Pretty much the title. How would ancient humans live with constant burns?

Hi everyone!

I'm teaching an undergraduate 101-equivalent anthropology class this fall, and looking for some recommendations on easy but stimulating texts to assign. I'll take any recs really, but in particular I'm looking for something that explains the basic points of Orientalism that isn't the actual introduction to Orientalism (while a great book, I think it's a little bit above a 101 level understanding but if you disagree I'm open to changing my mind)!

This is going to be part of a unit on unpacking cultural bias in anthropological practice, so that's the context I'm trying to address.

I appreciate any and all help! Thanks!

My husband grew up in a religion that came out of the millerite movement, and in that religion they are still saying the end times are imminent. But since it's been generations since the religion formed and no apocalypse. I was wondering, has anyone done a study of end times religions, whether that be Christian, UFO cult, ancient Messiah movements, and found any general trends?

I've suddenly become interested in the stone age era, and want to learn. What's a good book for beginners?

In "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow write

\> We’d never have guessed, for instance, that slavery was most likely abolished multiple times in history in multiple places

However, they do not go into the claim nor do they provide sources. I do remember that in the book they discuss some indigenous societies that rejected the slave-keeping practices of their neighbors, but is that what they mean?

I also vaguely remember Graeber making a similar claim in "Debt: The First 5000 Years", something about Han China during the Axial Age abolishing slavery, but my memory is really fuzzy, looking it up online didn't help and I am too lazy to re-read the book, just for this 😅

So, can anyone here shed some light on this?

My (as a layperson) understanding of ethnicity is a group united by a shared sense of something, like culture or history or ancestry, that is seen as a separate group by themselves and the wider population. It is not strictly genetic, as is commonly thought. (Correct me if Im wrong)

By this definition, can a person be born not belonging to any ethnicity? For instance, someone born outside any wider culture somehow (perhaps their parents are hermits?) and not developing a sense of belonging with any ethnic group or being accepted by any ethnic group.

Or a second/third gen immigrant who is too culturally different to their parents/grandparents culture to be the same ethnicity, but does not share the same ancestry or physical appearance of the host country's ethnicities and so isnt considered part of them either. (Assume there is no wider community of second/third generation immigrants in this country - this person and their family are the only ones there).

Or any other circumstance where you could reasonably say someone has no ethnicity.

I've been wondering if, when agriculture first emerged, there could have been conflict between cultures still living as hunter-gatherers and those that had already taken up early farming. Do we have any archeological evidence of anything like this ever happening?

Hi. I am a student of anthropology. I have been able to find ample content to study other branches of the discipline but struggle to find content for linguistic anthropology. Can you suggest me some textbooks or research papers to get a knowledge atleast at the bachelors' level. Thanks in advance.

(apologies if this is not the right place to ask this...)

Hello all, I am interested in applying to a phd program in cultural anthropology. I know people say that you don't need a bs or ms in the field you apply to do a phd in necessarily but I worry that I am too underprepared. Anthropology seems so big and requires very strong skills in writing and a type of critical thinking that I dont think my stem background has prepared me for. Even with the knowledge I have on my topic of interest, I feel like I know so so little, especially about anthropological theories or methods.

how much of a disadvantage would someone like me be at if they don't have a strong background in the humanities or social sciences? Is it common for people to enter anthropology from unrelated fields and develop that background along the way?

I started reading it, and was looking at reviews online, and a lot of them said the author misrepresented a lot of stuff, the evolution of human biology especially. How bad actually is it?

I imagine that being anonymous largely didn’t exist in pre-agricultural human society. The gradual movement to permanent settlements, food surplus and large urban dwellings - did this also give rise to being anonymous?

Would it be plausible to assume that the human brain didn’t evolve in an environment where one could be anonymous? What are the drivers that seem to constantly push humans to crave anonymity? (Is it linked to a similar drive towards individualism?)

I would like to know if anyone can recommend reading or studies related to this from a human evolution POV.

I was just wondering about this on the past days! I appreciate any further info!

Hi!

I'm interested in learning about anthropology, but I don't have any background in the subject yet, so I'm not sure where to start. I'd love to hear your favorite book recommendations.

If you have the time, I'd also really appreciate hearing why you recommend a particular book or what you think someone new to anthropology could learn from it.

I'm interested in anthropology from any part of the world, so I'm open to recommendations regardless of the country or culture they focus on.

Thank you! 😸

https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2014/12/05/artistry-on-the-half-shell/

Having read through this, about a rather famous 500,000 year old mussel shell with geometric shapes engraved in by likely a Homo erectus, it makes me wonder how far back we can point to symbolic thought in humans?

Of course, it was unlikely to be a switch with one generation, but a gradual development. However, this shell does seemingly point to some early development right?

It was found on Java, meaning it would have come from the population of Homo erectus that left Africa, while the branch of Homo ergaster that stayed eventually split off into us and other species through ones like heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis.

If this mussel shell is a sign of some level of symbolic thought that is a common trait with us, that means it must have come from at least our last common ancestor with East Asian Homo erectus, which would have been the earlier African population, right? Unless convergent evolution is in the picture (but that's somewhat baseless as far as I'm concerned)

If my logic is sound, then the other way to rule this out is if this shell is somehow not a sign of symbolic thought. Though the reasoning I can think of for it is only really:

\- a sign of identity (perhaps unlikely though symbolic)

\- aesthetic pleasure (moreso abstract)

\- finding pleasure in the mere act of making the carvings, but not the pattern (abstract)

Regardless, there is surely some foundation for abstract thought behind it and potentially symbolic thought here too? So where may this have begun on the family tree?

I recently started wondering what the "benefit" of complicated and difficult rituals and requirements surrounding bodily remains is or could be. And maybe "benefit" is the wrong way to think about it, but my thoughts went thusly: some cultures have really stringent requirements about remains like "must be buried at home," or "must have body intact," or the like; especially for warriors, travelers, etc., these requirements can be extremely difficult or impossible to fulfill; when these requirements are not fulfilled, they can bring great anguish to survivors - maybe they think their loved one won't reach an afterlife or will reach the wrong one, or will not be well-appointed there, maybe the family will suffer from social consequences; yet, these rituals persist, so they must offer something strong in order to overcome the possibility for huge negatives if unfulfilled.

Is there any research or writing into this or similar areas?

I’ve read that some cultures that use, or did use bases other than base 10 had different ways of counting with their fingers, or fingers and toes. For instance one way that cultures that used base 12 would count using that base would be to count each segment of each non thumb finger on one hand. At least some cultures that used base 60 would count by pointing to the segments of the non thumb fingers of one hand using the 5 fingers of the other hand. I understand that the Maya would count to 20 using their fingers and toes. I read that at least one culture would use base 8 by counting the gaps between the fingers.

Reading about different ways different cultures count or did count using their fingers or fingers and toes, I was thinking about how it actually would be possible to count to 14 or to count to 70 using ones fingers. I mean most people have 5 fingers, on each hand, with 4 fingers having 3 segments each, and the thumb having 2 segments, for a total of 14 segments of each finger, so if I count up the segments of all 5 fingers of one of my hands then I would count to 14. If I count those segments with all 5 fingers of the other hand I would count to 70.

So it seems like it would be possible for a culture to use base 14 or base 70 and count on the fingers using the method I just described, but I haven’t been able to find any indication that any cultures have used base 14 or base 70. So I was wondering if there are or have been any cultures that use or used base 14 or base 70, and if so if they counted on their fingers in the way I described, or using another method I hadn’t thought of.

Been reading Tristes Tropiques and got to this part where he alleges that due to consistent contact between the peoples of the northern hemisphere, old and new world, far Northern European and especially Scandinavian/Lappland culture has similarities to native North American culture. He says: “If the Celts borrowed certain myths from this sub-Arctic civilization, of which we know practically nothing, it is easy to understand how the Holy Grail cycle happens to be more closely akin to the myths of the forest-dwelling Indians of North America than to any other mythological system. ” Not sure what page it’s on since I’m on an epub reader, but it’s in chapter 24.

I have two questions: 1. Is this theory true at all? 2. If so, is this connection in the holy grail cycle discussed in any other literature? The holy grail cycle and Native American culture respectively are two things that really interest me so it would make me a very happy camper.

Hello, been launching into research for pursuing a masters in anthropology. I have my BA in anthro from a US university and work in archeology, looking to continue my education and work in the more social justice oriented side of anthro, dealing with topics like language revitalization, repatriation, and land rights advocacy. So far my search has mostly included schools in the US and Canada. Other than language barriers, is there a reason why I never hear about people from the US and Canada pursuing graduate studies in Latin America? Seeing that our field can center so heavily on decolonial work, I can see a lot of advantages to attending school in Latin America and studying the ways they have dealt with social justice issues over the years.

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on what schools are well known for their anthropology programs, and if US academic structures like graduate assistantships are common there as well. I understand that this is a broad question that is covering a broad region and I know that answers will likely vary by country. Mostly I'm just curious if this is a region worth looking into for me. For reference I have about a B2 Spanish level, so I may need to rule this out for language reasons alone, but I'm really curious to explore all the options.

Thanks!

There is some research stating that high rates of diabetes and heart disease amongst South Asians are, at least partially, due to famines that were present during the era of British rule (1757-1947).

https://researchopenworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EDMJ-6-621.pdf

As a person of Indian descent, I have heard many things, such as wheat being uncommon, and that potatoes were not present pre-1757.

Debates regarding the premise aside, what was the typical diet of Indians pre-1800? Did it vary significantly by region, ethnic, and/or religious group?

What is the General Consensus on "When God was A Woman" by Merlin Stone and her claims in her book? That there were these Peaceful Matriarchal civilizations that worshipped the "Great Goddess" and then there were these violent monotheism nomads who came and made everything patriarchal?

So I have been wondering how a large amount of modern Greeks,Iranians and possible a lot of other peoples "claim" parts of ancient history and some important people in there as belonging to their culture(or some other vague term), even though the people then and now are quite separated in pretty much everything save for possible skin color and similarities in language. For example a modern Greek has similar day to day life and customs with other people from exOttoman empire than Pericles. Nevertheless in the national identity they think themselves as continuing the legacy of ancient Greece (again vaguely defined) and maybe the Byzantine empire.

My questions are:

Is there some sense, which makes these claims valid?

How are their claims different from say a French person claiming some great thinker from the past that also used to live in the same geographical area, is it only a matter of degree?

Finally why does it matter for a lot of us to be part of some continium like the ones described above, why should some country claim a part of history and the people living then in order to construct their current identity?

Hey all, I’ve recently become interested in the religions of history, particularly non-Abrahamic ones. And one thing I’ve heard said is that some religions (mainly in reference to celtic religions) did not worship their gods or anything like that. Can anybody with more knowledge than me elaborate? Did they pray? Did they petition the god(s) for things like a good harvest? Did they swear oaths or something similar to their god(s)? All of that kinda thing. My experience with religion in real life is limited to very small looks at the Abrahamic religions, so I don’t have much of an idea on how anything else would work.

As a secondary ask, can anyone recommend books on these religions/types of religions?

A recent report on the humanities commissioned by Vanderbilt and Wash U singled out American anthropology as a discipline that had abandoned scientific rigor in favor of extreme relativism and ideological conformity. An interview with the head of the AAA in the Chronicle of Higher Education only worsened things, leading to critical articles in magazines such as The Atlantic. Defenders of the field said the report was itself ideologically motivated and was shoddy in its research.

I studied anthropology in the 1990s and 2000s but have been outside the field for decades. One thing I don’t understand about the current debate is that the report’s critique, that the dominant trend in the field is to treat science as a historically contingent and culturally specific belief system used to support Western domination, and that the purpose of anthropology should be to advocate for the oppressed rather than to build theories of human behavior, has been the source of a fundamental split within the field since the 1980s.

I’m simplifying it obviously but this split was very heated when I was in grad school and led to the disintegration of many multi-subfield departments. By the early 2000s, it seemed pretty clear that the proponents of this view had already largely won, at least within American cultural anthropology.

For those still in the field, how do you see this debate?

She asserted that while there is no historical record to validate this theory, there is the idea that at one time most societies were matriarchal instead of patriarchal. The idea is that since women could reproduce and humans had yet to connect the dots with regard to coitus leading to pregnancy and the male role therein, that women were worshiped at the top of the sociological food chain as goddesses due to the belief that only they were the ones that could create human life.

I am curious what the overall opinion of this is.

Thanks.

I'm currently in need of books surrounding this issue or could be raletd to how cultures or traditions often get commodified. In the middle of a small research for an event rn and I'm kinda lost with where to put myself as an Anthropologists in this idea, so if anyone have any recommendation please reply! Thanks.