As an anecdata most of my friends believe that we know everything about ancient history. They are also very eager to hear about other parts of human knowledge to be progressing, for example AI models. Yet, when it comes to history they have this sort of static view.
Well, I can see how someone would naively think that was true, because only a fixed set of events have already happened in the past, so there is a correct answer.
I think it also stems from the way it is taught in schools, where there is a lot of focus on memorising dates and events etc, rather than on the process of actually deriving them from sources of questionable trust.
Also, the majority of focus in schools (in the UK) is on much more modern history and doesn’t really focus too much on the really ancient stuff and the extra difficulties that arise from learning about it.
it’s kind of odd though to think about a kiddo learning history as the evidence allows it to be unfolded.
they’re brand new to being a human, and even then they aren’t adult humans (i guess defined as such, post facto)
seems like our brains are craving hard structural information to establish requisite coherency once fully ‘weened off’ by our family unit. so things are taught in the traditional scholastic type of way first, and then introduced to more scholarly approach later, revealing who is behind the curtain in oz.