Discovery of Ancient Civilizations

In Discovery of Ancient Civilizations, Brian Fagan focuses on the discoverers more than the discoveries. This is a journey that unravels in the way that it did for modern people. Starting in the 1800s, the focus was an Egypt. Gradually older civilizations had been discovered. The initial excavations were more akin to "looting" and many key insights were lost by the haphazard approach. However, if not for this earlier work, archeology would not have grown to what it is today, and we wouldn't have the more scientific approach to archeology. He praises some of the Chinese attitudes towards excavation. They are willing to wait until "later" to excavate an ancient site. Why rush now?

Using a "discovery" approach helps resolve some of the issues with narrating the many ancient civilizations that originated in diverse parts of the world. Much of the lectures focus on the middle-eastern societies (such as Egypt and Mesopotamia) that are more well known. America, India and China are covered in less detail, later in the lectures. These societies were discovered later and have not received the public recognition as have the others. However, they are still interesting and have many potential new discoveries.

This focus on the explorers also gives us more insight into the characters involved in the discovery. Because the information about these civilizations is sparse, the personality of the discoveries can have a huge impact on our understanding and opinion of the societies. Many artifacts have been lost from some ancient sites, so the ones that have been preserved and deemed valuable are crucial to our understanding. The predetermined views of the archaeologists can also determine what areas are searched and evaluated. Would we understand these societies differently if different people had been researching? And what if everyone was equally dedicated to writing. Those that write and speak eloquently can have a much greater influence.

While it would be nice to have a "history" of the ancient civilization, it is probably impossible for it to be totally objective. This "discoverers" approach helps to provide a more accurate understanding.

Human Prehistory and Early Civilization pt 2-3

This is a continuation of the first set of lectures. In these lectures, we do learn many times that the professor has had a classical education. But more important to the topic, we get the first episodes of herding animals and farming. These are treated as logical occurrences, rather than dramatic changes.

This delves into more of the "modern" prehistory. We get early europeans, Incas, Aztecs, early Chinese, etc. Some of the early societies built up huge, complex organizations. But often, something as simple as a climate change could lead it to all tumble down.

Since this is "prehistory" there is little in the way of written record. As such, a lot of what we "know" about the early societies is little more than guesswork. Perhaps some people had very advanced civilizations, yet fell to be totally unrecognized in the archeological record.

The professor follows a "5 paragraph essay" style for all his lectures. He tells us what he is going to tell us, he tells us, then he tells us what he told us. It makes the course slow moving. However, the content is quite interesting - even if it is ever-changing.

Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations

The Teaching Company: Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations 18 Audio Cds with Course Outline Booklet (The Great Courses)
The lectures started out with a pronouncement of the superiority of modern archeological science, given in a British Elmer Fudd voice. Luckily, though there is a bit of cockiness, the lectures were fairly well done.

The first part deals primarily with the early prehistory that is "divined" from archeological data, augmented with dating and biochemical methods. Alas, the data is rather scarce, and the conclusions are, by nature, inconclusive. Our observations are based on the "hard" items that have survived. We can come to fairly broad conclusions of a migration out of Africa. However, there is plenty of controversy, with many theories being overhauled after new finds.

The population of America is particularly mysterious. Some people theorize a maritime population along the coasts. However, since the sea levels have risen significantly since the suspected period, these sights would be almost impossible to locate (and unlike to have much preserved.) The interior migration is more commonly accepted. However, this would involve migrating among glaciers.

Study of prehistory invariable involves making suppositions about motives based on simple remains. This brings the discoverer's view front and center. The views of the past are heavily colored by current world views and attitudes. They are also influenced by the type of artifacts that can survive. (If somebody dug up remains from our society 30,000 from now, they could find all the books and advanced technology biodegraded or pilfered and only uncover a few royal toys. What would they think of the society?)