Do we really have to go through the There is no extemporaneous evidence for most events in ancient history or for most ancient people speech again Because you know we ve done this before there is not a shred of logic in requiring contemporaneous evidence for anything to be able to say that something existed this argument is as dead as a doornail I don t care how many people say we need this evidence to say things existed so far we don t have a shred of evidence here yet that any historians have ever even set such a standard I have yet to see anything out of Harvard or Oxford or someplace that sets such preposterously high standards for anything