After you've read Part I: From Eden to Cajamarca, identify one point or issue with which you agree, disagree, or about which you would like to learn more. Use the SVHS databases or the Internet to find out more.
Your comment to this post should include the author, title, source, link or database title, and a summary of the source. In your summary, please explain why you choice this particular topic for further exploration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAuthor: N/A (Editor: Jennifer Stock)
ReplyDeleteTitle: “Homo Sapiens Migrate from Africa: c. 85,000–55,000 bce”
Source: Gale: Student Resources in Context
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=SUIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=SUIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CQUXAVA064692866&source=Bookmark&u=hell32414&jsid=fa66a745059150c825b0e745819adba0
Summary: The article begins by briefly reviewing that humans originated and spread from Africa. Then the article discusses how humans evolved from the primate, Australopithecines. This primate lived in Africa from 4 to 2.5 million years ago. Millions of years later the closest species to modern day humans, Homo erectus, emerged. Homo erectus migrated out of Africa and into the Jordan Rift Valley, the modern day Java, China, and Republic of Georgia around 1.8 million years ago. Next, the article examines Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago in Africa. Then, between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago their mental capacity increased, making them even closer to modern humans. The article progresses to explore how Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa around 80,000-50,000 bce. They migrated northeast and crossed into the area that borders current Turkey and Egypt from the Mediterranean Sea. In order to migrate across Africa the early humans would have needed to cross the Sahara, Negev, and Sinai deserts. Therefore, the ideal time for crossing these dry regions was during a period of increased rainfall around 140,000 to 110,000 years ago. During this time period, the deserts transformed into savannas with water and game. Once Homo sapiens reached the Middle East they eventually spread to Asia and later Europe, Australia, North America, and South America. The article concludes by briefly evaluating how humans settled in different geographic areas adapted differently. In essence, the article expands upon Jared Diamond’s brief explanation of how the first human ancestor spread to Asia in “Up to the Starting Line”.
I choose this article because at first I was confused after reading Diamond's quick discussion on the origins of humanity and I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of what I was reading.
DeleteNo link necessary for database resources
DeleteAuthors: Denise Davis and Maui Solomon
ReplyDeleteTitle: Story: Moriori
Source: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand
Link: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/moriori
Summary:
The source explains the history of the Moriori people and how they took a vow of peace called Nunuku’s Law. After 1791, a ship brought over Europeans and Maori people to the Chatham Islands where the Moriori lived. The Maori began to kill and enslave the Moriori people even though they were outnumbered greatly. The moriori had almost double the population of the Maori but they would not fight back because of their vow of peace. It also talks about the revival of the Moriori people who are still low in numbers. This relates to Diamond’s argument about the meeting of the Maori and Moriori people being “a natural experiment of history” (GGS, 53-57). Although the two peoples came from a common ancestor, their people and culture evolved differently when they separated onto different islands. The stronger, more violent Maori people attacked the Moriori people because they knew they would be successful. Throughout history, there have been more events like this but on a larger scale. This small “experiment” shows what has happened as the countries fought to get to where they are now. Currently, the U.S. has the strongest military although they are not the largest in the world which is a good example of how the Maori people were compared to the peaceful Moriori. I chose this topic to further explore because I believed it was an accurate representation of the world’s history and I wanted to know more about the two peoples since they originated from a common ancestor but once separated, became very different from each other.
Evidence from the text
ReplyDeleteIn GGS Diamond states, ”Despite being depicted in innumerable cartoons as apelike brutes, Neanderthals had brains slightly larger than our own” (Diamond, 38). I found this interesting because I am interested in how brain size correlates with intelligence. Moreover, I would like to know why Diamond included this statement above in his book, since he seems to imply that brain size is correlated to intelligence in mammals. He implies this because he uses it as a refutation to strengthen his argument that the Neanderthals were not “dumb brutes” and were the first humans to care for their sick and bury their dead.
Historical Background on Neanderthals
Author: Erik Trinkaus
Title: Neanderthal
Source: Infotopia: Encyclopedia Britannica
Link: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal
Summary:
This article discusses the origins of Neanderthal evolution (between 300,000 and 100,000 years ago) to when Neanderthals evolved into more modern day humans (roughly 30,000 years ago). According to Trinkaus, Neanderthals inhabited Europe and Asia from the Atlantic to about mid-Asia. Trinkaus also includes a segment on Neanderthal brain size, stating “Brain size gradually increased to reach modern human volumes relative to body mass, although Neanderthal brains and braincases tended to be somewhat longer and lower than those of modern humans” (see article). Thus by the time Neanderthals went extinct, their brain size was relatively larger than that of a modern day human.
Study- Brain size may correlate with intelligence
Author: Simon M. Reader and Kevin N. Laland
Title: Social Intelligence, Innovation, and Enhanced Brian Size in Primates
Source: Google Scholar: Biological Sciences - Evolution
Link: http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2227/content/99/7/4436.full
Summary:
This article states that brain size most likely correlates with intelligence. Reader and Laland use MRI scans to measure cognitive ability as well as innovation, social learning, and use of tools to conduct this experiment. Their results are as follows, “A comparative analysis of 533 instances of innovation, 445 observations of social learning, and 607 episodes of tool use established that social learning, innovation, and tool use frequencies are positively correlated with species' relative and absolute “executive” brain volumes, after controlling for phylogeny and research effort.” Therefore, they conclude that there is an empirical link between intelligence and brain size in mammals.
Study- Brain size does not correlate with intelligence
Author: Dr. Nancy C. Andreasen, et. al.
Title: Intelligence and Brain Structure in Normal Individuals
Source: Google Scholar: The American Journal of Psychiatry
Link: http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2506/?sid=google&auinit=NC&aulast=Andreasen&atitle=Intelligence+and+brain+structure+in+normal+individuals&id=doi:10.1176/ajp.150.1.130&title=American+journal+of+psychiatry&volume=1&date=1993&spage=50&issn=0002-953X
Summary:
This article states that brain size does not correlate with intelligence. Dr. Nancy C. Anderson and her team of doctors also use MRI scans to “measure the volume of the intracranial cavity, cerebral hemispheres, lateral ventricles, temporal lobes, hippocampus, caudate, and cerebellum, as well as the overall volume of gray matter, white matter, and CSF” (Andreasen, et. al). They find that cognitive processing was not related to caudate and lateral ventricle volume. Therefore, they could not conclude an obvious link between brain size and intelligence in mammals.
Conclusions
The two articles about brain size correlating to intelligence both use MRI scans and various brain stimulations, however, they both reach different conclusions. Therefore, I question Diamond’s decision to include this segment related to brain size, since he seems to imply that brain size is related to intelligence.
Very impressive!
DeleteAuthor: Biography.com Editors
ReplyDeleteTitle: Francisco Pizzaro
Source: Biography.com
Link: http://www.biography.com/people/francisco-pizarro-9442295
Summary:
After reading about the battle at Cajamarca, I took interest in the key people involved, most notably, Francisco Pizzaro, the Spanish conquistador. I have since researched his background and have gathered a greater understanding in his actions in South America.
Based upon Pizzaro's early life; born illegitimately and in a state of poverty, it seems feasible that Pizzaro was eager to prove himself to the world. With this being said, this could be a factor in his decision to decimate Atahualpa in his conquering of Peru, then founded the new capital city of Lima, himself.
I found it intriguing as well the civil war that ensued between the fellow conquistadors in the aftermath of the battle at Cajamarca that led to Francisco Pizzaro's eventual demise. Diamond mentions Christianity as a reason for Spanish intervention in the Americas, yet Spanish rule also brings forth European conflict.
As Diamond stated, it was greed that fueled the Spanish in their overseas endeavors.
Author: Paul Chapman
ReplyDeleteTitle: Tribe wins justice over 1835 massacre
Source: The Telegraph
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/1312121/Tribe-wins-justice-over-1835-massacre.html
Summary: The clash between the Moriori and Maori groups sublimely describes how a "Natural Experiment of History" can further our knowledge of how humans have evolved into different groups with different advantages and disadvantages across the world today. I chose to research this topic because it fascinates me that one group separated for many years, then clashed as two completely different groups with different views. The articles begins by talking about the 1835 clash between the two groups. Word had reached to a Maori tribe that the entire Moriori population were pacifists. They immediately sailed to Chatham Islands and completely took over the islands. Moriori members that were not killed were enslaved by the Maori's and were forced to do whatever they were told to do. The land was occupied by the Maori's for 35 years and by that time there were only 100 Moriori's left. Then, in 1870 the Native Lands Court gave 97 percent of the land to the Maori's, and the remaining 3 percent to the Moriori's. The last full-blooded Moriori survivor was Tommy Solomon, who died in 1933. After the death of Solomon, a few descendants took a case to the Waitangi Tribunal which upheld their compensation on the 15th of June in 2001. The jury stated that the Moriori's were not housed with adequate conditions and they were forced to do "extreme labor". This article connected to Diamond’s statements about how the Moriori group were pacifists and how the Maori group was warlike after the two groups originally split up. I believe that Diamonds arguments are fully valid of how the entire world was descended from one group, and the migration of these people to different parts of the world is how some countries are completely different from other countries.
Author: History.com Staff
ReplyDeleteTitle: Pizarro traps Incan emperor Atahualpa
Source: History.com
Link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pizarro-traps-incan-emperor-atahualpa
Summary: Francisco Pizarro, a Spanish conquistador, met with Incan emperor Atahualpa in the town Cajamarca. Pizarro first reached out to the emperor by inviting him to a feast, along with 5,000 of his soldiers unarmed. The Incans still outnumbered the Spanish, who only had less than 200 men available. At the feast, a friar tried to convert Atahualpa to Catholicism and failed, which triggered the Spanish soldiers to open fire and slaughter every single Incan present, except for Atahualpa. On top of that, the Spanish suffered no casualties. Pizarro kept the emperor as a prisoner, and requested large quantities of gold and silver in return for his freedom. Atahualpa's ransom was met, however, Pizarro decided to execute him anyways. Atahualpa's death was only the beginning of Europe's conquest in the Americas. After reading "Collision at Cajamarca" I became very curious of how Pizarro managed to capture Atahualpa, despite being so heavily outnumbered.
Title: Armor and Weapons of the Spanish Conquistadors
ReplyDeleteAuthor: Christopher Minster
Source: Latin American History on about.com
Link: http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquest/a/09armsconquest.htm
Summary: During the Spanish era of conquest notably in Latin America and the South Pacific, they used numerous technical and military advantages over the indigenous tribes which resulted in major military victories with little to no losses on the Spanish side. However, their victory resulted in mass bloodshed for native peoples who encountered the Spanish as well as the toppling of empires that lasted thousands of years in sometimes just a few months. One of the advantages they used were horses. These creatures unknown to the American natives provided a killing platform for the Spanish unrivaled by the hordes of attacking natives. These horses enabled the Spanish to travel faster, farther and longer than the natives on foot. Another tool the Spanish used to their advantage in was there armor. At the time Spanish armor was known to be the best in world as there soldiers were covered from head to toe in steel armor which was all but invulnerable to the primitive weapons of the native peoples. This allowed the Spanish to defeat huge numbers of enemies and emerge virtually unscathed. Another tool the Spanish used to there advantage was the there weapons themselves. From steel swords to to the first muskets and cannons these conquistadors were armed to they teeth with cutting edge killing machines that the natives had never seen before nor new of their power. While also giving the Spanish a tactical edge they also gave them a psychological edge as well. The earsplitting cracks of the cannon and rifles as well as the formidable appearance of the Spanish armor made the fear more than just physical. All of these advantages combined were what allowed the Spain's who numbered in the mere hundreds to defeat millions of native Aztecs and Mayans.
Explanation: As shown in the book by Pizzaro's conquest of the Aztecs in the victory of Cajamarca, the elite Spanish conquistadors had massive advantage over the comparatively primitive native tribes. The article confirms this in the respect that it agrees with the claim that the Spanish had major developments in armor and weapon quality over the natives. Their use of horses also provided them with major physical and psychological advantages as well as stated in the book. To conclude, Diamond's statements about the Spanish military advantage over the are clearly confirmed and agreed with by the article.
I choose this topic to further research due to my interest in military history
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTitle: A Moriori Lesson
ReplyDeleteLink: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/206572/moriori-lesson-paul-gallant
Source: National Review (from Sweet Search)
Author: Paul Gallant
Summary/Explanation:
In general this article contains detail about the Moriori, their relationship with the Maori, and Nunuku’s law. The Moriori were said to be the first people to inhabit the Chatham Islands, and through study, share an ancestor with the Maori. When the Moriori first settled, they carried with them a belligerent culture. Eventually, through much endless fighting, Nunuku, the chieftain, stood between the warriors and declared peace, cursing, “‘May your bowels rot the day you disobey’”. Little were they aware that this would not turn out to be a method of survival. In 1791, when Europeans migrated to the Islands, they stole the Moriori land and brought disease with them, wiping out 10-20 percent of the Moriori population. Then, when the Maori came to the land and began to fight, the Moriori did nothing to reciprocate. This resulted in the death of about 95 percent of the Moriori people.
This article relates to Diamond’s argument as discussed in Chapter 2: A Natural Experiment of History. Diamonds mentions how this history shows the effect of environments on human societies. Due to the newly introduced peaceful culture of the Moriori, they became unsuited for the environment they were in and the relationships they were to be met with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTitle: “Kamehameha the Great”
ReplyDeleteLink http://www.nps.gov/puhe/learn/historyculture/kamehameha.htm
Summary:
In the section titled “A Natural Experiment of History,” the second chapter of Guns, Germs, and Steel; it is this chapter that Diamond describes the Polynesian Islands, and the social complexity of their culture. He briefly goes into detail, about how even though some of the Hawaiian islands are unified, some of them were not entirely unified until King Kamehameha I of the Big Island used supplies from the Europeans, including weapons, and general supplies, to rule the entirety of the Hawaiian Archipelago. I found this to be an interesting topic that I thought I should learn more about, in order to have a greater understanding of the way that the Hawaiian Islands developed culturally, and politically. Also, I wanted to learn more about his specific conquests and how the foreign supplies he received were crucial to his victory. This source describes how Kamehameha’s life from when he was born, sometime between 1753 and 1761, to his death in 1819. It begins by recounting the civil war battle that would eventually lead to his takeover of the monarchy on the Big Island. Then it goes into details about how his purchases of the foreign weapons and the surrender of his island to the British, who did promise to protect them, as a guardian. It was with these many advantages that Kamehameha managed to conquer each of the islands in the archipelago, except for Kaua’i, which he would rule through a compromise that was made with the islands current rulers. Throughout the entirety of this entire, I found that the Europeans aid was absolutely necessary for Kamehameha to achieve his ultimate victory in unifying the Hawaiian Islands.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAuthor: None Given
DeleteNational Park Sevice
Title: The First Americans
ReplyDeleteAuthor: Robert Adler
Source: New Scientist
Link: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=6178bb7e-3a1f-447e-85db-9f69e7f59163%40sessionmgr115&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d
Summary: Human footprints found in Mexico are thought to be over 30,000 years older than the clovis hunters, who were originally thought to be the first americans. To find out if the prints were valid, the archeologists preformed multitudes of tests to prove that they are real. The prints were validated and by using them and bones found, they were able to hypothesize that the first humans americans were not Siberians but may have resembled South Asians or Australians. While no one is sure if the prints are from the first Americans, the site where the prints were found is definitely old.
This relates to Guns, Germs, and Steel because Diamond mentions how it is believed that Clovis Hunters were the first Americans, but evidence was found that may prove these people otherwise. The site the footprints were found at could be used as people may have lived in the Americas before the Clovis Hunters populated the area.
I chose this topic because the idea of the first humans interests me and I wanted to know more about the first people to live in America.
DeleteNo link necessary for database - just identify title & publisher of database
DeleteAuthor: Rekohu
ReplyDeleteTitle: "Invasion"
Source: rekohu.wordpress.com
Link: https://rekohu.wordpress.com/2007/07/
Summary: This article describes the attack on the Moriori in 1835. The peaceful, major inhabitants of the Chatham Islands, the Moriori came under siege by the western civilized Maori. On the island in 1835, there were around 1,700 Moriori and only a few Maori, but most of the Moari were living on the mainland of New Zealand. These Maori left New Zealand in order to take over Samoa, but Chatham offered them a more rewarding opportunity with little risk associated because of the Moriori's lack of knowledge about combat. The first ship to reach the Chatham Islands did not attack the Moriori and was treated with hospitality by the Moriori, but the second ship came with the intention to conquer the island. The Moriori did not wish to kill the invaders, they even had a meeting and decided not to fight back even though they were trained to fight with guns. The Maori were a custom to killing. The Maori killed hundreds of the inhabitants and ate them. Many more of them were enslaved. The death total in accordance to the Moriori was 1,561 and only 101 Moriori were alive in 1862. The race finally died out in 1933. The Moriori have been claimed by the government, a myth, but also as a race by court decisions. Today there is still confusion about the Moriori in the eyes of the government and average citizens of New Zealand. This relates to Diamonds section in chapter 2 "A Natural Experiment of History" because he gives an overview of the Moriori massacre. This article agrees that the Maori were brutal killers and cannibals as stated in the book. However, this article gave insight that the Moriori were trained how to defend themselves and owned guns but never used them because of their strongly held beliefs. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, it says that the Moriori did not have guns. I chose this subject because I wanted to learn more about why a peaceful race would be slaughtered by another race.
Author: N/A
ReplyDeleteTitle: What Impact Does the Environment Have on Us?
Source: http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/healing-environment/what-impact-does-environment-have-us
Article 1 Summary: This article is about how people are affected by the surrounding environment in which they live in. It mentions how a person chooses which environment they live in by certain qualities of the area. It gives examples on how certain environments can be healthier, reduce stress, or enhance social interactions. People choose to live in environments that affect them in a positive way instead of negatively. The person also chooses an environment that creates a safety and security feeling instead of a hostile feeling. People do not choose to live in bad environments that are harmful to them. This connects to Part 1 of Guns, Germs, and Steel because in this part Diamond discuses how people of early history were strongly influenced by their environment. They chose where to live and how to live based on the surrounding environment.
Author: Bamber Gascoigne
ReplyDeleteTitle: History of Migration
Source: History World
Link: http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?groupid=1278&HistoryID=ab18>rack=pthc
Explanation/Summary:
Overall, the article I chose discusses the history of human evolution. The article starts off with an explanation of Australopithecus Africanus. Australopithecus Africanus was the first human species to evolve, starting in Africa. This species introduced sharp tools of flint, during what is now known as the Stone Age. The article goes on to discuss Homo erectus moving out of Africa and into the continents of Asia and Europe. In these continents they have discovered skulls, thought to be of Homo sapien dissent. The discovered skulls are estimated to be from about a million years ago. After the Homo erectus came the Homo sapiens, sometimes known as Neanderthals, the species to make the first step in the development of modern humans. The article also summarizes the Ice Ages and the effect of the Ice Ages on migration and evolution of humans. I chose this article because Jared Diamond briefly discusses the evolution of humans (Diamond 36), however, I wanted to gain a deeper knowledge of the history of human evolution and migration.
Link: http://thehistoryjunkie.com/spanish-conquistadors/
ReplyDeleteTitle: Spanish Conquistadors
Author: Russell Yost
Summary: Following Christopher Columbus's discovery of America, the proliferating Spanish colonies began to encouter the land's native Indians, the Incas and Aztecs. Several clashes between these new and old worlds occurred and the Spaniards continually defeated the natives. They were able to conquer both massive tribes with only a few men and established a "New World empire," expanding to a large portion of America. Before Great Britain invaded and conquered the Spaniards, the empire flourished with wealthy settlers and many new colonies. Spanish control quickly vanished, leaving Great Britain in power. The Spaniards colonized America for three essential reasons; they wanted to gain wealth and power, spread Christianity, and build the Spanish economy. There were several key factors that facilitated the easy defeat of the Indians by the Spaniards. First, the weaponry used by he Conquistadors was extensively more advanced than the leather and wood weapons used by the Indians. They also solicited the help of surrounding Indian tribes who fought to break away from Inca and Aztec rule. Additionally, the Spaniards' extensive knowledge of warfare tactics coupled with the infectious and foreign diseases that they introduced to the Indians, gave the Conquistadors a substantial edge. Finally, the Spanish colonists utilized animals such as horses and dogs in battle, which gave them a significant advantage over the Indians.
This article correlates directly with the information presented by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs, and Steel." In chapter three, Diamond discusses the overwhelming win by the Spaniards over the Indians in the "Collision at Cajamarca." In his analysis of the outcome of the battle between the old and new worlds, he explains that, "Immediate reasons for [Spanish] success included military technology based on guns, steel weapons, and horses; infectious diseases endemic in Eurasia; European maritime technology; the centralized political organization of European states; and writing" (Diamond 78). The article provides many of the exact same reasons for the ultimate defeat of the Indians and describes the same historic conflict.
Author: Janet Davison
ReplyDeleteTitle: The Maori
Source: New Zealand in History
Link: http://history-nz.org/maori.html
In Chapter 2 of Guns Germs and Steel, Diamond discusses the history of the Morioris and the Maoris. Both groups originated from the Chatham Islands in New Zealand But led very different life styles. The Maori were very experienced in war, while the Moriori were very peaceful. The Maori were an intelligent group of people as they crafted tools and other necessities that ultimately led to their success. While the Morioris were forced to be peaceful if they wanted to keep their race alive. They had been isolated from their arrival on the island to their discovery from Europeans in 1791. The main difference between the two tribes is that the Morioris were hunter gatherers while the Maori could farm eventually separating the two tribes and how they advanced. Diamond gave the history of just a part of their life, but the subject greatly interested me to the point where I really wanted to learn as much as I could about their culture and history. While researching I found a website that had the history of both Maori and Moriori. After reading throughout the website I learned a lot about the settlement and lifestyles of the people.
Author: Denise Davis and Maui Solomon
ReplyDeleteTitle: Story: Moriori
Link: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/moriori
Summary: Moriorians lived in the Chatham Island groups, they were called the Hamata tribe. Since they were isolated from New Zealand, they lived after Nunuku's law of peace. This means they did not commit murder and were not cannibals. In 1791 some Maori came into contact with Moriorians and lived peacefully along with them. But then in 1835 two Maorian tribes from Taranaki came looking for new territories and began enslaving and killing Moriorians. Then in the 1990's the Moriorians began to rebuild their culture. This source relates to Diamond's argument because it says the Moriorians did not fight back against the Maorians not because they weren't developed enough or that they were out done by weapon technology. They didn't fight back because it was a way of their living. This shows that no matter where the Moriorians lived, they would have gotten slaughtered by the Maorians.
Database: ABC-CLIO
ReplyDeleteWorld History: Ancient
Author: None Given
Title: archaeology of ancient South Asia
Summary:
This article describes archaeological discoveries and the significance behind them in South Asia. The opening states that various discoveries of stone tools suggest that people had inhabited South Asia before 1 million years ago, and possibly even 2 or 1.8 million years ago. A fragment of skull was uncovered in the Narmada region, dated circa 300,000 years ago. This fossil most likely represents Homo heidelbergensis, or a form between that and Homo erectus. This corresponds very closely to Jared Diamond, who states on page 36 that Homo erectus was the first human ancestor to spread beyond Africa, and evidence of this comes from fossils on the Southeast Asia island of Java; recent arguments state that these fossils date from 1.8 million years ago. The article then expands on the spread of human ancestors through South Asia, and describes the vivid cave paintings and various remains of food and more advanced tools from around 30,000 years ago. These described their lifestyle of hunting and gathering, which was the way of the very first human ancestors, and the paintings also gave insight to their culture. This all supports Diamond's statements about the spread and lifestyle of ancient humans.
ReplyDeleteAuthor: James Sullivan
Title: The History of Human Migration
Database: Sweet Search
Link: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/features/science/The-History-of-Human-Migration.html
Summary/explanation: This article, in a gist, describes the history of humans and how they all seemed to come from Africa. It explains the migration paths that humans took and included factors that led those humans to travel the way they did such as climatic changes, and supply abundance. The article also includes potential answers to some mind-boggling questions such as how our ancestors managed to make it to island without the technology we have today. This article supports what Diamond in trying to say in the first part of Guns, Germs, and Steel because they both talk about humans and how they started from on location, Africa, and eventually traveled to the entire world, creating Earth. There are some differences between the two perspectives such as dates. The articles says that our ancestors were found in Africa 200,000 years ago while Diamond writes that it was more of 7 million years ago. Overall, this article reinforces diamond when he says that mankind started out in Africa and slowly distributed to the rest of the world.
Sweet Search is a search engine, not a database
DeleteTitle: Polynesian History & Origin: The Archaeological Response
ReplyDeleteAuthor: None Given
Link: http://www.pbs.org/wayfinders/polynesian6.html
Summary: Archaeologists that traveled throughout Polynesia were able to determine things about the Polynesians by the artifacts that they were able to recover. They found a very distinct type of pottery found called Lapita found. The finding of this specific type of pottery provided evidence of where the ancestors of the Polynesians traveled. Some of artifacts and pottery connected to the Lapita culture was also found off the coast of New Guinea. This showed that the ancestral Polynesians sailed through Melanesia and not Micronesia. Fragments of canoes were also found in caves and in swamp areas. The distribution of domesticated plants and animals by the time that the European had contact show that the migration was intentional. There was a presence of pig, dog, and chicken bones that were discovered which shows that the voyagers most likely carried the animals that they needed for colonization. I was interested in this topic because they were relatively advanced and based off of the findings in the archaeological sites, it shows they moved around purposefully.
Author: Mark Jennings
ReplyDeleteTitle: Last of the Cave People
Source: National Geographic Magazine
Link: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/karawari-cave-people/jenkins-text
Summary: Diamond’s description of native New Guineans uniquely interested me because he distinctly described them as “smarter” than the average Westerner. I wanted to find out more of their way of life, and how Diamond came to these assumptions. The article I read was very informational. Written by national geographic, it described their ways of life, and the perils that they encountered throughout their time in Papua New Guinea. The mountain people that they shadowed demonstrated their ability to adapt to every challenge that they faced. In some cases, they had to endure extreme isolation and death. It was eye opening to the reality of the way the nomads lived. It was also devastating to find out the birth to death ratio that this group faced. With my research, I concluded that Diamond’s assertion that New Guineans possess further intellectual capabilities than previously assumed is correct. This rests with the fact that they face danger everyday.
Is intelligence an absolute or a variable based on time & place?
DeleteAuthor:Guy Gugliotta
ReplyDeleteTitle:The Great Human Migrartion
Link:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-human-migration-13561/?no-ist
Summary: I wanted further information on the movements of humans throughout history. The article states that there were neanderthals in Europe and Asia. Later studies showed that a species of human ancestors was spread around the globe. They suspect that humans evolved in Africa for many years before spreading to the other parts of the world. In order, they went to Asia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia. They most likely move around for food, geographical reasons, and any other reason for a way to live. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond also says we started in Africa, and speaks of the many other statements found in the article.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAuthor: Neil Shclager
ReplyDeleteTitle: The Domestication of the Horse
Source: Gale - Student Resources in Context
Link: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=SUIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&u=hell32414&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=SUIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|CV2643450034
Summary: The earliest known type of horse found on Earth was the Hyrocotherium, which is believed to have appeared right around 50 million years ago. Early humans would use the horse as a vital source of food - especially in the western hemisphere. This is what leads scientists to believe that the horse went extinct in the western world at around 8,000 B.C - only to be brought back by the Spanish 500 years ago. The domestication of the horse took place around 6,000 years ago - on the steppe region of Ukraine. Archaeological evidence shows that humans began to ride on horses shortly after domestication. As the horses began to move east on the steppe towards Asia, it became apparent that these animals were much quicker than cattle. The Scythians - a nomadic tribe that resided in the Caucasus region were the first to develop and master horseback archery. This would spread down to the Romans - whom would also invent the horseshoe. Attila the Hun is the one who introduced the saddle and stirrup to Europe. Horses have had a colossal impact on human history - turning the tides of civilizations that rose, wars, conflicts, labor, and subsequently, travel. Diamond mentioned that much of Pizarro's men were on horseback, and possibly accredited their victory. I would gain an interest of the domestication of horses and wanted to further expand my knowledge on the subject
You don't need the link for a database - just the publisher & database title
DeleteArticle title: Conquistadors sacrificed and eaten by Aztec-era people, archaeologists say
ReplyDeleteArticle link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/conquistadors-sacrificed-eaten-aztec-acolhuas
This article describes the fate of a group of Spaniards who were separated from the Spanish Army and captured by people of the Acolhua tribe. They and their horses were kept for months in prisons and used as sacrifices to different deities. Many of which were burned alive or dismembered, and had indents on their bones that suggest that the flesh was cut from them. The name of the town, "Tecoaque", translates to "The place where they ate them" and old folktales from this area tell of cannibals who ate the conquistadors. All of these facts suggest that the Acolhuas ate the prisoners, but there is not enough evidence to conclude anything further than sacrifice. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond discusses how the native people were typically outmatched because of the conquistadors' weapons, horses, and manpower. However, because this group was partially women, children, and a rival tribe, many were unarmed and on foot. Additionally, they were far from the Spanish army and therefore could not communicate with them.the Acolhuas most likely avoided the Spaniards' diseases because they were kept separate from the natives and often sacrificed in fire.
Author: Winston, Robert
ReplyDeleteTitle: The Great Leap Forward
Database: Ebscohost
Summary: In this article, Winston discusses the evolution of the homo sapien. He compares modern men to ancient individuals. He starts off by saying what constrast we have to them in terms of activities. We learned to write just 6,000 years ago, and cave art formed long before that. So why did it take us so much time to make writing a part of our everyday life? Winston says that all humans have had the same features sincs we have been brought to the planet. With that being said, why did it take so long for us to adapt new ideas into our world? Winston describes the actions as "history of human civilization". We do not know the actions of human beings when they first became stabilized, so we cannot draw conclusions as to what their lifestyle consisted of. Winston then goes into explaining why some areas, such as Egypt and the Fertile Crescent essentially rose above the rest of the world. They were able to make a better life for themselves, so the people living in those areas had sufficient resources compared to India, America, and other cultures. It is believed that most of the human race came from Africa, so the advantage that some environments had over others was known as the Great Leap Forward. This leap allowed some areas of the world to live better and gain more beneficial opportunities compared to suffering areas.
Also, I chose this adticle because the idea of the Great Leap Forward both amazed and confused me. I liked learning about some areas of the world getting ahead of others, but I was puzzled by the idea that all of them had nearly the same past, and some were able to evolve so much faster than others. In the article, Winston describes that some Eurasian countries had a more favorable climate and vegetation, making it more suitable for them to flourish. While reading, I was educated on the idea of some areas of the world advancing faster than others, and how there common ancestory and their modern society combined to form the person they are now.
DeleteSpecify which database you're using - EBSCO is a publisher
Delete