn't make an argument right, it certainly does give an incentive for media coverage and professional scientific interest. Any potential archaeological study that garners popular interest is worthy of NSF funding. What else is going on in Rhode Island anyway?

 

[LSCatilina]

The criticism of Lynn Brant is quite harsh here.

Pseudo-history tends to attract harsh criticism.

Yet, none of his specific arguments have been addressed.

Yes, they have been (not all of hers specifically, but the very same argument anyone already did about the Tower) : it's just that lacking any kind of archeological or historical methodology, these buffons can't admit answer based on verified methods. And no one, really no one, have the kind of time to answer each claim that will still be asserted (at best, with different words) nevertheless because something about "Official Science".

On the issue of carbon dating, Brant claimed that the shape of the building could not sustain a windmill.

That's the same BS than with the Turin Shroud. "Oh, but THIS precise testing doesn't count". "Neither this one". It's eventually far more convenient to ignore that the test went particularly deep enough to prevent such claims (and, yeah, it is possible to date mortar) and pull "well, it's not a windmill" out of the blue when it really looks like a contemporary windmill (and not like a contemporary chinese observatory) Again, these theories aren't about history, it's either about belief (just as Jeovah's Witnesses can perfectly live while they prophetized the end of the world a ton of times) or outright scam.
Only someone either willingly blind or willingly falsificating would ignore this. Not an historian or an archeologist worthy of the title.

As for the explanations, it's not how dating works : a "mark" showing Pre-Columbine dating among an ocean of others is not relevant either statistically (We could proove that Coliseum predates Romans with this kind of statistically "evidence)

Although, to Brant's credit, he actually cites scientific research, and the professional opinion of architects, engineers and scientists.

Argument of authority tends to works better when authority is actually knowing the field concerned : second-hand bookstores are full of books by engineers proving Pyramids can't have been built by Ancient Egyptians. Being an engieener or a mathematician doesn't make you an expert in History. It shouldn't have to be explained that scientific fields and knowledge aren't interchangeable.

If you want, you can find architects, engineers, nuclear physicist without the faintest idea on how History as a science fucking works and pull the most insane theory you could pull out of a part of the body that I'll not mention, and still have a list full of "authorities" agreeing on it.
If you really think a naval officer backed by an engineer have something to say which is exactly as relevant as an archeologist and an historian, I hope you'll never ask from a mathematician to perform heart surgery on you. Again, competences and licenses aren't interchangeable.

Knights Templars were mentioned too.

Why not Swahili while we're at it. I mean, if we go for inane theories, we should do it all the way.

Having a thesis at odds with a conclusion is very amateurish.

Not even this : I know amateur studies and works. Even when wrong, they at least try to base themselves on facts, rather than taking theories and trying to shoehorn them with facts.

What else is going on in Rhode Island anyway?

What about actual archeology? Between native american founds to be studied, early colonial history and early prehistoric Americas (especially as Clovis model is agonizing), you have a lot.

It's why I'm more saddened than infuriated by people buying the crap these crooks are pulling (and believe me, it doesn't hurt them financially) : it's about missing what's called the "dignity of real", a connection with something you can almost touch intellectually and that can be understood globally, just for a pale fantasy that would require (to work) that everyone with an actual knowledge on China, Templars, Colonial Period, Archeology is either a moron or lying out of their teeth.

I'd want to come back at amateur works : many of them prove that we're not talking about an arbitrary decided once-and-for-all models, but that everyone actually studying and knowing what they're talking about can add their part. I saw it personally. Pseudo-history is literally making people disappropriating their own history, which is the part where I'm enfuriated, including when this utter crap is recieving funds that could go to actual research.

Heck, most people on this website are amateurs or semi-amateurs : it doesn't prevent them to be able to share specific elements or studies and to understand them, and to use them.

Now, nobody is going to shun you for being enthusiastic for this.
I just, sincerely, hope you do realize there is a problem with Menzies' thesis when literally no one with a modicum of authority in sinology and pre-columbine history calls BS on it.

But don't expect much people with a faint knowledge of historical and archeological method to give you more than a polite warning.
I really think that you should (I don't think you'd have a real problem with this) read or learn a bit on archeological methodology : Colin Renfrew could be a good start, but there's freely available manuals in most universities' libraries.

 

[John Mortimer]

The strongest argument in favor of a pre-Columbian date were carbon dating studies which found pre-Columbian dates.

Pseudo-history tends to attract harsh criticism.What about actual archeology? Between native american founds to be studied, early colonial history and early prehistoric Americas (especially as Clovis model is agonizing), you have a lot.

How far down a list would these books be using the search word "history" on a reading device?

Now, nobody is going to shun you for being enthusiastic for this.

Newport Tower Unsettled History was just the last book I read. The only other book this kind of reminded me of was Menzies. While being aware Brant and Menzies proposed fringe theories, I didn't consider them conspiracy theories. Are they?

 

[LSCatilina]

The strongest argument in favor of a pre-Columbian date were carbon dating studies which found pre-Columbian dates.

With carbon dating you may need to make several analysis on same samples because there is all kind of possible statistical errors or corruption of the samples by more ancient or more modern traces.
Note that this is still a complex process : the result doesn't give you a date, but an approximated age of the carbon that must be both checked with circumstantial evidence (for exemple, cahrcoal will be dated from the wood and not the fire) and other disciplines (for exemples, if the object was close to a CO2 emmiting sources, it might change its percieved age).
It's then that an historical date can be attempted.

With enough luck, you can find "pre-Columbian dates" that are eventually ignored because they're data errors, some specific problems, or a deep belief that a raw data is "totally from this period" while after study, it's not. Of course, there is always the possibility that someone is lying, but let's be charitable and give the benefit of doubt.

How far down a list would these books be using the search word "history" on a reading device?

I'm not sure what you mean.
If you mean "History" for the Menzies and Brant, I'm not sure and frankly, I don't care much : I've seen even less credible or savoury theories being labelled as History by bookstores or internet.
If you mean about North American archeology, Penguin Archeology have some good ones. Or, of course, 1491 by Charles C.Mann which is a wonderful introduction on Pre-Columbine America. Note that the author is a journalist, not an archeologist or historian : it didn't prevent him to do a remarkable job praised by most in the field.

While being aware Brant and Menzies proposed fringe theories, I didn't consider them conspiracy theories. Are they?

They might not be on their own, but they imply it : after all, if all people supposed to know about this are saying it's insanely bad history, either you're wrong (and frankly, it happens to good men, and they are not diminished for this), either they're wrong and supporting each other.
Menzies (I can't speak for Brant) reacted of course in the latter manner, not unlike the "New Chronologists" in Russia : forming a circle of convinced people that stated that outside opinion is irrelevant, because "the public knows".
There is a known "echo chamber" trough cognitive bias : hence why when you go in a conspiracy theory forum, you tend to find all mixed and contradictory theories such as flat Earth, ancient aliens, reptilians, chemtrails, etc. living in harmony. Each belief strangely supports the other in a weird way.
As for Menzies, what began on a quest for prooving his guilt-feel that Chinese were in America in 1421 quickly lead to prooving Cretans were trading with Native Americans, that Renaissance is entierely due to an unrecorded Chinese embassy in Italy, that Minoans helped build Stonehenge,

Now, he's certainly sane or cautious enough not to dwell with outright conspiracy theory at least in the level "New Chronologist" do. The working is still pretty much in the same perspective. If you will, he's the respectable face of pseudo-history on this regard.

 

[John Mortimer]

If you mean "History" for the Menzies and Brant, I'm not sure and frankly, I don't care much : I've seen even less credible or savoury theories being labelled as History by bookstores or internet.
If you mean about North American archeology, Penguin Archeology have some good ones. Or, of course, 1491 by Charles C.Mann which is a wonderful introduction on Pre-Columbine America. Note that the author is a journalist, not an archeologist or historian : it didn't prevent him to do a remarkable job praised by most in the field.

Searching for books by typing "history" in the search field to download books on my new $40 Nook was the method I used. Out of 300k listings, Newport Tower Unsettled History is on the top 300. I read it because it was visible. Seemed interesting too.
Of course the search parameters also included ranking the listings from cheapest to most expensive. On that list, there weren't any books about native Americans. Certainly not any other books about Rhode Island either.

Given the popularity of Brant's book, why shouldn't NSF funding go to settling the debate once an for all? Shouldn't be too expensive, given there's only one building at stake. Well, maybe more if control groups are counted. Does Charles C.Mann's cover Rhode Island? If not, what other archeological projects in Rhode Island warrant NSF funding? Anything that might make it on The History Channel? How about states neighboring Rhode Island? Are there any controversial topics which might create a buzz?

 

[LSCatilina]

Of course the search parameters also included ranking the listings from cheapest to most expensive. On that list, there weren't any books about native Americans. Certainly not any other books about Rhode Island either.

I suspect the morale of the story is then not to trust this particular search engine?

Given the popularity of Brant's book, why shouldn't NSF funding go to settling the debate once an for all?

Because the debate is never going to be settled no matter what. I'll bring the exemple of Turin Shroud again : we have all the proofs that this is a medieval objects. Carbon dating, artistic style, historical sources, everything. But you can't argue with belief, especially this ingrained : a debate is just giving people that won't, don't want to look at scientific method a tribune.
This is how it worked with the Shround, this is how it worked with Climate Changing "alternative science", this is how it happen every time with pseudo-science. There is only so much time and resources sane people can waste into attempting to arguing with peoples that don't want to do.

As for NSF funding : serious projects are already underdunded. Serious vulgarization is particularily weak in some social groups or countries. There's a gigaton of better projects to be founded rather than this.

Does Charles C.Mann's cover Rhode Island?

1491 is a really broad approach of pre-Columbine Americas (North and South) and for eastern America, I think he mostly focuses on the Virginian coast.

If not, what other archeological projects in Rhode Island warrant NSF funding?

Good question : I'd advise you to look at Rhode Island Historical Commission. Apparently they found several projects in RI. It apparently includes a Native village, with the first evidence of agricultural practices of native population before colonist arrival.
There's the Society for Historical Archeology and the lot of colonial archeology in this state.https://sha.org/archived-content/explore-projects/rhode_island/

If I may advise you something, as you seems quite passionate : you could try giving an hand at an archeological field as volunteer. It's really a wonderful experience if you're enthusiastic enough. It's mostly colonial fields in this website for your region, but there's other associations or groups.

Anything that might make it on The History Channel?

History Channel have a...dubious reputation, to say the least : they tend to go for the sensationalist and decredibilize themselves to insane heights. Remember this? That was on HC.

Are there any controversial topics which might create a buzz?

There is such thing as a bad buzz, tough. At best it's being ridiculed, at worst it becomes a black whole of resources and interest depriving actual historical and archeological sites and theories (with the aforementioned desapropriation of popular history. Look at the Pyramid of the Sun crookery in Bosnia to have an idea what I'm talking about in a "worst case scenario". Any buzz on ultra-fringe theories (which have passably racist overtones in a "everything worth mentioning in pre-Columbine America have little to do with natives") is resources, interest and promotion less for sites like Cahokia whom archeological research provided a lot not only for local history, but for archeological model at large (for exemple, its role into the conception of simple chiefdom/complex chiefdom/paramount chiefdom idea)

 

[John Mortimer]

I suspect the morale of the story is then not to trust this particular search engine.

Just using what's built into the device. If Barnes & Nobles can't be trusted what can? The results are similar for Kindles. If anything, Amazon ranks the book even higher. The Kindle and Nook are the only specialized reading devices.

Thanks for the link btw. The 4000 year old site village in Rhode Island looks interesting. Any book on that should certainly be a good read. Now the village only needs a name. Certainly would make looking for books on the village much easier.

 

[LSCatilina]

Just using what's built into the device. If Barnes & Nobles can't be trusted what can?

Frankly, I've no idea : I don't use these services.
A good way to spot good sources is to look at Wikipedia bibliographies, or honestly just to ask around : we have people with a fair knowledge on several things.

Any book on that should certainly be a good read. Now the village only needs a name. Certainly would make looking for books on the village much easier.

Possibly : maybe the commission can guide you on this (I'm a bit too far both geographically and in "knowledge area" to be of any help there, I'm afraid).

 

[Dave Howery]

concerning the tower and looking beyond carbon dating... one of my books mentions that one of the big things that kills the 'pre-Columbian' theory for it is that, way down at the foundation level, there was found the clear imprint of a typical colonial square boot heel.. sure, you could come up with some wild theory on how it got there, but when you add that to all the other evidence, the colonial theory is looking like the right one...

 

[Catsmate]

Just using what's built into the device. If Barnes & Nobles can't be trusted what can? The results are similar for Kindles. If anything, Amazon ranks the book even higher. The Kindle and Nook are the only specialized reading devices.

Why would you consider a list of books provided by a company attempting to sell them to you has any authority as to the accuracy of their contents?