The neolithic period, however, is not an historical subject. That is a period which can only be described as pre-history.
If you wish to start from the beginning, i suggest you look up a gentleman named Mommsen. Theodor Mommsen was a "classicist," which among historians, means that his area of concentration was "classical history," and in the 19th century, that meant the Greeks and Romans. His history was not restricted, however, to just the Romans and Greeks. In history textbooks well into the 20th century, in the United States, the references to the ancient history of the middle east is littered with citations of Mommsen. Mommsen's particular interest was the Roman Empire, and Roman law. To this day, no one has explored the subject as thoroughly. In 1902, shortly before he died, Mommsen was awarded the Nobel prize for the body of his life's work. It would be difficult, however, for you to find books to buy in English which had been written by Mommsen. You would be well advised to find a good library system which can find his books on interlibrary loan. His books remained in print for a half-century or more after his death, because he was justifiably considered
the source on ancient history, especially Roman history. I read them as a child, because even the small town library where i lived had English copies of his works, and most of them had been published fairly recently (the 1930s or -40s).
You can read about Mommsen in this Wikipedia article.
Otherwise, you should go to primary sources, which means, for all practical purposes, you would start with
The Histories by Herodotus. He is often criticized by modern historians for being naive, or lacking method. But he is careful to state that he is reporting what was told to him, as opposed to claiming that he knows things for a fact. His subject was, basically, the origins of the wars between the Greeks and Persians. He was modestly well-off, and he traveled extensively in the area of the eastern Mediterranean, visiting the scenes of action about which he wrote, and interviewing witnesses to events, or the descendants of witnesses. Along the way, he provides a great deal of information about the people of the region, and their legends and cultures, as well as the state of knowledge at that time. He is more honest than almost all other historians of the ancient world, because he does carefully point out that he is reporting what was told to him, rather than what he knows to be fact. Most ancient historians shamelessly lied about their subjects, even to the extent to putting long speeches into the mouths of famous men, which they could not possibly have heard, and for which they could not possibly have had witnesses with photographic memories. Also, so many ancient histories are panegyrics, which means works full of praise, which the writer produces because he greatly admires the person about whom he writes.
You earlier expressed an interest in Alexander III of Macedon (allegedly, Alexander "the Great"--as you probably have figured out for yourself, i don't personally believe that there was much great about him). There is a book which you shouldn't have any problem finding, either through the library or to order from a book store, which
Anabasis, usually rendered
The Anabasis. There are two such works which survive completely from classical times, one is the
Anabasis Kyrou, by Xenophon, an Athenian mercenary who was among those hired by a Persian petty king who wanted to overthrow his emperor. He failed, and lost the battle, but the Greek mercenaries, immortalized as "the Ten Thousand," survived and marched away to the north. They were in the area of what is today central Iraq. They marched to the coast of the Black Sea, so that, technically, it was not an
anabasis, but a
katabasis.
Anabasis means "the march up country," and refers to a march inland from the sea;
katabasis means a march from the interior to the coast. However, the Greeks marched north, and were obliged to march through what are now the mountains of northern Iraq, through the area of the Kurds, so it certainly seemed to them like a march upcountry. It is a famous work of ancient literature, and it has assured that the name of Xenophon lives on, more than two thousand years after he died. He wrote a good deal more, which ought to be of more intellectual interest, but he is remembered for that book.
The other
Anabasis is the
Anabasis Alexandri, or "The march up country of Alexander." Lucius Flavius Arrianus, known generally as Arrian, was a Romanized Greek who lived in the first century. Obviously, the account is not contemporary, but it is the only complete history of the campaigns of Alexander which is based on first-person accounts of eye-witnesses such as Aristobulus, Nearchus and Callisthenes (who was the nephew of Aristotle). Arrian also had a complete copy of the biography of Alexander by Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander's generals and allegedly his half-brother. Ptolemy founded the Greco-Macedonian dynasty that ruled Egypt for more than two centuries, finally ending with the suicide of Cleopatra (Cleopatra was a common name of women in Macedonia in the era of Alexander, Alexander's sister was named Cleopatra). Arrians work is the most complete account, and not just because it has survived in full, but because he made the effort of a sincere and competent historian to write a complete account of Alexander's campaigns. The account is refreshingly free of judgmental passages--he neither condemns nor praises Alexander. To read this book, you will want to look for "The Anabasis of Arrian," because otherwise, you'll probably come up with the book by Xenophon. To add to the confusion, Arrian was called "Xenophon" in the largely Greek communities in which he lived.
When you've digested that, come back and i'll give you a list of primary sources for the Romans. Unfortunately, there are no great literary histories by western writers about China or Japan, so digging through the library is just about your best bet for that.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace