Steve Gardham wrote -
"As modern historians will tell you there is a lot wrong with past scholarship. It can be extremely biased and is based upon nothing like the resources we have available to us nowadays with modern technology. With less bigotry and no hidden agenda modern historians can afford to be much more honest."

I'm afraid that my thoughts on this take me off-topic but ultimately I hope this has relevance to the fact that accepted history can be challenged and ultimately previously accepted norms changed.
Throughout my secondary education, one of my two favorite subjects was history. In my first term, I was taught by a Cambridge History graduate that following the Roman withdrawal from Britain and before the arrival of Anglo-Saxons and Vikings that England reverted to a condition that was similar to conditions that existed in the Iron Age. Much later I found claims of this nature existing in academic histories written in the 1930s. I was taught this in 1953 - and yet the discoveries at Sutton Hoo were made in 1939. The war held things up yet by 1950 those discoveries were revolutionising opinion about late 6th and early 7th century England. Yes, it was true that England reverted to being an unwritten society; yes it was true that England no longer minted coins but Sutton Hoo findings tells us of a society that had the highest artisanal skills, that society was highly structured and the coins found there showed us the East Anglians traded with Algiers, Egypt and Constantinople.

My history teacher was a lazy man. He was not keeping himself up to date with recent fact-changing findings. History had changed and i was being taught a lie.