I received an excellent question today from a reader who wanted to know if he could use the "human history" outline I developed, and if it wasn't mine, where did I get that information and could he have a professional citation for that information? I had to tell him the truth--the Human History outline is flawed, deeply flawed. And, it was pretty much my own invention, based on similar frameworks used in most introductory ancient history and archaeology texts.
Here's the problem. My outline hacks human history into six broad pieces:
The problem is, of course, that the world doesn't work that neatly. Just because a society flourished between 3000-1500 BC doesn't make it a "civilization" any more than it makes the one that flourished between 1500-0 BC an "empire".
I could wax rhapsodic about how odd it is using round numbers for dates (ah, I see the Minoans started in 1500 BC, was that in October that year?, "Wake up, dear, we're Minoan today!"), not to mention the fluctuations of tree ring dates and carbon 14 dates and uranium dates; but I won't. See the short course in archaeological dating methods if you're interested in that sort of thing.
The Human History was built to afford me a framework, some sort of scaffolding to hang bits of information on, and the framework has some little bit of validity to it; but not a lot. Civilization works together only if we're in contact—and not even that well when we are in contact—and whole segments of the planet were out of contact essentially until AD 1500. Plus, it's not like there was some whistle blown at 1500 BC that said "Time to be an empire now, everybody, get with the program! Get out there and start conquering your neighbors!"
So, take my Human History for what it is—a useful framework that lets me put stuff in categories. Just remember, human history, like human people, doesn't really easily fit in categories. 
Photo by frozenwords
Comments