(Not a historian and only skimmed the article for reasons below): I take these sorts of presentations of data with a grain of salt when the article says somethi

(Not a historian and only skimmed the article for reasons below): I take these sorts of presentations of data with a grain of salt when the article says something to the effect of "our old, sweeping theory that we presented as reliable history was wrong, so here is a new sweeping theory based on a couple new findings which we will now present as reliable history." So I quit reading as closely. I might prefer a more clear delineation of what is evidence and what is speculation. Interesting nonetheless.