Spotted in my local museum.
Never have I felt so impotently angry
>>3262792
Well, I can sympathize, that's the most retarded periodization I've ever seen.
whats the problem here
all human classifications of time periods are going to be arbitrary by their very definition
>>3262792
What's the context?
>>3262806
No. 42AD wasn't prehistoric by any legitimate definition.
>>3262792
>modern just arbitrarily starting in 1901
modern era started mid 18th century with industrial/political revolutions and the restructuring of society.
Before that was pre-modern, age of exploration and enlightenment, starting somewhere in the 16th century. And before that you finally have medieval. This chart just completely ignores that the last couple hundred or so years have been radically different than the medieval era of 15th century knights and lords and all that.
>>3262830
oh i didnt see that part lol
>>3262826
Part of a diorama of Saxon treasure finds.
Its basically the museum's only display.
That and a Spitfire MK14 that's falling apart
>>3262830
Prehistoric means before written records. Last time I checked there was no writing in Britain until the Romans arrived.
>>3262826
OP is an idiot not realizing that this specific periodiziation is tied to stratigraphy through specifically the English archaeological record - hence "Anglo-Saxon" and the transition between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Medieval" being 1066. 1901 is when Queen Victoria died. 1540 is when the last priory is dissolved by Henry VIII, thus the transition point between Catholic England and Protestant England. All these dates are commonly accepted by British archaeologists with maybe the start date of first Anglo-Saxon activity in Britain being shifted around a little because they can't agree on when precisely it happened. OP, not realizing almost any of this, spewed off.
>>3262792
were you not tall enough for the modern ride?
what am I supposed to be looking at here. please explain your autism.