Monday, December 13, 2010
Unit #2 Reflection - Prehistory + Early Humans
1. Describe how you prepared/studied for the unit test.
I started my studying by going through all the notes from this unit in my notebook, reviewing everything and highlighting things. After that, I reread my blog posts to help remember that content. I then used Ms. Moore's suggested method, which was writing out all the big ideas on one paper ("cheat sheet") and studying from that. I re wrote that paper twice. I briefly quizzed and was quizzed by my classmates before the test, but that didn't last long.
a) Do you think your studying strategies were effective? Why or why not?
I think that most of my strategies, especially going over and highlighting my notes in my notebook, was pretty effective. One thing that didn't really work was rewriting my big ideas again and again. I still had trouble remembering the big ideas during the test.
b) How will you prepare next time?
Next time I will do everything like this time, except I will study more and better about the big ideas. I won't rewrite the cheat sheet, I will just study harder and quiz myself on it.
2 What was the most surprising thing you learned about during this unit?
When I started learning about the Hobbits (see earlier blog post), I was pretty surprised. The Hobbits were small, lived quite recently, but early and primitive in terms of evolution. I always thought that evolution was a clear path, with each next human in time all a little more like us than the next. When I learned about the Hobbits, I realized that evolution wasn't a set path where everything gets more advanced and like us as time goes on.
3 If we had more time to spend on Prehistory + Early humans--what would you want to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about some of the more modern early humans, like the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. I was wandering the other day, what was the difference between the Cro-Magnons and some native tribes that lived in North America? They did live an extremely similar lifestyle, and I remember reading in the textbook that Cro-Magnons looked pretty much like us and they could be mistaken for a modern human if they were alive today. Other than the newer early humans, I am pretty satisfied about what we learned this unit.
I started my studying by going through all the notes from this unit in my notebook, reviewing everything and highlighting things. After that, I reread my blog posts to help remember that content. I then used Ms. Moore's suggested method, which was writing out all the big ideas on one paper ("cheat sheet") and studying from that. I re wrote that paper twice. I briefly quizzed and was quizzed by my classmates before the test, but that didn't last long.
a) Do you think your studying strategies were effective? Why or why not?
I think that most of my strategies, especially going over and highlighting my notes in my notebook, was pretty effective. One thing that didn't really work was rewriting my big ideas again and again. I still had trouble remembering the big ideas during the test.
b) How will you prepare next time?
Next time I will do everything like this time, except I will study more and better about the big ideas. I won't rewrite the cheat sheet, I will just study harder and quiz myself on it.
2 What was the most surprising thing you learned about during this unit?
When I started learning about the Hobbits (see earlier blog post), I was pretty surprised. The Hobbits were small, lived quite recently, but early and primitive in terms of evolution. I always thought that evolution was a clear path, with each next human in time all a little more like us than the next. When I learned about the Hobbits, I realized that evolution wasn't a set path where everything gets more advanced and like us as time goes on.
3 If we had more time to spend on Prehistory + Early humans--what would you want to learn more about?
I would like to learn more about some of the more modern early humans, like the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. I was wandering the other day, what was the difference between the Cro-Magnons and some native tribes that lived in North America? They did live an extremely similar lifestyle, and I remember reading in the textbook that Cro-Magnons looked pretty much like us and they could be mistaken for a modern human if they were alive today. Other than the newer early humans, I am pretty satisfied about what we learned this unit.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Who Were the Hobbits?
Who were the hobbits?
The hobbits were a species of human known as Homo floresiensis that lived on the Island of Flores, Indonesia. They were about as tall as a modern 4-year old, which is where their nickname came from. They lived from 38,000-12,000 years ago, and were discovered in 2003. They had the brain size of a modern chimp, yet they had intelligent behavior. There is no confirmed theory as to why they are so small, but one theory to their diminutive size is that they shrank through an ecological process known as "island dwarfing", where a species that lives on an island gradually becomes smaller, because there are less or no predators,and/or resources are not plentiful, so there would be no real advantage to a larger size.their ancestors are also unclear. They could have descended from Homo erectus, but Homo erectus were more bodily advanced, and further in evolution than the hobbits, so they would have had to un-evolve a lot to become they way they were. They could have come from Homo habilis, which was an earlier and more primitive species than Homo erectus, but there is no evidence of Homo habilis ever leaving Africa. Hobbits are a controversial topic among anthropologists, because some experts argue that the hobbits are not a new species, and are only a mutation from another species. They also argue that not enough fossils have been found of Homo foresiensis to prove that it was an independent species, and they could have just been the odd ones out of a normal group.
The hobbits were a species of human known as Homo floresiensis that lived on the Island of Flores, Indonesia. They were about as tall as a modern 4-year old, which is where their nickname came from. They lived from 38,000-12,000 years ago, and were discovered in 2003. They had the brain size of a modern chimp, yet they had intelligent behavior. There is no confirmed theory as to why they are so small, but one theory to their diminutive size is that they shrank through an ecological process known as "island dwarfing", where a species that lives on an island gradually becomes smaller, because there are less or no predators,and/or resources are not plentiful, so there would be no real advantage to a larger size.their ancestors are also unclear. They could have descended from Homo erectus, but Homo erectus were more bodily advanced, and further in evolution than the hobbits, so they would have had to un-evolve a lot to become they way they were. They could have come from Homo habilis, which was an earlier and more primitive species than Homo erectus, but there is no evidence of Homo habilis ever leaving Africa. Hobbits are a controversial topic among anthropologists, because some experts argue that the hobbits are not a new species, and are only a mutation from another species. They also argue that not enough fossils have been found of Homo foresiensis to prove that it was an independent species, and they could have just been the odd ones out of a normal group.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Why Tool-Making and Language were Important for the Development of Human Culture
Why were tool-making and language important for the development of human culture?
Tool-making and language were important for the development of human culture because tool making helped develop eating patterns, and language is a large part of culture. Culture is defined as "The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought". Speech is especially important in this definition because culture involves a human's thoughts and sharing them. With the development of language, humans had a way to share their thoughts and ideas. Also, the tools helped them to kill animals that they would eat (raw, and later in time, cooked), and how, what and when humans kill animals for eating all fall under the category "behavior patterns". All in all, the development of language and tools was important for the development of human culture because it helped them think and transmit ideas, and also it influenced their behavioral and eating patterns.
Tool-making and language were important for the development of human culture because tool making helped develop eating patterns, and language is a large part of culture. Culture is defined as "The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought". Speech is especially important in this definition because culture involves a human's thoughts and sharing them. With the development of language, humans had a way to share their thoughts and ideas. Also, the tools helped them to kill animals that they would eat (raw, and later in time, cooked), and how, what and when humans kill animals for eating all fall under the category "behavior patterns". All in all, the development of language and tools was important for the development of human culture because it helped them think and transmit ideas, and also it influenced their behavioral and eating patterns.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Why Early Humans Began to Walk on Two Feet
Why did early humans begin to walk on two feet?
Explore all the possible reasons and give concrete examples to support your thinking.
One possible theory is that about 5 million years ago, Africa was covered in forests, but then the forests started getting smaller, and where the forests used to be, there was grassland. The early humans needed to go through the grasslands to get to the forests, but the grass in the grassland was very tall, so they had to stand upright to over the grass to see where they were going. A very similar and closely linked theory is that the humans lived in the forest, but they had to leave the forest to get food, and when the food started to get further and further away, the humans had to walk longer distances, and they walked upright because it was more efficient and they didn't waste as much energy while walking the long distance to get to the food. As time went on and the humans developed more, the early humans developed longer legs that let them get further in each step with the same amount of energy. A different theory about food is that the humans had to stand upright to reach fruits on higher trees. While bent over, you cannot reach as high, so you can only reach lower fruits, ut while upright you can reach higher fruits.An additional theory related to food is that when a male had am mate and made her pregnant, he had to hunt for extra food for the baby, and walking upright allowed the male to carry more food, wood or other supplies for the whole family in his arms. This works because if he is walking on all fours, none of his hands are free for carrying, but if he is walking on 2 feet,, his arms can be used for carrying. A completely unrelated theory is that the early male humans stood upright to help attract a mate, or to show that he is more powerful/dominant than some other male. In other words, standing upright could be a show of force. This could be true because modern chimps also stand up when they are trying to show force. In all of these theories, the walking probably occurred only part time, though. For example in Lucy, the 3 million year old Australopithecus Afarensis, she had Long legs and a toes that were suited for walking. However, she also arms suited for climbing and swinging in trees.
Explore all the possible reasons and give concrete examples to support your thinking.
One possible theory is that about 5 million years ago, Africa was covered in forests, but then the forests started getting smaller, and where the forests used to be, there was grassland. The early humans needed to go through the grasslands to get to the forests, but the grass in the grassland was very tall, so they had to stand upright to over the grass to see where they were going. A very similar and closely linked theory is that the humans lived in the forest, but they had to leave the forest to get food, and when the food started to get further and further away, the humans had to walk longer distances, and they walked upright because it was more efficient and they didn't waste as much energy while walking the long distance to get to the food. As time went on and the humans developed more, the early humans developed longer legs that let them get further in each step with the same amount of energy. A different theory about food is that the humans had to stand upright to reach fruits on higher trees. While bent over, you cannot reach as high, so you can only reach lower fruits, ut while upright you can reach higher fruits.An additional theory related to food is that when a male had am mate and made her pregnant, he had to hunt for extra food for the baby, and walking upright allowed the male to carry more food, wood or other supplies for the whole family in his arms. This works because if he is walking on all fours, none of his hands are free for carrying, but if he is walking on 2 feet,, his arms can be used for carrying. A completely unrelated theory is that the early male humans stood upright to help attract a mate, or to show that he is more powerful/dominant than some other male. In other words, standing upright could be a show of force. This could be true because modern chimps also stand up when they are trying to show force. In all of these theories, the walking probably occurred only part time, though. For example in Lucy, the 3 million year old Australopithecus Afarensis, she had Long legs and a toes that were suited for walking. However, she also arms suited for climbing and swinging in trees.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
How Fire demonstrates Prehistoric People's Ability to Adapt to Their Environment
The use of fire demonstrates prehistoric people's ability to adapt to their environment because it shows that when the prehistoric people have a need that isn't commonly or always fulfilled by their environment, they change their environment to provide them with that need. In the case of fire, they found cooked food better than raw food because it had benefits like easier digestibility, better taste and fewer diseases. However, cooked food wasn't commonly found in their environment. It was found only after a wildfire, when animals that couldn't escape the fire got cooked. They then brought fire into their home from elsewhere, so that they could use the fire to cook their food. Later, they developed the ability to create fire for themselves, and so they didn't have to find fire to bring it into their home. They are adapting to their environment, and adapting their environment to them, so that they can have better food which ensures better survival.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Humanities Unit 1 Reflection
What did I learn?
I learned about what historians, archaeologists and anthropologists do. I learned how to be an archeologist. I learned what cultural and scientific dating were, along with a couple million other things
Also, while doing the essay, I went from knowing almost nothing about Stonehenge to knowing a lot. Now I know things like when it was built (around 2500 BC) and other facts about Stonehenge.
What did I find most interesting?
The thing that I found most interesting was the facts about why Stonehenge supposedly could be a UFO landing site. I got to visit sites filled with conspiracy theories and other wacky information.
What learning skills I was able to practice and how?
I practiced many learning skills, like research skills, which I used before I wrote the essay to help me learn enough to write the essay. I also used bibliography-making skills, because I used Noodle Tools to form my bibliography. Another skill I used was essay writing, which I learned in English, because in order to write a good essay, I need to know what goes where etc. I used note-taking skills while taking notes on the chaters. I used excavating, observing and recording skills at the archaeological dig.
What did I learn about myself?
I learned that I can write a surprising amount about a topic I think I don't know so much about.
I learned about what historians, archaeologists and anthropologists do. I learned how to be an archeologist. I learned what cultural and scientific dating were, along with a couple million other things
Also, while doing the essay, I went from knowing almost nothing about Stonehenge to knowing a lot. Now I know things like when it was built (around 2500 BC) and other facts about Stonehenge.
What did I find most interesting?
The thing that I found most interesting was the facts about why Stonehenge supposedly could be a UFO landing site. I got to visit sites filled with conspiracy theories and other wacky information.
What learning skills I was able to practice and how?
I practiced many learning skills, like research skills, which I used before I wrote the essay to help me learn enough to write the essay. I also used bibliography-making skills, because I used Noodle Tools to form my bibliography. Another skill I used was essay writing, which I learned in English, because in order to write a good essay, I need to know what goes where etc. I used note-taking skills while taking notes on the chaters. I used excavating, observing and recording skills at the archaeological dig.
What did I learn about myself?
I learned that I can write a surprising amount about a topic I think I don't know so much about.
![Text Box: [Type the document title]](file:///C:/Users/atanner/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif)
 |
Adrian 7A
Stonehenge Theories Essay
Stonehenge is a large prehistoric megalith located near Salisbury, in the Wiltshire region in England. It was constructed mostly between 2640 BC and 2480 BC. Stonehenge has always been an intriguing place for historians and archaeologists, because it its past is a great mystery as to what it was used for and who built it. Because historians have been investigating it for so long, there are now many theories about what it was and how it was created. I will be investigating 3 theories, and explaining why they could be true.
Stonehenge as a healing Place
The theory that Stonehenge was a healing place is a relatively new theory. However, it does seem like a very plausible theory, for a number of reasons. In the center of Stonehenge, there is a double circle of Bluestones. Bluestones are known to have magical healing properties. Smaller pieces of bluestones have been found in the tomb buried in that area. The bluestones came from around 250 km away, and they wouldn’t have been transported from so far away for no reason. The researchers who originally suggested the healing theory, Professors Timothy Darvill and Geoffry Wainwright also said that Stonehenge could have been both a religious site and a healing site. A recently discovered person buried in that area, nicknamed “Amesbury Archer”, named after the bows and arrows he was found with, had a knee injury and an infected jaw, and was dated to be from the same time of Stonehenge’s heyday. His tomb was found 3 miles from Stonehenge, which suggests that he was sick and trekked to Stonehenge to try to get healed.
Stonehenge as an Observatory
Another theory is that Stonehenge was an Observatory. This theory has been around for a long time, and is probably one of the most popular theories. One of the pioneers of this theory was Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer. He theorized that Ancient temples were aligned towards the sunrise at the time they were built. He also wrote a book in 1906 that pointed out some similarities between Stonehenge and the Egyptian temples. 57 years later in 1963, a man named Gerald Hawkins used a computer to analyze Lockyer’s theory. His computation found that there were 165 points on Stonehenge that were associated with sun and moon movements. Hawkins concluded that Stonehenge was an ancienct computer that was designed to predict lunar eclipses.
Stonehenge as a UFO landing Site
Yet another theory is that Stonehenge was an alien landing site. The believers of this theory argue that since Stonehenge was a circle, it would have made alien landings easy because the UFO could land on top of Stonehenge. Also the stone was the material of choice because it is strong and can support the weight of a UFO on it. Since the stones used to build Stonehenge came from far away, they could have been transported to the site of Stonehenge by antigravity. In the center of Stonehenge, there is a sort of podium that could have been used as a podium for the aliens to speak to the humans.
There are many plausible theories about Stonehenge. I explored only 3, but all 3 are plausible, some more than others. I believe that people will never find a final answer to the mystery that is Stonehenge, but our theories will probably get closer and closer to the truth. I believe that the most plausible theory is the theory that Stonehenge was a healing site, because it has many reliable reasons backing it up. Also, two experts on Stonehenge both believe it, which makes it more credible to me.
Works Cited
Alexander, Gabriel. “Is Stonehenge a UFO Landing Pad?” Timehuman - The Future Guide. N.p., 2 June 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://timehuman.blogspot.com/2010/06/could-stonehenge-be-landing-pad-for.html>.
Geddes, Linda. “Five theories about Stonehenge.” NewScientist. N.p., 29 May 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14011-five-theories-about-stonehenge.html>.
Martin, Melanie. “What is Stonehenge? Top Three Alternative Ideas.” PurpleSlinky. N.p., 10 June 2008. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. <http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/what-is-stonehenge-top-three-alternative-ideas/>.
MSNBC. “Dig hints at Stonehenge’s healing role.” MSNBC Science. N.p., 27 Sept. 2008. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26838058/>.
“Stonehenge Theories: CELESTIAL OBSERVATORY.” Stonehenge Decoded. National Geographic. Date Unknown. National Geographic. Web. Transcript. 27 Oct. 2010. <http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/stonehenge-decoded-3372/celestial-observatory#tab-Videos/05323_00>.
User Tirbrath. Stonehenge - Observatory and Cultural/Spiritual Centre. Youtube. N.p., 9 Mar. 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBLSveipnYc>.
Wilson, Hugh. “The healing stones - a new theory for an ancient icon.” BBC. N.p., Mar. 2008. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/stonehenge/article1.shtml>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)