You’re right on the details, my bad for not looking up the dates and books, but the argument would be the same, except to say 1600 years or so prior to the cite

You’re right on the details, my bad for not looking up the dates and books, but the argument would be the same, except to say 1600 years or so prior to the cited work in the article, meaning the article is incorrect in its facts. If I was writing an article I guess I would have checked my facts ;)