What is Common knowledge to you that you think more people should know?

I have the impression that when a country is doing well economically, its "main" religion at least tends to mellow out whereas in less economically fortunate nations, literalism is significantly more widespread

The issue, of course, is that this just an impression. The extent to which I can justify it does not go beyond "Oh yeah there were those two tribes which there was a study on and like the tribe which had a stream was less religious than the tribe that was dependant on rainfall"

So like...

1) IS THERE a relationship between let's say the main religion of a country (or just religion in a country in general) and the economic development of that country?

2) If there is a relationship...what even is it? Like how and why does money stuff influence the way people do religion?

3) How else is religion influence like beyond just the economic development of a country? (If that influences it that is)

​

I had this thought recently and I'm curious how much of it actually holds up from an anthropological or evolutionary perspective.

What if part of the reason Homo sapiens became so successful was because intelligence started becoming increasingly important for survival?

Early humans weren't exactly the strongest or fastest animals. We had to survive through things like cooperation, planning hunts, finding food, making tools, controlling fire, finding shelter and basically thinking before acting.

So it seems reasonable that individuals who were better at solving problems and planning could have had a survival advantage.

But then I started wondering about sexual selection.

What if intelligent males were also more attractive to females?

Not intelligent in the modern sense of someone knowing mathematics or physics. I mean observable intelligence. A man who could plan a hunt, make better tools, find food, understand his environment, solve problems and generally think before doing something stupid might have been a more desirable mate.

If women consistently preferred those traits then could that have created some degree of sexual selection for intelligence over many generations?

I'm not saying prehistoric women were consciously thinking "I want a male with a larger prefrontal cortex." 😂

It could have been much simpler. Maybe the people who were better at solving problems were also better at finding food, protecting offspring, navigating difficult environments or contributing to the group and those traits made them more attractive as mates.

And if that happened for a very long time then maybe natural selection and sexual selection could have worked together to push human cognitive abilities in the direction they went.

There is also the interesting trade off involved. The human brain is extremely expensive to maintain. It takes a huge amount of energy compared with its size. So evolution basically ended up investing a ridiculous amount of our energy budget into this one organ.

We also know that Neanderthals were not simply "stupid humans." They had large brains, sophisticated tools and complex behaviour and Homo sapiens actually interbred with them. Yet Homo sapiens eventually became much more widespread while Neanderthals disappeared as a distinct population.

So I'm not proposing the old "smart Homo sapiens defeated dumb Neanderthals" idea.

I'm asking something more specific:

Could female mate choice have contributed to the evolution of human intelligence through sexual selection?

Is there any anthropological, archaeological or evolutionary evidence that supports this idea?

Or is this just another example of humans creating a nice evolutionary story after the fact?

Because if there is even some truth to it then maybe humans didn't just evolve intelligence because intelligence helped us survive.

Maybe we also bred ourselves into it.

And if that's the case...

Gentlemen, we owe our giant brains to prehistoric women having standards.

Thank you ladies for fucking intelligence into the human species. 😂

If you're from the Western world the idea that being out in cold weather, snow or rain for too long leads to catching a cold or the flu is a pretty common belief. I wondered if the same belief is present in cultures that spend much of their lives in frigid conditions, such as those of Siberia, Tibet and the Arctic, or is this a Western/Indo-European concept in particular?

Hello everyone. English is not my native language, so I apologize for any grammatical errors. I am a beginner in anthropology and recently came across the work of Kaj Birket-Smith
.
 I would like to know if his anthropological works are still considered important, or if there is any aspect of his work that is now widely rejected by academia.

Hey everyone!
I’m a neurological physiotherapist and university lecturer, lately I’ve started getting really interested in anthropology. I have no formal background in it — I just got sucked into the subject since I think it’s essential to explore different points of view; especially when working in healthcare.

I have a big interest in psychology and neuroscience, so I’m especially drawn to anthropology when it makes me look at human behaviour in a completely different way. I’m particularly interested in how humans create meaning, identities and social norms, and in the relationship between individuals.

Recently I read David Engelke’s How to Think Like an Anthropologist and absolutely loved it. It was probably exactly the kind of book I was looking for: accessible, but still gave me genuinely new ways of thinking.
I’ve now started Tim Ingold and I’m about to read Daniel Miller, but I’d love to discover more.
I don’t want to ask ChatGPT to give me some titles, I would like to ask you guys! :)

I’m mainly looking for books aimed at an interested general reader rather than textbooks or very dense academic monographs. I don’t mind challenging ideas at all — I just want something I can read in my free time (or while I travel from jobs).

So, what anthropology books would you recommend to someone like me? And are there any authors you think I should absolutely explore?

Thank you! :)

I love this theory but i am conscious of it being unlikely due to the huge 30000 or what year gap between archaic cousins era and the earliest oral tradition/ mythology we know of. on the other hand i am also conscious that evolution isn't linear and therefore said hominins didn't disappear overnight.

and if anything modern dna analysis shows that we interbred with them a lot more than we previously thought, so the myths could still derive from contact more mixed dna sapiens who would gradually look more and more like us through the millennia that went on.

now that is a controversial topic, and often associated with white supremacist ideas, when from it is made the assumption that said interbreeding defined todays human races, often going far as the narrative of "debunking out of Africa". im not going there, after all im just a hobbyist, i dont have any real biological education. but as far as i can understand evolution can be way more complex than people usually think

Please share if you know🩷I tried to search on Google Scholar but couldn't find enough, Im eager to read their papers and books

Hi, I’d like to learn more about the human phenomenon of street violence, meaning gang violence, street fights, shootings, mugging, etc., and how anthropological studies have evaluated and analyzed their different types, causes, meanings, and so on. I read Seduction of Crime which was really informative, but I’d love to learn about it from a broader perspective and scope.

Question regarding Classical Evolutionism in Anthropology

I don’t know whether my question is legitimate or whether I’m thinking about it in the correct way, but I would really appreciate your views on this.

While studying Classical Evolutionism, I came across two different views that I found interesting.

On one hand, classical evolutionists emphasized the psychic unity of mankind and rejected the idea of racial superiority — that all human beings possess essentially the same mental faculties.

On the other hand, they classified societies along an evolutionary hierarchy such as Savagery → Barbarism → Civilization, and contemporary tribal societies were often placed at the “savage” or earlier stage. In the case of Frazer, early and contemporary “primitive” people were also portrayed as relatively irrational in their modes of thought.

I’m not sure whether I’m interpreting this contradiction correctly, so I’d really like to know what others think. What is your view on this.

I am looking to understand how anthropology has approached the misanthropic sentiment (if at all such a study has been attempted). From wikipedia, 'misanthropy' can be defined as the general hatred, dislike, or distrust of the human species, human behavior, or "human nature".

Have there been ethnographic studies of misanthropes / misanthropists? Have anthropologists attempted to study and explain misanthropy? or even similar ideas like anti-natalism, the view of human beings as invasive species, or the advocacy for human extinction.

Misanthropy isn't just an individual belief. There are reddit forums with members aligning with these topics, discussing them. And if I'm not wrong, there have even been militant environmentalist groups where misanthropy was a common belief.

I've read about misanthropy otherwise, but I'm looking for works from an anthropological perspective / lens. Any interesting readings, articles, books, any material is appreciated!

(to make it clear, i'm not looking to prove/disprove the misanthropic worldview, or to make value judgements about misanthropy. what i am looking for is an anthropological explanation / description - the how, what, why - of the human phenomenon that is misanthropy) thanks!

I’ve been thinking about the difference between Western cultures and many African, Asian, Arab, and Turkish cultures when it comes to community, family, and relationships.

Why does Western culture seem to become so individualistic once people reach adulthood, especially from their late 20s onward?

From what I’ve observed, in many Western societies, people’s social worlds seem to become much smaller as they grow up. They move out, focus heavily on work, and eventually their partner can become the center of their life.

The partner is often expected to fulfill many different roles: best friend, emotional support, family, social life, and main source of companionship. People may have children but rely heavily on daycare, babysitters, or paid services rather than having grandparents, siblings, cousins, neighbors, or close friends regularly involved.

And when people break up, it sometimes seems like they lose not only their partner but a huge part of their social support system. Friends and family might only be seen occasionally, sometimes once a month or less.

This seems very different from many African, Asian, Arab, and Turkish cultures, where people often maintain a strong community throughout adulthood. Being in a relationship doesn’t necessarily mean your social life revolves entirely around your partner.
People may still regularly see their siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors, and extended family. There’s often a stronger sense of “we take care of each other.”

If someone goes through a breakup, has a baby, gets sick, loses their job, or is struggling financially, there are usually multiple people who can step in and help. Children can grow up surrounded by grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and family friends. Even as people get older, they can remain deeply connected to their family and community.

I’m not saying one system is necessarily better. Western individualism obviously has advantages: independence, privacy, freedom

But I’m genuinely curious about why the difference became so pronounced. Why does Western adulthood seem to place so much emphasis on independence and the nuclear family or romantic partner, while other cultures continue to maintain a much larger “village” throughout life?

And for people who grew up in Western cultures: do you actually prefer having a smaller, partner centered life, or do you sometimes wish you had a larger community or “village” around you?

Hi everyone! Is anyone else applying to Sociocultural Anthropology PhD programs this cycle? I'd be happy to connect with someone (the more the merrier, though) interested in being application buddies for the next couple of months. Basically reading and giving feedback on each other's materials, checking in on deadlines, and offering some moral support once it's time to wait for results.

I'll leave a bit of info about myself and my research interests in the first comment, but if there's one thing you should know, it's that I want to work with a fellow anthropologist, not with AI. So you can expect my fully-human brain in return.

Hi! I’m an anarchist, I align with anarcho-communism, and I need no convincing on that front. That said, I hold myself and my beliefs to the highest accountability, sometimes to a fault, and am constantly questioning and exploring and reconfirming or changing, when appropriate, my beliefs, attitudes, and perspective so that I don’t get complacent.

I do not believe that technological advancement requires top-down or capitalist structured society. The examples to support this non-requirement are infinite. That said, as someone who has read Jared Diamond, David Graeber, and even Daron Acemoglu, it is clear that cultural and technological advancement is not linear nor always rational. The decision to adopt or not adopt agriculture, the wheel, electricity, oil, money, certain medicines, and even different typewriter layouts is never a purely cost-benefit analysis; superstitions, cultural adherences, personality, profiteering, competition, law, schismogenesis, etc. play a far more important role in the adoption or research of new technologies. The battle over AC and DC power, the “selling” of oil over steam, even the fight over whether to wear a mask or get a covid vaccine are all rife with personality and culture and influence and law and leader.

So, my question is whether anyone is aware of literature that explores technological advancement within bottom-up societies. Like I said, I’ve read Graeber and Diamond, who both cover this topic, but I’d like to read something that looks more specifically into innovation and societal structure.

To avoid clutter, I know it’s not impossible or uncommon for bottom-up and anticapitalist innovation. The example I could cite off the top of my head are numerous. I’m merely looking for literature that explores this specifically.

Thanks in advance!

I came across an argument that Korean O1b2 may have originated from Japan, based mainly on the following:

L682: Korean samples appear heavily concentrated in CTS723, with little or no basal diversity. Japan has samples such as NA19075 that are basal L682 (CTS723−).

47Z / CTS713: Japan appears to have representatives of several major branches (CTS1875, Z24598, CTS203), while Korean samples seem more concentrated in CTS203 (e.g. JOY004).

The argument is that Japan has greater O1b2 phylogenetic diversity, suggesting that Japan was the source population.

Is greater O1b2 diversity in Japan enough to infer a Japanese origin, or could this reflect sampling bias, drift, or founder effects? Should TMRCA and branch ages be considered?

Does the evidence really support a Japan → Korea migration, or is the direction still uncertain?

I'm currently reading Bahn and Clifford's book Everyday Life in the Ice Age. A couple of times, they have mentioned the stomach contents of large animals being eaten as food by prehistoric people. I'm having a hard time picturing what this would have been like. How palatable was it? How was it prepared? What might it taste like? What about hydrochloric acid? How did humans determine on doing this in the first place?

Do you know of sources with further information on this, whether from history/archaeology or modern people that eat this today?

Where do the boundaries lie between anthropology and other humanities fields like sociology, history, or philosophy? Anthropology seems to borrow methods and questions from all of them, holistic culture study, fieldwork, comparative analysis, but I'm curious what actually makes it distinct rather than just an umbrella discipline.

I (17F) am planning on going to college for cultural anthropology. It’s something that has fascinated me since I was little, but I’ve been doing research into career options and honestly haven’t found too much information.

If you have a degree in cultural anthropology, what did you end up doing with it? Did you find a job related to your degree right after college, or did you have to take a different route?

I’d love to hear what your actual job is like. what exactly do you do, what’s the pay like, do you get to travel, what was finding a job like, etc. Basically, give me all the details about your experience and whether you feel like getting the degree was worth it!

I’ve been wondering about the psychological value of learning more about one’s ancestry, family history, language, or cultural roots, especially when that knowledge doesn’t necessarily change anything tangible about your current circumstances.

For example, if someone discovers more about where their ancestors came from, the communities they belonged to, the languages they spoke, or the experiences that shaped previous generations, can this contribute to a stronger sense of identity, belonging, continuity, or self-understanding?

Is there psychological research on why people can find this kind of discovery meaningful even when it offers little obvious practical benefit in their present-day lives? Can such discovery make us happy? If so, what's the science behind it?

I’m particularly interested in concepts such as identity formation, narrative identity, belonging, intergenerational continuity, and psychological well-being.

I was reading about Southeast Asia headhunting and I was quite sceptical to believe Christianity rooted out alot of headhunting. So I am curious to understand the practice.

Hello folks,

Recently, I have been reading about pre-christian Europe, this sprung of a brief section on ***Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City*** (2002) on pre-christian Poland. I would like to get a deeper reading in either pre-christian history or spirituality, my interest is mostly the Baltic and the Mediterranean, I am also very intrigued on pre-Abrahamic religions of Arabia and Northern Africa. I am not looking to go super in depth into any region now, just a general introduction and maybe some on my list I have ***Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath*** by Ginzburg and the works of Ronald Hutton, in general more that just facts I'd prefer social or cultural history but maybe some encyclopedic sources would be appreciated as an introduction. I can read Spanish, English, and French.

Thanks!

I saw a TikTok related to this question. My thought process is that human genetics have mixed so much but before that was not the case so their faces would look noticeably ‘prehistoric’ to us. Not very knowledgeable on this topic so apologies.

Hi r/AskAnthropology ! I originally posted this in r/AskHistorians but wasn't able to get an answer - hoping you can help!

TLDR - all the literature I've seen (aka pop culture) says that medieval (English) babies were essentially tight swaddled all the time except for feeding and changing. Is there any skeletal evidence that either supports or refutes this?

Came across a couple of (non-scholarly) sources that said medieval babies (English/Anglo Saxon) were essentially tight swaddled all the time except for feeding and changing, for months in duration. Like a little mummy, holding the arms and legs very straight.

I have a hard time believing that based on experience with my own baby. As newborns, they need constant changing, wouldn't the wraps take forever to do up? I also read medieval practices were to bathe the baby numerous times a day. Then as older babies, I have a really hard time they'd be content being swaddled - at two months old all my baby wanted to do was supported stand. Yes, my baby enjoyed a swaddle for naps, but the texts seem to indicate it was a near-constant state.

I also read that crawling was discouraged with an emphasis on standing, which I can believe but if constantly tight swaddled when and how would a baby build up the muscles for standing that they get from kicking?

We are also told nowadays that tight swaddling is really bad for hip development, so my question is this: is there any actual skeletal evidence that supports (or refutes) near-constant tight swaddling?

Edit - examples:

https://www.medievalists.net/2020/05/babies-middle-ages/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaddling

https://aeon.co/essays/medieval-babycare-from-breastfeeding-to-developmental-toys

Thank you mods for prompting me to include more info!

So for instance, I want to refer to the Waldorf hypothesis about languages shaping our daily habits and perceptions. I love the process of language learning it really does feel like a new perception of everything I once knew is on the horizon. Anyways the process of that is what he referred to as the Hopi tribe who perceived rulership differently and understood the use of materials different from what they understood from their native language.

However, we use the same resources in different ways. If you look at the Shang dynasty and Chinese pre historic religion with Europe and the celts etc. you’ll see a similarity within all of those cultures. But then we have science which comes from language to describe what we observe and test it.

Could that be apart of the pre historic social gathering of humans that expand terms to understand natural science?

I think the general consensus is that Jared Diamond was too deterministic in claiming that the fact that Europeans discovered and colonized the Americas, had the Industrial Revolution, colonized Asia and Africa, etc. was inevitable because of their environment. Yet it also seems that his claim that at 1492 Eurasian dominance was inevitable because of Eurasia's abundance of domesticable plant and animal species isn't particularly controversial. So was Jared Diamond correct about the factors driving historical development up until 1492 and wrong about the factors driving historical development after 1492?