history isn't about actual truths
how do we know for sure, that zheng he really sailed those 7 voyages
how do we know for sure, that napoleon suffered such a defeat at waterloo
how do we know for sure, that the cambodians built angkor wat in such a way?

nothing's for sure in this world. light years later, when future civilisations unearth relics from our generation, and find bits of computer ram chips, or the broken edge of an ivory comb or the decayed remains of a bedframe, who knows how they'll piece those evidences to tell a story about us?

historical 'truths' tend to come from the most convincing well thought out stories that historians or scholars piece out. the story that holds most water, that is able to link all evidences out in a tight argument will be the one that becomes widely accepted. with time, that widely accepted hypothesis then becomes the truth.

i sometimes wonder if, around us, those people from the past are watching us and laughing their heads off at the ludicrity of the stories we tell about them. or are they nodding their heads in agreement, marvelling that people can give such accurate depictions of their lives based on so little evidence?