> Esoteric philosophy and its validity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the historical–archaeological claim that you made in your post above. I mentioned the w

> Esoteric philosophy and its validity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the historical–archaeological claim that you made in your post above. I mentioned the work on esotericism in history in reference to the dismissal of kinglsey on the basis of new age affiliation. And speculation can be essential for creating plausible narratives in a world with limited data. But I agree, speculation should always be labeled!