Monday, October 17, 2016

"Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim" Report

St. Fleur, Nicholas "Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim." New York Times n.d. Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim - The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. 
“Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim” by Nicholas St. Fleur describes a skeleton found in Australia’s Toorale National Park in 2014 and how scientists concluded that he was killed by a fighting boomerang or club. The skeleton was named Kaakutja by the people who discovered him, and they sought out Michael Westaway, a paleontologist, to help excavate the skeleton. Westaway and his team performed optical analysis tests on sand grains embedded in the skull and sediment from the pit to determine the last time that the sediments were exposed to light. The results indicated that Kaakutja’s burial occurred between 1305 and 1525, which showed that the killing was probably committed by another aboriginal person because Europeans had not yet arrived in that area by 1525. From the unusual and extensive trauma on the bones of Kaakutja, the scientists concluded that he was probably killed using the Lil-lil, a type of club, or the Wonna, a fighting boomerang. As a result of the scientists’ examinations and conclusions, Kaakutja has been identified as perhaps the earliest victim of a boomerang attack.
The trauma sustained by the skeleton was unlike any evers seen in Australia’s archaeological history. “This research is important because it increases our ability to identify the types of wounds caused by the fighting tools of Aboriginal people in the past,” said Claire Smith, an archaeologist. In addition to this, the discovery of the skeleton can provide clues to the fighting styles and burial rituals of the Australian aboriginal people of that time.
The New York Times published article was well-written and provided an excellent summary of the discovery of the skeleton and a detailed explanation of how the scientists’ reached their conclusion. Nicholas St. Fleur also did a good job of creating an emotional side to this article describing the moving final burial of Kaakutja by the aboriginal community and the man who discovered him. I also loved how the author included detailed and labeled photos which made it easier to visualize the trauma. The major problem with “Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim” is that it lacked details that could have provided background and color to the article. This article could have been improved if St. Fleur included more details related to the culture of the aboriginal people and how that may have influenced the murder or the way that it was carried out. He also could have included more quotes from anthropologists or experts who are well-versed in the techniques and technologies that were used to reach the scientists’ conclusions.

5 comments:

  1. I commented on Eva’s review of the article “Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim”. Overall, Eva did a great job reviewing this article. For example, she did a great job in explaining this very intriguing title. She said that scientists found a skeleton estimated to have been buried between 1305 and 1525 and was killed by a boomerang attack. Also, I loved Eva’s connection to society today. She brought up the great point that skeletons like this can be very helpful in helping us learn about societies of the past. I also liked how Eva identified how the scientists were able to estimate the time of this skeleton’s death. They were able to identify this information by the sand grains embedded in the skull of the skeleton. This gives proof that this skeleton could in fact be of the first person to died from a boomerang.
    Although Eva did a great job reviewing, there were some areas she could have expanded. For example, I wish she had included how the scientists knew the skeleton was killed by a boomerang. This would have been very interesting to read. Also, I wish that Eva had gone into more depth about what a Lil-lil, the type of weapon he was believed to be killed by, was. It would have been interesting to hear how this weapon is different from boomerangs today.
    Overall, the review and the article were very well written. I choose to review this article because I found the title very interesting and unique. I immediately wanted to hear more about ancient boomerang victims. From this article, I learned that variations of model weapons were used hundreds of years ago. This new learned knowledge will help me to understand how many of our inventions today are just newly developed versions of much earlier technology. I can use this to think about the relationship of humans today to our ancestors. This article made me become more aware of previous generations and their effects on us today.

    ReplyDelete

  2. St. Fleur, Nicholas "Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim." New York Times n.d. Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim - The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
    .

    I read Eva Cagliostro’s review of the New York Times article, “Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim” and thought that she did a very good job. I particularly liked her summary of the article and its main points. She kept her summary short and concise, which summaries are supposed to be, yet still included enough information for the reader to understand what happened in the article. In addition, I enjoyed her use of quotes in her review. She includes the quote “This research is important because it increases our ability to identify the types of wounds caused by the fighting tools of Aboriginal people in the past,” I thought that this was a very powerful way of tying in the importance the article has to our lives. In addition, I thought that this quote emphasizes the validity of everything being said. I also liked how she gave details and dates, specifically when saying,”The results indicated that Kaakutja’s burial occurred between 1305 and 1525, which showed that the killing was probably committed by another aboriginal person because Europeans had not yet arrived in that area by 1525.”. These dates helped the reader conceptualize when all of this took place.

    Although Eva did a very good job in her review, she could use some improvement. For example, she could have included how the scientists knew the skeleton was killed by a boomerang. This would have been very engaging. In addition, Eva could have described some of the tests that were performed on the skeleton, rather than solely giving the name of the test performed. This could have strengthened her review.

    I thought that the review was written very well and Eva chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very interesting and different and Eva has further educated me on the topic. I never knew about this topic before reading Eva’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Eva’s review and learned a lot from it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AP Biology Brian Kradjel
    Current Event Comment #4 10/20/16

    St. Fleur, Nicholas "Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim." New York Times n.d. Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim - The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
    .


    For my current event review, I read Eva’s review of the article, “Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim,” There were many good aspects of the review. First, Eva’s summary of the article was particularly concise. She managed to succinctly cover the broader points of the article: scientists discovered the skeleton of the first skeleton killed by a boomerang, an event that occurred some time between 1305 and 1525. Second, Eva’s inclusion of a quote certainly strengthened her review. By including a quote from a renowned archaeologist, she brought more legitimacy to the subject and further sparked interest in the mind of the reader. Third, I found her review of the quality of the article itself to be accurate. I similarly found that the lack of details in the original article weakened the author’s claim.

    While the review was generally well written, there were a few aspects that could have been improved. First, Eva failed to address the importance of the article and the impact the findings had on the scientific community. Second, Eva failed to address how the scientists were able to discern that the death was caused by a boomerang. Both of these aspects would have strengthened the review and would have better sparked intellectual thought in the mind of the reader.

    The review and article itself were very well written. The article was particularly insightful and greatly augmented my knowledge on the archaeological process and the biological analysis of ancient remains. Furthermore, the article solidly provided a connection between history and the present.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alexander Plaza
    10/19/16
    AP Biology
    Mr. Ippolito D Block Even

    St. Fleur, Nicholas "Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim." New York Times n.d. Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim - The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
    .

    Eva, I read your review of the article “"Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim" by Nicholas St.Fleur and I felt that you did a very good job overall.Firstly, you do a good job of summarizing the article. After, reading your summary I knew exactly who Kaakutja was and what happened to her. You are brief but informative thus you keep the reader’s attention while still getting your point across. I also like how you use a quote from an expert in the article. You pick a quote from an expert Claire Smith that says, “This research is important because it increases our ability to identify the types of wounds caused by the fighting tools of Aboriginal people in the past”. This quote helps the reader determine the credibility of your sources as well as helps put your point across more convincingly. Finally, You are very honest in your review of the article. Compared to many other articles I read, you elaborate more than others on the critique of the article. This is important since your review of the article helps the reader determine a lot about the credibility of the source.
    Although, I felt you did much well, there are some things that you could work on. I feel that you don't connect the subject to us as Americans very well. You do include the statement by Claire Smith but I still believe that the effects of the discovery are limited to Australia. It could be beneficial to include some way that the article connects to research in the west by including how this event changes our view of the past. Also, I think you should have elaborated on what the lil-lil and Wonna were. It seem as though it could be important to know in depth what these objects were but you cover it very briefly. If you include the background of these objects, it could help the reader understand the significance of the event as well as the cultural aspect of the tribe.
    Finally, I find it interesting how we could determine the cause of death from something so old. It helps us as humans understand how people acted differently in the past. It changes my perception of archaeology and how connected it is to science in general since I don’t really connect the two when thinking about them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AP Biology George Daskalakis
    Current Event 5 10/20/16
    St. Fleur, Nicholas "Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim." New York Times
    n.d. Kaakutja, Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim - The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/first-boomerang-victim-australia.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
    After reading Eva’s review of the article “Perhaps the First Known Boomerang Victim” it was clear to see that she did a great job, and it was also very enjoyable and educational. For example, she did a great job in connecting the article to society today. It really shined a new light on the topic. In addition, I also enjoyed how Eva pointed out that the scientists were able to estimate the time of this skeleton’s death. They were able to identify this information by the sand grains embedded in the skull of the skeleton. A third thing Eva did well is she brought up the great point that skeletons like this can be very helpful in the fields of anthropology and archeology.
    Although Eva did a great job reviewing, there were some areas that she could have improved. For example, I would have liked Eva to have gone into more depth about what a the type of weapon the victim was killed by. It would have been interesting to hear how this weapon is different from boomerangs today. Also, I wish she had included how the scientists knew the skeleton was killed by a boomerang. This would have brought up more conversation and showed how the scientists went about such finding.
    Overall, the review and the article were very well written, and the article was very intriguing and interesting as well. I now really want to hear more about ancient boomerang victims. From this article, I learned that variations of weapons were used hundreds of years ago, and I can use this to think about the relationship of humans today to our ancestors and the type of weaponry they used. This article made me become more aware of previous generations and their effects on us today.

    ReplyDelete