How does the researcher know what view „we“ have?

The article should omit this statement.

Exactly.

I'll never understand the zeal some people have for self-flagellating or being overly PC.

It might have to do with those individuals believing this behavior secures some kind of overwhelming safety or acceptance in their environment.

I assume that having worked as an academic in the field of archaeology for the past three decades, the researcher is in a considerably better position to opine on the focus of archaeological research and academic consensus about the Amazon than the average software developer angrily dismissing his views as "woke"...

> the average software developer angrily dismissing his views as "woke"...

What is this supposed to mean? Why are you suggesting that the average "software developer" would view the subject's expressed point of view as "woke" as opposed to a person from any other occupation? Why the hostility towards software developers?

This is board popular with software developers and the top comment on an article about a very interesting archaeological finding is a criticism of the quote of one of the archaeologists for being critical of a Eurocentric view in archaeology.

> This is board popular with software developers

I am not sure what is meant by "board popular", did you mean to say "broadly popular". At any rate, you have not answered my question. You have simply rephrased what the poster that I responded to above already said.

He meant to say "This board is popular with software engineers", which is way it's straightforward (and often, correct) to assume that posters are software engineers.

It means HN is full of sea lions.

But „the focus of archaeological research and academic consensus“ is unrelated to such a broad statement on a supposedly eurocentric view. It‘s like saying we just discovered a new planet last year, very surprisingly, considering the fact that „we“ made Galileo recant. Out of touch with reality and at least 20 years late.

Then, David, I‘m not sure where you are from and perhaps in your country what you call „software developers“ (a term which seems to conveniently exclude yourself, guessing from your username) are _usually_ uneducated people living under a rock, but let me inform you that where I am from this is not the case and many have a wide range of interests and are certainly as qualified as anyone else to have an opinion on what is not a subtle detail of archaeology research but a topic of general interest that happens to be closely connected to politics.

So the original comment raised a valid point, worth discussing.

It is interesting how you consider that the researcher's opinion on the significance of his research and the relative difficulty of obtaining funding is something which should be omitted, whereas someone entirely unconnected with the expedition's dismissal of his comments as 'vapid moralising' is "worth discussing". Perhaps, where you come from, software developers' wide range of interests leads them greater authority than archaeologists on archaeology?

I will grant that (unlike the drive-by culture warring against "being overly PC", the BBC and climate change by other people demonstrating the breadth of their interests elsewhere in the thread) the OP does actually give us something relevant to discuss: the "lost city" in the Xinguano region still occupied by the descendants of the few survivors of contact with Europeans has been "discovered" multiple times during the 20 year period between Rostain's first study of the Upano region and his LiDar survey (Xinguano was covered the exactly same way; justlike the trope of changing agriculture-centric views comes up every time Göbekli Tepe or similarly early structures are discussed... without triggering HN). I guess you could stretch those recent discoveries to arguing that there's absolutely no research bias towards Europe and nobody ever conflated the Conquistadors' failure to find cities full of gold in the Amazon Basin with there being no ancient history to find, and it'd be relatively easy to defend the Meggers hypothesis about the unsuitability of the Amazon for major city building by insisting it wasn't Eurocentric, it was just wrong. But nobody seems interested in anything wider than getting angry at the idea Eurocentrism has ever been a thing...

Even though you are not even trying to construct any kind of coherent argument, let me respond with an article by a computer scientist that you apparently so much despise:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/8/lewis-reaping-wh...

Sorry kid, if you meant to convince me you had an interest in archaeology rather than an ignorance of archaeology exceeded only by reflective hatred of thoughtcrime against Eurocentrism, you might have been better off posting pretty much anything else...

Shame, a discussion on the Meggers hypothesis might have actually been interesting, but if you have nothing to offer but distinctly third rate culture war arguments then so be it.

The article says exactly why:

> Prof Rostain says he was warned against this research at the start of his career because scientists believed no ancient groups had lived in the Amazon.

> "But I'm very stubborn, so I did it anyway. Now I must admit I am quite happy to have made such a big discovery," he says.

That explains why researches were nolonger looking for large settlements in the area, but it explains nothing about how basing this decision off of the evidence at hand is "eurocentric". Making a decision based on current evidence is rational. It may mean missing out in some cases, but it is a reasonable choice and has nothing to do with what continent or culture one originates from.

His use of "we" means "we, the academic consensus". It's not "we, humanity". It's definitely not "we, the internet".

The article is fine.

> "This is older than any other site we know in the Amazon. We have a Eurocentric view of civilisation..." says Prof Stephen Rostain, director of investigation at the National Centre for Scientific Research in France, who led the research.

Ironic parts italicized.

He later says that nobody believed in his research. Weird that they made him director of the national center for scientific research with all those crazy, unorthodox ideas nobody agrees with.