Methodology

This page describes the process every research paper, article, and Evidence Library entry on Revert Way is expected to follow. It is a working method, not a marketing claim: where a specific publication departs from it, that publication says so directly, usually in a concluding section on what the evidence does and does not establish.

1. Sourcing: primary evidence before secondary argument

Research begins with the primary material itself, manuscripts, inscriptions, coins, papyri, archaeological remains, and dated texts, rather than with a secondary summary of it. Secondary scholarship (peer-reviewed journal articles, academic monographs) is then used to interpret that material, situate it historically, and surface disagreement among specialists. The distinction between the two is explained in full on the Evidence Standards page.

2. Dating and provenance

Where a source's date matters to the argument, we state how that date was established, and its margin of uncertainty, rather than presenting a single date as if it were self-evident. Depending on the type of evidence, this might mean radiocarbon dating (with its statistical range), paleographic analysis (which typically has a wider and more contested margin than radiocarbon dating), an internally recorded date in an inscription or coin legend, or archaeological stratigraphy. Dating claims that rest on a contested method are flagged as contested.

3. Corroboration across independent evidence

A claim is treated as well-supported when it is corroborated by more than one independent line of evidence, for example, a textual source confirmed by an inscription, or an inscription confirmed by numismatic evidence, rather than by a single source repeated across multiple secondary works. Where a claim rests on one source alone, that is stated explicitly rather than obscured by confident phrasing.

4. Separating description from claim

Every publication distinguishes between what a source says, what that source's authors or transmitters believed, and what can be independently verified about the events it describes. Collapsing these into a single narrative is one of the most common ways historical writing overstates its evidence, and it is the error this step is designed to prevent.

5. Engaging scholarly disagreement directly

Where credible specialists disagree, that disagreement is presented on its merits, not flattened into a false consensus and not silently resolved in favor of the reading that is most convenient for the paper's argument. Fringe positions that lack support among specialists in the relevant field are not presented as though they carry equal academic weight to the mainstream view. Where there genuinely is no scholarly consensus, we say so.

6. Internal review before publication

Before a paper or article is marked "published," its claims are checked against the sources cited for them, every citation is verified to resolve to a real, identifiable work, and the piece is read specifically for places where the argument outruns the cited evidence. Work that has not yet passed this review is marked as a placeholder rather than published in an unfinished state.

7. Revision after publication

Publication is not the end of the process. When new evidence, a reader correction, or a scholarly response changes what a page should say, the page is updated and its revision date changes accordingly. Substantial corrections are noted in the text itself rather than silently edited away.

Related standards

This page describes process. For the specific definitions we use, primary vs. secondary sources, how confidence levels are expressed, and how citations are formatted, see Evidence Standards. For the editorial rules that govern tone, neutrality, and what we will not publish, see Editorial Principles.