Depressing, but seemingly truthful analysis.

Surely, however, if a historian stated that 'so and so' died, it would be a fact? When that person died might be more open to dispute, but not the fact of death. Or birth perhaps (by definition if you died you must have been born at some stage)?

I know this is pretty unprepossessing as a basis for a study of history, but it might be a start. The Achaean civilisation is pretty obviously over. That's a fact. So is the Harappa civilisation, as is the dynasty of Hammurabi, and so on. Perhaps the dispute lies in interpretations of why rather than whether?

cheer

the sunshine warrior