From Grunt To Grammar: The Evolution Of Language

From Grunt To Grammar: The Evolution Of Language
by Jeanne Miller
October 2009
Odyssey magazine: Adventures In Science
page: 34-36

"When did we start speaking and why?" This is the question all scientists try to solve and they have some answers. Our brains didn't only change size but also they became more complex so how could we speak and other animals couldn't? Because animals according to the article "Can breath and swallow at the same time so the range of possible sound is limited". It is difficult for scientists and paleoanthropologists to find if they were able to speak or not because "Spoken words don't leave fossils" according to the article but they believe it started at about one million years ago. The reason we are not sure yet is because scientists and archaeologists find older and older fossils that are evidence for the use of language.

Miller, Jeanne. "From Grunts to Grammar: The Evolution of Language ." Odyssey :Adventures in Science 

     Oct. 2009: 34-36. Print. 

                                                     

Taming Fire: The first scientist?

Taming Fire: The first scientist?                                                  
by Mary Betb Cox
Oddysey: Adventures in Science
October 2009
Pages 29-30

Playing with fire it was and it will always be risky. But one person thousands of yeas ago wanted to 'play' with fire and he/she changed the way we live. This 'scientist' he/she invented it approximately 250,500 years ago. But how do we know that they  used fire? According to the article "A quarter of a million years ago, hearths began to appear as regular features of prehistoric  campsites in Europe". Why did they used them? For almost the same reason that we use fire. It was used to heat objects or even to warm themselves. At last, the evidence that scientists had for the use of fire in olden days are the  human and burned animal bones at Swartkrans caves. So that means that the humans cooked the animal. And to cook them they needed fire.    

                       

Cox, Mary Betb. "Taming fire: the first scientist?" Odyssey: Adventures in Science Oct. 2009: n. 

pag. Print. 

On our two feet

On our two feet
by Stephen Whitt
Odyssey: Adventures in Science
October 2009
pages 26-28


Article summary:

Humans. Humans is a specie that can walk in their two feet (some animals can actually walk in their two but in a clumsy way). Anthropologists have many answers at the question " From where did we took our different walking?". According to the article two things are for sure "Upright is very old and it came long before we modern humans evolved our big brains". We are similar to chimpanzees, apes etc but we are not kins. Our relationship is that we share an ancestor similar to both species. One of our differences with all animals and especially with chimps and all this kinds, is that we have a larger brain and that out skull construction is quite different. Scientists can tell how they walked by looking at the foramen magnum in the skull. Sot they did to compare a chimp's, an A.afarenhis's and a human skull. The chimp's foramen magnum looks up (walks on four legs), ours is looking horizontal (we walk on 2) and at last A.afarensis foramen magnum is looking horizontal (just like us). A theory of why we walked on two (according to the author) is "We started walking on two,he says, to free our hands and arms for carrying food to our arms". Another theory is that we stood up in two for to cross hot desserts. But which one is rue and basically why we walk upright(on out two)?

Whitt, Stephen. "On our two feet." Odyssey: Adventures in Science Oct. 2009: 26-28. Print. 

Who is who among Early Hominids?

Who is who among early hominids?
by Randall Susman
Odyseey: Adventures in Science

Article summary:

" Ape-men" is the name that we use for to name early hominids because of their relation to apes but also to humans. Sahelanthropus tchadensis was found at the beginning of the 21st century in Africa. We can tell that it is 6-7 million years old and there are many opinions of whether it was more ape or human like. Orrorin tugenesis is one of the oldest anthropoids about 6.1-5.8 m.y.a and it was found in Kenya. He have been placed in the austrolopithecines group. Ardipithecus is 4.4 million years old and it was found in Ethiopia at the year 1994 and depended on scientists it is more ape like. Kenyapithecys platyops was discovered as the same time as sahelanthropus (2001) in Kenya. The splited skull was more like 3.5 m.y.a. Paranthropus (similar to man) it is estimated that it is as old as the homo species (around 2.5 m.y.a) and it was found Kenya. As scientists can tell they spend more time to the ground.
Early homo are part of out class. The first found fossils are around 2 millions years old. Our "relative's" first found skull was discovered in South and East of Africa. According to the author "paleoanthropologists had thought that all the early Homo fossils that date from around 2-1.6 m.y.a belonged to the species  Homo habils". Homo habils( handy man) fossils were found in Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia. Their basic difference with all the ape-men is that they have a larger brain but it is not more human like than australopithecnes. The more advanced specie of Homo is H. erectus. It was found in Asia, Europe and Africa and it dates 18 m.y.a. The specie of homo between homo habils and homo erectus is homo georgicus (named by a scientist) and it is dated around 1.8 m.y.a. At last, a recently discovered hominid specie is homo florensis which is dated around 18.000 years before present.

Susman, Randall. "Who is who among early hominids?" Odyssey: Adventures in Science Oct. 2009:

22-25. Print. 

Why we study human origins?

Why we study human origins
by Randall Susman
Calliope magazine

Article summary :

A lot of people ask why and how we evolved. Were we branched off from other hominids? Fossils give us information about our ancestors and the physical changes they went through overtime. They also tell us about the changes in behavior of them. Scientists now compare anatomy and behavior, through fossils, in living animals to extinct animals in order to better understand our ancestors. For a long time theories on human origins were based on science and concrete evidence like fossils. At the 1800 a man called Darwin, thought that we are not the only ones that change and grow but also plants and animals show the same characteristics. His theory was widely used among scientists. After a time period, Thomas Huxley started comparing human and apes. According to the author " Huxley believed that anatomically, apes and humans were similar, more similar in fact than apes were to monkeys". This is interesting because apes look like monkeys on the outside but on the inside they are actually more like humans- no one knew this before. That means it was a new idea! No hominid fossils was ever found before and that meant that no evidence proved those two theories.

The first hominid fossil was found by Raymond Dart in the 1925 at the south Africa. That means that it was the first piece of the puzzle, a piece that helped to explain the human evolution and started to prove Darwin's  and Huxley's theories. Scientists and archaeologists continued to search and dig in Africa and found more fossils and stone tools (more puzzle pieces/ evidence). From all these fossil finds, Susman explained that some believed "our earliest ancestors were tree dwelling apes, or four legged knuckle- walkers, or even bipeds that lived in water". Did you actually know that stone tools meant that our ancestors hunted for food?We also learn from the article that people had different opinions because they didn't have an accurate fossil record.  

Susman, Randall. "Why We Study Human Origins." Calliope: Exploring World History Sept. 1999: 4-5. Print.

Stonehenge: Mystery in History

       A theory of who and how  Stonehenge was built is that it was created by Merlin the famous wizard. According to folklores he transported them magically from Ireland, where huge mythical creatures, giants, placed them. He transported them to the southern England where now Stonehenge is. In my opinion this is a fiction of people that wanted to attract tourists or something like that and it spread through years passed. 

       Another theory is that it was an observatory and it was used to mark the midsummer. Recently, they found that the people who visited Stonehenge at the midsummer, might have been visiting it at the winter solstice, when the sun sets between the largest arches. I believe it might be true because cultures had different religions and gods so the might be praying to their god or they are celebrating an event.    

         A different  theory is that it was a place for the dead people as Mike Parker Pearson says. In Stonehenge they found buried bones so this is way the theory of being a place for dead exist. Lately they found a monument, not far away from it, just like Stonehenge but it was from wood and they believe it is the place for the living. A reason to argue that the two monuments are related is that the one is made of wood, wood might be the symbol of life because wood is just like humans, it grows and it dies and the reason the other monument is from stone is because stone might be the symbol of lifelong life. In my opinion this is the more possible way that Stonehenge was built. 

 

 

Ancient Dog Skull Shows Early Pet Domestication

Ancient dog skull shows early pet domestication

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-dogs-wolves-russia-domestication-animals-science-evolution/

 The skull at the picture shows us an ancient dog skull that is 33,000 years old. This skull was found in Siberia at Altay Mountains. The earliest recorded  dog skull was 14,000 year old, but now after 3 radiocarbon dating examinations it is proved that this it is the earliest one. As scientists say wolves evolve into dogs every 50-100 years and that it would be a very important find ,if they found an ancient wolf turning into dog. Fortunately they founded him. The skull is from a wolf that died while he was evolving into a dog. But they can not learn the cause of his death. The reason the skull kept being in a good shape is because of the cold temperature and non-acidic soil of the cave.