I used to have strong interests, but it’s been harder to feel connected to them in recent years.
I’d like to see if anyone else here shares them:
If any of this overlaps with what you enjoy, I’d like to know what specifically you’re focusing on within it.
prehistoric humanity
Who isn’t interested in this? I’m no expert but it’s fascinating all the same.
Since it's prehistory, by definition, there's no historical record.
Which leaves it open to interpretation and speculation based of patchy evidence. Interesting but always subject to revision.
There's some fanciful stuff out there.
But the antikythera mechanism, albeit not prehistory, points to more sophistication than some allow.
People 10,000 or 50,000 were not mentally much different to now. The problem is we have issues to piece it together from what ever scraps survived.
Not all prehistoric evidence is recorded in writing! There may be speculation over some aspects, but we can say much from archaeological analysis of pottery, from scientific analysis of clay composition to representation of culture - DNA - agriculture, diet, health …. There are many facts.
You are correct that the prehistoric period generally refers to the period when something wasn’t written down, but it means more than that. Prehistoric refers to the period before the first known writing systems were developed, so you definitely didn’t consume your breakfast in the prehistoric period.
I was referring to written works, ie, written in the historical period, that are discussing events in the prehistoric period, before writing was invented.
The timeline of when prehistory begins and ends depends on which part of the world it refers to, as writing systems developed at different times.
Archaeologists usually refer to the prehistoric period as dating from Neolithic times which in the Levant dates from around 8300 BCE - 4500 BCE, to around 590 BCE. These dates differ in other parts of the world.
The Palaeolithic period in the Levant predates 8300 BCE, but it is sometimes loosely described as prehistoric and some people have started referring to prehistoric as any time back to the dawn of the first humans.
Even though there aren’t written records of a prehistoric person’s last meal, archaeologists sometimes find the remains of food in the stomach of a body that has been preserved in a peat bog or ice. Scientific analysis can show what their last meal contained. Grains of barley, wheat, berries and other things provide huge amounts of evidence about health, wealth, times of famine and so on.
Not all prehistoric evidence is recorded in writing!
Isn't that in the definition of history vs. prehistory? History is written down and prehistory isn't? But then, not everything was written down after writing was invented, so is what I had for breakfast historic or prehistoric? Anyone know if there is an official definition?
Yes people can be protective of their niche and some archaeologists have been possessive of their research too, especially in early archaeological endeavours, when untrained men with money and connections went off round the world to look for treasure.
Even in more recent times, some archaeologists are well known for not publishing the results of their research, or not publishing in a timely fashion, so lots of data is sitting in files that is yet to be put into a report with conclusions. It is senseless to cause destruction to archaeological sites if nothing positive is going to come of it.
Interestingly, someone who worked on the Channel 4 TV programme “Time Team” (that used to be on in the 1990s) told me that the archaeological sites were dug up and never recorded or put into a site report or final report. I was taken aback to learn this, so I searched online unsuccessfully, and wrote to Channel 4 asking where reports could be accessed, but didn’t get a reply.
Thankfully, most archaeologists now are conscientious and always write up archaeological site reports. Universities often have ‘public archaeology’ lectures or workshops, and moder archaeological techniques mean that destruction of archaeology and the environment isn’t always necessary.
I got that Josephine Quinn book when I first came out, it's brilliant.
I know what you mean about "ritual deposits", maybe a better term would "intentional deposits", something depositied with more meaning than chucking something in the bin, although midden heaps are archaeological gold mines. But you're right, nobody has come up with a better explaination despite years of trying, ritual and sympbolic thinking do seem to be core to human brains and thinking.
I love a multidisciplinary approach too, over the last 30 odd years that I've been interested in ancient history, i've seen so many attitudes change, probably the biggest is a multidisciplinary approach, previously people were so protective of their academic niche it actually stiffled new discoveries. I remember when using wear patterns on rocks to help with dating them was seen as thoroughly contravercial and on a par with conspiracy theories. There was so much racism too, with discoveries made by Indian underwater researchers showing the remains of the Indus valley culture were totally snobbily downgraded by white academics because they didn't trust the methodology of "colonials".
I got that Josephine Quinn book when I first came out, it's brilliant.
I know what you mean about "ritual deposits", maybe a better term would "intentional deposits", something depositied with more meaning than chucking something in the bin, although midden heaps are archaeological gold mines. But you're right, nobody has come up with a better explaination despite years of trying, ritual and sympbolic thinking do seem to be core to human brains and thinking.
I love a multidisciplinary approach too, over the last 30 odd years that I've been interested in ancient history, i've seen so many attitudes change, probably the biggest is a multidisciplinary approach, previously people were so protective of their academic niche it actually stiffled new discoveries. I remember when using wear patterns on rocks to help with dating them was seen as thoroughly contravercial and on a par with conspiracy theories. There was so much racism too, with discoveries made by Indian underwater researchers showing the remains of the Indus valley culture were totally snobbily downgraded by white academics because they didn't trust the methodology of "colonials".
Yes people can be protective of their niche and some archaeologists have been possessive of their research too, especially in early archaeological endeavours, when untrained men with money and connections went off round the world to look for treasure.
Even in more recent times, some archaeologists are well known for not publishing the results of their research, or not publishing in a timely fashion, so lots of data is sitting in files that is yet to be put into a report with conclusions. It is senseless to cause destruction to archaeological sites if nothing positive is going to come of it.
Interestingly, someone who worked on the Channel 4 TV programme “Time Team” (that used to be on in the 1990s) told me that the archaeological sites were dug up and never recorded or put into a site report or final report. I was taken aback to learn this, so I searched online unsuccessfully, and wrote to Channel 4 asking where reports could be accessed, but didn’t get a reply.
Thankfully, most archaeologists now are conscientious and always write up archaeological site reports. Universities often have ‘public archaeology’ lectures or workshops, and moder archaeological techniques mean that destruction of archaeology and the environment isn’t always necessary.
