The article makes it pretty clear that they have the evidence to support their hypothesis about the history of bedding, so there's no question about that part :).
My point was more focused on your example about footwear and on the fact that just using deduction or other reasoning techniques without starting from real archeological proof can easily lead one astray.
So I'm not trying to compete on which hypothesis about footwear is better I just gave that example in support of the point I just mentioned above.
My point was more focused on your example about footwear and on the fact that just using deduction or other reasoning techniques without starting from real archeological proof can easily lead one astray.
So I'm not trying to compete on which hypothesis about footwear is better I just gave that example in support of the point I just mentioned above.