Upvote:4
Not that I know of, but I'd think that such a process would be so far removed from quantifiable science that it'd be rendered pointless.
The job of a historian is to make best guesses given the evidence that's presented itself. Given that it's easy for two different historians to look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. Then without really knowing the reality of the situation you can't quantify accuracy of the historian's predictions.
Instead we could go about the process you described but that wouldn't represent an accurate model of different civilizations and circumstances. In the life sciences we do testing on animals that represent a model that's close enough for practical purposes, but there are way too may variables to do the same with history.
With all of that in mind it's not so much important to gauge how correct historians are, but rather that when historians make predictions to make the reader aware of the small amount of evidence involved and how likely what they are saying is to be true.