Richard Bulliet - History of the World to 1500 CE (Session 11/12) Age of Empires: Rome and Han China
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- This lecture is a combination of sessions 11 & 12
Topics:
Session 11 An Age of Empires: Rome and Han China, 753 B.C.E.-330 C.E. Part II
Session 12 Networks of Communication and Exchange, 300 B.C.E.-600 C.E.
Speaker: Richard Bulliet
Date: 10/14/2010
Course number: W3902
Course title: World History to 1500 CE
School: CC
Session 11&12 (10/14/10)
Another brilliant and witty lecture. I'm about half way through this series and very grateful to Columbia and UA-cam for including them. It's a pleasure to listen to Professor Bulliet who has an outstanding, modern perspective of the entire global and cultural view of people and history.
I started listening to the lectures as a means of falling asleep but got hooked on them instead!
People complain about the tangents but 90% of the time they're brilliant and surprisingly relevant. The mark of an exceptional professor is one who spills wisdom and insight even when distracted or rambling on...
just in case you still care personally I find your lectures not only educating but highly entertaining as well - the fact that they are available on the internet and thus available everyone means a lot and I hope that in the future more lecturers will follow your example
I thank you for sharing your knowledge with the world
This series is important, as Global History had not been taught previously as explained in his first lecture. He continually alludes to this... Western Civilization was taught not including much outside Europe. No books had been written like the book Bulliet worked on for this class.
The series is important in the 'history' of how History had been taught, and written (often only from the 'winners' as it were, for instance).
Mislabeled lecture. Ancient Rome and Han China were compared in lecture 9 in the series. This video is a lecture dealing with Africa.
i'm taking notes on his book right now
How about a theory on Stones hedge to accommodate Folks from Felled trees large Tepees.
Animals then domesticated in Proximity dependent for foods Clothing etc. besides farming?!
Brits likely Prof.Bulliet bereft of history Ancient clashes Aryans x Dravidas in Bihar Bengal turf basis Mahabharat battle epics, Rocks sculpt & Ship built owed to Proto Indians in Indo Ocean..
HAHAHA cool, he's the one that wrote my AP World Book xD
This professor sounds exactly like Wolf Blitzer.
Prof. Bulliet states at 1:03:30 that the earliest "Indian" kingdom in Southeast Asia of which we have knowledge is that of Srivijaya. This is not the case. The earliest Indianized--not "Indian"--Southeast Asian kingdom of which we have knowledge is that of Funan, in the Mekong region of southern Vietnam. Our earliest evidence of Funan dates from c. 250 CE while the earliest evidence for Srivijaya dates from c. 650 CE.
Can it really be said with certainty that agriculture was not grown in Napta Playa? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
There tends to be a lack of effort to look for evidence of agriculture prior to what is currently believed to be the beginning. This is largely due to a Biblical bias. Rarely does anyone even bother to dig a little deeper, unless it's in Europe. Even then it's a giant leap in depth (+32,000 years ago) and in areas that aren't river basins.
Moreover, when it comes to domesticating animals, it should be acknowledged that domestication is a gradual process. Some of the earliest Europeans to explore deep into North America, reported finding bears in cages. Similarly, African wild sheep were in the process of being domesticated.
Lastly, the fact there are several separate genetic mutations for lactose tolerance suggests a peculiar lack of diffusion. Therefore, if an animal was domesticated or crops were cultivated, the civilization could have petered out do to climate change, then buried by sand and lost to history. Suffice to say, much more effort needs to be made to find ruins older than 6,000 years ago.
ha - just ask those folks using CE or BCE or yourself what they think Of Jesus - I am sure you find mostly like yourself most probably you don't think much of Jesus.