I would like to add a note of scrutiny.
1. The problem of any discovery is a problem of PERCEPTION; not ours, but of those ancient people's. Who they perceived, what they knew, and how those perceptions affected their civilization.
2. Again, the ancients would most likely have had an INTERPRETATION of the new discoveries they encountered. Their means to describe the new discoveries would have taken a collective objectivity, as clearly as they possibly could. Any information from them would also have to be considered within their context, their expressions of what they perceived.
3.Now, the main questions we have are centered around an HISTORICIZING of the ultimate interpretation of those current discoveries of the ancient world. We are faced with complex questions of facts and our own interpretations of those facts. This always boils down to credibility, the final analysis, a theory that can actually include a perception of those ancient reports in their own language capacities. We are held by the ancient descriptions that those peoples have left to us, their history as has been recorded. We make the ultimate history of those ancient peoples.