This unshakeable belief of the Middle Ages into written history paradoxically still continues not only among the uneducated. Further, the rather naive belief of archaeologists that we can dig out the human prehistory from the ground has to be mentioned here. In addition the term of material culture is limited to the durable. There is a high probability that what supported the cultural evolution of man was not of a durable nature - including what produced the ontologically highest values. However, the main problem is history in general.
History propagates early sources as beginnings.
Often the historian celebrates his glorious find, but, seen anthropologically, this is more than often merely a retroprojection. In Sinology for instance, Hermann Koester has critically indicated this problem in his book on Chinese Universism. The earliest Chinese periods were still strongly influenced by the agrarian village world. Correspondingly the historian has to be careful in view of the euphemistic glory describing the early palaces as huge and brilliant in gold. According to Koester they might have been simple huts.