Color harmonies are pleasing color schemes created according to their position on a color wheel. Analogous color schemes are made by picking three colors that are next to each other on the color wheel. They are perceived as calm and serene. This is so amazing that I'm not able to believe. What are color harmonies? Who knows about it?
This is the min body of the blog. It is the next blog and it is the new thing.
Complementary color schemes are made by picking two opposite colors con the color wheel. They appear vibrant near to each other. Split complementary schemes are like complementary but they uses two adiacent colors of the complement.
| Asdf | Dfgh |
|---|---|
| gdgg | bbbb |
| cecec | ccc |
Providing calendrical dates and ordered chronological sequences in the study of early stone tool manufacture is often accomplished through one or more geological techniques, such as radiometric dating, often potassium-argon dating, and magnetostratigraphy. From the Konso Formation of Ethiopia, Acheulean hand-axes are dated to about 1.5 million years ago using radiometric dating of deposits containing volcanic ashes. Acheulean tools in South Asia have also been found to be dated as far as 1.5 million years ago. However, the earliest accepted examples of the Acheulean currently known come from the West Turkana region of Kenya and were first described by a French-led archaeology team. These particular Acheulean tools were recently dated through the method of magnetostratigraphy to about 1.76 million years ago, making them the oldest not only in Africa but the world. The earliest user of Acheulean tools may have been Homo ergaster, who first appeared about 1.8 million years ago (not all researchers use this formal name, and instead prefer to call these users early Homo erectus. However, it is impossible to know for sure whether Homo ergaster was the only maker of early Acheulean tools, since other hominin species, such as Homo habilis, also lived in East Africa at this time.
From geological dating of sedimentary deposits, it appears that the Acheulean originated in Africa and spread to Asian, Middle Eastern, and European areas sometime between 1.5 million years ago and about 800 thousand years ago. In individual regions, this dating can be considerably refined; in Europe for example, it was thought that Acheulean methods did not reach the continent until around 500,000 years ago. However more recent research demonstrated that hand-axes from Spain were made more than 900,000 years ago.
Relative dating techniques (based on a presumption that technology progresses over time) suggest that Acheulean tools followed on from earlier, cruder tool-making methods, but there is considerable chronological overlap in early prehistoric stone-working industries, with evidence in some regions that Acheulean tool-using groups were contemporary with other, less sophisticated industries such as the Clactonian and then later with the more sophisticated Mousterian, as well. It is therefore important not to see the Acheulean as a neatly defined period or one that happened as part of a clear sequence but as one tool-making technique that flourished especially well in early prehistory. The enormous geographic spread of Acheulean techniques also makes the name unwieldy as it represents numerous regional variations on a similar theme. The term Acheulean does not represent a common culture in the modern sense, rather it is a basic method for making stone tools that was shared across much of the Old World.
The very earliest Acheulean assemblages often contain numerous Oldowan-style flakes and core forms and it is almost certain that the Acheulean developed from this older industry. These industries are known as the Developed Oldowan and are almost certainly transitional between the Oldowan and Acheulean.
Regionally subdivided end times of the Acheulean show that it persisted long after the diffusion of Middle Palaeolithic technologies in multiple continental regions and ended over 100,000 years apart – in Africa and the Near East: 175–166 kya, in Europe: 141–130 kya and in Asia: 57–53 kya.
Acheulean stone tools
Stages
An Acheulean handaxe, Haute-Garonne France – MHNT
In the four divisions of prehistoric stone-working, Acheulean artefacts are classified as Mode 2, meaning they are more advanced than the (usually earlier) Mode 1 tools of the Clactonian or Oldowan/Abbevillian industries but lacking the sophistication of the (usually later) Mode 3 Middle Palaeolithic technology, exemplified by the Mousterian industry.
The Mode 1 industries created rough flake tools by hitting a suitable stone with a hammerstone. The resulting flake that broke off would have a natural sharp edge for cutting and could afterwards be sharpened further by striking another smaller flake from the edge if necessary (known as "retouch"). These early toolmakers may also have worked the stone they took the flake from (known as a core) to create chopper cores although there is some debate over whether these items were tools or just discarded cores.
The Mode 2 Acheulean toolmakers also used the Mode 1 flake tool method but supplemented it by using bone, antler, or wood to shape stone tools. This type of hammer, compared to stone, yields more control over the shape of the finished tool. Unlike the earlier Mode 1 industries, it was the core that was prized over the flakes that came from it. Another advance was that the Mode 2 tools were worked symmetrically and on both sides indicating greater care in the production of the final tool.
Mode 3 technology emerged towards the end of Acheulean dominance and involved the Levallois technique, most famously exploited by the Mousterian industry. Transitional tool forms between the two are called Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, or MTA types. The long blades of the Upper Palaeolithic Mode 4 industries appeared long after the Acheulean was abandoned.
As the period of Acheulean tool use is so vast, efforts have been made to classify various stages of it such as John Wymer's division into Early Acheulean, Middle Acheulean, Late Middle Acheulean and Late Acheulean for material from Britain. These schemes are normally regional and their dating and interpretations vary.
In Africa, there is a distinct difference in the tools made before and after 600,000 years ago with the older group being thicker and less symmetric and the younger being more extensively trimmed.
Manufacture
The primary innovation associated with Acheulean hand-axes is that the stone was worked symmetrically and on both sides. For the latter reason, handaxes are, along with cleavers, bifacially worked tools that could be manufactured from the large flakes themselves or from prepared cores.
Tool types found in Acheulean assemblages include pointed, cordate, ovate, ficron, and bout-coupé hand-axes (referring to the shapes of the final tool), cleavers, retouched flakes, scrapers, and segmental chopping tools. Materials used were determined by available local stone types; flint is most often associated with the tools but its use is concentrated in Western Europe; in Africa sedimentary and igneous rock such as mudstone and basalt were most widely used, for example. Other source materials include chalcedony, quartzite, andesite, sandstone, chert, and shale. Even relatively soft rock such as limestone could be exploited. In all cases the toolmakers worked their handaxes close to the source of their raw materials, suggesting that the Acheulean was a set of skills passed between individual groups.
My Trip To
THIS book is many things. It is a record of a triumph—of the survival through the decades of 53 acres (21.2 hectares) of green space in the heart of the city, space that has been greedily eyed for “development” on the land-starved island city of Mumbai. It is a record of the victory of a small group of public-minded women who battled the establishment. And, of course, it is a celebration, not only of those who had the foresight to create a botanical garden 150 years ago but also of those who have ensured the tradition continues.
Rani Bagh records the 150 years of the garden from when it was christened Victoria Gardens to its current, cumbersome name of Veermata Jijabai Bhonsale Udyan and Zoo, a name so lumbering that most prefer to call it Rani Bagh, a Hindi translation of the old name. It is not just easier on the tongue but also more evocative of the garden’s history.
The bagh, or garden, section is truly beautiful and has survived because of the work of an all-woman group of citizen activists —Hutokshi Rustomfram, Shubhada Nikharge, Katie Bagli and others. They fought a long and hard battle with the Mumbai municipal corporation, which wanted to cut into the grounds of the botanical garden to extend the zoo; a double sacrilege since it would have meant destroying trees—some of which are old and rare—and of caging yet more animals, a concept that enlightened administrations the world over have been questioning. With 3,213 trees of 286 species, a total of 853 plant species and a large variety of birds, mammals and insects, Rani Ragh is a biodiversity hotspot in the centre of the city.
The gardens are also a masterpiece of classical Renaissance planning; there are pathways constructed so that smaller internal gardens are created by axial planning.
The most delightful aspect of the book—attractively put together in terms of layout, design and photograph selection—is the smorgasbord of essays, each a gem of knowledge, from the likes of Bittu Sahgal, Vikas Dilawari and Pheroza Godrej, who are passionate about their work.
The city historian Mariam Dossal’s essay provides tidbits from the garden’s early years when it was meant to be in another part of the city and the plan included a vegetable garden to introduce new vegetables because “the vegetable market in Bombay was very deficient both as to the quality and variety of the vegetables which it supplies’.” In the mid-1800s, there was actually a surprising emphasis on the botanical garden producing vegetables and fruits and commercial plants such as cotton, spices and indigo. Clearly, in its earliest avatar, it had a strong commercial streak.
The conservation architect Vikas Dilawari looks at the classical design of the garden as well as the handful of monuments in it. Calling Rani Bagh the “first mega-project undertaken by the colonial rulers” Dilawari says, “Nowhere does one encounter a symbiosis of built and natural heritage on the scale and grandeur witnessed [here].” The most striking is the woodlath conservatory with its ingenious use of steel and wood. An iconic feature of Rani Bagh, it is “a framework of steel covered with latticed woodwork topped by a large cathedral-like dome”.
The chapter on the garden’s “incredible botanical wealth”, by the botanist Marselin Almeida, lists indigenous and exotic plants and trees, some of them rare mutants such as Krishna’s buttercup ( Ficus bengalensis var. krishnae), a “freak” variety of banyan that can only be propagated through cuttings. Using a seed “will most likely yield a regular Ficus bengalensis”.
Hutokshi Rustomfram’s and Shubhada Nikharge’s essays encapsulate their struggle to save the garden by promoting it for its botanical worth as well as its standing as an egalitarian space, a “people’s park”, an idea summed up in Bittu Sahgal’s essay. Sahgal’s essay, the first in the book, actually encapsulates the real need for spaces like Rani Bagh. He writes, “I know from experience that there is no finer way to provide [children] with a sense of well-being and oneness with the earth than to let them discover the joys on offer by nature.”
This, more than anything else, should ensure the preservation of this “queen of gardens”.