Does that have stronger historical backing?
Roger Ekirch’s theory, meanwhile, is based on what one could call a biased interpretation of a hand-picked selection of ambiguous sources.
Point being, if one slept for 4-5 hours, wake up for a similar chunk, and slept the same amount again, then that'd be a great way to pass the time one could likely not use to do outdoor labor.
If historical evidence does not do much to disambiguate this from the alternative hypothesis, then the null hypothesis would be the default presumption.
I found this reassuring and slightly amazing, that he is wired to do his part as a nighttime lookout.
That doesn't mean they didn't sleep all night, typically.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138994572...