> Put 2 and 2 together and come up with Cleopatra?
This is exactly the problem. History is built on stories, it's just story upon story. Licensed historians are able to augment the existing history. The stories need have nothing to do with the truth of whatever might (or might not) have happened.
Whenever you try to find the sources for this or that claim, it is impossible to do so, especially with anything ancient. When I have tried to do so, I come away feeling extremely dissatisfied, and in disagreement with whatever conclusions are being presented as fact. In every single case.
Based on the Wikipedia article linked in that comment, it refers to papyrus fragments specifically, the most recent one being from aprox. the IXth century. [1]
More recent texts were copied into more durable materials:
> By the beginning of the fourth century A.D., the most important books began to be manufactured in parchment, and works worth preserving were transferred from papyrus to parchment. [2]
By the way, I don't know enough about history or archaeology to agree or disagree with the comment, I just looked up the sources because I was also confused by the phrasing.
This is exactly the problem. History is built on stories, it's just story upon story. Licensed historians are able to augment the existing history. The stories need have nothing to do with the truth of whatever might (or might not) have happened.
Whenever you try to find the sources for this or that claim, it is impossible to do so, especially with anything ancient. When I have tried to do so, I come away feeling extremely dissatisfied, and in disagreement with whatever conclusions are being presented as fact. In every single case.
To see what I mean, here is a link to some previous research I undertook on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37927639