I’m halfway through this, and so far, they haven’t addressed examples like Mungo Man in Australia; an anatomically modern human whose date has vascillated wildly from about 42,000 years ago, which would track with the dates in the video, to about 60,000-70,000 years ago, which is out of whack with the dates in the video. I can’t find the source, but within the last year, I’ve read or seen something that pushed Mungo Man’s date back to the 60,000+ range.
Yeah, it’s kind of an unsatisfying video. I was definitely asking them questions that did not get answered. But it still brings up some interesting points.
And… new Kaz Rowe!
Listen to historians, folks…
I also had that >60kya age in my head, but it looks like the experts are bracketing a ~42kya +/- range.
Key remains:
*Mungo Woman, also referred to as ‘Lake Mungo 1’ (WLH 1), was discovered in 1968. At 42,000 years old, this is the most securely dated human burial in Australia and the earliest ritually cremated remains found anywhere in the world. The cremation process shrinks bone and has made the skeleton of this originally small-bodied woman even smaller. Dr Alan Thorne reconstructed the skull from over 300 fragments.
*Mungo Man, also known as 'Lake Mungo 3’ or (WLH 3) was discovered in 1974. Unlike Mungo Woman’s cremation, Mungo Man was laid out on his back for burial and covered in red ochre before being buried in the beach sands that bordered the lake. There has been some debate over the age of this burial and while dates ranging from 26,000 to 60,000 years old have been obtained, an age closer to 42,000 years old is widely accepted.
I’m reminded of what Stephen King said about his novel 11/22/63, which is about a time traveler trying to prevent the Kennedy assassination.
I’m paraphrasing, but basically, King said that he, like a lot of other Americans, felt there was probably something shady about the Kennedy assassination, and was a little suspicious about the official story.
Then he did the research for his book, which included reading as much of the original sources as possible, and realized that nope, the official story was in fact accurate and that there was zero evidence for all the conspiracy theories. Indeed, there usually was some solid evidence against them.
Stephen King is correct. I have not read the original documents of the Kennedy assassination, but I trust the historians who have… that’s exactly what depending on expertise means…
History is boring until you’re living in it.
Um… no, not really. A point she makes in the video, in fact…
We really need to move away from this idea that history and other humanities are unimportant and boring. It’s really helping to drive this present moment, since no one sees a need to understand the past, culture, human beings, and the societies we create. They are just as important and interesting as any STEM field, and I’m kind of bored of having to defend them, honestly…
I know I’m weird, but personally I think “how did things get this way” is one of the most interesting things you can say about almost anything. It turns facts into stories.
I was trying to be quippy.
And my hobby is medievalism. I know that there is no such thing as “boring history”. I work in IT, but what I want to do, one day, is to get a degree in history while there’s a university still around here which teaches them, so that I can call myself a scholar, instead of just cosplaying as one.
But I also know that most people don’t believe that. How about “You’d best start believing in interesting history: you’re living in some!”, then, Barbossa accent or not?
I should also actually watch the video. I was reacting to the quote on the thumbnail. I’m sure she argues against the point, because it’s an excellent point.
But also, there’s a difference between “history is not boring”, and “some history is Not Boring”. I know I could do with living in a bit of boring history for a while.