> I think one of the challenge with relying on academics of History or anthropology is that, unlike physics, consensus doesn’t necessarily progress towards a more accurate interpretation.

I think this statement needs some very strong evidence to be even considered in passing. This statement is essentially saying "the entire field is bad at their job".

For individual academics and sources, yes, I agree that one should be vigilant. But the academic consensus is a different matter altogether, and the base assumption simply has to be that the field as a whole moves forward. Otherwise it becomes very difficult - maybe even impossible - to have any sort of evidence-based discussion.