Uh, yes you do. Academia requires growth, it's a fundamental factor. There's not one area of History or Archaeology that there is 100% agreement on.

Every book I've ever been a part of (peer reviewed works) require a section at the start called a historiography. In this, I'm required to discuss the history of how different historians have approached and talked about the topic I'm writing on. This shows right away all the different arguments, all the different theories, and even the occassional academic fist fight. I then have to say "here's where this has brought us, here's what's right, and here's what everyone else is missing/got wrong... my work will now fill that gap by showing..." and then argue my point with my take on the evidence.

Grants, prizes, awards, are given to those that are the most groundbreaking. We regularly have books that shake up the entire system, it's part of the reason we do it, and we all want to be that person that does shake it up. It's a requirement of a PhD to complete original research that no one has done before. To do that you have to step on the toes of a lot of academics, living and dead.

Look at any academic journal, read through a couple of articles, you'll quickly see this to be the case.

You do not get Netflix money by going with the narrative.