Prior to the European Enlightenment, did any humans achieve a worldview which excluded any requirement for any supernatural agency?

I understand that some Ancient Greek philosophers may have come close: Democritus, perhaps; or Socrates (although he was only accused of believing in the wrong gods); maybe Epicurus (and his Roman follower Lucretius), but they still imagined some unknowable sentient beings in an eternal life of bliss.

(My main follow-up question might be more anthropological or archeological than historical: Is there any evidence for when Homo sapiens first invented the idea of gods? )…. Maybe I could ask: Why and how did Homo sapiens invent the idea of a single god (rather than many gods)? Was monotheism just a consequence of organised war and patriarchy or did it have some other reason?

Just curious to know if the historians here prefer that questions be asked in a certain way to be more intelligible in order to encourage responses.

When discussing premodern republics it is usually stressed that despite being "self governing" these were no means inherently democratic, governance was often highly closed off and social life still characterized by social stratification and hierarchy. Which leads to the question of what the experience of republics were for those who were shut out of a direct role in government as surely as if they were in a princely state. Did the republican systems of government in Florence provide real benefit to the poor as opposed to the despotism of Milan? Was it "better" to be poor in Venice than in Naples, or did these details of government structure not really effect those outside of the small group eligible for officeholding?

I know other factors influenced the American Craft Beer/Microbrewery trends of the late 70s onwards, like the legalization of homebrewing under Carter in '79, the popularization of cask and traditional ales from Belgium and Germany and the success of Anchor Brewing Co in 1965, and the USDA/Oregon State trials in releasing new hop varietals like Cascade and Williamette that were more flavoursome, but

a) why the gravitation towards British heritage beer styles when German brewing had strongly influenced the American Brewing industry since the 1860s,

b) Why such a focus on IPAs, pales and stouts (to a lesser extent porters) and ignoring other styles like bitters, milds, golden ales among others?

My knowledge of astronomy history is limited to the eurocentric perspective, but as I am learning Japanese, it seems the planets are named as if they were stars (e.g. Mars = 火星 ( かせい ) = Fire Star, which got me curious to ask this question.

I understand that cricket and baseball probably share historical roots, but I was wondering about the origin of the concept of assigning specific rules for hits outside the field of play.

I feel like the idea could have originated to prevent batting teams from scoring runs indefinitely until the ball was retrieved.

Thanks in advance.

(I submitted this question two years ago and never got a response, so I'm trying again...)

I am curious how a historian is able to differentiate between myth and history, especially in things like ancient Greek writings, where there is no differentiation between the two, or in things like folk legends that are unlikely to have left any records at the time they originally occurred. When a story has a long oral tradition complete with embellishments and mythologizing before it's ever written down, how does a historian decide whether it began in fact or fiction? Is there any way to reliably tell? Could a historian say something like "there's about a 50/50 chance this event really happened" or is there pressure to pick one side or the other? If there's no obvious reason for the writer to lie, is there any reason not to trust the account?

I ask because I have recently watched a history documentary series than presents King Arthur as being purely mythological, but the story of the death of the Greek playwright Aeschylus (an eagle dropped a turtle on his bald head) as fact. I had always thought Arthur was based on a historical figure - but this seems to have been hotly debated for centuries? Another controversially-historical story that comes to mind is that of John Henry. Is the Aeschylus story accepted because no one would have any reason to make it up?

I know 'blast of flavor' is a nebulous thing and would depend on where one was in the world. I suppose what I think of 'blast of flavor' would be something with an extreme of flavor, be it sour or spicy or sweet etc. Would most peasants during the medieval era(s) have access to something like that? Do we have contemporary accounts of peasants experiencing a new 'extreme' food and their reactions to them?

My mom was born in 1938. By the time she got married in 1959 she had false teeth. I asked her about it when I was young, and she told me that she had “gum disease” as a teenager and the dentist pulled all her teeth and gave her dentures. Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s I remember that dentures were a common part of life - there were always commercials for denture cream and fizzy denture cleaning tablets on TV, and there was a comedic trope about grandpa’s dentures that would show up in sitcoms. I don’t know anyone of my own generation who has dentures, and I don’t really hear anything about dentures in pop culture anymore. Were dentists more prone to give patients false teeth in the first half of the 20th century? Why did that change?

I know a large body of historians disagreed with diamonds arguments. What would you say he missed in his argument of guns germs and steel? Was there an oversight? Is there something else or more important needed to develop successful cities?

Furthermore, did any cultures/cities view Ares and Poseidon or similar gods in negative terms due to war and the sea being far more dangerous than other aspects of life?

Japanese offices would be armed with these, and lead the banzai charge while waving it about. But would they not just get shot straightaway?

Are there any accounts/first hand stories of soldiers dying to samurai swords? Ie, not executed as POW, but in hand to hand combat.

I have seen a lot of maps with arrows that show various tribes move around the mediterranean. But how did it happen in practice? Did the whole tribe simply pack up and leave? Did the whole tribe attack with all their women, children and elderly in toe??? That would mean that most people in the horde wouldn't have been capable of actually fighting. Wouldn't they have been extremely vulnerable to ANYBODY counterattacking them?

So were they just men planning to return home after they complete the raid? Were they young men looking for riches and women elsewhere never planning to return?

Wouldnt they have been absorbed back into the slave trade if they’d been returned to the port they sailed from? It seems unlikely the navy would have been able to get them back to their original homes, and I don’t see how they could successfully integrate into other societies.

If I remember correctly he wasn't in St. Petersburg at the time, but was there anything he did that made the violence more likely, and was there anything he could have done to prevent it?

I watched Ivanhoe (1952) for the first time last night, great film btw, but a huge undercurrent in it is a conflict between "Saxon" peasants and Norman nobility, with few saxon nobles left.

I know Ivanhoe was written during the romantic era of the early 19th century so most likely it's more of a reflection of that early modern nationalism than medieval politics, but I'm still curious about it.

When I was doing my bachelor's degree in history not too long ago, I found that most of my professors felt European political and military history have long received too much emphasis, and their courses were structured accordingly. While I respect their perspective, one result of it is that I received no real foundation in either of these subfields. I would be interested in acquiring such a foundation both for my own edification and so that I have a better appreciation of the school of thought (if you will) which my professors were reacting against. What texts would you recommend to me?

If what I have outlined above is too broad: geographically, Britain and France are of special interest to me; chronologically, the nineteenth century is. However, I am open to as wide a range of suggestions as you are willing to offer me.

Thank you so much!