Question

why do you think we do not know the history beyond thousands of years ago?​

Answer 1

Answer:

Because conventional history relies on written sources, and written language has only been around for some 5000 years or so. Archaeological evidence is good and can tell us many things, but it doesn't “speak".

Explanation:

hope it will help you

mark me as brainliest

Answer 2

Explanation:

Because conventional history relies on written sources, and written language has only been around for some 5000 years or so. Archaeological evidence is good and can tell us many things, but it doesn't “speak". From it, we may find out what people did and how, but not why, and that is the most compelling question to human mind.

Only written sources can really reveal the motivations of the people that created them, and cross referencing written sources and

contemporary archaeological sources can already produce somewhat reliable information, but even that is open to interpretation. The further we go back in time, the scarcer the evidence gets, and in the end we are piecing together chips of flint and trying to figure out what the people who produced them were thinking. It's basically the same as it would be to try figure out you as a person by examining your kitchen knife and a few leftover bones from the last meal you had.

thankyou

I hope this answer may help you

if you like it please add me to the brain list.