Neanderthal Identity In Quest For Fire

Hollywood’s early depictions of Natives consisted of tribesmen and noble savages who are in tune with Nature. Films such as The Silent Enemy portray these stereotypes on screen with actors like Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance being shown as tribesmen who are very noble Natives. Although these stereotypes are positive, they are still stereotypes nonetheless. These stereotypes have caused

In this article, Miner takes the role of an outsider and judges the Nacirema just as we judge other cultures. Miner does an exceptional job of wording things in such a way that we don’t even recognize our own culture. Miner wants us to realize that when someone, such as an anthropologist describes another culture, we can interpret that into being abnormal but in actuality, it is, by all means, very normal.

Historical studies indicate that the New Guinea was one of the hottest countries, insect infested, and occupied by aggressive people. The Imbonggu community is one of the integral parts of the community. William E. Wormsley drew a special insight into the lives of these people after spending several years with them. In his fascinating book, the author uses an incisive, yet articulate, voice to describe the culture, social structure as well as bride wealth, religion, and magic among these people (Wormsley, 1993). During that period, New Guinea was specially known as a man-eating zone. The local people were reputed as cannibals, nasty and aggressive people. Therefore, as the anthropologist of his time, Wormsley was destined to critically analyze the group on their view of the white man. A study that released results that still struck the world with shock (Wormsley, 1993).

Horace Miner describes the people of the North American tribe the Naciremas as persons “devoted to economic pursuits (Body Ritual Among the Nacirema. Miner. 503.3.2)” and ritual activities of the human body. Miner uses a satirical style, play on words to abnormally describe such cultural upon this tribe. Throughout the text, Miner uses words and or phrases such as: “sadism, masochistic, neophyte, awls, and objects in the exorcism of the evils of the mouth involves almost unbelievable ritual torture of the client.” Horace Miner, uses those such words and phrases to describe the various everyday rituals conducted by the Naciremas by producing ethnocentrism through the readers of his text.

NAGPRA promises Native groups that remains would be returned to them if the remains were associated with their group, however Kennewick man does not necessarily “belong” to any specific group at this point in time. There are two perspectives to this dilemma: the Native perspective valuing the sacredness of the remains, and the scientific perspective valuing the eagerness to study the remains (Lee, 2008). Stories written by Donald Sampson and Rechanda Lee give insight on the Native perspective arguing that science is degrading Native American identity and disrespecting the culture and religion (Lee, 2008). They do not like that the graves of their ancestors are disturbed and dissected to be studied (Sampson, 2008). Traditional histories are important to Native American communities as it provides identity and lineage linked to their respected communities. Natives feel that a group of scientists should not be telling them what their history is as they have faith in what is passed down to them orally (Lee, 2008). Many Natives feel as if scientists need to show respect and let the Native communities be heard. (Lee, 2008). Scientists, however, are addressing Principle No.2 of the Principles of Archaeological Ethics as identifying the remains and associating them to a certain group determines who the remains actually belong to. Both Lee and Sampson argue that using the cranial morphology of Kennewick man to determine his race is the result of irrationality and imagination. Both of the passages that they wrote claim to be addressing the scientific aspect of Kennewick man, however they seem to be writing with a strong emotional language rather than scientific. In Sampson’s case, for example, he seems to be personally attacking the scientists involved with Kennewick man rather than the scientific evidence provided. The only scientific evidence that was addressed in these two

The author’s purpose in writing this article was not to show the “Nacirema” as an example of how extreme human behavior can become, but how an outside perspective can affect your perception of an alien culture. If one were to look at the “Nacirema’s” cultural behaviors regarding physical appearance and health without any insight or knowledge of the specific beliefs or values of that culture, they might seem bizarre and even incomprehensible. By showing behaviors and “rituals” performed by this unknown tribe, Miner allowed others to see that the way studies were representing distinctive cultures was narrowminded and defective. Without the proper comprehension of the basis of any society, huge cultural misunderstandings could occur. Of

Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for well over 100,000 years.  Then suddenly Homo neandertalensis began to die out and surrender the earth to Homo sapiens.  Paleontologists and anthropologists have entertained several possibilities to the causes of this event: interbreeding among Neanderthals and humans, competition for natural resources, and Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest.”  What the real cause has been has plagued scientists for years. Now, due to an international research team from Germany, those possibilities have been even further deduced, making it easier to pinpoint the exact reason Homo neandertalensis became extinct.

Yuval Noah Harari’s, “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”, give us a highly detailed description of the history of Homo Sapiens and how they came to take an evolutionary leap at a rate faster than any other living creature on Earth. At the forefront of Sapiens, is Harari’s idea about what made Homo Sapiens become so unimportant to rising up and becoming the most successful species on the planet. Throughout my analysis, I will bring up concepts and idea that Harari brings up throughout the novel.

The idea that Prehistoric Aboriginal culture is averse to change or is static is a belief shared by the minority. Although it can be said that Indigenous culture and our ancestral peoples share many similar or unchanged basic behaviour patterns, each society or culture can be distinguished from others by the certain configurative patterns or directives for why the Prehistoric peoples did or did not achieve things and how they were or were not achieved. This willingness to change and not be opposed to innovation and holding traditional values all the time, suggests that Prehistoric Aboriginal Culture was constantly changing. This essay discusses the concept that Prehistoric Aboriginal culture adopted a willingness to learn, change and grow through forms of art and culture, for both aesthetic and useful purposes. Secondly, the developing cultural intricacies will be deliberated, how hunter gatherer societies affected Prehistoric Aboriginal culture and how these complexities are the source of change for many Indigenous peoples through time.

Throughout the documentary “Decoding Neanderthals” there was a push of research to push the human view of Neanderthals. Over the year’s research showed that we coexisted with Neanderthals and out beat their species. Many believed that Neanderthals where like the stereotypical unintelligent and wild caveman. With new technology, enhanced research, and the exposing documentary “Decoding Neanderthals” pushed the boundaries of these past ideologies. Through this we have learned how intelligent, symbolic, and closely related this species is to homo-sapiens species. This research proved that the Neanderthal may have not became extent due to in ability to create weapons but, due to inter breading with humans

Humans are the most unique species on Earth. We have gained the ability to things never accomplished before on Earth. We can control our environment, domesticate other species, and more importantly, form complex connections and societies with one another. However, it is widely debated about how we evolved from simple ape-like foragers to the meat-eating, community-building species we are today. In this paper, we will be looking at three authors: Richard Wrangham, Pat Shipman, and Frans de Wall. Each of which approach this question from different directions.

As a result Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted for thousand of years both in Europe and in Asia, sometimes populating the same caves at different times, before Neanderthal extinction. Even though the prehistoric population density of Neanderthals and humans were probably very low and potential encounters could have been quite rare (Shea, 2007), their concurrence raises question about the type of interaction that must have happened between the two different populations and the possibility of interbreeding (Shreeve, 1995).

On Key Symbols Author(s): Sherry B. Ortner Reviewed work(s): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 75, No. 5 (Oct., 1973), pp. 1338-1346 Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/674036 . Accessed: 05/09/2012 09:42

Claude Levi-Strauss’s theory of binary oppositions was extremely influential in the anthropological world and fueled the reaction seen among the other anthropologists discussed here in this paper. Levi-Strauss proposed that binary oppositions are used to give things meaning; he argues that they act as organising principles of rituals and myths and construct the thought patterns of a culture. This can be seen, for example, in the way he examined and deconstructed myths: he asserted that every myth contained one or more sets of binary oppositions, saying that “all narratives have to be driven by a conflict that was caused by a series of opposing forces” (Levi-Strauss 34). This quote demonstrates how his believed all myths and rituals were based on universal contradictions. These contradictions within a myth are what it seeks to resolve within its narrative. In

The origin of modern human behavior is a subject in anthropology that accumulates much debate. Cognition is the dominant factor in such behavior, therefore raises the question, “when did this separation of intelligent or modern thought from the primitive come to daily behavior for our genus?” There are two such answers that hold experts in the field captive in debate: the rapid “imagination revolution” in the European-centrailized Upper Paleolithic, and the steadiness of cognitive growth provided first in Africa during the Middle Paleolithic. Although each argument provides supportive evidence for their perspective claims, the more naturally convincing shows this creative revolution taking place much earlier than the Upper Paleolithic. This explanations human cognition developing with no brisk advantageous revolutionary response, and instead by gradual means. This metamorphosis follows the pattern of biological human evolution. My argument combats the “imagination revolution” claim to the origins of creativity using specific artifacts dated earlier than those of European restrictions. Furthermore, it is the lack of excavation in Africa and the conditions of the terrain itself that pose problematic preservation of artifacts, unlike in Europe, to exonerate this innovative exclusivity. These pieces of evidence in Africa exemplify a higher process of thinking, commonly those showing deliberate means of bead and rock art used for both personal functions of expression. If art