Difference between "mythology" and historical "facts"? In this video, a monk tried to draw a distinction between "mythology" and "history facts" ...

Ajahn Sujato - Buddhist Mythology - The Sacred and the Profane - Part 3

... saying that "Mythology" just has a community (identification) purpose.

Yet my person's thought was, "and how is that different to 'factual' history (aside that it faster changes)?"

How can "mythology" (Anussava), and "history" (perhaps thought as Itivea?), be seriously distinguished, if possible? And how should the past be seen, grasped, in accordance with the path, practice?

What kind of mythology, history, and anussati (bringing into present) is conductive for one's way, toward long-time happiness and beyond?

(Note that this is not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for good undertakings toward release from this wheel)
All we can know to be "facts" is the following: 


  Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī
  
  The teaching (of Suffering Ending Truth) well explained by the Buddha — visible in the here-&amp;-now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, leading onwards (to Nibbana), that
  sensible people can know for themselves.


This is the Dhamma Refuge taught by the Honest Awakened One (The Buddha); adhered to by Honest Noble People. This is all we can know as "fact" and this is all the Buddha expects or asks of us to know.