Sharp, L. (1952). Steel axes for stone age Australians. Human
Organization, 11(1).
Washburn, S. L. (1960, September). Tools and human evolution. Scientific
American.
To what extent was the process of flaking used for weapon making? Beyond the arrowhead, were any other weapons made using this technique? Were weapons during this time used specifically for hunting or were they also used for attack or defense?
In Washburn, they make the conclusion that man-apes could kill only
the smallest animals, because that is what they found remains of in the
old living site, and that they must have been primarily vegetarian.
Just because they only found small animals there, does that really mean
that it was all they were capable of killing? If I killed a rabbit, I
might take it into my living space to clean. However, if I killed
something larger, like say a deer, I would probably process it wherever
it was that I killed it and bring the meat back.
In Washburn's reading ("Tools and Human Evolution"), I didn't completely understand the science behind the argument he makes about human evolution and the domestication of man. Washburn mentions that breeders pick animals that have smaller brows and faces and somewhat links that to the self-domestication of man. What I don't really understand is how self-domestication came as a need or affect of tools. How does the two link and what is his exact argument on that?
What part of the brain in the "man-apes" dealt with the development and usage/handling of their stone tools?
Washburn says "Most of the obvious differences that distinguish man from ape came after the use of tools." From this he concludes that tools caused/enabled the evolution of man. I don't understand why he assumes that the order (first tools, then homo sapiens) is necessarily causal. He explains it a little, but not very much, and not enough for me to be convinced. (I'd like this question answered.)
(Washburn, 71) "As functional maps of the cortex of the brain show, the human sensory-motor cortex is not just an enlargement of that of an ape." What do these terms mean? What is Washburn trying to say?
(Washburn, 73) How did primates with greater skill for language, memory and foresight have an advantage over primates engaged more in the motor and sensory functions?
The Sciam article suggests that ancient technology had a major role in our evolutionary path. If we are to take this claim seriously, is it possible that Computer Scientists and other inventors are going to be responsible for future generations that are nearsighted, have longer fingers, and weaker jaws?
Washburn argues that tools occurred before modern man, and that that they provided the circumstances for the selective pressures which dictated human evolution. How come modern apes (some of which have rudimentary tool capabilities) did not experience similar pressures?
Washburn says, “The utility of a mere pebble seems so limited to the user of modern tools,” but would the attitude of “users of modern tools” change if instead being a “user” he/she/z would be a “maker of modern tools?” What are the advantages of making tools vs. being simply a user of tools?
In reading the article by Washburn, “Tools and Human Evolution”, I was wondering if there exist evidence or an argument of whether the use of tools by our early ancestors deterred the evolution of other animals. The most obvious example is the extinction of the Woolly Mammoth but I was referring to other Hominids. Is it possible that our ancestors use of tools allowed them to gain a monopoly on a food supply shared with other Hominids? And that this control over a food supply limited other animals’ ability to attain this food and eventually lead to their extinction. I know this may seem like a bit of a weird question but I came by it watching the national geographic or the history channel. So I only wish to verify or correct my current understanding.
Why is it more difficult to be certain about the timeframes involved with glaciatic movements and changes when we have technology that can accurately accredit a given fossil to an era that precedes these glaciers by thousands, if not millions, of years?
Do variances between male and female canine teeth exist to this day or has the use of technology successfully balanced out this difference between early man-apes?
Washburn states that tools predate many of the evolutionary changes that differentiate humans from apes. Do you think that tools caused these evolutionary changes? If so, how?
When did humans/ man-apes start wearing clothing?
Since the man-ape had a pelvis that was a combination of man's and ape's, and since the man-ape made its own tools, would it have been good at bipedal walking like humans, or would it have walked more like apes, or can we tell?
Have there been any discoveries of new types of man-apes or early men since the Washburn article was written?
On 69, Washburn says, "The fossil record thus substantiates the suggestion... that tool use is both the cause and the effect of bipedal locomotion." I don't understand his reasoning here. Can you explain how he reached this conclusion?
Sharp credits the stone axe and other technology introduced to the Yir Yoront by white missionaries with the decline of Yir Yoront society. It seems to me that, rather than the decline of traditional society, these technologies introduced a system in which older men no longer held all the power. To what extent do you think this change actually created a "mental and moral void" (5), and to what extent is this perspective being influenced by Sharp's informants and a bias against changes in the social order?
Are there other examples, such as the steel axe that revolutionized the culture and beliefs of a certain group of people?
How did it make the males of the Yir Yoront tribe feel when the women and children, who previously could not possessively "own" an axe, owned steel axes instead of stone axes more often than males?
With the numerous uses for the axe, including the use of them on totem poles and as a type of social class divider, which one was most important to the aboriginal tribes such as the Yir Yoront?
What exactly does the term "totem" refer to? It seems that the author of "Steel axes for stone age Australians" uses this term to refer to an object that is used in rituals performed by Australian native people as well as to a group of people (a subunit of clan).
Sharp's case study provides a great example of what Whittaker was talking about when he mentioned certain tools being valued for their symbolic significance because they represented such qualities as maleness (p. 51)*. Do tools simply reinforce gender roles, or in some cases are they responsible for their existence?
In the Yir Yoront reading, they mention a walk-about in quotes. What exactly is a wlkabout?
Sharp demonstrates, using the example of the Yir Yoront aboriginals, that a single new technology can cause an enormous paradigm-shift. The group in question had a world-view that was particularly threatened/contradicted by unexplainable new technologies. In our society, new technologies are constantly introduced - what qualities does our society's worldview have that insulates it from the ideological challenges and threats posed by new technologies?
Was the stone axe or perhaps any other stone tool as important to other primitive societies as it was to the Yir Yoront
Do the Yir Yorunt group still use only the steel axe and stone axe or do they have access to more technology today?
If the steel axe brought so much trouble and it was more difficult to produce for the Yir Yorunt, why did they keep trying to get them?
It stated that the steel axe had negligible impact on the life of the aboriginal, because of the relatively small number of tasks that it was used for, when compared to the stone axe. It even stated that the steel axe did the tasks faster, but that the extra time was used to sleep. It seems that the negligible impact of the technology in this case makes most of the article unimportant. What impact did the steel axe head have to make the analysis justified?
I think you missed the key point: Although it made little technological difference, the new technology made a huge difference in the way the culture functioned.
Sharp in the article "Steel Axes for Stone-Age Australians" illustrates both the social value of stone axes for the Yir Yoront and the changes that accompanied the introduction of steel axes into the Yir Yoront culture. These two ideas are echoed in two previous articles. Pool argues that technology is largely shaped by society through social constructs, such as the Yir Yoront shaped the value of stone axes through their “totems”. Weinberg in the article “Can Technology Replace Social Engineering?” argues that “technological fixes” and in general technology can shape and mold society to resolve problems, similarly to how steel axes where more useful than stone axes and eventually forever changed the Yir Yoront. So then which of these two views is more relevant to Sharp’s article?
Last week we discussed how technological progress can solve social problems and improve the quality of life. However, when steel axes were introduced to the Yir Yoront by white missionaries, societal relationships started to break down. As steel axes replaced stone axes, the Yir Yoront lost a certain degree of agency and were dependent on the missionaries to provide them with their most sacred tool. Just because one culture has made technological progress, do they have the right to force it onto other cultures?
How can we promote human evolution in one particular direction of our choice... by using a particular design/function in a product? Is there a reasonable way to simulate or map out the evolutionary consequences of our inventions today?
In "Steel axes for stone age Australians" the author describes the negative impact of the colonists' interaction with the aboriginal people of Australia. Could these negative effects have been avoided or are they a necessary consequence of human technological progress?
In his essay, Sharp suggests that the stone axe functioned as an "an important symbol of masculinity" (p. 3). Given our growing understanding of technology and its socio-cultural functions, how does technology continue to shape gender identities in modern day society?
In his essay, Washburn offers a radical reevaluation of the relationship between man and technology. How does his suggestion, that tools were in fact a cause rather than a result of human evolution, add new dimensions to our discussion of the role of technology in altering the human condition?
Albert Einstein said, “The third world war will be fought with sticks and stone,” what did he mean? Will we have a less “limited” perspective of stones as the world ages? Or will we go back to our primitive state because of how “modern tools” are destroying our planet?
As more “modern tools” are introduced, it seems that work, energy and time is less wasted than when using “simplest tools,” but is society losing something more value since “traditional tool making” is being replace by an assembly line of machines? If yes, then what?
Sharp describes how the introduction of steel axes influenced Yir Yoront society. Were these effects foreseeable? Whose responsibility is it to think about the results of new technologies?
The Sharp reading discusses how the axe was used primarily by women and it was used by all members of society? How can we can compare the use of the axe in this culture to that of our own? How do the two cultures converge or diverge?
Sharp discusses how the rapid introduction of steel axes and other Western ideas/ technologies, caused the collapse of the Yir Yoront culture. Would the cultural collapse have occurred if the axe and other technology was introduced more slowly? or if it was only given to men?
Washburn says "complex and technical society evolved from the sporadic tool using of an ape ... to the hugely complicated culture of modern man" (75). Would it be accurate to say that technology is the foundation of culture?
When was fire discovered? Who were the people who did this?
;
