4 ms·

Nope. > Prehistory, also called pre-literary history, is the period of human history between the first known use of stone tools by hominins c. 3.3 million year

Nope. > Prehistory, also called pre-literary history, is the period of human history between the first known use of stone tools by hominins c. 3.3 million years ago and the beginning of recorded history with the invention of writing systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory The big deal is that these art works are far more sophisticated that anything else we have seen so early.

late2part 3y ago
Names don't constitute knowledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=1s
AlotOfReading 3y ago
This is one common definition of the term history, but it's not a very good one and largely relegated to outdated encyclopedia entries rather than describing how professionals investigate history. It's very poor as a technical definition. For instance, does "history" in an area start when someone writes something, or does the writing have to survive to the present day? Does only one person need to write, or does it need to be socially widespread? Does it have to be full writing or does protowriting count? Do we have to be able to read the writing? Do partial readings count? These ambiguities weren't issues back when it was being used as a criterion for "civilization" ala childe, but that time has long since passed. Today, it's best to ignore all these difficult and largely unnecessary questions by simply using a descriptive definition where "history is the human past".
- biorach 3y ago
  look, you can quibble all you want about how the rest of the world is misusing a word, but at the end of the day you're in the minority here.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  IDK, seems fine, ambiguities and all. Not everything has to be, or can be, math or formal logic to be useful for communication.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Not nope :) By definition recorded history - as recorded in this art work, which are artifacts of history - is being pushed back. The big deal is we over-estimated what we thought we knew about the past and that over-confidence is being humbled. And because of that the definition of pre-history needs to be updated.

late2part 3y ago

Names don't constitute knowledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=1s

AlotOfReading 3y ago

This is one common definition of the term history, but it's not a very good one and largely relegated to outdated encyclopedia entries rather than describing how professionals investigate history. It's very poor as a technical definition. For instance, does "history" in an area start when someone writes something, or does the writing have to survive to the present day? Does only one person need to write, or does it need to be socially widespread? Does it have to be full writing or does protowriting count? Do we have to be able to read the writing? Do partial readings count? These ambiguities weren't issues back when it was being used as a criterion for "civilization" ala childe, but that time has long since passed. Today, it's best to ignore all these difficult and largely unnecessary questions by simply using a descriptive definition where "history is the human past".

biorach 3y ago
look, you can quibble all you want about how the rest of the world is misusing a word, but at the end of the day you're in the minority here.
hotnfresh 3y ago
IDK, seems fine, ambiguities and all. Not everything has to be, or can be, math or formal logic to be useful for communication.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Not nope :) By definition recorded history - as recorded in this art work, which are artifacts of history - is being pushed back. The big deal is we over-estimated what we thought we knew about the past and that over-confidence is being humbled. And because of that the definition of pre-history needs to be updated.