We know that we don't know virtually anything about ancient history, but yet we still believe that our completely flawed (and often made up) theories must be "c

We know that we don't know virtually anything about ancient history, but yet we still believe that our completely flawed (and often made up) theories must be "challenged" by an insurmountable amount of indisputable evidence. It is not necessary. I'm reading the book right now, I'm not an English native speaker so I'm being a bit slow, but I've watched several videos about it (that's how I knew about the book, thanks YouTube) and the first thing that got me excited was that, for the first time since I remember, this theory is not patronizing towards ancient civilizations. All our building blocks are based on the concept "they couldn't possibly be capable of", while it is now evident that not only they could, but they did. The second thing I liked about Wengrow was that he acknowledges that questions such as "was there an advanced civilization before the Sumerians?" are legitimate questions, historians and archeologists should embrace that mentality and answer the questions, not try to disprove wild theories proposed by amateurs and sometimes plain crooks. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was the aliens of course, but, AFAICR, at school they taught me that "it was impossible", not that we don't know, but that humans were, in layman terms, "too stupid to even think about it" and in the end the unanswered questions, the fact that people see that the evidence do not add up, lead to the success of people like Graham Hancock, instead of leading people to trusting the hard work on the field of historians and archeologists. It's a vicious circle that I hope this book will break.