> I obviously don’t know either, but I just wish historical articles wouldn’t act so certain about things they offer no proof of!
I watched a documentary one or two years ago about the coliseum in Rome, and it made me realize that what we claim to know about those ancient times must be 80% bullshit.
It was all assumptions built on top of assumptions, themselves built on top of suppositions without any proof.
When I was a kid I wanted to become an archeologist, but this one documentary that basically put in evidence that everything is just bullshit where we have picked the most convenient explanation completely disinterested me from archeology forever.
I wouldn't be so harsh. they are trying to find an explanation for things with little to go on. Besides, they probably don't even fare that much worse than other social sciences in that regard, at least there isn't a ton of motivation for bias for things from 2000 years ago.
I watched a documentary one or two years ago about the coliseum in Rome, and it made me realize that what we claim to know about those ancient times must be 80% bullshit.
It was all assumptions built on top of assumptions, themselves built on top of suppositions without any proof.
When I was a kid I wanted to become an archeologist, but this one documentary that basically put in evidence that everything is just bullshit where we have picked the most convenient explanation completely disinterested me from archeology forever.