The latter is the case, as the former is inapplicable to history. However, it is important to understand that the main thing distinguishing science from storytelling and other ideologies is that it is testable, reproducible and verifi able by different persons. The scientific method creates general consensus among scientists, hence, so to speak, proof when a given phenomenon can be reproduced (tested) by others at different times and places.

But, what is the scientific method?6 The scientific method is a highly specific set of rules used by scientists to formulate theories about how the world (or some part of it) works. Scientists ask questions and go about answering them systematically: they make observations, collect data, and set out to prove or disprove their explanations in a regimented way. Based on his or her experience, and analyzing the collected data, the scientist then makes one or more informed guesses. This informed guess is called a hypothesis and a scientist may arrive at more than one hypothesis.

 Using evidence gathered the scientist convinces other scientists that his hypothesis is correct. By proving his hypothesis the scientist now has a theory, which is supported by many observations, and seems to have no major inconsistencies. The theory is the surviving hypothesis in a group of multiple working hypotheses, the one that is not clearly disproved. The scientist thus creates a consensus among other scientists because they can test the theory.

 At times, consensus is reached among two opposing groups of scientists, for example, one group believing that light is made up of particles, and the other group believing that light is a wave. They fi nally resolve their differences by accepting the dual nature of light. Applied to history, the scientific method will guide the historian to collect ALL pertinent data for the subject. Then, based on his or her experience, the historian will make an educated guess, that is, he/she will form one or more hypotheses. In our case, there are two hypotheses as described above.

Theoretically, to prove his/her hypothesis, the historian will need ALL existing pertinent textual and archeological data and information, assuming this was feasible. The historian will then examine and analyze ALL the data and will come up with a theory, which is the winner of the two hypotheses listed above. Now, in order to create consensus, historians must test the theory for themselves. Here the similarities between science and history end. Whereas the scientists would need to conduct specifi c laboratory or observational tests to check the theory, historians, on the other hand, would need to read and examine ALL the material supporting the theory.

This process is subjective, in the sense that it is interpretative. The results of laboratory tests and observations are the same, no matter who conducts them, or where and when the test is conducted. The results of the “tests” by the historians are not necessarily the same, and they result in differences of opinion. General consensus is difficult to reach, especially in a case where most documents have been destroyed. For example, J.M. Fiey made a cursory analysis of the history of modern Assyrians, and came up with the conclusion that the modern Assyrians are not the descendants of the ancients. Therefore, a consensus was formed among most French and some international Assyriologists regarding his conclusions, but it is doubtful whether he examined ALL textual and ALL archeological data, as he himself admits it when he writes: “I wouldn’t go that far, because a scientific and exhaustive study of all the aspects of the problem does not yet exist, at least to my knowledge.”7

It is practically impossible to have such a reach, unless if it is done by a well funded group of experts, having the cooperation of all the entities in possession of the documents.