Economic Requirements In World History PDF

ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS The history of human society has demonstrated that human beings always had needs which needed to be met in order for them to continue to live. Part of these needs were created by nature in that it was made necessary for human beings to live together; a disposition which meant...

ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS The history of human society has demonstrated that human beings always had needs which needed to be met in order for them to continue to live. Part of these needs were created by nature in that it was made necessary for human beings to live together; a disposition which meant that they would need to cooperate in order to make life valuable. In order to reproduce, human beings needed each other, and that meant entering into a variety of relationships. The relations which grew out of these unions were regulated by custom and law. Every member of a society was expected to make a contribution. The economic needs were not the only things society addressed. The society responded to individual and collective needs from every member. Further, the society made certain demands on its members who were expected to contribute the renewal of society. The basic economic requirements of human beings were food, shelter and clothing. In prehistoric times these pursuits must have consumed most of the time; and little time was spared for other activities. Animals and wild plants were the main source of human food. The level of their technological advancement determined the manner of food collection. For instance, meat was procured from wild game, and the mode of collection open to early man was hunting. S C Easton calls such an economy, a natural economy because it depended entirely on what nature provided to early man, \"especially if he clothed himself in animal skins and lived in caves and if human energy was the only motive power available to him\" (Easton, 1970:4). Early man\'s response to the failure of his environment to provide for him was that he moved to the next spot which was more virgin than the former and continued to collect his natural food from it. ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS The history of human society has demonstrated that human beings always had needs which needed to be met in order for them to continue to live. Part of these needs were created by nature in that it was made necessary for human beings to live together; a disposition which meant that they would need to cooperate in order to make life valuable. In order to reproduce, human beings needed each other, and that meant entering into a variety of relationships. The relations which grew cut of these unions were regulated by custom and law. Every member of a society was expected to make a contribution. The economic needs were not the only things society addressed. The society responded to individual and collective needs from every member. Further, the society made certain demands on its members who were expected to contribute the renewal of society. The basic economic requirements of human beings were food, shelter and clothing. In prehistoric times these pursuits must have consumed most of the time; and little time was spared for other activities. Animals and wild plants were the main source of human food. The level of their technological advancement determined the manner of food collection. For instance, meat was procured from wild game, and the mode of collection open to early man was hunting. S C Easton calls such an economy, a natural economy because it depended entirely on what nature provided to early man, \"especially if he clothed himself in animal skins and lived in caves and if human energy was the only motive power available to him\" (Easton, 1970:4). Early man\'s response to the failure of his environment to provide for him was that he moved to the next spot which was more virgin than the former and continued to collect his natural food from it. But when man continued to witness changes in his environment, especially when food requirements could no longer be met through the natural mode of survival, man began to make tools which facilitated his efforts to fight for his survival. Man\'s dependence on nature was drastically reduced to a degree where he began to control it in that he determined the level of food availability by producing part of it. This technological advancement made him learn to \"breed and tend animals\" (Easton, 1970:5), so that they did not diminish, and in that way he was able to continue to receive his food from them and could use them to facilitate his efforts to cultivate part of the food he lived on. Through some agricultural means he was able to till the soil, and he learnt to plant some of those crops which were gradually diminishing in his environment yet the constituted a major component of his diet. These changes were accompanied by environmental ones where human beings were forced to make some shelter in which to seek refuge at light and during uncomfortable times such as when it rained. Nature hand not provided a home like the ones people learnt to build for themselves, just like in the case of those crops which they demonstrated. Inventions did not stop with that of building the house, but continued to encompass the use of certain crops like flax, bark and other materials to make clothing. Human life was a constant struggle to establish dominance over nature in order to produce luxuries for pleasant living and comfortability. Human beings were able to harness nature to produce a surplus of crops beyond the domestic requirements of each group of people or home. This was the stage when they began to realize need to barter surplus for that which was scarce. Barter trade began at that time. Barter trade was only centred around food items but it included even items like clothing which had been manufactured from flax. Regional trade then began between those people who could not produce some of the items which were vital for their survival. This type of trade could be dated back to the Neolithic era and was carried on until the industrial revolution in Europe expanded to Africa, Asia Minor, America and other parts of the world from the late 15th century. But even before the introduction of European commodities there were societies in Africa and other parts of the world which had already developed industrial skills with which they were able to undertake complex and varied production. Industrial production is characterized by a more extensive division of labor, under which some members of the society, freed from direct agricultural work, specialize in manufacturing a varied assortment of articles to be consumed at home or to be traded in exchange for imported products. However, developments of this magnitude belonged to a much later age which was characterized by improved means of transport which facilitated overseas travel by some nations to seek avenues for the investment of the capital they had already made in their home countries. Those nations which afforded to engage in these aspects of investment were those which already had advanced societies. They were distinguished by the diversity of the products they manufactured, and by the effective organization of production which took advantage of specialized human skills. Because of their level of economic advancement these nations reduced in a very drastic way the waste of human energies in unnecessary labour. In that way both human and financial resources were strictly reserved for use where the need was in high demand and after some careful calculation of the benefits to accrue to such an engagement had been done. Seventeenth century history promulgated the assumption that human beings were forced to compete with other human beings in order to survive. The view that came to be held later in the nineteenth century was one which spread the message of the survival for the fittest. In other words, human success in the \"struggle for existence\" with other human beings was what determined survival, and this view fitted well with the notion held about all other species in the world. But the realities of the times and environments dictated that no human could survive as an island. Rather, man needed to cooperate with others to pool human and other resources together in order to conquer the dangers of his hostile environment. In response to the natural demand for cooperation, people realized the need for banding together with other groups in to overcome potential predators. But ganging together was not only meant to facilitate social and physical protection from hostile animals in the environment but it was also prompted by the need to alleviate the burden of providing daily requirements for the group. To realize this goal, it was necessary to form a group under one government which was headed by a person acceptable to the members of the group. The need for one or more authorities per group was made necessary by the need for the maintenance of internal order and resistance to external pressure. Absence of such an authority led to the disintegration of each group. Each government possessed a monopoly of power to enforce its will on individuals. In modern societies this coercive authority may be backed by police forces for general civil peace and military forces to repel external aggression. The government should \'have some moral authority and be acceptable either to a majority of the people or to a minority that commands enough material or moral resources to dominate the majority\' (Easton, 1970:5). History has proved that if any government, whether by one man or by many, is not acceptable to the people, it cannot survive for a long time. There is a sharp lacunae in the knowledge of how governments in pre-historic times functioned. \'It seems safe to assume that certain aspects of social behaviour must have been forbidden by custom, and that infringement of accepted codes was punished by the governing group, as, indeed, happens today in preliterate primitive societies\' (Easton, 1970:5). The Sumerians werè the earliest literate people with a written code of behaviour about acceptable conduct for citizens, and prescribed penalties for the infringement on the codes of behaviour. It was also through these codes of conduct that the Sumerian ably controlled and regulated their commercial life and transactions which affected the people of Sumeria. Both Sumerian and Mesopotamian rulers modified their codes of conduct when their communities numerically became more and more complex, and these are the developments which led finally to the promulgation and publication of the Sumerian laws known as the Hammurabi Code (Easton, 1970:5). Though a champion of other forms of civilizations, Egypt did not write her laws until much later in history. They, nonetheless had \"a concept of justice believed to be of divine origin, which was administered by the Pharaoh\" (Easton, 1970:6). The delay in Egypt\'s development of the code of laws was due to their religious beliefs. The gyptians believed that their divine god, who knew everything upon which their lives hung, administered the Egyptian laws and punished all those who offended society and its members. This belief did not create any need for law codes to be written hence the lagging behind of Egypt in the codification of their laws.                                                                  7 Hammurabi, ruler of Babylon, shared the Egyptian view that it was the ruler who should administer the laws and that he should also ensure justice in his endeavour to administer them to his people. Like Moses who received his people\'s laws directly from God, Hammurabi also believed that the Babylonian god of justice communicated the codes of laws to him hence their divine legality. In like manner, the Greek city-state of Athens lawgiver Solon consulted the Oracle at Delphi before he promulgated the laws to every Athenian. From earliest possible times, therefore, laws were made to be \'in accord with the ideal of justice\' (Easton, 1970:6), and that men who promulgated, administered and enforced these laws were people who had divine guidance and were not ordinarily expected to make errors. In the past, a self-sufficient family was presumed to be a model of a polity headed by one man who was recognized as such and acceptable to most of the members of the community he led. What is meant by family self-sufficiency is that it was not just one family but a constellation of families (clan) which recognized the headship of a senior member of the family or clan. In history, the known social and political unit is the clan around which small families rallied and united under one leader, and these people were united by their close (blood) relationship, and a common ancestor. At a much larger level was a tribe which consisted of various clans. A much magnified form of gathering is that of city-states whose oldest history is in Mesopotamia. However, modern history is devoid of the history of city-states because these have given way to large political units, and these are national states. The only country which is believed to have continued to have city-states up to the 1970s and perhaps even much later was Italy, where is found the Republic of San Marino displaying the features of an ancient city-state. National states have been built on conquered clans and tribes, and due to the antagonism engendered by the pain of subjugation and the loss of a people\'s sovereignty, national states have failed to mop up the allegiance of the incorporated groups of people. In other words, national states have remained empires because of the fragmentation displayed by their administrative structures. At the clan and tribal levels, unity was spontaneous where weaker clans and tribes gave themselves over for protection because of their helpless state and hence hope for securing refuge with the seemingly more organized overlords. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized three types of what he considered good governments: monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government. Aristotle continued to say that these governments could degenerate into what he called tyranny, oligarchy (rule by the few, not necessarily the best), and democracy (rule by the property-less many). In the modern western world, the concept of democracy has given way to constitutional monarchy, where the king has very limited power but remains, a symbol of unity. In those monarchical systems which have taken the place of democracy the king\'s advisors are elected by the people and in principle are responsible to them. These systems of governments have survived side by side with \"tyrannies\" whose pillar of strength and support have been the army. Oligarchies of varying kinds, on the other hand, have held power in many areas of the world, and no longer rule by virtue of having come from a noble background but through their control of wealth like in Latin America. In other instances, their power lies in their ability to control the bureaucracy as in the communist world, like the former Soviet Union. But whatever form a government assumed, its responsibility was to govern. In those instances where the government failed to satisfy this basic requirement, the people had the right to replace it with the one that would shoulder these responsibilities. However, in some instances, governments have been removed from the seat of administration not because they could not meet the requirements of a government but because they did not satisfy the desires of a few corrupt individuals. In the Africa of the 1960s and 1970s, bloody coup detats became commonplace. In the later years, the coup detats that were organized to replace governments whose work was deemed by some members of their communities to be unsatisfactory were less wasteful or bloodless. Logically every modern state cannot function \"without at least a modicum of governmental services, the most important of which remains the protection of its citizens\" (Easton, 1970:6). Together the social organization, political institutions, technology, economic activities, law, science, art, religion, and thought are called the \'culture\' of a society\' (Easton, 1970:6), and these elements are considered to be the common features of a Old Stone Age cave paintings and improved production techniques of the twentieth century have equally been dubbed as an expression of creativity of the societies of these different times in history. Paintings and other cultural expressions were works of men who showed their appreciation of the environment provided to them, and for their pleasure by nature. Human conduct was limited by natural conditions but not determined by it. People were able to shape natural objects into what they desired and not what nature desired. Old Stone Age people witnessed a swift change in their technology because there were cultural barriers that needed to be nursed in various stages of development and over a long period of time. Each change had to pass through all the intermediate stages, and institutions which stood for culture had to be modified for change to be a success. When we observe the different developmental stages of earlier society, for man to first live in caves and later progress to other forms of shelters was a necessary progression. A leap from the first stage to the fourth could not have been practicable. Historical progression tells us that though there were changes and improvements in the social, economic and political organizations of early societies, earlier foundations were not necessarily discarded but were used as foundations for later changes. For instance, the neolithic revolution affected the agricultural economy, and that foundation became the cornerstone for later agricultural improvements by successors of the Neolithic era. In that way cultural change could be said to be cumulative; later societies came to build on that which already existed. All the above changes represented the thoughts of men which were built into the world and made the world different from one generation to the next. Loss of these ideas could have forced man to return to the Old Stone Age civilization and to have had to start all over again. But saying that later societies built their cultures on foundations laid down by others before them does not rule out a possibility of cultural uniqueness. In other words, later societies built cultures which, though based on earlier ones, became unique in that there were certain traits which they developed independently of the cultural influences of the earlier ones. Those cultural developments made them fundamentally different and therefore unique compared to the earlier ones. An example is of the Egyptians who developed a divine kingship which was not copied by other people least the Egyptian descendants. However the Egyptians regarded death as a continuation of life. They did not see it as a break in line of continuity, thus they spent most of their time preparing for it. On the other hand, the \"Hindus and Buddhists, believing man\'s earthly destiny is an inescapable consequence of his deeds in former earth-lives for which he must compensate in later incarnations, naturally look upon all life as suffering and earthly striving for betterment as useless labor\" (Easton, 1970:7). These concepts did not help man to nurture the spirit for a reward in the world hereafter but encouraged him to simply give in to what was regarded as God\'s divine plan. According to that line of reasoning, the betterment of the spiritual life was a waste of time and energy. Muslims, on the other hand, believed that their task on earth was to submit to God\'s will and be guided by Him to what He wanted them to do.  Accordingly, in European Middle Ages what was important was to prepare for a life after death instead of wasting time and energy on earthly progress. Even Greeks appear not to have understood the need to concern oneself about the future because according to their belief man was passing to the next world. Accordingly, in European Middle Ages what was important was to prepare for a life after death instead of wasting time and energy on earthly progress. Even Greeks appear not to have understood the need to concern oneself about the future because according to their belief man was passing to the next world. Having observed the opposite view ancient ancestors held about the future and life after death, in the twentieth century people have taken advantage of change. Technological change for instance, has led man to land on the moon something which was anathema to the Egyptians who regarded the moon as their goddess. According to Easton (1970:7) early people could have continued to cling to ancient thoughts and overlooked the new ideas which led to the improvement of the living conditions because they believed that they were in paradise. But since these people knew very little about themselves and particularly about the inheritance from their forefathers in the past to compare it to what technological innovations offered discarding the latter modern innovations had no basis. But then to appreciate their achievements we have to approach the study with the view that their goals were limited when limited goals went along with limited intelligence when compared with modern advances. Cultural diffusion has been a common phenomenon in the history of humankind in that once cultural advances had taken place within a particular society, these later spread to other places. But their acceptance was held back with suspicion in that the new cultural traits had to find their \"place in the receiving society\\; they must find a fertile ground for acceptance and propagation\" (Easton, 1970:7). For instance, the Egyptian divine concepts of kingship could have found a conducive environment in contemporary Mesopotamia because they had their own contradictory concepts of a god. On the other hand Christianity could have diffused into all these religious institutions because it offered many answers to so many questions that the receiving society would embrace it for those reasons. The parliamentary system of government whose origin is traced to England diffused to the rest of Europe and when European nations began to cut up Africa, Asia Minor and America for distribution among themselves, they passed on their administrative systems, especially after the First World War. But it did not take root in all parts of the world to which it was diffused because of the strong long existing institutions found there. Technical inventions were less destructive compared to political and religious changes because they did not call for the total alteration of long existing structures. There are plenty examples of these innovations which history can record. They could range from the food revolution which came with a number of new ideas about food production and the domestication of animals. While it might be true that there were some changes in the religious outlook of the affected people, these were not as fundamental as the overhaul of institutions. Modifications were witnessed in certain instances but still, they were not as fundamental as the changing of political and religious institutions. Because technical innovations made life for everybody concerned more fluid than in ancient times, the recipients were willing to forego certain things for those which were bent on improving their lives.  Still on the innovations, while it is true that writing initially came from Sumeria and spread to the Egyptians, the latter made it look totally different from its initial outlook. They (Egyptians) modified it and improved on the adopted practice by using their own pictures and symbols and developed new writing materials available \[09/21, 21:50\] Sandra Von Abo: The history of the spread of languages is slightly different in that it is associated with the migrations of the affected people. But when we take the history of the invention of gunpowder, printing and paper, historians can always trace it to its proper original home and follow its diffusion routes. In the end history would point to the original country where it came from and continue to indicate the various stages of its development in another country and not necessarily its original home.  Recipients of cultural diffusion mix what they have acquired from other cultures with their improvements on their acquisitions. Once cultural diffusion has taken place, people invent what has been invented elsewhere without knowing anything about the invention, and this development is made possible by the influence of the acquired culture. Among the things which get invented are those which will not be diffused to other cultures but will be kept sometimes unconsciously. An example of this disposition are the basic forms of architecture that had been developed by the Sumerians but were not diffused to other people. Neighbouring states like Egypt and Greece did not make use of the architecture for several reasons. First, the Egyptians and Greeks might not have heard about these forms of architecture hence they could not make use of them. Alternatively, if the latter nations had heard about the Sumerian architecture they did not make use of it because they did not fancy it. Third, it is possible that when compared to their own architecture, Sumerian architecture was no match hence the choice to stick to theirs thereby pushing the foreign one to the background or not dealing with it at all. Value judgment in this matter might have been the main issue.  The cultural issue discussed here tells us that any civilization which is exposed to foreign cultural traits does not accept everything traded to it with hookline and sinker but chooses that which is fit for its environment and own way of life. An example of the immense technical achievements of the modern age which have been made available to most people of the world is proof that people choose what they need and leave out that which they do not want. There are still those who have chosen to remain ignorant of the modern technical achievements because they are contented with what nature has provided to them. The argument by some has been that changes which involve technology might call upon an overhaul of the political and social structures at large yet these institutions may be strongly resistant to these changes. The other obstacle to change might be hatred for Western culture which did dovetail to the cultural and religious values of the recipients. Sometimes even those people from the receiving countries who were educated in the West often opposed these cultural changes which interfered with theirs upon return from abroad. Or if they did not reject them wholesale they did not show any wholehearted devotion to the change (Easton, 1970:8). 1.6 ROLE OF A HISTORIAN The role of a historian has no limit because historians are concerned with all that happened in the past. A historian needs to consult even disciplines which appear to have no relation to history mainly because there is the danger of bypassing valuable sources of information. The limitations of a historian are caused by the absence of information. The historians have often benefited from the diaries of travellers and missionary records which provided facts from which the historical accounts about diffusion as change have been written. Primary sources of research which historians use to reconstruct the past reflect the educational background of the writer because sources are silent and it is the historian who makes them talk. Approaches to the interpretations of historical facts depend on the ideological mood of the writer, and his educational background more than the discipline itself. As a writer, the historian chooses to make some of the facts to constitute the backbone of his historical discourse. This makes history to be a science. For that shortcoming, writers like Easton (1970:8) feel that history should not even be referred to as a social science subject because while other social science disciplines make predictions, history does not. Due to its methodological inability to make predictions, history is being disqualified as a social science subject. In practical terms, the historian has more affinity with art than he does with physical science. For instance, a sculptor moulds an inert marble into an \"aesthetically pleasing form\" (Easton, 1970:9). On the other hand, a historian who is faced with a myriad of facts has the choice of making the facts tell a story; but the nature of the facts limits him only to a certain type of story  which makes history slightly more limited than sculpture. In the case of sculpture, the sculptor moulds his object into anything he desires. Likewise, a painter who is faced with a blank canvas can turn it into anything he desires.  A novelist also enjoyed some freedom of choosing the material he wanted to communicate otherwise there was no physical medium of creation he had to stick to like a historian. The historian, on the other hand, is handicapped by the methodological orientation of the discipline which demanded that he stick to the truth, and the expectation of readers, but to achieve all this the historian had the freedom of imposing an order and pattern of analysis to be followed in the process of writing history. For that reason history could be seen from different angles depending on the background from which one was writing the history. For instance, take the interpretation given to the South African War of 1899-1902. Most Eurocentric historians have called it the Anglo-Boer War, a title which suggests that the English had an upper hand in that war yet it is not true. On the other hand historians of South African origin favoured the former label because apart from the fact that the war was won by the South Africans, it was not the type of gentlemen\'s war which may mislead it to be. In other words, it was supposed to be a war  that would involve only the Europeans and no role in it was set  aside for the indigens of South Africa, yet once the war started,  more or less every group of people represented in South Africa  found themselves playing a major role in it. The labelling of events therefore creates problems for the history student when it is made to fly in the face of reality. History therefore becomes an arbitrary study because whenever a historian makes a list of those events he or she considers to have some relevance to his or her  study, he makes an arbitrary list which is considered justifiable  yet when other historians carry the same exercise their list of  events would differ from his. In that way then we would argue that history is an arbitrary discipline because so long as the historian is able to justify his choice of presentation his or her study will  be accepted as having met the set standards of the discipline,  history Once it is agreed that history is an art and not a science then the purpose for studying it is \'the enrichment of the whole human being, not for any incidental usefulness it may have in practical life\' (Easton, 1970:9). Politicians have found historical knowledge to be helpful particularly where it relates to them the problems of their forefathers and what their forebears did to solve similar problems in the past. Once he gathers this historical knowledge he will then avoid those mistakes which were committed by his forefathers and in that way he will minimize what could have otherwise been a serious problem. A knowledge of peace treaties in the past will help politicians before they plan participation in contemporary peace meetings. Yet at the same time a statesman who has accumulated knowledge of these events will know that there is no one formula towards peace negotiations but that the approaches of some people naturally or otherwise differed from those of others; hence the approach might be dictated by the situation under which the negotiations of the time were conducted. In other words, history teaches the statesman the importance of pragmatism where negotiations were resorted to but still the approach would be chosen from the different available approaches left behind by those statesmen of the past which has been recorded in history.    Even more important with the study of history is placing the achievements of a people in historical perspective, that is \'the recognition that the human race has survived numerous crises in the past, however dangerous they may have appeared at the time\' (Easton, 1970:9). Easton emphasizes need to come to the realisation that the world has evolved violently in that at one point in time some people were leaders in world evolution and even spread their culture widely, but failed to monopolize the wisdom of the world since they were overtaken by others whose wisdom shone more than theirs. Nonetheless we need to appreciate the role they played in the evolution of numerous civilizations, and the fact that nobody has lived forever but have been replaced by other stronger groups of people.    An examination of western civilization indicates the major strides it has made in the history of mankind, but even that it owes to those civilizations upon which it was founded. Western civilization has made some gigantic strides in their contributions to the improvement of life in general in the entire world but the contributions only represent an improvement upon the original work of those people whose civilizations vanished and were replaced by                                                                    16 The above sections of Unit One have shown the extent to which human beings could not live in isolation but needed to cooperate with one another. Human beings needed food, shelter, and clothing, which constituted basic economic requirements. In ancient times food was procured from wild animals and plants, whose killing or harvesting were in accordance with the skills and techniques available at the time. This economy was called a \'natural economy\'. But as improvement in production skills progressed, nature\'s supply of the natural food was also on the decline. Consequently, people developed skills to domesticate wild plants and animals in order to ensure adequate supplies of these items whenever the need arose. Later industrial skills followed and these were to produce those items they needed desperately and multiplied the produce both for local and regional exchange. Life in ancient times was \"solitary, poor brutish, and short\", and success in life depended on struggle for existence (Easton, 1970:5). According to this disposition only the fit individuals were able to survive in the competitive world. But individual effort to survive had certain limitations and these limitations created a need in man to establish some cooperation with others for defense. They had certain valuables to protect against destruction by other people in their locality. Human beings had already established the means to supplement the food hitherto provided to them by nature. They did so by producing some of their food, developments which made necessary the establishment of industries which began operation at cottage level though. Growth in industrial production was followed by the necessity to ensure the security of  the products that were being turned out by the industries. Laws were codified for use in the punishment of those who went against  the norms and values of society. The concept of society grew from  that of family to that of clan and later to that of a nation. A nation had numerical significance more than that of the clan. At  all the mentioned levels of society there was a head who ensured  the administration of justice in the security of members of  society, security of the economic resources and justice in the  distribution of the resources. The cultural creativity of early human beings was expressed in cave paintings. Cultural creativity of any society shows a series of developments from one cultural age to the next. The thoughts of people have been built into the world thereby changing the world forever. Even though cultural change is cumulative, each age had its own uniqueness in that the changes which occurred made the culture in question different from the earlier version. Take for instance, the culture which developed in Egypt and later spread to other parts of the world. The later recipients did not develop it on the same lines as those who started it but modified it to meet their cultural norms and values hence the uniqueness. Egyptian thoughts of their god did not receive the same respect and adoption in Sumerian and other parts of the Middle East but the concept was modified and became different from the original Egyptian thought of a god. In other words, while cultural diffusion continued unabated, recipients changed it to make it unique by adding their genius to it. The task of a historian is immense because it is necessary to cover most of what happened in the past. People\'s limitation is in the                                                                     18 \[09/21, 21:51\] Sandra Von Abo: fact that some of the information might not be recorded and the historian\'s ignorance of these facts make it hard for him to hazard  a guess on them hence the gap. Historians stick to the methodology of their discipline in their analysis of the facts at their disposal. Unlike physical and other social sciences, history does not make predictions for society but only analyzes those facts  which have been made available to him for study. Due to that  hortcoming, at least to physical scientists, history does not fit  the label \"social science\". When compared with other disciplines like sculpture and art, history has a more complicated task in that  while there may be a myriad of facts at the disposal of the  historian, historians are limited by the nature of their material  and their dedication to the truth. The sculptor and artist enjoys  a latitude of choice in the manner in which he handles his  material. Yet history is very important in that it gives statesmen  direction with regards to the history of the problems they may be  faced with. History tells them the problems which were encountered  by their forebears, and what they did to solve them. In that way  they will avoid the blunders of their ancestors. Here are detailed responses to the questions from the review exercise: 1\. \*\*Difficulties early people faced in gathering food:\*\*    - Early humans relied on hunting, gathering, and foraging, which was unpredictable and depended on natural cycles. They had to compete with animals and other groups for resources, face seasonal changes, and deal with limited tools and knowledge about the environment. Injuries and diseases from dangerous animals and harsh weather were common challenges. 2\. \*\*Advantages of the Neolithic Revolution to early humans:\*\*    - The Neolithic Revolution, marked by the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, allowed people to settle in one place. They could cultivate crops and domesticate animals, ensuring a more reliable food supply. This led to population growth, the development of villages, advancements in technology, and the establishment of trade systems and social structures. 3\. \*\*Why early humans didn't need to cooperate with neighbors to meet domestic needs:\*\*    - Early humans often lived in small, self-sufficient groups where domestic needs like food, shelter, and clothing were met within the group. They relied on family or tribal systems for cooperation and survival. Inter-group cooperation was not always necessary as each group could gather, hunt, or produce what was required for survival, but it would become more crucial as societies evolved. 4\. \*\*Need for government despite the ability to live freely:\*\*    - As societies grew more complex, the need for governance emerged to maintain order, resolve conflicts, and organize large-scale projects such as irrigation or defense. Governments helped regulate resources, create laws, and provide leadership for more efficient community management, which individual freedom couldn't guarantee on a larger scale. 5\. \*\*Cultural uniqueness and diffusion:\*\*    - Cultural uniqueness often arises due to geographical isolation, environmental factors, language, and shared traditions within a community. Cultural diffusion happens through trade, migration, conquest, and interaction, allowing ideas, technologies, and customs to spread from one group to another, blending or influencing new regions. 6\. \*\*Limitations of a historian in writing the history of past civilizations:\*\*    - Historians face several limitations, such as biased or incomplete sources, lack of written records, or archaeological evidence. Cultural or political influences can shape the interpretation of events. Additionally, some civilizations might have left little behind, and historians must rely on secondhand or fragmented accounts, which can lead to incomplete or speculative conclusions. 2.2 UNIT INTRODUCTION The subject of human beings\' origin has not gone down well in some quarters of mankind, particularly when Europeans learn with reluctance that their ancestors originated in Africa. Africa is a continent whose civilizations have, for some reasons, been taken to have been modeled on that of Europe yet archaeological findings have revealed that Egyptian civilization is older than that of Europe. In that order archaeological studies have shown that European civilization is a copycat of Egyptian civilization, and since Egypt lies in Africa, invariably Europe copied African civilization and modeled its own on the Egyptians\' in Africa. After human beings came into life in Africa, they learnt how to live through various stages of evolution. Homo habilis (clever or handy man or the skillful man) manufactured his own simple stone tools which he used to bring his environment under his control, his remains which were found in Africa were dated to between 1 1/2 million and 2 1/2 million years (Shillington, 1995:5; Posnansky, 1968:53). Homo habilis is believed to have lived at more or less the same time with Austrolopithicines, but since these latter species were closer to animals of a lower intelligence it has been Shillington (1995:5) further postulates that human beings\' evolutionary stages continued to the point where homo erectus (upright man), came into being. The latter stage of human beings\' evolution made it possible for human beings to effectively because they were upright, a posture which facilitated use tools human beings\' use of tools unlike the earlier species of human beings whose posture was not upright but couched (Shillington, 1995:5). The brain capacity of early Homo erectus was estimated to have been between 900 cc, and was increasing to 1100 cc at the time when they became extinct, about half a million years ago (Ibid; Posnansky, 1968:61) Homo erectus used tools which had been shaped for specific purposes, and is believed to have been the founder of the \'handaxe\'. Their tools have been dated earlier than any other findings made outside of Africa, and Homo erectus is suspected to have been the one to have moved out of Africa to go and colonize Europe and Asia. The remains of tools have been found in Europe, Asia, China and Africa, and evidence does suggest that those findings made in Africa were the oldest of all those made elsewhere in the other continents. However, there were findings of early forms of modern species of human beings which have been given the name of Homo sapiens (wise man), whose brain capacity was estimated between 1300 and 1400 cc and appeared to have evolved in Africa between 200 000 and 100 000 years ago after all hominids had become extinct. The final evolution of modern human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens), with an average brain capacity of 1500 cc, is believed to have been complete by 40 000 Having originated in Africa they spread themselves out to all the other parts of the world by 10 000 (Shillington, 1995:5). After these species had left Africa to go and settle in the other parts of the world, they found themselves subjected to different climatic conditions. They were able to develop the type of complexion that was suitable to their new environments because the evolutionary stage was not yet complete. In an effort to conquer  their different environments, these species began to use stones in the place of tools, and these stones differed from one another according to the different stone ages in which they lived. 2.3 THE CRADLE OF MANKIND \"The English naturalist Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in 1859\", and when he applied it to the origins of human beings, he suggested that their possible birthplace was Africa (Shillington, 1995:1). Several earlier tentative discoveries of the birthplace of the first human being to have lived on earth were made, and these suggested that the early human being lived in Java while others suggested that he lived in Europe. Later discoveries made by Dr. LSB Leakey suggested that the first man appeared in East Africa, at the Olduvai Gorge, in Tanzania where he carried out his excavations (Easton, 1961:13). Leakey\'s excavations found that a fossil man who appeared to have lived in East Africa could be dated with confidence to have lived there about 1,750,000 years BC. Leakey says this man Zinjanthropus was thought to be \'the first real man\' (Easton, 1961:13; Posnansky, 1968:51). Nearby was a site where Leakey found other remains of a creature he named Homo Habilis which was thought to be closer to Australopithecus than to any other creature, but Leakey believed that the remains of Homo Habilis made him appear closer to present-day man than to Australopithecus. The arguments Leakey advanced for believing that Homo Habilis was closer to present-day man was that he used crude stone tools and remains of animals he used for food something not associated with Australopithecus. In the same environment was found a skullcap of Homo Erectus, a larger-brained and more modern human type closely related to Java man, already mentioned. In China were found remains of what has come to be known as Sinanthropus pekinensis or Peking man. Like the two mentioned above he too walked erect, and like the others he is dated to 500,000 years BC. Since the explanation of these human developments involve technical terminology, suffice to say that there appears to be some agreement that the \'South and East African Australopitheci were in the direct line of human evolution, as were the Homines erecti found in Olduvai, Java, and China\' (Easton, 1961:13).   It is from the above that descended the Neanderthal man and his close relatives (known as \'Neanderthaloid men\') and, eventually, \[09/21, 22:25\] Sandra Von Abo: Homo sapiens (our species) (Ibid). If this theory is correct, Zinjanthropus automatically falls outside the mainstream of human evolution. Therefore, Zinjanthropus is classed as a Paranthropus, or a creature that is near to human beings and are similar to those similar discoveries made in South Africa. In the order that has been adopted by anthropologists for its simplicity, the following is the suggested ancestral line, Australopithecus\>Homo erectus Neanderthaloid\>Homo sapiens. It is, however, assumed that the human family tree is more complex than it appears in the family tree that has been formulated above. Human contribution, however, to the improvement of life has been his role in the Neolithic Revolution, where his work has often been compared achievements of the Industrial Revolution. Like in the case of the to the Industrial Revolution there has been distinct specialization on production in the Neolithic Revolution. History has not recorded a single revolution since the Neolithic Revolution, which was only recently, in the late 18th century, replaced by the Industrial Revolution. The following discussion, on the palaeolithic ages, deals in the various methods of food gathering man engaged in to survive. It was during those ages that man lived by gathering and by hunting animals for food, giving attention to such major achievements of these ages as can be gleaned from the archaeological record (Easton, 1961:14). 2.4 LOWER PALAEOLITHIC ERA \"The ages of pre-history have long been classified into the Lower Palaeolithic (\"lower\" because the finds occur in the deeper strata of the diggings), Upper Palaeolithic, and Neolithic, with a Mesolithic occurring between the last two ages\" (Easton, 1961:14). This classification was based on the fact that the tools found in the diggings that were carried out were made of stone, and this justification did not go down well with anthropologists who correctly argued that since not all the tools found in the areas that were dug were made of stone, some other label should be sought. To the historian, the less problematic historical epoch related to the classification of these periods is the \"Neolithic\" era. Since it has a close relationship with a change in the mode of food supply; from food gathering to production, to him there was no need to crack his head over the fundamentals of what it took to classify an event. Instead, the classification was derived from the change which took place in Europe, occurring just before it did in Southeast Asia. Such a justification is far from being satisfactory but nonetheless, the classification even for the other periods was proceeded with in the same order. Correlating the historical periods with the movement of the advance and retreat of the glacier would not be appropriate either because not all the historical sites were affected by the movement of the ice. Some of the areas did not have any ice at all, and making a general classification of these periods would not historically appropriate. \"The last retreat of the ice was the Wurm glaciation, which began about 30,000 years ac and marks the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic period in Europe\" (Easton, 1961:14). The reversal of this process did not take place until the end of the Upper Palaeolithic era (ca. 10,000 years Be). Agricultural farming could not have started at this time because the land mass was covered with ice, however, in Asia, which was relatively warmer, agricultural farming could have long begun by the time of the recession of the ice. The Neolithic Revolution liberated humans from the dictates of nature because their dependence on nature for food was remarkably reduced by the revolution. environmental changes affected the lifestyle of man, but when the Neolithic Revolution came humans began to determine not just the type of food they ate but even its amount. Even in the case of hunting humans had to devise better and more effective means of killing their prey because some of the animals were too big to be killed with weak weapons. However, the Neolithic Revolution relieved humans of all these burdens. In the Palaeolithic era we also notice some remarkable changes which affected even the general lifestyle of humans. Because of the improved tools humans used in the Palaeolithic era, they were able to prepare better graves for their dead and even make funeral offerings to their dead and evidence on this has been found in the graves. This was particularly true of the people of the Neander Gorge near Dusseldorf, Germany. Some of the bodies of the dead were found painted, an indication of some high level of cultural development in comparison to earlier ones. These cultural advancements, however, differed from one group of people to the next. For instance, in a Siberian grave a child was found in a grave with horns taken from mountain goats, and these horns appeared to have been placed upright inside the grave. The presence of ornaments and tools in the grave served a utilitarian purpose afterlife while that of horns might have had a different significance. To a people where social distinctions mattered most, the presence of horns taken from a particular animal might have been a sign of respect since horns had no utilitarian value. Since there fewer such graves, the inference could be that members of the nobility were the only ones to be accorded such respect when they were buried so that even in the next world they retained their social status. But in the absence of any written evidence these inferences we are making here need not be taken too far. 2.5 UPPER PALAEOLITHIC ERA There are some indications that Neanderthal at about 50,000 years BC man became extinct. The arguments advanced on the extinction are that the presence of the Homo sapiens, our direct ancestors, created a keen competition for the Neanderthal which could not be absorbed by the latter hence the extinction. Fossil records also show some vast numerical increase in the Homo sapiens, an indication that while their numbers were small previously there was a remarkable rise at the time (30,000 years sc) under consideration, and this confirms the arguments on the factors which led to the extinction of the Neanderthal man. It is also believed by most historians who have done work on archaeological excavations that present-day humans are a direct descendant of the Homo sapiens and not any other species. The arrival of homo sapiens on earth came with vast improvements in the tools that they used, and the roles they played in their societies became more specialized than ever before. These developments came with the decoration of the tools that people used and the development of rich cave art, with was noticed in southern France and northern Spain. The earliest of these art works were drawn in black and white. Later, in the Magdalian epoch, that is, between 15,000 years BC and 800 years BC/ advanced cave painting works were developed in southern France and northeastern Spain. Though so much is being said about the remarkable beauty of cave paintings, the problems related with the paintings is that it is hard to explain how they were carried by those French and Spanish artists. Some of these paintings do not raise many questions but some do, particularly those which appear in remote and inaccessible caves where no human being could have set foot. The question has always been Who made the finest paintings in those inaccessible caves which were not inhabited? The conclusion that these places in question had not been inhabited in remote historical times is derived from the difficulty with which researchers have had to bear in their investigations of these art works. The frustration which the agony of failing to unravel the problem of who actually carried the art of painting has led writers like Easton (1961:16) to the conclusion that the artists\' activity was, at least in some cases, a kind of sympathetic magic, by which the artist or magician below ground painted his animals, **HERE** Many surface drawings are said to have been sited in northern Spain, close to Altamira. But these paintings do not demonstrate any affinity to those of the underground people whose work was separated by a few centuries in between. The culture of the earlier people might have already died or the earlier people known as the Magdalians had moved away or migrated. While the art works of these Magdalians were impressive, there does not appear to have been any cultural innovations by them. Later Mesolithic Europeans appear to have used similar tools to those of their predecessors, but there is no indication that they based their art on that of their predecessors. In fact, their tools appear to have been adapted to new uses dictated to them by the environmental changes which made it hard for the old tools to still prove a match. Natufian and Maglemosians, who settled in the area, both used pestles and mortars to pound their grain. They also domesticated the dog, the first animal to be domesticated by man to serve as his helper. The Natufian were also known to have used microliths, small sharpened stones used with weapons such as spears and arrows. Jericho, one of the first centers of early civilization, was founded by the Natufian people. The city was surrounded by a stone wall and had a tower for defense. The people of Jericho lived in huts made of bricks and had sunken floors. They also domesticated goats, the second animal to be domesticated. Jericho played a significant role in spreading later forms of civilization. The Maglemosian culture, which was discovered in Europe, was similar to that of Jericho. However, the European environment modified the culture to the extent that hunting was gradually being replaced by fishing because of the changed climatic conditions which reduced the numbers of the wild game. However, even though the Mesolithic people lived largely by fishing they did not abandon the hunting part of their economic activities. The microliths which had become a mark for Mesolithic people were used for the manufacture of the axe and harpoon barbs. The axe with a haft was largely useful for felling trees. Hard igneous rocks were used to obtain sharp points and cutting edges through grounding. More tools were being made of bone and anklet and they included fish spears, harpoons and fishhooks closely associated with those which are being used today peoples also used fish nets and traps\" (Easton, 1961:17), and neighbours were already using a slightly different version of the nets that were used by the former. However, evidence is wanting on the history of the Maglemosian agriculture, instead it appears that the Neolithic Revolutionary ideas on agriculture did not reach these northern hunting people until very late after it had spread in Europe and the East. These developments were not different from those of Asia where the society was culturally divided into two distinct cultural groups; namely the upper (primitive) and lower (civilized) (Osborne, 1979:21-35). In East Africa civilization also affected the people there differently in that the mountain people such as Masai and others also remained outside of the influence of western civilization and continued to live their life of the 18th century when most of East Africa already lived the life of the twentieth century (Ogot and Kieran, 1968:71,74,84). 2.7 NEOLITHIC PERIOD The above three different stages of civilization have demonstrated the pace of human attempts to improve their way of living. These efforts culminated in the Neolithic innovations which made life more fluid than in the earlier three stages of cultural development. But the major feature which separates this period from the others is the shift from food gathering to food production, a more significant change than the one which involved the improvement of stoneworking techniques (Bullough, 1961:6). All other civiliziations that are known in history today have come to be based on the achievements of the Neolithic civilization. During the earlier periods of development, people depended entirely on what nature provided hence the frequent movements they made from one site to the next. However, as soon as people discovered alternative means of supplying food and clothing they began to realize the benefits bestowed on permanent settlements and thus began to live on the same site indefinitely until climatic conditions of that area proved less hospitable. Until this time people had lived in smaller villages but the Neolithic period ushered in means and needs for a larger settlement which did not all concentrate on farming. The new civilization came with specialized roles, which made it possible even for a family who predominantly had their lives controlled by agriculture and husbandry to take some time to learn other skills to produce those items which had been provided by nature such as decorations. It became possible for man to control the environment instead of him to be controlled by it and that became man\'s mark onwards. \[09/21, 22:27\] Sandra Von Abo: Modern society has used scientific skills to improve on what nature provided, and to expand output in agriculture and husbandry. Machines have been made to save labour, \"and to create synthetic materials that did not appear in nature, this step, too, constituted a revolution; but without the first great advance made by the Neolithic peoples, it could not have been accomplished\" (Easton, 1961:17). Those areas which stood far from the centres of the Neolithic innovations were denied the benefits which accrued to those who participated in the Neolithic Revolutionary works. The San of the Kalahari Desert are an example of those people whose habitats lay far from the centres of the cultural changes, and this disposition has made them remain outside of the cultural turmoil and have retained their distinctive cultures and ways of life. Their lives were, however, later changed as a result of the advances made upon them by more technically advanced people who met them in their isolation and oppressed them culturally and otherwise. It would, however, be erroneous to suggest that if these people had not been met by their oppressors they could have remained static until in recent times. When accessing the achievements of the Neolithic Revolution, it becomes clear that it spread by diffusion from the Near East to Europe, reaching parts of eastern Europe after 5000 BC, and Britain at about 3000 BC. However, in some parts of Europe, just like in certain parts of Africa and South East Asia, there were people who remained outside of the ambit of this cultural revolution, and persisted with their food-gathering and hunting much longer. This was largely due to the abundance and easy availability of food and