. I see that your problem with my argument was based on how important should these women be so that they may be recorded in the history. Meanwhile my argument was emphasizing on the erasure of women's achievements in history. You see, of course I understand that there needs to be historical records on the first place in order for modern historians to find it and of course there only those who achieved splendidly only needs to be recorded. However history is still commercial. What actually differs between damnatio memoriae and historical negotiationism/denialism/revisionism if not just on the methodology created for the same purpose? Indeed why would unscrupulous rulers need to falsify records of women if it is not other than to undermine, undersell these women's stories by deliberate falsifications and "under-representation" in order to erase these women from history.