looking for help in framing value, especially according to Mauss, Malinowski, Appadurai, Graeber, or any relatively new scholars? I have read them, but as usual, I doubt that I understood them well enough.

Hi everyone, I’ve been diving into the origins of bipedalism, particularly in Australopithecus afarensis, and I find myself questioning some common explanations for why full bipedalism would have been favored by natural selection. Here are my main doubts: 1. Vulnerability to predators: A fully bipedal posture would make Australopithecus more visible to predators like saber-toothed cats or early lions. Remaining low to the ground (as a quadruped) would have been a more effective strategy for avoiding detection. Isn’t bipedalism counterproductive for a prey species in this context? 2. Escape from predators: Quadrupeds are generally faster than bipeds, so wouldn’t maintaining or enhancing quadrupedalism have been a better strategy for escaping predators? Australopithecus didn’t yet have the anatomical adaptations (e.g., Achilles tendon efficiency) for sustained running, so how could bipedalism offer an advantage here? 3. Energy efficiency: While I understand that bipedalism is more energy-efficient for long-distance travel, is this benefit alone enough to outweigh the risks of being slower and more exposed to predators? 4. Resource gathering: Many argue that bipedalism helped in gathering food, but wouldn’t partial bipedalism (e.g., occasional upright posture) suffice for this purpose? Why was full bipedalism selected instead? 5. Aversion to post hoc explanations: Some explanations (like better predator detection or enabling tool use) seem to focus on future benefits of bipedalism rather than its immediate evolutionary advantages. Shouldn’t we focus on the direct selective pressures that would have made full bipedalism advantageous in its own time?

To me, the only explanation that seems immediately compelling is the reduction in energy expenditure, but I struggle to see how that alone could justify such a seemingly vulnerable adaptation. I’d love to hear your thoughts or corrections to my reasoning. Are there overlooked factors that made full bipedalism a more viable strategy than it seems?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Siamese Fighting Fish, especially the 'Plakat' form are extremely aggressive and were selectively bred by humans for sport fighting (sadly). They can't even see each other without wanting to fight, the pet stores must block their little jars with cardboard just to prevent them with flaring up with a desire to fight.

It makes me question if aggressive/fierce humans were selectively bred for countless generations, will their descendants eventually be mostly aggressive as well down the line?

I notice that on many articles in regards to research many cultures, I’ve just seen the cultural practices, customs, beliefs, traditions, religions and more, that are within the cultures and I every time I went to different websites of different articles talking about the same culture, I’ve seen the same cultural practices, customs, beliefs, traditions, religions when they describe a culture and that got me thinking that maybe they’re implying that a Culture is static and never dynamic or evolves at all it’s always the same.

Here’s an example: I’ve seen the article of British Culture and they have the list of cultural practices, customs and etiquette and this is from the website SBS Atlas: https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/british-culture/british-culture-etiquette#british-culture-etiquette

I’ve seen the article British Culture and they also have the list of cultural practices, customs and etiquette and this from the website Adleorelo: 

https://adleorelo.com/blog/british-etiquette-a-guide-for-expats/

So as we can see, we’ve seen both articles from two websites of British Culture and the list they have are all the same so I think that implies that the British Culture is never dynamic or evolves it’s 100% static like you don’t see what’s changed or new whenever someone posted a new article from any website of British Culture. Same goes to other cultures they were never dynamic or never evolves at all they’re all static. They’ve stayed the same. 

Even though we are in the globalized era where cultures changes and evolves all the time and even every day due to globalization and also individual differences, still whenever someone post an article of any culture, they still list out the same thing.

I’m not sure, what do you guys think?

Hey all, new to this sub and not sure if it’s the right place for this question, but I’m curious…

Iv spent a couple months across Turkey and Egypt, and the level of service everywhere is significantly higher than anywhere in the “western world” that Iv experienced. Iv bounced all around Europe, North America and LatAm, so not exactly small sample sizes.

I’m wondering, is this because of the culture/religion? Is it a coincidence that the Muslim focused countries iv experienced have had such better levels of service? Most of the time the people arnt even looking for a tip too!

Iv heard this is the case across much of the Middle East, and also have heard it said about some Asian countries as well.

The only thing I can think of, outside religion, is the people in these countries seem genuinely excited/proud of their country and seem to really want foreigners to have favorable outlooks on their country (and love it like they do). But why is this? Is it because of religion? Is it because local culture is stronger maybe? If it has to do with culture, why is this not the same in Central Europe or LatAm, where they arguably also have very strong local cultures?

I have a pet theory, and that’s that before the advent of organized religion, if you had what we’d call a girlfriend today that would be considered a wife in the before times. Is this theory true? Or has there always been a distinction between marriage and less serious relationships.

I am reading Langdon 2005 Ch. 1. The author states,

“Because it appears that bipedalism evolved before a dependency on material culture, we can say that hominin posture is an exaptation for tool use. This does not imply that upright posture evolved for the purpose of tool use or because of it. That would have been impossible, a violation of evolutionary theory.”

My question is, why exactly is that a violation of evolutionary theory?

Hi everyone! Please delete if not allowed!

I’m interested in the anthropology of religion and I am seeking advice on choosing between Master's programs in Socio-Cultural Anthropology at the London School of Economics (LSE), School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), and the University of Edinburgh. I’ve received offers from all of them and I’m trying to determine which would be the better fit for my academic and research goals.

I’d love to hear from anyone familiar with these institutions or the UK anthropology landscape! Which program would better prepare someone for (hopefully and naively) a career in academia and research? Are there significant differences in focus, teaching style, or postgrad opportunities that I should consider?

Sadly it has been awhile since my BA so I don't really have anyone else to ask for their opinions. Any insights would be incredibly helpful! Thanks in advance!

There was a recent survey that nearly half of Indian men and women are fine with domestic violence if a wife fails to perform her "duties"

https://www.google.com/s/www.deccanherald.com/story/india%252Fnearly-half-of-indian-men-women-think-domestic-violence-is-fine-if-wife-doesnt-perform-her-duties-1107534.html

Why is this ?

What kind of significance did people near Yellowstone or the Danakhil Depression, or other type of significant features, place upon these areas?

I know new languages have developed in the last couple hundred years like Afrikaans and a few more recently that are novel like Esperanto. What would be the newest language that has native speakers and has a community whether bigger or small as the dominant language?

While trying to remember a specific group of individuals from somewhere in Oceania, I remembered they used tools mostly made of shells due to a rather lacking abundance of stone. Aside from being unable to remember the name of the people in question (though if someone knows who I am talking about, please post as a bonus), I am also curious as to if other, similar situations happened with other groups of people.

As you probably know, the Bajau have larger spleens, letting them hold onto oxygenated blood for longer before needing to surface.

Are there any other groups of note with traits like these? Not just related to holding onto oxygen for deeper dives, as well.

I should specify I mean eastern Europeans. Here is my very specific question, is there modern record currently of eastern Europeans not of any Asian decent developing monolids? I want to know if this is possible and if so, how common?

I do not know if my question is insensitive, but even if it is, I am still curious. I have never seen someone of non-asian descent who has had monolids I would greatly appreciate someone's knowledge on this subject.

Given the cold climate of much of Europe honestly without biases I would've expected monolids to be more common. To be honest I don't understand how europeans DON'T have monolids.

I would appreciate an answer, please let me know and don't be rude. Thank you and I hope you have been having a pleasant new year thus far.

I was recently given a last-minute introduction to cultural anthropology course. I'd like my students to read an ethnography, but no ethnography was assigned to the course in the bookstore. Given I wasn't able to select course materials, I'm kind of stuck. I don't want to tack on an additional surprise cost, and that would violate most uni and accrediting policies anyway. In the past I've had students read Dancing Skeletons by Kathryn Dettwyler - this book can be purchased for $10 online - it's cheap but my opinion is relative. Anyone know of an open access ethnography they found an enjoyable read? Links to resources are appreciated. Thank you!

Hi! I'm a senior anthro undergrad looking for interesting ethnography books focusing on English linguistic anthropology. I am interested specifically in how technology and the internet have changed how we communicate in written English, generational differences in English language use, and the sanctity of language (how people feel a need to protect languages from changing, etc).

I am also learning Japanese and am getting a TESOL certification, so anything focused on those subjects would be interesting!

This is going to be reference material for my capstone, so please keep it to ethnographies :)

Thank you so much!

All depends on how we define magic. I guess the anthropological definition would be about exercising practical power / influence on identifiable objects/subjects, by means of commonly unidentitifiable and extraordinary tools (magic abilities) ?

I saw for instance an article about neurology & shamanism rooting the latter in practices among all primates (see https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=shamanism+early&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1736797466920&u=%23p%3Db8Xdz2Xqy-EJ if the link doesnt work for some reason the article is as follows on academia.edu Shamanism and the evolutionary origins of spirituality and healing Michael Winkelman NeuroQuantology 9 (1), 2011)

(As a philosopher this article is frustrating because shamanism is an impossibly broaden contextless concept applied to neurosciences and it does not make much sense to me but that is another question.)

My main question is : can an anthropological definition of magic overcome the problem of non dualistic holistic worldviews ?

example : empirical observation in mesoamerican pre colonial medecine practices lead to attributions of properties to plants, either by means of rational inference, and by means of spiritual abstract assumptions.

cf https://thedailytexan.com/2018/11/01/aztec-medicine-could-be-more-advanced-than-previously-thought/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/s/XhmDR7idks for more details and ressources in the comment section

ps sorry for bad english i ´ m french lol

As a student studying anthropology in college, I've become very interested in middle-eastern archaeology. I've seen many videos and of course the ever credible Mel Gibson speak on new studies showing the Shroud of Turin was dated to around the time of Jesus. However, I have never heard of WAXS dating, ever. Is it even a credible way of determining an artifacts age and does it discredit the radiocarbon dating from earlier tests of the Shroud of Turin?

I am going to college this year intending to study history but then I realized they wouldn’t be conducting field work. I started looking into anthropology and decided that Paleoanthropology was the most interesting to me. How does one become a paleoanthropologist and should I duel major in archeology as-well?

Why it seems to be that all human populations ended up with some degree of slavery in their societies one way or another, why it is that the case from a evolutionary perspective?

Just been to a remote place where there are carvings on boulders from the 11th century. The artstyle seems like from that era, and there are an inscription that can be dated. There are also recent etchings of a Buddha and Rishi nearby in a different boulder nearby that clearly look new, carved by the hermit who lived nearby. One thing that strike my attention is a red/black fish painting/drawing on one side of the boulder. The colors looks similar to picture of Indonesian prehistoric painting, and 16th century red paint remnants in some temples of Angkor.

The hermit and my moped driver, said it is not drawing but natural insides of the rock that broke off due to natural events. It looks to me like it was manmade instead of coincident but I'm no art expert. It got me thinking about the age of the cave paintings, that reportedly was 10,000 BCE or 40,000 BCE.

How do they know if the cave paintings was prehistoric and not the works of some artists in the 1000CE or later?

I’ve recently been thinking about human prehistory. and realizing I don’t know much of anything… especially since the couple of things I learned are probably outdated. What are good / mass market books on the subject? I’m specifically looking for book about the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian lifestyle (as opposed to books about hominid evolution).

I’m especially interested in bonobos, as they are matriarch-ally structured, & I believe have most similar to human females.

I would like to know how different females in different points of estrus interact as well as changes in motivations/communication patterns.

first thanks for the replys on my other post. it has helped tremendously.

Additional question for anyone that is able to answer.

How did early humans drink water? I know salt water is and was always a no go. But im assuming at some point we had to like. Just be able to go to a stream…

And I know some time when kings were a thing we were mostly drinking wines. But what about these early folks.

And for a bit of timing reference Neanderthals around but almost mythical at this point. But around nonetheless.

I recently saw a few videos of carnyx music on youtube and I wondered if uralic and slavic peoples ever used horns for communication. The most famous examples of horns being used in such ways always come from germanic and celtic cultures and also to some degree the ancient mediterranean. I did a few searches and could not find anything that could even lead me to the right path about my question and decided to ask here, as r/AskHistorians seems to be more abot written history, whereas my question is more related to cultures.

Did uralic and slavic cultures ever make any horns as instruments on their own or are there any cases of nordic cultures spreading the use of lurs and other horns to these cultures?

EDIT: just to clarify, I did find some information on Estonian and Finnic horns, but I want to know more about uses and types of horns and uses. I imagine nothing on the scale of germanic folks, but would be interesting nonetheless.

My uneducated guess would be height. Are there any others? Evolutionary, advantageous mutations or anything else?

Is there anything important about the current species of human or could neanderthals or some other hominid have filled the role just as well? By that I mean, agriculture to industrial revolution to the modern day.

Hello! I’ve been researching until my eyes bleed and I think at this point I would rather just hear from people with experience.

I am a 24(F) who is going back to college after a few years break due to the pandemic and a bunch of personal stuff. I was originally an anthropology major at a 4 year university and am re-taking some gen ed classes and pursuing an associates at a community college right now. I am still interested in anthropology and very interested in forensics but the question is do I pursue that again and pursue a masters needed to become a forensic anthropologist ?

Or do I pursue a biology or criminal justice degree and pursue become a forensic scientist?

There’s no where near me that has a forensics undergrad major and I’m not a place I could move until I finish my associates degree so these seem to be my options right now and I’m just interested in hearing what peoples personal experiences are instead of statistics!

Thanks!

TLDR: forensic scientists vs. forensic anthropologists what do people personally enjoy or not enjoy.

My original plan for my senior thesis has gone down the drain and I’m slightly grasping at straws. Asking my advisor is my last resort as every-time I come to a roadblock, she tries to make me change to a completely different topic that would rely more on literature review rather than experimentation.

My previous project included making my own shell tempered pottery using natural clay and shells found in the area (the shells are apparently protected by an endangered species act so I cant use them). Plus, shell-tempered pottery is extremely well researched as I’ve found in my literature/foundational information search.

I’ve now been looking at fibrous tempers and while searching I found a paper that mentioned that some pieces of pottery contain higher concentrations of carbon remains (following firing) and they were not sure why (the study wasn’t concerned with it). But I wondered if C3/C4 plants may impact how well the carbon remains in the pores (higher amount/ more resistant to temperatures). I know that organic tempers from pottery sherds are not a very trustworthy dating method AND my pieces being recently made wouldn’t accurately reflect ancient pieces; but, perhaps I could compare it to pieces with C3 vs C4 tempers. If there are consistencies between the concentration of the remaining plants (even after hundreds or thousands of years) it could indicate which was more effective at resisting heat; moreover, the affects of time on the carbon if the concentrations are the same or different. I’d also discuss effects of plant anatomy on this too.

My experiment would include me using the clay I’ve gathered and putting in different fiber tempers, firing them, and cracking them open to extract how ever much carbon/ash remains (using spectroscopic techniques).

Is this something worth looking into and/or is it already a pretty obvious answer that doesn’t require research?

Thanks!!

I’m cross posting this from AskHistorians if that’s okay.

My understanding is that university presses generally require blind peer review for academic publications, but I wasn’t sure if there are any exceptions. I imagine the process varies from press to press.

For example, Cambridge has a number of collections, such as The Cambridge World History of Food, The Cambridge World History of Violence, etc. Oxford similarly has collections like The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, or The Oxford Handbook of Borderlands of the Iberian World, to pick a few examples at random.

Is it fair to assume that these are all peer reviewed?