Chose one of them - Article Example

A Critique of John Shea’s “Stone Tool Analysis and Human Origins Research: Some Advice from Uncle Screwtape (date)                 Shea’s article is all about the author’s idea that Paleolithic stone stools are not making any significant contributions to the major issues in the research for human origins (Shea 2011:48). In order to come up with an overall persuasive article, the author makes a strong claim that “lithic evidence is just not providing answers to the interesting questions about human evolution” (Shea 2011:48).

What he means is that some archeologists should change their current methods of investigating Paleolithic stone tools in order to arrive at more plausible explanations on the origins of humans. Archeologists who commit mistakes usually focus on behavioral research when they should rather delve more into cognitive development of hominins vis-a-vis the stone tools they used, and the technological and evolutionary aspects of these tools. The article, which is probably intended for current researchers and students in archeology, is organized by the author through the use of both satire and actual results of previous research investigations in order to prove his point that theories on human origins can only be formulated through cognitive and not behavioral studies using Paleolithic stone tools.

First, Shea presents a rather long and sarcastic narrative directly lifted from one of C. S. Lewis’ satirical novellas in order to expose the shortcomings of current archeological research when it comes to dealing with Paleolithic stone tools. These weaknesses include assuming that stone tools are “replicas” of prehistoric human life, using intuition instead of proper measurements in determining the significance of the tools, and making these findings almost unverifiable (Shea 2011:48-49).

The author then complements the satire with some actual mistakes of archeologists such as determining who and how many once used these tools (Shea 2011:50). Finally, Shea attempts to correct these flaws in research by enumerating a few major issues on which he believes archeologists should focus. These include studying Paleolithic stone tools vis-a-vis “what early hominins were doing and why” (Shea 2011:50), as well as improvements in their basic cognitive skills and brain size (Shea 2011:51).

Shea finally concludes with a recommendation on three novel methodologies for current archeological research, one of which is the chaine operatoire or the principle of dealing with choices made by prehistoric man at any point of the process of tool production (Shea 2011:52). All the aforementioned ideas have been taken from various related primary sources from results of research studies in archeology from 1983 to 2010, books with the oldest published in 1977, and C. S. Lewis’ book for the satire (Shea 2011:52-53).

Most evidence to the author’s claims may have been the combined opinion of many other experts on the topic. The rest of the evidence may be statistical accounts, and C. S. Lewis’ satire is obviously literary. Nevertheless, works such as those of Bisson on 20th century archeology and Sellet on chaine operatoire may have somehow directly shaped the author’s major convictions (Shea 2011:52-53). Personally, I agree with the author’s claim and main points not only because the conclusions are warranted but also because overall the author makes a lot of sense.

With studies of the early use of stone tools based on the cognitive, technological and evolutionary aspects, an archeologist can better arrive at more plausible theories on how the first humans originated in places where they are now. The cognitive aspect, for one, involves social learning and the idea that “the distributions of particular types of stone tools in space and time define the boundaries of identity-conscious social units” (Clark 1999). This means that stone tools may change with the increasing intelligence of their makers.

Thus, one could exactly pinpoint the relative locations of these intellectually-evolving human beings based on the locations of the stone tools. The only point, however, that the author somehow failed to address is the idea that sand deposits where these stone tools were buried may suggest the age of these stone tools (Harmon 2011). This age must be properly correlated with the expected dates when hominins first used these implements. References Clark, G. A. 1999 Modern Human Origins: Highly Visible, Curiously Intangible.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved July 21, 2011 from Bellarmine University: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/ modern_human_origins.htm Harmon, Katherine. 2011 Middle Eastern Stone Age Tools Mark Earlier Date for Human Migration out of Africa. Retrieved from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id= middle-eastern- stone-age-tools Shea, John J. 2011 Stone Tool Analysis and Human Origins Research: Some Advice From Uncle Screwtape.

Evolutionary Anthropology 20:48-53