Aristotle. There are historical records and literary works, but there is no version of the ancient Greek era. Undoubtedly like a site, there are no related cultural relics. Similarly, if an ancient Greek tomb or temple can be dug up and Aristotle's name and works appear in it, Aristotle's existence can be proved.
A tomb or temple was excavated in Persia around 300 BC, in which Aristotle's name and works appeared. Third, a tomb or temple around 300 BC was dug up in Egypt, in which Aristotle's name and works appeared.
In China, where Aristotle's name and works appear, it is really impossible to dig out tombs or temples about 300 years ago. Even if there are unearthed cultural relics on the moon to prove Aristotle's existence. Is Aristotle not as credible as the mythical figure Huangdi?
The so-called ancient city of Troy, if it could be called Troy, could have been proved by Xia Dynasty. There is no Erlitou site, and the site can also let Sherman prove the existence of Xia. Modern western archaeology, which started in Schleimann, always takes the purpose test. Always find something first, then dig it, such as Agamemnon's mask.
It has long been proved that it has nothing to do with Agamemnon. Too superstitious about Homer's epic, everything found is basically inconsistent with the actual historical events. Homer's epic, Aristotle's and Alexander's works all appeared after the Renaissance. It's not that there was no science in the West before the Renaissance, just as there was no civilization in China before the Shang Dynasty, but you must prove it.
At least not through literary works centuries later. Aristotle may exist, but he can't be omnipotent as advertised by westerners, nor can he write millions of words. At that time, he didn't have a writing medium to complete his million words.