I mean: here we all are and what are we going to do about it? Yes, we’ve been bad, but not entirely so. And our existence is not a matter for debate.

So, for those of us who are curious about all things science, do you have any recommendations about how to start getting the prehistory picture right? Perhaps a good website to start at, or a textbook that isn’t deadly dry? A popular book, maybe?

I rather liked Steven MIthen’s After the Ice: A Global Human History, 20,000 – 5,000BC. It’s been some years since I read it, but IIRC it was in reasonable accord with what Greg says above and in the OP. And it’s readable, though a bit of a doorstop. But…

Mark, there has never been a great overview of prehistory for the general public that wasn’t problematic in some way or another.

[Greg]

… So I could well be unaware of all sorts of issues.

>People will fight about the date for “proto-indo-european” languages or even is fuch a proto-thing existed or could be dates. The majority of historical linguists don’t accept this at all.

Can you clarify this point?

FWIW. I’m one of those who have enjoyed and shared this widely online originally – and thought at the time it was fascinating and completely factually accurate.

“Ice sheets around Alaska shrink, exposing a land bridge between Asia and North America.”

Beringia was never glaciated, people could just stroll across at the LGM.

Diamond’s books that look at the distant past do a good job of getting mostly out of the mold, but they are heavily criticized for being off at least a little on every fact, off a lot by some.

Modern day World Prehistory classes taught by good teachers are good. The line I’m giving you here in this post is the same that is currently normally given in modern day up to date classes.

I use The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies (Third Edition) as a textbook in those cases. I’m not sure it is the best but I like it a lot.Each area is covered by a different set of experts, so they’ll show some bias in how great their own area/time period is, but if you spread that across time and space the you are there.

I agree that the narrative of time needs to e uncomplicated and strong, and contain things people relate to. This can be done, easily, while a) getting the details right and b) not reifying the heternomrativewesternopatriarchy.

I would object that these are not nitpics. This is important stuff. Among the suggested issues one could rank them on a nitpic to serious points off if it was on an exam scale, and the most nitpicky thing would be how many floods happened in the scablands and when they happened, which probably doesn’t matter at all because the point is made, just a bit off.

I could see Munroe doing a followup where he depicts the vagaries of the non-linear progression of prehistory (he’s been more than willing to dive into such things previously), but for this I’d argue that the point he makes about climate change neccessitated a strong, uncomplicated narrative of prehistory – and I’m actually surprised he didn’t simplify it down further.