Archaeology: An Introduction to the World's Greatest Sites

Archaeology: An Introduction to the World's Greatest Sites by Eric H. Cline

In these lectures, Eric Cline explores the key archeological sites around the world, while also providing background on the day in the life of an archaeologist. Alas, life is not nearly as fun as Indiana Jones would make us think. There is a lot of scrounging for money, and then hard work out and organization out in the field.  Many people will volunteer for the interesting digs. However, you also have to deal with disturbances - often looters ancient or modern. Many techniques are used to date finds. Underwater archeology is a newer subfield that can often find insights from preserved shipwrecks. 

The course explores some of the key areas that have been studied. Ancient Egypt and Biblical Areas get the most attention. However, there are many great archeological sites in the new world also. 

Some challenges with archeology are looters. Provenance is very important for artifacts. There is also significant efforts to discourage selling and looting. 

The Wisdom of History

J. Rufus Fears attempts to extract "key themes" from world history that we can learn from. His condescending tone makes it clear that this "wisdom" is his viewpoint. Any other beliefs are not acceptable. One point he keeps returning to is that history is caused by single men making decisions. Their failure to have proper foresight lead to the fall of empires. Those that have the proper character have a lasting positive impact. He views other events and cultural currents as not being nearly as important. However, even his own lectures contradict this. Some societies (like Russia) have historically preferred a strong leader to "freedom". This background culture helped support the rise of communism. The French culture set the grounds for a revolution. The United States needed the strong rights that were part of British culture. Without this, George Washington would have never been a significant leader.
We are limited by the single thread of history that we have lived. If Napoleon had died in his youth, would the course of history significantly changed? Would somebody else have come in to do exactly what he did? Or would history have turned in a totally different direction? Most likely, the short term events would have been drastically different, but over a longer horizon, history would have proceeded very similarly to how it did. We can look in the past at bad decisions of leaders. However, we know the outcome. At that time, those decisions may have been the "best". It is easy to look back and say "these people were great rulers." But how much of this was pure luck, and how much was due to the person. There may be many other people that had a strong moral compass and the ability to cause a similar (or even better) outcome.

The Western Literary Canon in Context

Professor Bowers had "second hand" experience with some of the great authors discussed in his lectures. William Faulkner was "author in residence" at University of Virginia. J.R.R. Tolkein taught at Oxford (before he arrived.) These authors both made his list of the Western Literary Canon. Distilling western down to 36 lectures involves a great deal of picking and choosing. What is insightful about these lectures is the interwoven discussions of what makes something canonical. There are past authors that were once well respected, yet have fallen out of favor. ("It was a dark and stormy night.") Other authors, unknown during their lifetimes, are now highly respected. Regardless of the circumstances, all authors in the canon are good writers. Some may have been popular, while others were relatively unknown. Some may not have been the "best" of their time - they were just lucky enough to have endured the test of time. Being taught in school is a good way to last. These lectures focus on the "classics". There are plenty of Latin and Greek works. The lectures are over halfway through when they get to Voltaire. This is a nice approach for exposure to more of the older works that are not so commonly read today.

Understanding the Human Factor: Life and Its Impact

And times, the Gary Sojka can come across as a little pandering. However, he balances it with quality communication and a great story to tell. The bulk of the lectures deal humans' domestication of plant and animal species.

In one intriguing lecture he details how our grocery stores present a wide variety of products all originating from a few small "wild" parents. I had realized that a large amount of out processed products come with multiple different corn products. However, I did not realize that our vegetables also come from a few common origins. Many of the vegetables have descended from the same few parents, with different parts being selected for.

He also presents a balanced accounting of large scale farming. Many farmers see large corporate feeding operations as a benefit to allow them to keep their farms. Consumers like the uniformity that the factory farms provide. The large scale farming also allows humans to feed more and more people. (But you have to wonder, with all these animals in close proximity, will some eventually rise up and overthrow their masters? Sounds like a great science fiction work.) However, they do have costs, especially with antibiotic abuse and waste disposal. How do we balance people's food needs with the environment? Will we eat and breed too much and drive ourselves to extinction like the Elk on the northern island?

The Will to Power: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

Professor Kathleen M. Higgins and Professor Robert C. Solomon are a husband and wife team that give these lectures. They divide things up a bit, giving the others an aura of expertise in the lectures.

I did not know that "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" came from Nietzsche. It seems like such a cliched phrase today. Nietzsche and Wagner also had a friendship. Alas, the 2001 theme, though it sounds very Wagnerian, was actually written by Richard Strauss. Thus spoke Zarathustra was structured as a novel. That sounds like something interesting to read. The lecturers stress that Nietzsche was not a Nazi (he died long before National Socialism was even started.) They also show that he had a great deal of sympathy towards Jews - and in fact was playing on the Antisemitism of others to help make his points. Other tidbits include the fact that he was insane for the last few years of his life, and that his father died when he was young, living him to grow up in a house full of females.

One theme that he mentioned was the difference between "Morality" and "morality". Nietzsche did not like the "M" version that a society forced upon others. However, he thought it important for individuals to have their own moral code.

The lectures made more more interested in Nietzsche. He seemed like the type of guy that would make strong, controversial ideas and over-sweeping ideas - even as he lived a much more conservative lifestyle.

War and World History

War has been an integral part of the history of mankind. Even supposedly "peaceful savages" often have an associated war-like past. War and World History provides a nice mixture of military theory along with a survey of the history of the world. It takes a balanced approach to the theory, acknowledging that there are many "theories" of what constitutes war that need not become a stumbling block to looking at the history.

I enjoyed the survey aspect of the work. It is rare to encounter a comprehensive history that attempts to cover the history of humanity over the entire globe. With its broad scope, military innovations are well traced across the entire world. (The professor also identifies areas where innovations were not propagated, with possible reasons why.) Interestingly, there has been little significant "new" innovations in the last century. Many of the new advancements have been refinements of older technology (such as airplanes.) The new weapons (such as nuclear bombs) are so powerful that they don't have a significant place in modern warfare.

Masterpieces of Short Fiction

Masterpieces of Short Fiction had a longer than normal introduction of the lecturer. In addition to teaching at San Francisco State, Michael Krasny also hosts an NPR radio program. Alas, these lectures are far from a radio program. It often felt like he was reading verbatim from his notes. It was distracting, but would have been acceptable if the content were great. Alas, it felt like too much effort was made at digging up lesser-known works from past eras. It probably feels good to bring up more female and minority authors. And I'm sure that some of these stories have merits of their own. However, part of being a masterpiece is the initial reception and impact of the stories. Retroactive "masterpieces" don't have the same history. They have not had the same influence on people of the time or later authors. The selection of stories makes these lectures "masterpieces and other things the lecturer wishes were masterpieces."

Why Economies Rise and Fall

The rising tide lifts all boats. As such, wouldn't everybody want their economy to rise? If so, why do economies sometimes fall? This teaching company course presents a historical overview of what has caused the rise and fall of various economies and lessons that can be applied today. The approach is much more historical than quantitative.

Countries seek to raise the standard of living of everyone. Through trading, specialization and industrialization, they can seek those results. Many different ideologies and policies have been used to help grow economies. These lectures, however, intentionally dismiss the ideology arguments and focus on what has worked. Some policies from opposite ends of the political spectrum have in their respective times produced impressive economic growth. At other times, each has fallen on their face. There have been numerous "miracles" of outsized economic growth. However, these miracle growths are often followed by a sharp fall. The US has become one of the largest economies by growing only a percentage point more than other economies - but compounding that over many years. Will China be able to sustain its growth rate?

These lectures though short on hard science were fairly interesting in "magazine article" sense. Only in the ending did he drift off into conjecture of the future. (Is the US ceding its place? Will other countries really stop lending so much money to the US, and how will that impact the country? We don't know.)

The Long Shadow of the Ancient Greek World

The Long Shadow of the Ancient Greek World covers Greece from early civilization to Alexander the Great.

The Greek society has been an important base for modern western thought. These lectures start with early Greek thinkers from the "archaic" age. We get the originator of democracy. He did not necessarily create it out of some high-minded ideal, but merely thought it was a could we to keep order and reign in some of the problems in his current society. It didn't really hold, but was eventually restored.

We also get the origins of "Draconian" law. The law was finally written down. However, the punishment for nearly everything was death. Well, at least that was what was going to happen without the law. At least now, there is some support of the state.

Then we have the history of Sparta. They evolved into a warrior state. Even the women had to be strong in order to birth strong babies. They were able to keep their warrior state going by enslaving some of the neighboring communities.

There are many details of Greek history that we just don't know for sure. We do have plenty of records, but they tend to be very opinionated. You could easily argue both sides of an issue and find some support.

The Persian wars were a dividing line between archaic and classical Greece. Athens got a little too cocky in the end. Greece had a very slave-driven economy, thus giving people free time to engage in things like arts, war and democracy.

Ian Worthington had a very personable opinionated style of lecture delivery. He would present the "common" historical view, but also give balanced weight to his "heresy". His views often run somewhat counter to historical consensus, but are well supported. He also presents them in such a way that makes it easy to pick to believe in either view (or adopt one of your own.) He tends to view people like Alexander the Great as being overrated, while some others as underrated. It makes for a very well done series of lectures that not only teaches that facts but also gets you thinking.

1066: The Year That Changed Everything

The Teaching Company course on 1066 is one of the shortest courses I have listened to. It provides some background to the William the Conqueror's invasion of England as well as a bit of the aftermath. William had a claim to the English thrown, though it was not a strong one. The English had just completed a major victory and were a little full of themselves (as well as a little spent.) The Normans were originally from the Viking lands, but they had quickly assimilated into the French culture. (Would we consider it like Americans and British? Or perhaps German Americans and Germans would be a better comparison today.) In the end the Norman's come over and continue to merge some cultures that were already merging.

These lectures are a quick overview of 1066. There are a few new things and new ways to look at things, but it mostly an overview of the key events of the Norman invasion.

Philosophy of Science

Professor Kasser's course on the Philosophy of Science is masterfully presented. I found myself, however, wading in and out of the content. The topic is of key importance, yet is not given much respect. After all, science is its objective self. Why does it need some liberal art like philosophy. However, like life itself, we need the philosophy to truly understand the role it plays.

Science has become the "dogma" of intellectual inquiry of the day, almost on par with religion. However, it spends very little effort studying itself. The philosophical bounds of science are surprisingly week. Differentiation between science and pseudo-science often comes down to an "I know it when I see it" argument. (He gives many examples of arguments that fail to exclude astrology from the realm of pseudo-science.) Even objectivity itself can be very subjective. The concept of "statistically significant" dictates much of what is deemed reliable in science. Yet it was created by simply choosing an arbitrary threshold.

Some of the discussions of the key players in the philosophy of science movement get a little tiring. Positivists, Popper, realism, and many others are covered. On an abstract level, these don't get you very far. However, they shine when examples of their implementation are used. The final lectures in this series deal with fundamental questions and applications in specific sciences.

Biology has species. But what are species and how are they differentiated? It is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Different subfields of biology have different needs for classifications and different ways of doing it. This can have impacts outside the lab, with laws such as endangered species acts. How do we resolve this? (Should there be a separate philosophy of taxonomy? Or perhaps this is just an extension of the philosophy of language.)

Philosophy of Science is not the easiest of topics to grasp, and these lectures do a good job making it accessible. It attempts to bridge a gap between the scientists (who don't really care about philosophy) and the philosophers (who don't really know the details about science.) Some of the questions that really concern the philosophers don't concern the scientists. However, some of the questions on the philosophy of science have deep impacts on the ways that science is funded and practiced. It would benefit scientists to understand more of the philosophy and history to be able to understand why they are doing things the way they are doing them (and if it meshes with their personal philosophy.) Perhaps one day, we will have a better discipline of "meta-science" that can legitimately give an outsider's evaluation of science. Until then, we'll keep muddling through.

Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us

I'm not much of a fan of "evidence-based medicine". Yes, there are lots of good advances that have come about out of it. But, there is also plenty of bias that has been built in to the system. It is geared towards finding isolated drugs that have a certain impact on the general population. This may be the "best" that can easily be done today, but it is far from ideal. The "treatments" often distract people from the well known (but harder to follow) "cures" that can be achieved by appropriate lifestyle changes.

The bias towards chemicals also leads to a disregard of ways in which the human body can influence itself. Some people may have better ability to cause changes in their health themselves. However, the studies typically try to remove these "outliers" from the double-blind studies so they can focus only on the specific treatments. Even studies that attempt to be purely objective require a huge amount of interpretation. There are numerous places that bias can creep in. Large meta-studies allow an even greater chance to make the data fit one's own beliefs. (There is always something "horribly wrong" with the methodology or results of the contradictory study.)

With all that being said, I approached these lectures with trepidation. Was this going to be another one of those pandering medical lectures? Was he going to come out and say "the current accepted medical wisdom is 100% correct and everything else (including last decade's accepted wisdom) is all quackery? Luckily, it wasn't so bad. There was actually some good information in here - with only a few contradictions.

First the problems. Other than the general issues with evidence-based medicine, there were some problems with "out-of-domain" coverage. (This was all the more humorous as it followed a criticism of some doctors for attempting to influence policy outside the medical domain.) GMO plants are given as pass as being "just as healthy" as non-GMO plants. You would hope so. However, the problem with GMO is not so much the impact on the food source but on the environment as a whole. How will the GMO plants impact the overall ecosystem? This is a question outside the domain of medicine. Similarly, organic plants were found to have little health differentiation from non-organic plants. Some of the "organic" pesticides were criticized as being "Worse" than the traditional alternatives. Again, this is going outside the domain. While, the organic standards due tend to be somewhat arbitrary, a doctor is not any more qualified than a farm worker to discuss their specific impact.

Discussions of ADHD and Autism were also interesting. They are both on a continuum, so the diagnosis is somewhat subjective. Treatment is seen as something that can help people coping with these to succeed in our society. (Though perhaps we need to ask the question as to why they need to. Aren't we in a society that prides itself on diversity.) The increase in both (especially ADHD) is claimed to be due to better diagnosis. (But you have to wonder what other diseases would be more common with better diagnosis.)

Other areas were a little better. He did a fairly decent job of covering many medical "myths" and providing the studies that backed up the alternatives. Often times popular culture or media influenced false perceptions (like of hypnosis.) There are also many folk remedies that have no basis in the "evidence-based" medicine culture, while others have been shown to be effective. (I wonder about the origins of some of the ineffective ones. Were they always "quackery", or were they previously effective remedies that had been stripped of their "effectiveness" over time. (Perhaps a key ingredient in a concoction was substituted, living the new remedy less effective.)

Overall, the lectures were not bad. Sure, they were biased towards meta-studies, but they did contain plenty of decent information.

Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition

Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition is a doozy of a course. Seven sections of 12 lectures each. This can take a while to get through.

The first two sections cover classical writings. This is mostly the Romans and Greeks that we've all we've all heard about, along with a few we haven't heard about so much. We also get the Bible, Gilgamesh and some other well known "ancient works." This stuff is really old, so there is not a whole lot of new things to go around. Perhaps we will have some new discoveries that will add to the canon. For now the big question is how to interpret what we have.

The third section covers the middle ages. This is where things get interesting. The professor begins by saying that we really don't understand the middle ages. Most of what we think of as the middle ages has been colored by the renaissance and later times. I also found that I'd been missing much of the literature from this time. This is the time when the English language starts to appear, and the Anglo-centric curriculum seems to focus there. (Ancient Greeks -> Romans -> Beowolf -> Canterbury Tales -> Shakespeare) Even "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" gets left out because it is the wrong English. The coverage of the Italian and French authors of the Middle Ages provides a lot of fodder for further study.

The Renaissance covers some really popular guys (Shakespeare). Some well known, but not so popular guys (Marlowe), and some that I've never heard of (Lope de Vega). Marlowe's Faustus is still on my "I should read" list.

With neo-classical the quality starts to go down. The general delivery is not as attention grabbing. (They seem to be reading rather than speaking, and the added emotional flares seem fake.) With the neo-classical lectures, there is a lot of overanalysis, trying to put modern day sentiments into the thought of centuries old writers. The lectures also tend to be very focussed, giving us a detailed recap of a single work, rather than giving more information on the author and the times.

Each professor also covers most of the "key" authors of the period, but then throws in a few "unknown" authors.

The style of the last lecturer annoyed me at first, but then I grew to like it. He was a bit too "pseudo-emotional" and started each lecture with an excerpt from a work he was discussing. He did do a good job of weaving in the work and the other body and life of each author. I found myself liking the lectures on the authors that I liked (like Kafka and Dostoevsky) and not caring so much for the ones I didn't know as well or didn't like.

After making it through everything, there were a few key works that I want to explore more. However, it seemed for the most part, I've already read the most appealing ones. (I'm wondering if it was worth the time to go through so many lectures.)

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.

history of russia

History of Russia from Peter the Great to Gorbachev

Alexander II instituted land reform and "freedom" of serfs in 1860s. He had initially seemed rather conservative (and followed in the footsteps of a very conservative Tsar.) It seems that the best "reformers" are those that have conservative views and are able to make reforms pragmatically, rather than idealistically. The radical elements, however, assassinated him after he had drawn up plans for an elected parliament. This brought the changes to a screeching halt. It seems there was very little time when the peasants actually "tasted" freedom. The oppressive nature of communism may not have seemed significantly different to the common man. The people in control and the "dogma" may have changed, but lack of personal autonomy would not be seen as anything of serious concern.
The comunist era seems to have been giving fuzzy coverage here. We get a smattering of social anecdotes, but I wasn't clear how Stalin came to power. I did get the impression that communism was initially a hippie ideal of individualistic free love and shared everything. However the iron hand wad needed to run the state and force the ideal. World war II provided a foil. The state relaxed and mobilized the people in defense of the fatherland. People loved it. (And Hitler botched it. Some were willing to treat nazis as liberators, but they were instead treated as serfs). After the war, however, through state came back.

The portrayal of Gorbachev was enlightening. He was seaking an idealist socialism. However, his reforms failed, leading to the collapse of communism rather than its perfection. In the end, perhaps Marx was right. Communism can't be forced. People like to aspire to something. Russian peasants have historically had little to aspire to. Czar. Communists. Oligarchy. What's the difference?

Classics of American Literature

Classics of American Literature surveys American literature, starting with Benjamin Franklin. He spends multiple lectures covering single works and authors. There were a half-dozen lectures covering Emerson and Thoreau. It didn't leave me with any desire to read them again. However, Benjamin Franklin and Washington Irving seem to be worth going over again. And Nathaniel Hawthorne and Poe rank high on the list.

There tend to be multiple lectures on each author, making the pace rather slow. Twentieth Century literature seems to be be much more in line with works I remember reading. (Thanks to a great high school English teacher. I took mostly Brit. lit in college, so that wasn't much help here.)

He also mentions the "canon" and how some of the "white men" like Eliot, Fitzgerald and Faulkner are out of favor. It is sad that political correctness has gone so overboard that it seeks out minor figures just because they were not represented. This is a great disservice, especially considering one discussion about the inter-relation of the past and present. History is impacted by how the present sees it. While studying lots of obscure writers from the past may make academics feel good, it doesn't help them to understand the people of that time. Then, people read and studied the big guys of the period. Even if there were high quality writers left by the wayside, studying them would not help us understand history any better. Instead, it leaves us just with literature in the isolation. And if we are focusing on isolated literature, we should pick the highest quality literature regardless of authorship or time period. (Though when people 100 years from now study today, they should pick some of the obscure 200 year old works to understand today better.)

I had recently read Invisible Man, so some of the commentary on it seemed to most relevant. Many of the other books discussed seemed to have good points, but not necessarily books that I would like to read. I guess that makes this long series of lectures a time saver.

Earths Changing Climate

Earths Changing climate discusses climate change from a scientific perspective. The professor tries to be objective, sticking to the scientific facts about climate and change, and for the most part shying away from policy.

The "natural" temperature of the earth is in the freezing range. However, the greenhouse effect is what keeps it warmer. Mars is a little further from the sun, but the lack of atmosphere makes it positively freezing. Venus is closer to the sun; however, it has a greenhouse effect that went into overdrive, making it an oven. The earth has just enough of an atmosphere to keep a comfortable average temperature.

The earth has changed temperature significantly over time. There are plenty of external and internal factors involved. Small changes in the earth's tilt and orbit can have significant impact. The movement of land masses around the planet can also contribute to these. Since water, snow and land all reflect different amounts of light, the rearrangement of these can impact the temperature. If the earth's tilt brings one section closer to the sun, this slight difference can cause a cascading effect.

The primary greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor. However, it has a relatively short "life span", and is often quickly returned to the surface in rain. It may also sit as clouds which reflect heat. Methane is also a significant greenhouse gas, though it is in relatively short supply. Carbon Dioxide is currently persona non grata of the climate change world. It is a natural result of most energy producing activities. It has a relatively short "official" lifespan in the atmosphere, but its impact can live longer (due to the balance of carbon on the planet.)

During the time of dinosaurs, the earth was thought to be much warmer than it is now. Recently, the earth has experienced a few ice ages. The current temperature of the earth works well for humans. However, we appear to be on a path to increase the climate. How much? It is difficult to say. There are increasingly complex models used to calculate temperature changes. However, accurate, detailed records are only available for a little over a century. Other sources, such as ice cores can trace records back further. However, the further you go back, the more difficult it is to obtain data (and the less accurate the data is.) From the available models, it appears there is a significant man-induced increase in Carbon Dioxide and temperature. What will be the result of this is less certain. It is possible that the earth may reach a "cliff", where things suddenly switch out of control. It is also possible that the earth as a whole will be ok, but different areas will suffer (while others will benefit.) While there will likely be some extreme weather and negative impacts, the global warming alarmists have probably overestimated their force.

Fossil fuels are the primary source of atmospheric carbon. However, they represent just a small fraction of the energy available on the earth. The vast majority of the energy available is in the form of sunlight. (Fossil fuels, in fact, represent "sunlight" that had been stored up in the earth millions of years ago.) There are also some other sources, such as the moon (tidal energy) and inside the earth (geothermal). However, these are relatively minor. The sun also produces many secondary power sources, such as wind energy and biomass.

At the end of the lectures, the author presents some ways of dealing with global warming. Some proposals include "whole-earth" projects to reduce the heat level of the earth. These could be extremely dangerous due to the unknown factors. Carbon sequestration could have an impact, however, there is the risk of leakage. Simply producing less carbon may be the easiest. (The US vs. Europe comparison is an example of less production without dampening of lifestyle). Making better use of the sun's energy is also a viable long-term option.

The lectures were simple and straightforward. They attempted to skirt around the policy and political issues. However, in focussing on the "consensus" view they may have avoided some of the interesting work in what is a challenging scientific arena.

Big History

This is the history of the universe as we understand it now. It goes from cosmology to astronomy to geology and biology before making it to man. It is slow moving, spending a lot of time just talking about the scale. Perhaps this speed is to emphasize the vastness of the timeframe that is being discussed. (Though it does slow the narrative.)

The descriptions of time periods millions and billions of years ago are described as they are currently known today. The lectures spend plenty of time detailing the discoverers and discoveries. Some of the controversies and the evolutions of views are also given for these. The end result is a "popular" view rather than detailed specialist view. (Something from Scientific American rather than Journal of Cell Biology) This makes it more of a "history of science" than a "big history." One hundred years from now, whole sections could be completely rewritten. (Even basic things like plate tectonics were considered poppycock a little more than 50 years ago.) Many of the arguments put forth for accepting the "consensus view" seemed rather simplistic. (For example, one of Darwin's reason to espouse evolutionary species differentiation rather than creation was the use of "hands" for different purposes in mammals - such as a bat's wing, a whale's fin, and a man's hand. However, from an engineering viewpoint, this seems like a great argument for creation. If I find some part that works well, I will use it for as many different purposes as possible. I can just imagine a universe created entirely out of duct tape!)

The rise of man and civilization takes up only a brief sliver of time in the entire history. The professor puts forth "collective learning" as the trait that has allowed man to dominate the earth. The last century has greatly accelerated that dominance. He poses some interesting theories for what the future will hold. Many of these have come from the field of science fiction. These all sound like interesting things to read. One holds that societies that increase in collective learning eventually develop the power to destroy themselves, bringing them back down to the start again. Others talk about the universe collapsing and then big-banging again. Others say it will keep expanding. There could be intelligent life everywhere or life nowhere. I'm surprised they didn't mention a Truman Show possibility where we are in a little container separate from something vast.

The attempt to bridge the gaps between various disciplines to provide a large scale history is a noble endeavour. It acknowledges that some key time periods tend to be ignored because they lie within the cracks between disciplines. (For example, the human agricultural era is too old for historians because there is no writing, yet too new for ancient archaeologists.) Alas, this division is what has enabled professionals to delve deeply in their areas. Stripping it away tries to present a coherent story of the history of "life, the universe and everything" based on man's current scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this also points out there are still many gaps in understanding.

Between the Rivers: History of Ancient Mesopotamia Part 3

Between the Rivers covers some of the more "modern" periods in Mesopotamian history. We start around the time "famous" Babylonians (the guys who appear in the Bible) and we continue all the way up until the 2003 US capture of Baghdad. Its nearly 3000 years in 6 hours. However, the be fare, the last 1500 years are given a rather cursory coverage. At that time, Mesopotamia was not all that important. However, prior to them, we ha the Assyrians and Babylonians duking it out for supremacy. We had leaders that were clinging towards using the "hard-to-write" cuneiform, even though their scribes wanted to adopt an easier to use Aramaic. (The fact that the leader couldn't read or write didn't seem to make a difference.) Leaders would explore different methods of subjugating the conquered people. They may choose to install their own leader, use the existing leaders, or just exile everybody. If the vanquished crossed the victors, they could see their "nice" subjugation turn bad fast (see Jerusalem, fall of).

Babylon had some magnificently strong walls. Urbanization seemed to be going strong in the land between the rivers for millennia before they caught on in places like northern Europe. (What would have happened if the Vikings were transported back in time to Assyria or Babylonia?
Alexander the Great made his middle east appearance. He promptly got in trouble by seeing too Mesopotamian to the Greeks (and likely too Greek to the Mesopotamian) That was perhaps the beginning of the end of the unique culture. The later Muslim invasion pretty much finished it off. Now it became just a small part of the Ottoman empire until World War I. Then Iraq was formed, and archaeological history was stored in the national museum for a century. Then the US army came in and protected the oil ministry while the museum was looted.

Vikings

Vikings is a series of lectures focussing on Scandinavia during the age of the Vikings (roughly a few hundred years on either side of 1000 AD). A little background is provided on the people before the time and how they split off from the the other Germanic people of the time. There is also a brief section at the end covering the christianization of Scandinavia and the integration in to Europe of the time. The bulk of the course, however, focuses on the sea-going exploits of the Vikings. With their technology, they were able to rapidly move around to raid, trade and plunder with minimal opposition. While they often participated in purely "business" missions, at times they stayed and adopted the habits and customs of the locals. Thus we get the Norman French, who were primarily a Viking caste that had adopted the French language.

The history of Britain and France from the Viking perspective is also enlightening. The battle involved a bunch of French who had recently immigrated from Scandinavia fighting against a bunch of Scandinavians and some English who had taken the throne from Scandinavians. Its like the USSR and US having a proxy battle in Vietnam. It ends up very important for Vietnamese history, but for the players, it was just a small part in the bigger picture.

The concept of "kings" is also enlightening. It seems anybody with Scandinavian ancestry can find plenty of kings in their family tree. Part of this was the natural reproductivity of kings (and their many wives). However, there were also a large number of kings. The Scandinavians didn't have large kingdoms until after they Christianized. Instead there were numerous "sea kings" who ruled small areas and led raiding parties.

The Vikings had led a very complex society. Alas, other than the Icelanders, they were not too keen on writing about their exploits. Thus most of what we hear from them is from their opponents.