I'm in 99% agreement - for myself, I also prefer an educated
  historical account that's grounded by archeological finds to
  which the "best of class" scientific tests are done on them.

  If Carbon dating is the top tech available, then use it. If it's
  DNA, use it. Whatever we got, throw at it.

  Then, once we've gathered everything we can, and tie together
  the various competing mythologies of the times of production,
  keeping in mind our OWN cultural cognitive biases (which
  includes the veracity of scientific testing and the the stories
  and assumptions generated from THAT)...

  ..then we have something that's as close to true as we can come
  to for now.

  But 100% hard facts? No, I think those are myths. Good science
  must always be open to correction and good science is good
  storytelling.

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.