I think that this post should be extended, but not on Xmas Eve. The danger point to, the failure of observation, in WHEE, chapter 2, applies all over again to statements in this post: the material in WHEE is very strict and is a purely chronicled outline of history, with a series of subsets called transitions, and the overall sequence.
But the article does point to a few of the many requirements for a correct theory. There is something about ‘evolution’ that makes us think we understand when we don’t.
The reason is easy to see: consider a ten thousand year interval in deep time. There is nothing to consider. It disappears at higher zoom levels.
Now consider the ten thousand years since the start (roughly) of the Neolithic: we actually have data for the whole period, some data.
Now consider the five thousand years since the invention of writing: we can see that even the previous case is inadequate! We begin to get centuries level, then decades level histories (for some regions) only for a period after the second millennium BCE, and even that is very inadequate.
As we see it is only very recently that we have begun to even observe history, deep time being a tough case indeed.