Kaitlyn Tull

Archaeology 2030 (T, Th, 1-2:20)

Alan Griffiths

11/27/18

Critical Thinking 6

Over the course of my research on Olduvai Gorge, I had developed two possible

hypotheses. The first and most plausible one was that Olduvai Gorge could possibly be a burial

ground of some kind. My reasoning behind this was so many bone and tissue fragments had been

discovered in a close proximity and were decently preserved; little intervention was needed to

help reconstruct some of the finds. Along with the bones found, some stone tools had also been

recovered and I instantly thought of these as possibly buried goods sometimes found in burial

grounds. My second hypothesis, and I feel the least plausible and weakest of the two, was that

Olduvai Gorge once housed a village in the area. I considered this mostly because of the stone

tools found and how they were, for the most part, in good condition. If I had to go with one of

the hypotheses I would place my bet on the first one about how Olduvai Gorge could have

possibly been a burial ground. However, I want to express my caution in saying definitively it

is/was a burial ground. Hypotheses are meant to be worded in such a way they can be neither

proven or disproven; and bearing that in mind my final hypothesis is the following: Based on the

various items discovered near or at Olduvai Gorge (Bones, tissue samples, stone tools), I feel that

this area may have once been a burial ground for a local group of hominids that once roamed the

area.
With this particular Critical Thinking, I feel I deserve a 4. I explained why I had considered both

hypotheses to be of valid interpretation. However, I feel more strongly about the first hypothesis

to be more plausible; and therefore I gave more evidence as to why.