You appear to be a little lost in what I've said so I'll clarify, amantine.
The historians now are not stupid, the current theory is the one that best fits the current evidence.
Historians and scientists, like all of us, make mistakes. When those mistakes are taken as gospel, simply because they are given by scientists and
historians, it leads to ridiculous claims that are later proven incorrect. Once proven incorrect however, it can still take decades before textbooks
and teachings are changed to reflect this new evidence.
In the case of the Vedic mistranslation I spoke of before, the word Aryas was mistakenly assumed to be Aryans, which led in part to the creation of
the theory that Aryans from Europe invaded India in 1500 BC, conquering what were believed to be nothing more than tribes of hunter-gatherers. These
theories first took shape in the early nineteenth century, under the belief that Sanskrit's similarities to other European languages meant that the
language was obviously taken into India from Europe. Who thought India's past could have a sufficient civilization and culture to create a language
on their own?
I'd like to point out that this incorrect theory was no small boost to a loud-mouthed Berlin house painter in his quest for information on the
superiority of his ancestors.
It was found to be a false translation, in the mid-20th century, once excavations revealed there were no "Aryans" in India's past. Add to that the
growing body of knowledge that showed India's culture to be on a par with Sumerian or Egyptian in terms of age and sophistication. Goodbye Aryan
It took until the 1990s for historians and scientists to get around to changing the textbooks and teachings.
How is that reflected in what you say of history's teaching being updated?
There might be some undiscovered civilization on the bottom of the sea floor, but there is nothing indicating that there is....
...We must make a theory with the evidence there is and only with the evidence there is.
Well said and admittedly quite true in some regards. But a theory is not an absolute truth, no matter how much the historical community would like to
believe otherwise. It is a hypothesis which has enough facts supporting it to suggest that it may
be the truth.
There's a reason why some theories are never made into scientific laws -- they can't be proven conclusively. And since we cannot prove conclusively
that we know everything about the ancient world, we cannot say that our knowledge is the law.
I'm not looking to discredit anyone's current beliefs on history. I'm merely looking for the understanding that we might not have all the answers.
The problem is, if we find another piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit what we've already taken to be the absolute truth, it could be lost
knowledge, discarded as nonsense.