Discussion
Common difference in interpretive perspective:
Amateur historian / archaeologist: "Prove that my interpretation can't be correct."
Me: "Convince me that the issue you deal with can even usefully be discussed with the meagre sources at hand. Convince me that your interpretation is not just possible, but much more likely than any other."
Or in other words:
When you make an interpretation of the past, it's often not a choice between "You're right" and "You're wrong". There is a third alternative:
"You are speculating about an issue that cannot be settled given the available source material."
And if it's an issue about Swedish written history before about 1550, then it's almost certain that no additional written sources will ever be found. Because the Swedish Middle Ages are semi-prehistoric.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
