Yes that is very true, though as I read it, it is the main issue which the video attempts to address. One of the reasons that the idea of ages, is so deeply rooted in education and popular culture, is of course because, the ages idea, dates right back into the nineteenth century, (If you disregard the classical ages of the ancient Greek Roman world ) when the understanding of history was in its infancy, and people were just begining to grope their way through the mists using the evidence of early archaeology, to try and find some structure in the past. Structure perhaps being a nineteenth century obsession, and much of modern scientific history has been about adding nuance to that and exploring how messy history really is, which I find endlessly fascinating.

And of course, education tends to reflect the historical narrative of discovery, to use as its structure for teaching children, so that for many people who never progress very far into the sciences, that early schooling becomes their framework for understanding. That may not be a good thing for the popular understanding of history, but in biology in many countries it has proved disastrous, with many people being schooled in plant classification and anatomy (early developments ), yet never reaching evolutionary theory, which was usually only taught to advanced classes, yet which is of course at the core of the subject, and the main source of even begining to understanding it at all. And sadly I am sure that the churches had a hand in making sure the teaching was framed that way.

Thank you for your comment and hope I have not gone on too long, but I find the history of science itself a very interesting subject.

History is cruel, and always writen by the winners.

Yes, he also I felt failed to spot the point when talking about the Americas and saying that they "preffered" silver and gold, that the same thing appied in the old world at the begining of the bronze age. And that the Americas perhaps just did not have time to make it beyond the early stages. He did that possibly to sell the idea of Bronze Age, rather than just the begining of a Bronze Age, which is spinning it a bit.

Not 100% wrong. He simply said "they couldn't get it" - so Australia skipped that age. Pretty reasonable, logical, and accurate.

@Robecology But the Natives could get at it and they did use it except they used it and ochres for paints instead of smelting it into utensils and weapons.

@Triphid Evidence? Links? facts please?

@Robecology Would you like to help the expenses of me going all over Australia photographing EVERY sacred site, every piece of rock painting, interviewing EVERY Elder of EVERY Tribe and Clan or, as one who not only has Australian Native Genetic Heritage and has been recognized by a number of tribes/clans as an Elder, would you prefer to take my word for it?

@Triphid I have no idea what travels you've been on.

Simple evidence, documentation, pictures, would suffice.

I'm glad you allegedly have evidence that the ancients of Australia had a "bronze" age...now be a big boy scientist and show us that evidence.

@Robecology Firstly, define 'bronze age' as in relation to the lifestyles of the Australian Native Peoples please.
Since my earlier reply/comment was that they knew of and utilized copper and tin deposits found in Australia NOT as means for smelting into tools/artifacts BUT as tints just as they did with earth based ochres in their tribal art, etc.