[brnaftr361]

History is very much an interpretive science. You can infer a lot of things from a site that predates written history. One of the salient examples were some severely deformed bodies found ritually positioned with assumed valuables. And that's all the context you get, and now you have to frame it with anthropologically modern references polluted with ideologies like Hobbes/Rousseau while conjointly projecting Holmberg's mistake into the past when the concept of "marginal" people didn't exist. There's a lot of errors that can arise and a lot of features that can metamorphose into only a distant conception of what once was.

And even then, records are questioned. Sometimes period historians really had to stick their necks out to speak the truth (and in the most literal sense) so direct impressions we have of certain elements of history may be reasonably called into question. And there are numerous historians that are known to have fabricated elements.