What was the main focus of Roman army training?

To learn how to fight and work as a team

How were Roman soldiers trained?

Very well with lots of practice

What was one reason the Roman army was so successful?

Their strong training and organization

A warrior queen who fought against the Romans

What happened to Boudicca's army in battle?

They were defeated by the Romans

They made friends with the Romans

What is economic migration?

Moving to another country for a job or better living conditions

History Knowledge Review 10.11

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Lesson 3 knowledge review History

Abstract The main focus of this research is to discuss the perspective of the teamwork and its impaction organizational performance and success. Also highlight the Meanings of Team and its work sprit towards batter organizational performance and specific to its impact on the success of organization that provided the basis for this research study. In this research study a thoroughly focus was on organization and teamwork. The aim of this research is to deliver a participative view of teamwork in the organization, and also discourses the major issues and emphases on the recent work that opens the basis to move research onward. There is much worth in taking a more focus on the essential areas of teamwork. The team signifies the spirit and working capacity of the employees as team to bring organization to the success. The various explanations, definitions, processes, dimensions, team size and benefits etc. regarding the above topic teamwork and organizational success is highlighted. Keywords: Teamwork, Success, Organization, Performance, Work Groups, Employees Introduction It is indeed human beings have learned in their beginning of life to work together as (Team) that have made such a remarkable developments as unique specie. Human beings have experience throughout their social history, lived, loved, grow younger to older and worked together in groups said West M.A. (2012).The mutual social knowledge of living and functioning together creates connection among people, society and families. When work is done cooperatively as a team it can achieve extremely extra work than individually. Team can be defined as in the human society to live, to work and to play and to cooperate with others for particular task. According to John W. Newstrom et al (1993) “team is the process of assessing performance of workers, passing information and exploring methods to increase performance”. If observe closely, one can discover the instances of The Government: Research Journal of Political Science Supplementary Edition Vol. III 88 The Government social (teams) they are functioning either effectively or ineffectively everywhere; organizations, schools, work place, home etc. “Coordinating the events of people is like sand house, making by using a sole particles of sand” expressed Belbin, R. M.(2010). Moreover it is one of the general myths that the skill of team member is more important than their vigor, attention and determination for the tasks. Another widespread myth is that the team members are not alone accountable for the achievements or failures of their tasks the truth is that the members are the small parts in the teams and their individual abilities effect on the various results in team. The working relationships exist among team that might sight these relationships at different levels of involvement or relationships among the members as they move towards the degree of communication, integration and commitment increases. Terry L.G. et al (1980) expressed that “The skills are essential if members have to work together efficiently in complex situations, only development of skills and relationships, involvement on the task regarding the particular task might be selected for reaching at target that is considered as a definition of a team”. Team often perform higher when they work together with sprit that enable them to achieve a collective goal at the workplace, it is not only benefits to the organization also affects the workers confidence and success. Cooperating on various tasks reduces workloads for all team members and enables them to share duties or ideas. Work as a team is the part of everyone's life, as one is a member of a family team, staff team, school team, and community teams etc., so as to understand how to work effectively as a team member. Especially there is a need when task is threatened with increasingly many problems for example; the energy problem has effects on organization, family life, and social development and the multi-dimensional nature of many problems require a scientific skill based problem solving approach. Terry L.G, et al (1980) expressed that “The skills, competencies and efforts of team by setting priorities the team can have better impact on the problems solving such efforts can reduce work load, work duplication, and produce a result better than separate efforts”. There are some processes of teamwork by adopting those the objectives can be achieved easily. Le Pine, et al, (2008) identified10 teamwork processes that fall in three categories following are those. TEAMWORK PROCESSES TRANSITION PROCESSES •Mission analysis •Goal specification •Strategy formulation ACTION PROCESSES •Monitoring progress toward goals •Systems monitoring •Team monitoring and backup behavior •Coordination INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES •Conflict management •Motivation and confidence building •Affect management Team Work 89 Teamwork process reduces the work stress on every member which permits members to complete given important task of organization; teamwork offers members an opening to pledge with each other. Also it develops relations between the members who start a teamwork they usually sense appreciated on productive accomplishment of task. It may be cited one of the best instances of surgical team; where surgeon is assisted by his team; nurses, anesthetist and experts etc., everyone knows that their success depends upon the teamwork. In addition they are devoted to the aim that is human life it is easy to succeed with best teamwork. The important role of manager is the team building, trust building, confidence building, in the team to achieve the task. In the Situation where all team members contribute the task, it develops the positive relationship in the team that improves the trust of team members.“Functions effectively members of team must be flexible, committed, trusting each other and help to each other’s in the progress and the achievement of goals” Expressed Plamínek (2008). The accountability of every member in the team must be increased so that they do not let each other down therefore they do their best for the achievements of their teams. In contrast, working alone on a task the pressure is generally high in team in those cases of small confidence impacts fewer on members. Team consists on members who always vary from each other’s in skills, knowledge and abilities but working together that is an opportunity for them to gain skills and knowledge from each other’s that they had never before. Working alone on a task is a challenge and using the ideas of each other brings them to come up with a mutual resolution and the achievement of the task. Nowadays theoretical development and research has rested largely a new trend that is emerging within the organizations as an essential process of teamwork. Teamwork has brought a new move in the research and development to the inputs and outputs that bound, constrain and impact on the team processes within organizations said Ilgen, D.R. (1999). The world is changes fast, any one set of instructions can’t be sufficient, changes needs flexible members, teams and organizations so as to be effective on task. This paper suggests that in teams members must use the exclusive human abilities. Cannon B.et al (1995) has précised dimensions of teams into three categories: Team dimensions 1-Cognitions: include associations, task team-mate characteristics, team mission, objectives, norms, and resources, team role interaction patterns, skills, roles, and team orientation. 2-Skills: consist on adaptability, shared situational awareness and mutual concept to conflict resolution. 90 The Government 3-Attitudes: symbolize motivation, collective potency, shared vision, team cohesion, mutual trust, collective orientation and importance of. Teamsize Researchers have given different approvals about the best size of team as Katzenbachetet al (1993) suggested that the teams should comprise on a dozen or so members which are enough to achieve a task. Although seven is the best size of the team in the organizational practices said Scharf, A. (1989). Several views of researchers are expressed in the literatures and it is difficult to decide which better is because their opinions are based on their own observations. The team size matters in the proper output and performance however from an empirical research it is also difficult to decide the suitable team size and what to accept. This study suggests that team size has a practical link with efficacy such as few or many member shave impact on the performance but size matters. Proper size of team improves the performance maximum stated Campion M. A et al (1996).These different results are expected due to the fact that appropriate team size is required for task, environment and situation where team works. However, larger teams can also experience coordination problems that delay performance. Sheppard, J. A. (1993) expressed that the question of best team’s size is a complex one; more research is required on this topic to explain the impact of team size on given definite task. Literature Review Across many different organizations and industries teamwork is focused to increase the performance of employees’ their unity and also create work culture. Organizations those regularly develop new ideas or products using a project-based approach and assemble teams in order to focus responsibilities to achieve the object. Researchers have given dissimilar meanings of “teams”. Dyer W.G. (2007) said that “teams are groups of people who trust in cooperation, if members are expert the success of goal is more possible”. It is essential due to the problemsolving cooperation added from many minds of team members working on a resolution of problems. Team members contribute their thoughts together to make exclusive plans for dealing with problems and this unity enhance the result due to interaction, trust and teamwork. Teamwork means a "work done by several companions with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole" Merriam, (2012). In addition combined employees are expected less hostile to each other and accepting more of each other’s decisions. Unity of employees can increase the flow of work in organization. When employee’s working together as a team, they learn from each other that awareness is based on their personal experiences and from coworkers; Team Work 91 employees from different departments may acquire knowledge from each other. The main object for organizations is to hold the team effort to achieve output and quality; team is a key to achieve quality productivity. According to Maddux et al (2003) “some of the organizations have major benefits from the use of teamwork which are showed in the following chart: Benefits of Teamwork 1 Improving quality of work life for employees 2 Reducing absenteeism and increasing turnover 3 Increasing innovation and change 4 Improving organizational adaptability and flexibility A real team is mostly one where members are allowed to take decisions that how to complete task. That authority enables them to control the work process, decreases the outside control and increases the sense of duty for work. Team always feels superiority on workplace and they rely on each other’s being there. Plamínek (2008) said that “affiliation with teamwork gives member a sense of belonging, interaction and recognition of success”. These actions support to remove the sense of loneliness of team member in organization. Effective teams can also improve efficacy through communication and trust between the team members, quality of work and decrease in absenteeism contribute to positive impact on team. Involving employees in teamwork helps the organization remain open to new ideas.“The world of organizations is shifting individualism is out and collectivism is in, power is out, empowerment is in.” stated G. M. Parker (1998). This study discovers the experiences and difficulties of teamwork that employees and organizations are facing nowadays due to big transformation and enlarged globalization. In recent years a remarkable amendment has been emerged in the belief of team working organizations. The modern study has explored that the scope of teamwork have been appeared in system rooted in belief, and employees accept changes that denoting a modern organizational system. The organizations which are responsive to the changes appear to achieve greater satisfaction. Although it may be suggested that, the managers should assess the values and beliefs of their employees to play more dedicated role in the development of organization by making sprit to face the modern challenges. Organizational cultural is much significant and it has the excessive impact on the performance of organization and employees’ but it is quiet arguable topic that the culture of teamwork can be developed according to the requirement. It is difficult to specify the relationships and to assess the reliable set of values to use as they believed symbol across the entire organizations. This review study focus that 92 The Government there is a great influence of organizational culture on the assumptions, values, and beliefs on the individuals’ considerations, actions and performances and so is vice versa, through learning, and training process. However the researchers believe that the organizational setup aids to unite employees of diverse cultures and dissimilar social backgrounds, traditions and have their own beliefs to work. Creating a positive teamwork culture it has several diverse aspects are goal setting, conflict resolution, empowerment, ability to accomplish tasks, measuring output and consideration for other teamwork cultures stated Pack L, et al April 27, (2012). Team work in the organization delivers employees the wisdom of unity; understand to each other’s, and reducing conflict. In addition teamwork in organization inspires employee for impartiality by affirming that no one is ignored in the organization and all treated equally. It is known that a team in organization is bound and sincere to work with dedication to bring the success. If the employees are committed and recognize the teamwork values and its benefits, as a part of the organization they can contribute a lot to the achievement of organization. One can finds the informal instances of team at these level, family, society, community, tribe and work groups etc., and formally team appears at the level of departments, functional groups, and other organizational units. The employees feel a greater sense of achievement for being a part of an organization, if they attain team work, having freedom to work not forced. The system gives best performance to achieve recognition and credit from their managers and it will increase their effort that helps them to contribute the organizational performance. Each team batter knows about their role and how to achieve tasks. The true spirit of teamwork gives benefit to organization in maintaining its standard by which it becomes identified. The team defines its specialty, and the way it is doing task that is perceived by the organization as well as its managers and it is secured by appreciation. Employees identify what they believe; that exist in their belief system and those understandings call them to change their views to develop and raise attention towards batter performance. The literature contains sufficient definitions of teamwork and the word team is used to denote a set of generally developed as to learn collective values, attitudes and cooperation to work. The study praises that the teamwork is mostly related with the team success for instance, Wagner (1995) described that “in the team individual is less valued and group is more valued, with”. It is found in the study that individualismcollectivism both regulates the relationships between team size, standing, and cooperation that have better effects on the cooperation of individualists rather than the cooperation of collectivists. Team Work 93 Conclusion The main concentration of this research paper is to examine more in-depth the fundamental of teamwork and its effectiveness to achieve the organizational goals. Teamwork provides vast amounts of knowledge and information, cultural differences each of these building a culture of teamwork and the skill to make the valuable solutions of the problems. To work efficiently, team members need a good understanding of how to do their job, to achieve goal and for that a basic way to ensure understanding is training, then they have to be motivated to do a job. Team is a vital activity of organization, when organization desires to perform sound it has to be confident that team functions effectively. Consequently it is compulsory to know how team performs, what manners within a team happen, and how they make decisions. If there is knowhow of teamwork events, it can be effective for the tasks that they have to accomplish. Organizations build up their own culture through tradition, history and structure these values can be accepted by team workers of an organization. The values and assumptions are the vital tools of organizations and are used as guidance for team. These have to do mostly with the basic dignity and worth of all members of team and the ability, necessity for them to solve the problems and work for the positive change. Through this review study is concluded that there is a good impact of teamwork on the organizations doings and success. Subsequently in recently developed literature there is a great focus amongst the social scientists and scholars’ in their discussion on the above topic teamwork. The above study is also an evidence of little effort to assess the significance of teamwork in organizations success. teams in organiz

HISTORY AND BASIC KNOWLEDGE

History of Summer - General knowledge quiz

Early society and accomplishments Origins Knowledge of the early prehistory of Southeast Asia has undergone exceptionally rapid change as a result of archaeological discoveries made since the 1960s, although the interpretation of these findings has remained the subject of extensive debate. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the region has been inhabited from the earliest times. Hominid fossil remains date from approximately 1,500,000 years ago and those of Homo sapiens from approximately 40,000 years ago. Furthermore, until about 7000 bce the seas were some 150 feet (50 metres) lower than they are now, and the area west of Makassar Strait consisted of a web of watered plains that sometimes is called Sundaland. These land connections perhaps account for the coherence of early human development observed in the Hoabinhian culture, which lasted from about 13,000 to 5000 or 4000 bce. The stone tools used by hunting and gathering societies across Southeast Asia during this period show a remarkable degree of similarity in design and development. When the sea level rose to approximately its present level about 6000 bce, conditions were created for a more variegated environment and, therefore, for more extensive differentiation in human development. While migration from outside the region may have taken place, it did not do so in a massive or clearly punctuated fashion; local evolutionary processes and the circulation of peoples were far more powerful forces in shaping the region’s cultural landscape. Technological developments and population expansion Perhaps because of a particular combination of geophysical and climatic factors, early Southeast Asia did not develop uniformly in the direction of increasingly complex societies. Not only have significant hunting and gathering populations continued to exist into the 21st century, but the familiar cultural sequences triggered by such events as the discovery of agriculture or metallurgy do not seem to apply. This is not to say that the technological capabilities of early Southeast Asian peoples were negligible, for sophisticated metalworking (bronze) and agriculture (rice) were being practiced by the end of the 3rd millennium bce in northeastern Thailand and northern Vietnam, and sailing vessels of advanced design and sophisticated navigational skills were spread over a wider area by the same time or earlier. Significantly, these technologies do not appear to have been borrowed from elsewhere but were indigenous and distinctive in character. Austronesian languages Austronesian languagesMajor divisions of the Austronesian languages. These technological changes may partially account for two crucial developments in Southeast Asia’s later prehistory. The first is the extraordinary seaborne expansion of speakers of Proto-Austronesian languages and their descendants, speakers of Austronesian (or Malayo-Polynesian) languages, which occurred over a period of 5,000 years or more and came to encompass a vast area and to stretch nearly half the circumference of Earth at the Equator. This outward movement of people and culture was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, the result of societal preference for small groups and a tendency of groups to hive off once a certain population size had been reached. It began as early as 4000 bce, when Taiwan was populated from the Asian mainland, and subsequently it continued southward through the northern Philippines (3rd millennium bce), central Indonesia (2nd millennium bce), and western and eastern Indonesia (2nd and 1st millennia bce). From approximately 1000 bce on the expansion continued both eastward into the Pacific, where that immense region was populated in a process continuing to about 1000 ce as voyagers reached the Hawaiian Islands and New Zealand, and westward, where Malay peoples reached and settled the island of Madagascar sometime between 500 and 700 ce, bringing with them (among other things) bananas, which are native to Southeast Asia. Thus, for a considerable period of time, the Southeast Asian region contributed to world cultural history, rather than merely accepting outside influences, as frequently has been suggested. The second development, which began possibly as early as 1000 bce, centred on the production of fine bronze and the fashioning of bronze-and-iron objects, particularly as they have been found at the site in northern Vietnam known as Dong Son. The earliest objects consisted of socketed plowshares and axes, shaft-hole sickles, spearheads, and such small items as fishhooks and personal ornaments. By about 500 bce the Dong Son culture had begun producing the bronze drums for which it is known. The drums are large objects (some weigh more than 150 pounds [70 kg]), and they were produced by the difficult lost-wax casting process and decorated with fine geometric shapes and depictions of animals and humans. This metal industry was not derived from similar industries in China or India. Rather, the Dong Son period offers one of the most powerful—though not necessarily the only or earliest—examples of Southeast Asian societies transforming themselves into more densely populated, hierarchical, and centralized communities. Since typical drums, either originals or local renditions, have been found throughout Southeast Asia and since they are associated with a rich trade in exotics and other goods, the Dong Son culture also suggests that the region as a whole consisted not of isolated, primitive niches of human settlement but of a variety of societies and cultures tied together by broad and long-extant trading patterns. Although none of these societies possessed writing, some displayed considerable sophistication and technological skill, and, although none appears to have constituted a territorial centralized state, new and more complex polities were forming.

AA-SC.7.N.2.1 (L) - Identify an instance from the history of science in which scientific knowledge has changed when new evidence or new interpretations are encountered.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes