Theories Of Out Of Africa Theory

When I began reading Chapter 1 of “Mistaking Africa,” it reminded me of our first class meeting. Professor Crowley asked us to do the same exercise Curtis Keim talks about in the text. Professor Crowley asked us what comes to mind when we think about Africa. It is a great exercise and allow us to express our perceptions of Africa. Even in class, it took me time to think about what comes to mind when I hear the word Africa, because I have not really heard much about it besides the common misconceptions: “Africa is a primitive place, full of trouble and wild animals, and in need of our help” (5). I frequently see the UNICEF commercial with Alyssa Milano, who asks her viewers how it would feel to be able to save a child’s life for fifty cents a day. The commercial precedes to play really depressing music and shows a slideshow of undernourished children, who fend for themselves in

Mousterian tradition. They created sets of tools with great variety and finely trimmed cutting edges. Flint stone properly chipped forms a cutting edge sharper than a steel scalpel.

The first tools developed during the Paleolithic Era were made from chipped stones, wood and bone, and "nets from plant fibers and animal sinew" (Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson, n.d.: 2). The Neolithic Era brought forth greater specialization. People began to make chisels, drills, and saws to address specific needs and also polished stones to create sharper and more defined points (Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson, n.d.: 2). Language scholars trace the development of the first forms of systematized language to this era: "The crucial evolutionary development that led to the burst in creativity in the Neolithic was the emergence of human language as a method for integrating across cognitive modules" (MacWhinney 2005: 383). During this era, the use of stones began to have a utilitarian purpose in a manner that showed more sophisticated thinking.

There are manifold stone tool industries, however there are two especially prevalent technocomplexes; the Oldowan and the Acheulean. Although perhaps not the most intricate instances of implement development, they are the oldest and describe their creators’ lifestyles; information that would otherwise be all but lost. The gradual evolution of these tools over millions of years portray a clear change in the users acclimatisation to new and varied environments, as well as their cultural adaptations. This essay will aim to analyse, through comparison, the varying behavioural adaptations of early Homonins, taking into account the factors of diet, ranging patterns, and the development of social behaviour.

Before the Columbian Exchange, Native Americans had several weapons, such as knives, spears, and bows and arrows, however, the weapons were not very strong, and their uses were highly limited. Their knives, crafted out of obsidian, could not be reused, and some animals needed to be hit with multiple arrows before dying. Additionally, spears could only be thrown so far, and whether or not it killed a certain animal depended on both the strength of the creature and the person throwing the

In the quest to explain human origins it is necessary to find a species that bridges modern man (Homo sapiens) with the apes. To fill this gap evolutionists have set forth Homo erectus, who lived approximately 400,000 to 1.6 million years ago (Johanson and Shreeve1989). Although the distinctions are somewhat vague, below the neck, Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are practically Identical and Homo erectus was responsible for pioneering the use of standard tools (such as the hand axe), big-game hunting, and the use of fire (Johanson and Shreeve1989).

Back in the Stone Age, the early man created tools to help them do everyday tasks they needed to survive. In document #2, figure 2 shows a variety of tools and weapons created by early man such as bows, arrows, and spear throwers and so on. The materials needed to make these include bones, antlers, and teeth because they were durable. Some types of tools that early man made was sharper blades for hunting, fishhooks for fishing, and needles for sewing. In document #5, a picture shows a group of people doing tasks to help out with the community. One woman is crafting fur/skin into clothes, another woman is taking care of a child and the men are hunting for food. Without tools, these tasks would take a longer time to accomplish and would be even harder to do. Depending on the group, the cultures could be different, which could effect on how they make a

These stone tool might have served as a chopper, useful in cutting wood, cracking nuts, or breaking open bones for their marrow.One advance was the development of composite tools, like the spear.To maintain a successful Hunting/Gathering economy, these early modern humans had to be mobile. That is, they had to be able to relocate often and quickly. Hunter/Gatherers could not afford to gather possessions. They had no pack animals to help them carry loads

In the beginning of the Paleolithic Era, bands of humans progressively migrated from East Africa to Eurasia, Australia, and then to the Americas while adapting to their new regions. During the Paleolithic era, hominids used crude tools like clubs and choppers to crack open bones, simple axes, and scrapers to prepare animal hides. As the years went on the Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Homo sapiens amended these tools and created new ones. They made these tools so that they can provide shelter, protection, defense from other predators, food, and also clothing. As the Paleolithic era was ending, the hominids were building much more innovative wood and stone structures. They also started

[pic]we also noticed the different types of tools used to hunt from the lowest level to the most current level and retouched flakes prevailed during all periods we have determined by our excavations. This was a favorite weapon to hunt and perhaps used to hunt larger preys found in the area. The use of end scraper also prevailed for many years and it was probably used to tear up the skin to cover themselves in the cold winter time. Other tools were also found, but a significant lower number.

This is often seen in ax heads and maces. Obsidian mirrors are made in the same grounding process. Bone needles used for stitching clothes were also found. My point with identifying all these different methods of making tools is that it is highly unlikely that each and every household had the skills to do all these functions. There must have been class levels in this society and since there wasn’t any sign of currency they must have used some sort of bartering system attain these services. Like a hunter going to get his ax re-sharpened and paying the craftsmen with some game that he has killed.

The Out of Africa Theory is a widely renown theory describing the origin of the human race and their early dispersal throughout the world. According to this theory, humans have a monogensis, or a single and common origin; Africa. The concept was first introduced in 1871 by Charles Darwin but was deliberated for years until further studies of mitochondrial DNA and evidence ”based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens” was added.

Human evolution is the gradual process in which people, or Homo sapiens, originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence, particularly in the form of fossils and secondary remains, show that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people evolved over a period of approximately six million years. Humans are primates. Both genetic and physical similarities show that humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa, chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The volume of fossils found in Africa suggests that most evolution occurred there and is likely the place of origin for early humans. This brings to fruition the “out of Africa” theory, also called the “single-origin hypothesis.”

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

By a method called direct percussion, a core stone called a biface was hit with a hammer stone to produce flakes. The biface was made into choppers called the Oldawan pebble