jzen's Historians Guild Journal

This will be my journal for all the Historian's Guild Lessons.

All academic or vocational adventures require a specific mindset to be successful. Historians are no different, and in the Khan Academy’s Thinking like a Historian lesson, we are given we are given 3 attributes that make for a successful historian. A historian must be able to think like a storyteller, like a scientist, and like a lawyer as each provides for a unique need in the study of history. I cover all three briefly.

Firstly a historian must be a storyteller. We can all remember back to history classes with stuffy teachers or professors who seemed to be lacking in the field of presentation skills. History was a dry, dusty subject…not fit to stand beside other, more exciting avenues of academic pursuit. It seems as though the conveyance of history has come a long way since then. All manner of media and presentation style is employed now in the transmission of history. Most notably, we see this in historically based movies. Although some of the facts may be skewed in favor of more dramatic elements, we can find the spirit of the story within the presentation, (understanding full well the limits and liberties of this form of historical presentation).

Historians have figured out that the study of history isn’t the dry reciting of dates and facts… it is the embodiment of the human spirit, played out by real people, with real concerns, troubles, and obstacles to overcome. Storytelling gives dates, facts, and people a human element, and it is why this was the preferred method of knowledge transmission for millennia. Taking a lesson from history, historians need to be great storytellers so they can inspire others to care enough about history in order to preserve it. If it is to go on to future generations, there is no better way to keep it preserved than in the form of story.

In the video, the ability to story tell ties into the ability show how one thing leads to another. In history, this is certainly the case and when thinking like a historian, understanding cause and effect is vital to transmitting the historical narrative.

While I may have given the impression that dates and facts are unimportant, this is far from the case. In the second element of thinking like a historian, we see that understanding data, conducting research, and constructing theories ties into scientific aspects of the study of history. How we develop our questions and conclusions is always in light of what is known, not what is believed. This is an important distinction and can change the understanding of many historical events, people, etc. Some examples of these kinds of data based questions are: “What are the facts?” “What has been discovered at this site to suggest that my theory is correct or incorrect?” “According to my research, a prominent theory in Egyptology is that a large army of builders constructed the Great Pyramid. What data supports this theory?” Etc., etc. Historian as scientist is essential, and ties into the final aspect of the Thinking Like a Historian lesson, thinking like a lawyer.

Thinking like a lawyer is an analogy for the Historian being able to construct an argument that supports the evidence and theories they have. The role of argument nowadays has become clouded due to political divisiveness and either/or thinking. Because of this, the value of argument is lost because they do not understand it’s function… creating so much resilience in a theory that it must be true. The video pointed out what I think are dreaded words “It’s just a theory, and theories change.” While I agree whole heartedly with the latter part of this statement, we must not forgot that a theory is constructed with a whole bunch of facts. Essentially a theory may be true in every aspect except its conclusion. It is the role of argument to find this out. Arguments look for holes in the logic, conflicting examples in the data, and false conclusions. Argument is the avenue used to test if a theory is resilient. If a theory stands up to argument, then it becomes accepted, until something is presented or discovered that contradicts it. As a historian, arguing for a theory is crucial to keeping history well grounded, and allows us to arrive at the best conclusion, regardless of where we started.

As we can see, thinking like a historian is a multifaceted affair. We must be able to where several hats at the same time if we are to be successful in this endeavor. The video does a good job of presenting this, and has definitely given me plenty to think about.

In this reading, we are met with a problem that faces modern historical scholarship and that is the role of sources. Much of the material that is available to us comes to us at best, in secondhand form. This is for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that many primary sources don't exist for certain events. As such, the words of people who have studied such events become our only written sources about them. When primary sources do exist, another reason we focus on secondary sources is because scholars have already studied the primary sources and interpreted them for us, making any connections they feel are important. We see this in our textbooks and popular historical writings. While these may contain appropriate information, the author tells us that there is a danger in relying on them solely.

What are we to do in such a case? The author tells us to begin by asking a series of questions concerning the work:

"-Where did the writer obtain the information?"

- Did the writer copy his/her statements down from other writers?

- Is the writer familiar with the current research in the area he/she is writing?

- Is the writer familiar with the primary sources associated with the area of history he/she is discussing


What we find in this line of questioning is an increasing sense of credibility surrounding the writing. As we take a look at sources of history, these are the questions we should keep in mind, understanding that the credibility rises the closer we return to the source. This is when the author move into discussing the need for using primary sources in our historical writing. For starters, the author tells us that primary sources provide so much value to the historian because they can do things that secondary sources can't, such as capture the spirit of the time or impress upon us the feeling of an era. The examples they provide vividly reinforce this understanding. Another plus to the use of primary sources is that they allow us to form our own opinions, rather than conform our opinions to sources that may be several times removed from the originals. We may use the secondary sources as guides, particularly for difficult to understand passages or texts, but we come to the conclusions on our own after reading the original works. With this in mind, the author points out the misconception that primary sources are difficult to come by. He mentions that this could not be further from the truth and that many are readily available to one who is skilled in research. This leads to an exposition of modern sources for primary sources, and gives the student examples of where they can find many primary sources they are looking for.


Closing Thoughts and Reflections: This subject covers a topic I was always troubled by in college. We would spend countless hours reading and studying the opinions of others rather than getting to source of what it is we were referring to. I remember this quite vividly in my literature class. It wasn't until a took a math class that cover mathematical induction that I began to understand the importance of getting back to original work. That may seem like a strange connection to be referring to in a history reflection, but it is true. In mathematical induction, we learn the philosophical framework for proving mathematical equations. An example of this would be the Pythagorean Theorem. Why does it always work? Well, there is a proof that had to be worked it before it was accepted as true all the time, and to me, this led to wondering about the primary sources for much of our knowledge.

In history, primary sources don't serve as proof in the sense that mathematical proofs do for equations, but rather they lend credibility to a particular understanding of history and can do it in a way that is much better than secondhand sources. The old adage "Don't take my word for it" really applies to history. Sometimes I think this should be the disclaimer at the beginning of most textbooks. Since we don't live in that kind of a world, I'll just continue on with the understanding that getting to the source of historical information is much better than reading what someone else thinks about it, which is the whole point of this lesson. While I can see the value in seeing another's point of view in regard to understanding history, I also understand the value in drawing my own conclusions and deriving my own understanding of events that took place. I also understand that not all secondary source material is not bad, and if the writer was decent. they provide references to their primary sources, if they used them. These are all key takeaways from this lesson for me.

Like with he virtues we discuss in our Squire's IDP Lessons, we need to understand the role of temperance in the things we do. This applies to many aspects of our lives and in the Guild temperance particularly applies to the use of primary sources. When we refer to temperance in this manner, we are discussing source criticism. Being critical and skeptical of the sources we are using for our research keeps our work honest, and allows for other possible interpretations to rise.

In our lesson, we are presented with a letter that was alleged to be from Alexander to Aristotle that was posted to the Republic of Macedonia website. It was a recently unpublished letter, and as a result had not been thoroughly scrutinized. Historians from all over took issue with the letter citing many reasons for its in-authenticity. The letter was shown to be false and is a primary example of how a so called "primary source" can be inauthentic.

Here resides our challenge as students of history. People have a penchant for the fake and historical sources are no stranger to this behavior. While there are plenty of properly vetted sources that meet stringent criteria of authenticity, occasionally, we may come across something completely obscure, or even come across something that has never been vetted. It is our duty to look at sources with a critical eye, and ensure that they are both reputable and legitimate. If anything this keeps us honest, like I mentioned, and gives any theories we develop much more credibility.

1) Some things happened before other things.

This component stresses the need to understand chronological order. In history, it is a continuous flow of events from past to present. Some events lead to other events, setting the stage for things that are to come. For instance, understanding World War II would be unintelligible without knowing what happened during World War I or the Interwar Period. If we can understand that history is more than a bunch of random dates, we can see it as a woven tapestry with different events blending together to create a full picture for us to understand.


2) Some things only happened in certain places.

This component stresses understanding geography and its importance to understanding history. The author points out that understanding geography is as basic as understanding chronology, and this is true. History plays out in particular places and times. Knowing this, however simplistic it may seem, is vital to studying history.


3) Meanings and definitions change over time.

This component stresses the limitations of language and the use of context. In the author’s example we see a Greek example and a Latin example of virtue and understand that they have very different meanings. For us to really understand what is being said, we need to know it from the time, the place, and the culture that is using the term we are looking into. Knowing all of these provides context for the term, and helps us to understand the meaning behind it. Also his lesson, “There are no shortcuts to reading, and reading carefully” is a must to the study of history. Missing particular words or phrases, or skipping over sections deemed unimportant, can completely change the meaning of what is being read. History requires us to approach this thoroughly.


4) Where there is no record, there is no history.

This component covers the importance of having evidence to support your claims. History requires facts to support it and speculation should not be passed off as historical fact. A good historian may work with speculation, if it leads to the discovery of new facts, but a historian should not be content to sit with speculation alone.


5) Texts that powerful educated people have written are not the only kind of record, however.

This component stresses one of the biases in the study of historical texts, that writing was limited to relatively few people, and some with motives other than passing on historical truth. The author here encourages the use of other records that cover aspects of common life not directly influenced by power or status. It helps to compensate for the inherent bias that exists in this regard.


6) History is almost always complex.

This component stresses the understanding that many causes go into historical events. The author cleverly asks the student why they are in college and points to the obvious: that there are probably several reasons for going to college. He then goes on to ask “Why did the Roman Empire fall?,” pointing to the fact that there are many reasons why this would happen. As historians, we need to be aware of the many different facets of a single event. We should not be content to settle for one explanation.


7) God may indeed intervene in human history, but this is hard to document and historians require footnotes.

This component stresses the limitations of other forms of knowledge and the necessity of a historian to stick to the historical record when discussing history. In much the same way that one should scrutinize a scientist making claims about religion outside the scope of his or her expertise, we as historians should be cautious of making the inverse mistake, of using miraculous and divine intervention as a method for explaining history. If the proof is there, we should run with it. If it is not there, we shouldn’t appeal to something outside the historical record to explain it.


8 ) To attempt to live without a memory is to attempt to lose one’s humanity.

This component covers the relationship between memory and history. The author makes a point to show how absurd it would be to understand basics of living without memory. He then extends this further to families, societies, and civilizations and explains that the same need for memory applied to these larger extensions of ourselves is what history is. Living without history is a humanity that has no memory. Would this really be living? Thus the importance of history.


9) Our memories fail us, however, and so we must continually work to recover and test our collective memory.

This component addresses the basic facts of human behavior. Things are lost, unsavory circumstances become covered up and forgotten, civilizations fall, people pass on without saying everything…history helps us to discover the truth, despite these circumstances as well as challenge the status quo, those things which we thought we always true. Sometimes they may not be what we thought they were, and we are then challenged to reexamine ourselves.


10) Historical study has at least as much to do with interpreting the past as with gathering the facts.

This component covers the role of interpretation in historical study. It isn’t enough to just get facts. We have to interpret those facts. And interpretations are limited, so we must defend our interpretations with more facts to support it. It is a vicious cycle, but necessary for a true picture of history to emerge.


11) Nothing is more important for historians than a chart of cause and effect—even though nothing is harder to prove.

This component covers the necessity of understanding cause and effect, but also acknowledges how difficult it is to establish cause and effect relationships, especially when we can’t rule out other influences. This reminds me of that rather famous if annoying axiom from statistics: “Correlation is not causation.” This is the bane of statisticians and historians alike and while it may appear one cause led to another, sometimes, it can’t be established this way. We must continue to seek evidence and argue based on what we know to be true.


12) Intriguing coincidences sometimes point to relationships of cause and effect. But never are enough to prove cause and effect.

Back up to what I just wrote in my answer for number 11. That is the essence of this component. This is the limitation of apparent cause and effect. We must be clear that apparent cause and effect requires facts to support it. The more facts that support it, the stronger the argument to be made for the particular cause and effect. It requires a lot of work.


13) Human history sometimes seems to involve themes that are common to many cultures and continuous through many ages—but historians do not have the right to assert them until they have paid long and close attention to particular differences in time and space.

This component completes the cycle. It is a call to return to the beginning of the list and work the process over and over. This is the way history is established. It is a long, and sometimes tedious process, but the rewards are much greater than any of the tedium that may deter us. So we continue on, with the historians tools in hand, and we work to get to the truth…or as close to the truth as we are able. Then will we understand who we are, what has led us here, and what we can expect in the future.

-Have a general idea what you’re researching before you begin.

This may seem like a no-brainer, and it is. If you don’t know what you are going to be researching, you’ll be spending an awful lot of time working on things that are unnecessary. At a minimum, having at least a general idea of what you’d like to research is a good place to begin. From this point, you can start pulling on the different threads associated with what you’re doing and see where they lead.


-Read.

This should seem like a no-brainer too. You have to read. I know I’m victim to the tendency to skim what I’m looking over to try to get through it a little quicker, but in history, we don’t have that luxury. In order to fully understand what is being examined, it must be thoroughly and carefully read. As the author states, we pick up subtle information when we read this way, things that may be missed on a brief skim through the contents. If you don’t have a love for deep reading, this is definitely not the place for you.


- Utilize bibliographies.

Most secondary historical resources contain annotated bibliographies throughout the course of their texts. These allow the reader to see what sources they pulled their information from, as well as identify any primary sources the author may have used. For a researcher these extra little pathways of research are crucial for making extra connections to one’s work. They should be one of the first extra resources that one utilizes while building their research base.


-Be suspicious of secondary source history books that do not cite their sources.

Like yesterday’s lesson that says historians require footnotes for facts, when looking into resources, ensure they are using footnotes also. The line between journalistic historical writing and historical writing for scholarship is blurred in media. One of the key differences between them is the use of footnotes and source citations. If a source isn’t using one, it’s suspect and should be avoided.


-Take notes as you read.

Reading is important to be sure, but extracting the useful information from your reading is even more important. Notes provide quick access to the important points that you’ll you need for your research, rather than having to thumb back through hundreds of pages to find the information. If you are using e-book applications, they even have the option of taking notes and highlighting passages for further research. If you do this as you go along, it's better than trying to go back and do it. At a minimum, it saves time. It also helps you organize bits of information into respective categories early on in research, rather than waiting until it’s time to sit down and write your paper.


- Know what’s going on currently in your area of research.

Understanding what’s going on currently in your field is a fantastic way to help guide your research. This information is new and may open up new doors that haven’t been explored yet. Be cautious though, sometimes unverified information is published and presented as fact. It would behoove us to use some of that source scrutiny when examining current research.


-Online resources can be good, libraries are better.

I agree. The major problem with online sources are that most of them aren’t reputable. They are composed with third, fourth, or fifth hand information, and half the time, they are sensationalized and or outright wrong. While there are good sources online, these can get expensive. I like going through the libraries. In my town, we have the top library system in the country. It is easy to make requests for all kinds of information that isn’t available online but is still reputable. Also, Ohio State is here and their libraries... wow! They are amazing multistory constructions. You could spend a lifetime there and not get through everything. Not only are they good places to find information, they are also quiet places to work. Both excellent characteristics that a historian can appreciate!


- Where there is a source you have to pay for, chances are you can find it somewhere for free.

I have experienced this first hand. Many articles and journal entries can be discovered as pdfs online. While not everything is there, there is are plenty of ones to look through. Also, outside of an online application, again libraries and university departments also have a lot of information and resources that are free. I can’t vouch for all historians, but certainly many are probably on a budget. Being able to access resources freely is a simple, cost saving method one can utilize during research.

Vocabulary:

1) Artifact- human made objects, such as tools or jewelry that are found at an archaeological dig site. These items give hints as to how people dressed, what work they did, or how they worshipped.
2) Culture- A people’s unique way of life.
3) Hominid- a human or other creature that walks upright.
4) Paleolithic Age-The earlier and longer lasting part of the Stone Age. 2.5 million to 8000 B.C. This involved the oldest stone chopping tools. A large portion occurred during an Ice Age.
5) Neolithic Age- The more recent Stone Age. 8000 B.C. to approximately 3000 B.C. This age saw polished stone tools, pottery, growing crops, and raising animals.
6) Technology- Ways of applying knowledge, tools, and inventions to meet needs.
7) Homo Sapiens- Species name for modern humans, means “wise man”. In two primary categories: Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon.


Short Answer:

1) Bones can reveal what people looked like, how tall they were, what kinds of foods they ate, diseases they might have had, and how long they lived. Artifacts give hints as to how people dressed, what work they did, or how they worshipped.

2) There are a few things that were major achievements during the Old Stone Age. They discovered the use of fire and organized hunting. They learned how to communicate efficiently and plan by studying the world around them. They also developed better tools for cutting and hunting. All of these enabled them to spread and thrive more efficiently than other species.

3) The differed primarily with cranial capacity. This enabled a whole new host of effects including the development of religious belief and ritual, as well as sophisticated forms of cooperation. This also enabled them to do more complex problem solving that enabled them to spread to far northern reaches to hunt.


Critical Thinking:
1) Humans and fire. Theirs is a relationship that goes back many thousands of years. Ever since the first Homo Erectus learned to weld fire, it has been part of the human story for nearly a million years. Why is this so? Well, the discovery of fire was an important human development for several reasons. It’s application to sustainable warmth, food preservation and decontamination, as well as its impact on technological development make is one of the most crucial discoveries ever in the history of human existence.

When we examine fire, one of the first aspects to look at is its application to sustainable warmth. =Fire could be used as a source of warmth during colder seasons, or in colder climates. This allowed for early man to not be restricted by geography or season. They were now free to move about nearly everywhere and at any time during the year. This certainly aided in their spread and contributed to the overall success of humanity as a species.

Warmth is not the only consideration for the importance of fire. Another important aspect of the discovery and use of fire is that it allowed for food to be cooked. This has several benefits. The first of which is that dangerous bacteria cold be killed off limiting the effects of disease. Another benefit is that cooked food lasts longer than raw food does. It would enable new techniques to be developed that would increase storage of meat for times when hunting wasn’t supplying enough for the group. A third benefit is the ease in which cooked meat could be eaten. It was more easily digestible, and overall, a healthier option for early man.

In addition to warmth and cooking, one final benefit to address involves its application to technological development. Fire would enable the tanning of skins for use in clothing and shelter as well as enable the development and refinement of metal to develop better tools, jewelry, and weapons. Fire also was needed for the development of clay and ceramic vessels. These provided safe storage for food and water, again enabling the collection of these for difficult times.

As we can see, fire really helped increase our ability to survive in ways unprecedented before. Its application for sustainable warmth, food preservation, and technological development really make it one of the most valuable learned discoveries in the entirety of human existence. Fire really is amazing stuff. It’s why it has been with us for nearly a million years.


2) Many things can be gathered from the study of ancient sites. Materials used to construct tools and vessels, food that was eaten, and clothing that was worn can all be discovered in the study of archaeological digging. However this has limitations. Because many of these cultures have no known descendants and their customs and culture are not practiced by any other groups of people currently or within the span of recorded history, there is only so much that can be known about them. While we are limited, we can still use our best guesses to figure out some of these puzzling details.

Physical characteristics like skin or hair color, eye color, facial features, etc., none of those can be determined except in specific circumstances where preserved specimens have been discovered. Through some accident of fate or just plain luck, sometimes, a specimen can be discovered in places that would have saved its physical features from being destroyed. Icy areas, bogs, extremely dry climates, all of these have aided in the preservation of physical characteristics. Behaviors of a physical nature however cannot be known, because these people and their environments are no longer around for us to study them. This is the case with much of everything from prehistory. Things that we would guess at would be those behaviors or characteristics that we seem to exhibit still today. Although not a perfect match, they may help us arrive at a general conclusion regarding these things.

Physical characteristics are not the only aspects that cannot be fully known. The cultural practices of prehistoric peoples can never be fully known as well. We can examine sites, look to the things we see left behind including tools, structures, and remains, and try to reconstruct these places based on what we know about them. However, these would only be best guesses since again, no one is around from these ancient cultures that still lives the way they did. Even in modern tribal societies that are still primarily hunter-gatherer, they are so far removed from original prehistoric customs, that theirs are uniquely their own.

The study of prehistory is tough and because of its nature can never be fully known. Some aspects can be known through artifacts, remains, and site study, such as what they wore, or how big they were. Other aspects though require personal observation something, not possible since these peoples ceased to exist. Here we are presented with a limitation of the study of prehistory. Some of these mysteries may be addressed one day through continued study. However, as it stands right now, there are some things we just can’t know.


3) History happened. Everything that has taken place in the past has all occurred and come and gone. History is what it is, a seemingly static thing in and of itself. The study of history however is not a static thing. It is alive and vibrant. Much of it still remains hidden to us, waiting for us to discover and explore and because of this recent findings keep revising what we originally thought about prehistory.

Prehistory presents some of the largest unknowns in the study of history. For starters, it is not clearly established, largely due to the reasons discussed in the previous essay. There are many things that are currently unknowable, and may never be fully known. Because of this, we base our understanding on the things we do know and can know. When we discover something that changes this understanding or adds something previously unknown, our overall understanding has to be revised to accommodate the new evidence. History is only concerned with what is true based on facts. As those facts become better understood in light of new facts, we have to adapt as a result.

Something else to consider is the role technology plays in broadening our understanding of history. Since technology is getting better and working in ways previously not thought of, we are adding new information to the study of prehistory that was impossible a few years ago. This has a profound effect on how we understand it. In some cases, technology has overturned previously held assumptions. Because of this, I don’t foresee this changing anytime soon.

As we can see, there are a couple reasons why recent findings cause us to revise our understanding of prehistory. From the unknowable and hidden elements associated with the study of prehistory to advances in technology, we can understand that the study of history is a dynamic endeavor. We are only limited but what we know how to do. This trend of revision will continue well into the foreseeable future and will continue to shape our understand of prehistory in new and exciting ways.

Vocabulary:

1) Nomads: highly mobile people who moved from place to place.

2) Hunter Gatherers: nomadic groups whose food supply depends on hunting animals and collecting plant foods.

3) Neolithic Revolution: also referred to as the agricultural revolution changed man from a food gathering species to a food producing species.

4) Slash and Burn Farming: method in which small trees or grasses are cut and burned to clear a field.

5) Domestication: The taming of animals.


Short Answer:

1) Cro-Magnon’s tools enabled many different advancements that made life much easier than before they had them. They developed tools of stone, bone, and wood, that were fashioned in more than 100 different ways. This gave them the additional abilities to kill and butcher game more easily and to fish more effectively and for larger prey. They also developed the ability to produce more tools to sew clothing made from animal skins. All of these would have been significant upgrades in living for early man.


2) There are a couple factors that would have influenced the origins of agriculture. The first factor was climate change. Temperatures all over the world were rising to the point where sustainable farming was an option. This would have led to longer growing seasons and dryer land for wild grasses to grow. Another factor was a rapidly growing population. This would have put a strain on hunter-gatherer types and would have made farming a more attractive option because it could provide a steadier source of food.


3) The first major crops cultivated in the Americas were corn, beans, squash, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, and white potatoes.


Critical Thinking:

1) Life is not easy. For those that lived in the Stone Age, it was even more difficult than it is today. With a constant struggle against natural disasters, disease, and the availability of food, living in the Stone Age was a constant struggle for survival.

Natural disasters a part of life. Floods, fires, tornadoes, droughts, etc., all have a major impact on the people they effect. In the Stone Age, people would have been at the mercy of all of these Natural disasters. Flooding was common in the river valleys where people gathered and with changing climates, droughts would have been more common too. Flooding would have killed crops and destroyed settlements. Droughts would have killed crops as well and affected the availability of water. Unlike nowadays, these could have wiped out an entire people. We live with the luxury of getting help when disaster strikes. In the Stone Age, they would have been on their own. Survival of the fittest was still a way of life then.

Natural disasters weren’t the only things that Stone Age man had to deal with that made life more difficult for them. The also had to contend with injury, illness, and disease. There were no hospitals in the Stone Age, so when one’s health was threatened, they were unable to handle even the most common things. This would eventually lead to very thorough folk medicinal systems, but it would be many years before they would figure out the use for these medicines.

If natural disasters and diseases weren’t enough to worry about, Stone Age man also had to contend with possible food shortages. In the hunter-gatherer phase, they were limited by what they could find. When they transitioned to agriculture and animal husbandry, they would have been more vulnerable to natural disasters such as flooding and drought. These would have had a significant impact on their ability to produce food. Eventually, early man would overcome this uncertainty by learning how to preserve and store food.

As we can see, life in the Stone Age was no picnic. All of the things I mentioned can impact us today. However, the biggest difference between now and then is the infrastructure we have in place to mitigate these unfortunate circumstances. If we need help we can go to our communities, our cities, our states, or our Federal Government. Such things didn’t exist back then and with this in mind, their lives were much more difficult than ours are. Natural disasters, disease, and food shortages are no laughing matter. It’s hard to believe sometimes that we survived long enough to become who we are today as a species.


2) Things weren’t all doom and gloom for Neolithic peoples, however. It is at this point in the history of humanity that we see major technological development impacting how humans lived. With the invention of new tools, the development of agriculture, and the move from hunting wild animals to domestication, the lives of the New Stone Age peoples rapidly improved with advances in these areas.

Tools. Not enough can be said about how much the use of and creation of tools impacted early man. Gone were the days of the difficult tasks associated with hunting, such as butchering and skinning. Tools made these tasks much easier to accomplish. Improvements in tools associated with hunting and fishing also positively impacted Neolithic life. Better spears, fishing hooks, and harpoon like instruments made hunting and fishing much more bountiful. They also helped make the processing portions of these tasks much more efficient, saving time and allowing early man to do more. This would lead to an increase in the number of people that could be fed, and would add to the population expansion.

Tools were not the only improvement that caused the expansion of population. The ability to farm also hugely impacted population. Farming and agriculture led to more sustainable food sources, ones that could be readily available as long as nature cooperated. Farming would create overages in foods gathered, thus feeding a much larger population of people. It would also, for the first time, encourage people to stay in one place. This would lead to the rise of cities and eventually, civilizations.

Tools and agriculture were not the only major improvements to Stone Age life. Domestication of animals provided for another way to collect meat that was much easier than hunting. This would allow more people to gather in closer proximate, aiding population growth and providing another contributing factor that would lead to the development of cities.

The Neolithic period wasn’t all terrible, as one may gather from the first critical thinking question. Comparatively speaking, these developments that I mentioned had such a huge impact on early man, those that came before them would not recognize their way of life. Tools, agriculture, and domestication of animals forever changed the way man would live for the better, and made contributions to us that we still use today. That was the lasting power of these developments, and how important they were to us.


3) A strange thing occurred roughly 7000 years ago. People in several different regions of the world began to cultivate the land. In Central America, North Africa, the Middle East, India, and China independently began to practice agriculture. Why? When examining the reasons why agriculture took off in several places at the same time, there are a couple of reasons I think are worth our time investigating.

Firstly, I think climate change played a role in allowing the development of farming to take off. As the temperature warmed around the world, larger areas would become available for plants to grow. As we examine the map, we see agriculture taking off in roughly the same latitude bands, those that are warmer, with arable climates. I think this supports knowledge supports this first reason. This coupled with a migratory pattern that kept people near major rivers and tributaries, and you have a recipe that would lead man to settle in lands with plenty of water, warm weather, and good soil.

Considering migratory patterns of early man, I think the next reason would involve more and more people interacting with one another. As this occurs, ideas would certainly transfer from one place to another, agriculture being one of them. It is already known that agriculture spread in the Middle East in large part because of intercommunity interaction. These interactions would have come about through warfare, cooperation, or multi-group settlement. Ideas from one group would be incorporated if the society found those ideas useful.

A third and final reason may be larger populations and shortages of wild food. This would certainly have influenced early man in pushing him towards agriculture and domestication, rather than remain nomadic. Large wide open spaces, whether natural or manmade would produce much larger amounts of food, so long as the techniques to cultivate them were known. This is a basic building block of civilization. The ability to control these places would not only help to feed larger populations, it would lead to the acquisition of land, and with that control and power over vast areas and many people. Farming makes all of these possible.

There are other reasons to be sure, but I think these represent some of the best ones available. Climate change following up the last ice age, interaction with other groups of people, larger populations contending with food shortages were almost certainly reasons for this development around the world. These all sowed the seeds for farming (pun intended), as well as became building blocks for three other major facets of humanity: religion, war, and civilization.

Vocabulary:

Civilization: A complex culture with 5 characteristics: 1) Advanced Cities. 2) Specialized Workers. 3) Complex Institutions. 4) Record Keeping and 5) Advanced Technology.
Specialization: Development of skills in a specific kind of work.
Artisan: skilled workers who make goods by hand.
Institution: A long lasting pattern or organization in a community.
Scribe: Professional record keepers.
Cuneiform: A system of writing developed by Sumerian scribes meaning “wedge shaped.”
Bronze Age: A time period when people began using bronze rather than copper or stone, beginning around 3000 BC in Sumer.
Barter: A way of trading goods and services without money.
Ziggurat: A pyramid shaped structure that means “mountain of god.”


Short Answer:

1) A more complex and prosperous economy affected the social structure of village life. For example, building and operating large irrigation systems required the labor of many people. As other special groups of workers formed, social classes with varying wealth, power, and influence began to emerge. A system of social classes would become more clearly defined as cities grew.

2) It provided Ur with food surpluses which positively impacted the economy.

3) The key traits of civilization are: 1) Advanced Cities. 2) Specialized Workers. 3) Complex Institutions. 4) Record Keeping and 5) Advanced Technology.

Critical Thinking:

1) There are several differences to point out concerning small farming communities versus life in a city in Sumer. One difference is social relationships becoming more complicated as a result of the transition. Farming communities were much more closely knit, with a common form of living shared by most inhabitants. As the transition to cities occurred, we find many varied forms of living taking shape along with distinguishable social classes based on occupation.

Another difference is the transition to much more complicated ritualistic systems of religion, replacing the more primitive forms of nature worship. The worship of powerful gods and goddesses replaced worshipping the rain, rivers, and other natural features.

A third difference concerns the development of complex laws. A small community doesn’t require much in the way of law enforcement to govern people that live there. As cities grew, this would change and the development of a specific legal system would take place. There are other instances that could be addressed, such as the development of artisans or intercity trading systems, but these are a place to start.

2) Writing developed as a way to keep records in early civilization. This would be of benefit, not only to governments, but also to religions and tradesman as well. Governments were able to save established laws and present them so that they were clearly understood by all. Histories of kings could also be saved to help reinforce the idea of kingship, elevating some to God status. For governments, this would be crucial for them to establish their authority and to spread information associated with it.

For religion, the importance of the creation of writing should go without saying. Moral codes incorporated into religious rituals and stories could be written down and passed from one to another. This would enable the beginning of the early major religions to develop.

In all circumstances, writing information down allowed ideas to travel from one place to another. Politics, religion, and other areas that require influence would all have greatly benefited from this invention.

3) There are several specific reasons why the ziggurat of Ur reveals that the Sumerians developed advanced civilization. The first reason is that it would have required a massive amount of manpower and organization to complete it. This would involve a city-size work force, and enough in the way of skilled tradesmen to provide food, water, and masonry services. Pulling this off would have been a feat in itself.

Another reason is that the religion of the city required such a big temple to practice all the rituals that were required. That doesn’t happen in smaller places that would not have reached civilization status.

A final reason to point out is how it shows the cities were planned out and not thrown together haphazardly. Again this is a sign of advanced civilization. All aspects of what defines civilization would have to come together in order to make it work out.

Short Answer
1) Archaeologists study artifacts, ruined sites, and remains of people to learn about the past. Anthropologists study artifacts and other remains to learn about the culture of a particular group of people. Paleontologists study the fossil record to learn about prehistoric animals and plants.

2) The ability to walk uprights allowed for early humans to travel greater distances more easily. It also aided in spotting predators more easily as well as carry food or children. The development of the opposable thumb allowed small items to be easily picked up and increased the use of tools.

3) The Paleolithic and Neolithic Eras are referred to as the Stone Age because of the prominence of developing stones into tools. A wide variety of tools developed for various purposes that were made by fashioning and polishing stones.

4) The developed religious beliefs and performed rituals as attempts to explain the world. There is evidence of funerary activity, an activity that demonstrates a knowledge or understanding of some type of religious explanation to death.

5) It is believed that men primarily hunted and would not have been free to develop agricultural practices. Women on the other hand were thought to have gathered seeds and would have been the first to notice a correlation between seeds on the ground and new plants.

6) In nomadic culture, a food source would be transient and would require members of that society to be constantly traveling in order to find enough food to feed their people. In a farmer society, the ability to grow their own food enabled them to stay place and to grow larger communities. It would be one of the contributing aspects of civilization.

7) Early farming developed in fertile river valleys, including the Nile in Africa, the Yellow River in China, and the land between the rivers in Mesopotamia. It’s important to note that agriculture also developed far from the old world in Mexico and South America.

8 ) Some economic changes that resulted from storing food were: the development of larger villages, the development of irrigation systems, and it allowed the ability for specialization and artisan work by freeing up hands that would otherwise have been required for farming.

9) The growth of civilization required more organization of processes that used to be much simpler. Because organization is required, these led to rules that could be enforced concerning best practices. As a result, government developed to help enforce organization. Generally it was tied to the head of the tribe, or village and revolved around their decision making capabilities.

10) A system of record keeping developed in civilization to preserve knowledge and transfer information. It would have been essential for religions, governments, and tradesman to keep a record of what they were doing and preserve any information to pass along to others.


Critical Thinking

1) It’s hard to identify just one, but I think the biggest change to daily life occurred with the development of agriculture. From this, we find the roots of everything that we have built civilization on today. With agriculture, we can see the beginnings of settlements, which lead to a shared culture, which leads to shared religion and government, which leads to shared expression, which leads to civilization. If there is one particular thing that we should acknowledge, in terms of technological development, understanding that seeds turned into plants is probably the greatest of this era.

2) Trade is responsible for the development of economy, the spread of ideas, and even a factor in early warfare. Trade was fundamental to the growth of power among early centers of civilizations, because of its effect on knowledge and resource spreading, it was instrumental in determining how great an early civilization could become.

3) I would go back to my previous answer about agriculture. I think it was by far, the most important early development. From there, If I had to pick a second, the development of fire would be it. Taming fire allowed for extended travel and living in places that humans couldn’t previously live. Fire allowed humanity to spread around the world, while agriculture allowed them to finally stay put and grow in the elements that would lead to civilizations.

4) The rise of cities required government to become more developed and refined. As cities grew, populations became more difficult to maintain without some type of order and organization. Enter government. The largest cities would require the most complex forms of government to handle all the different issues that would arise from a gathering of a lot of people together. The rise of cities directly correlates to the increasing complexity of government institutions.