Whenever one is investigating a figure whose historicity dates to antiquity, various interpretations can and do occur. The study of any ancient personality is a myriad challenge, for it is usually a body with indistinct outline and various appendages that are not always precisely defined or completely understood. For the record, I do not possess any degrees associated with the discipline of Egyptology and therefore I beg your indulgence for any errors in the presentation, either real or imagined. If history is defined only by our perception of past events, then there is no history of the past without our interpretation of that past. If history is strictly the past itself, then those events occurred whether we perceive and interpret them or not and have no bearing on present circumstances.
History is the combined product of past events and the discovery and description of past events.
In essence, history exists both inside and outside the minds of historians. There are two methods to arrive at a current perception and description of history. The first is by direct material evidence which by nature must be both obvious and unambiguous. This is inferential evidence, and requires a consilience of inductions. Historians must have more than one induction, more than just a single generalization drawn from specific paths to arrive at a valid perception.