2,500 year old lost Persian army found

[Epictetus]

I believe there should be caution when trying to interpret an archaeological find using ancient texts. Someone finds bones and Persian artefacts and tries to find something in written sources to explain them being there at a particular place and time. This can lead to circular reasoning: the finds confirm Herodotus while Herodotus confirms the finds.

I think T.J. Cornell puts it well:

Almost all archaeological ‘confirmations’ are circular in this sense, and many are equally illusory. The recently reported discovery of a wall, perhaps dating from the eight century BC, on the north-eastern slopes of the Palatine might conceivably form part of the fortification settlement on that hill; but it does not confirm any ancient tradition, nor does it make Romulus any less legendary – any more than finds of bronze-age pottery can prove the reality of Aeneas or Evander. These examples only serve to prove the truth of the old saying, that if you ask a silly question, you get a silly answer.