Please don't tell me what is obvious to me. Instead, assume good faith and clarify. You said "I'm not saying the Vikings weren't..." which means to me that yo

Please don't tell me what is obvious to me. Instead, assume good faith and clarify. You said "I'm not saying the Vikings weren't..." which means to me that you are saying they may have and they may not have. Both are logically equivalent. In turn, that means that you seem (to me) to be asserting it is the burden of this article in Nature to demonstrate they were. My point was, that's a premise not something they are establishing. I believe they were just narrowing down the date. Therefore if they in fact totally failed at their job, it should not affect the question you bring up. It does not seem relevant that they didn't prove it, if they didn't set out to and it is a generally accepted fact. Does that clarify? I make plenty of mistakes, but I also read as carefully as I can.