label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: What are the biggest debates in current anthropology? I'm aware that decolonizing is an ongoing struggle, but are there any big overarching theoretical issues? Its hard to get news on it as someone from another social science. I like to stay up to date with the most recent breaking developments. If you're passionate about some particular topic, please tell me as much as you like.
RESPONSE A: There’s recently been heavy controversy over a new theory of state formation from David Wengrow and David Graeber that argues social inequality is not a prerequisite for societal complexity. I don’t believe the book has been published yet, but there was a lot of debate when it was announced.
RESPONSE B: I think maybe returning "borrowed indefinitely" artifacts and remains from museums. It was very common for colonizers to take thing from groups to put in museums and in private collections. NAGPRA might be something worth looking into as well. I believe the French are returning artifacts to Africa on request.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are the biggest debates in current anthropology? I'm aware that decolonizing is an ongoing struggle, but are there any big overarching theoretical issues? Its hard to get news on it as someone from another social science. I like to stay up to date with the most recent breaking developments. If you're passionate about some particular topic, please tell me as much as you like.
RESPONSE A: I think one of the more below-the-radar debates occuring, at least in biological anthropology/paleoanthropology and archaeology (although possibly to a lesser extent), is accessibility to data. For decades, biological anthropology has been ruled by access. When I was considering my dissertation topic 15 years ago, the first thing my advisor and I discussed was who he and his connections knew well enough to allow me access to data/specimens. I couldn't just develop a hypothesis and then pursue it, I had to work around what was actually available to me and work backwards from that. Yes, there is reason to restrict access to priceless specimens and artifacts. But that doesn't preclude researchers with access from sharing data openly so others can either confirm their work or approach different hypotheses without direct access to the specimens themselves. There are researchers, such as Lee Berger in South Africa, actively working to provide open source access to data so other researchers can access it without the gatekeeper control. Open access to data allows for replication of results, or more accurate refutations, all of which strengthens the research and field. But gatekeeping has a long history in the field and provides considerable advantages to the gatekeepers, so it isn't likely to end soon.
RESPONSE B: I think maybe returning "borrowed indefinitely" artifacts and remains from museums. It was very common for colonizers to take thing from groups to put in museums and in private collections. NAGPRA might be something worth looking into as well. I believe the French are returning artifacts to Africa on request.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are the biggest debates in current anthropology? I'm aware that decolonizing is an ongoing struggle, but are there any big overarching theoretical issues? Its hard to get news on it as someone from another social science. I like to stay up to date with the most recent breaking developments. If you're passionate about some particular topic, please tell me as much as you like.
RESPONSE A: I think one of the more below-the-radar debates occuring, at least in biological anthropology/paleoanthropology and archaeology (although possibly to a lesser extent), is accessibility to data. For decades, biological anthropology has been ruled by access. When I was considering my dissertation topic 15 years ago, the first thing my advisor and I discussed was who he and his connections knew well enough to allow me access to data/specimens. I couldn't just develop a hypothesis and then pursue it, I had to work around what was actually available to me and work backwards from that. Yes, there is reason to restrict access to priceless specimens and artifacts. But that doesn't preclude researchers with access from sharing data openly so others can either confirm their work or approach different hypotheses without direct access to the specimens themselves. There are researchers, such as Lee Berger in South Africa, actively working to provide open source access to data so other researchers can access it without the gatekeeper control. Open access to data allows for replication of results, or more accurate refutations, all of which strengthens the research and field. But gatekeeping has a long history in the field and provides considerable advantages to the gatekeepers, so it isn't likely to end soon.
RESPONSE B: Decolonizing is a set of theoretical debates as well as an equity practice. It has social theorists in all social sciences confronting the taken-for-granted beliefs the disciplines are based on, and considering how much of their epistemology is rooted in culture.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I've often heard that Romanis originated in India and its influence is clear in their culture. What cultural aspects of India can we see today in Romani people?
RESPONSE A: Well for one the Romani language is an Indo-Aryan language that still shares many grammatical features and vocabulary with other languages from North-Western India, such as Kashmiri and Marwari. The remnants of Hindu concepts of purity also still remain in Romani culture. For instance, traditionally, underwear is washed separately from other clothes as genitalia is considered "impure." This extends beyond just the human body as well. Eating utensils are also washed separately from other things. Edit: Another thing I guess I can touch on is why Romani culture doesn't have a ton of similarities to other cultures from their homeland of North-Western India. The main reason is because the Romani migration was very slow. There were around 600 years in between when they first started to migrate out of India, and when they first reached Europe through Greece. The Romani spent a good chunk of the Late Antiquity and pretty much the entirety of the Early Middle Ages in the Middle East and Central Asia. The time they spent there had a huge impact on their culture, religion, and general way of life. Living as nomads in foreign lands for so long led to the Romani developing a unique cultural identity where they did not see themselves as inherently tied to any particular place or having any particular "homeland." Thus, by the time the Romani even first got to Europe, they had already ceased to be "Indian" centuries ago. The subsequent centuries that they would spend in Europe also dramatically changed their culture into the forms we see today.
RESPONSE B: Well the language to start. Rromanës has roots in Sanskritic like Hindi. Extended families live together. And marriages are often arranged. Romani display their wealth on their body, like with gold jewelry. That's about all I've seen
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The Columbian Exchange wiped out 70-90% of Native Americans. Should we assume similar cataclysmic disease epidemics ravaged old world populations before the start of recorded history? Or did old-world humans always have better disease resistance?
RESPONSE A: There's a theory that the original Indo-Europeans spread through so much of the world hand-in-hand with them domesticating horses. But the debate is, did the horse give them an insurmountable advantage in battle no matter how populous or well fortified the opponent (because yea, horses are going to be a significant advantage). Or did these first Indo-Europeans bring with them new and novel diseases which decimated the existing populations, opening up new lands, and as they kept on moving into the lands made open there were new neighbors to infect. Note, we aren't talking about moving daily or monthly, more like every generation is able to expand into new land due to disease. And it's not that disease wipes out everyone, but if 50% of a population dies due to a disease, the whole fabric of society is in shambles (It's also important to note that even in the Columbian Exchange the figure of 70-90% wiped out due to disease does not mean direct disease death. If half the hunters get sick and die, the other half can't provide enough food for the tribe, and the entire tribe starves or falls apart)
RESPONSE B: Another question: why weren't the Native Americans resistant to Old World diseases when there was contact between the continents (through the Bering Strait)?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: In Europe folklore about wolves has mostly been highly negative “little red riding hood” and Fernir. While Native Americans had a more positive view of wolves could this be explain on the lack of wolf attacks in North America? Could the various horticulture culture practiced by native Americans by less conductive to Wolf attacks?
RESPONSE A: When it comes to human dog relations this guy has traditionally been my starting point. There are loads of other people out there and he seems to have deviated from wolves/dogs a fair bit in the past 6 years but he has publications on the subject that at least should have bibliographies that will interest you https://twitter.com/pacoanth?lang=en
RESPONSE B: It’s worth noting that in Norse mythology, it is explicitly stated that Fenrir* was tricked and deceived by the gods, so his destruction of the earth during Ragnarok is almost a warranted comeuppance due to their treatment of him. Also, Odin has two wolves (Geri and Freki) which are portrayed positively. In addition, there are the Úlfhednar, which are “wolf-warriors,” and if you look into it, a lot of rituals wherein a man would “become” a wolf. There are also manifold Norse artifacts which depict wolves as venerated animals— see the Torslunda plates, for example. I wouldn’t oversimplify things just because one aspect of a mythological cycle has a “big bad wolf”.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: History of Chewing with the Mouth Closed Currently, I am researching about misophonia, and while most of the triggers seem to be auditory and a few papers seem to point to visual triggers as not being a part of misophonia, one of the participants I interviewed in my study stated that after moving to Thailand, he was extremely aggravated with the eating mannerisms of the people there. He would find that they had a habit of chewing with their mouths open, which not only made it easier for him to hear triggers, but he assuredly associated the visual stimuli with the sound. This made me curious about how different cultures view eating with mouths open/closed and how they came to be. Or if there’s even any difference between cultural eating mannerisms and if it’s just something based on economic class or some other form of social stratification. There’s little research on misophonia, but it would be interesting if it somehow played a part in how some groups view eating with their mouths open/closed.
RESPONSE A: For the specific noise it makes I cant say I know any research that might be culturally relevant. I cant say for certain that its brought up in Norbert Elias - The Civilizing Process. Although the work is a bit dated and has some critique I find it talks about cultural manerism interesting, and perhaps can guide a bit. I also assume Mary Douglas work could shed some light on the reaction chewing with the mouth open can cause. As it makes food a somewhat of an anomolie between the plate and the stomach. Specific cultures position towards this would probably require a quite deep analysis of taxonomies according to Douglas. Anecdotaly perhaps it would be interesting to look at how many cultures view cutting you food with a knife at the table while consuming it to be very barbaric and ”wrong”, but perhaps not chewing it openly.
RESPONSE B: I'm going to suggest checking "r/askfoodhistorians" as I think there may be some people with interesting etiquette references that can help out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has there ever been an exploration of common "monster" myths possibly describing earlier humans? Could an ogre have just been the village neanderthal?
RESPONSE A: I think it's important to note just how long ago the Neanderthals were around. Most populations were starting to die out by around 40,000 years ago, which is still firmly in the "Ice Age." The people and cultures who live throughout Eurasia today are NOT the ones who first encountered the Neanderthals. They're their biological descendants to an extent, but culturally, linguistically, religiously, and even phenotypically, they are completely different people. It's likely that most tales about Neanderthals were simply forgotten just as the meanings behind cave paintings from that period were forgotten.
RESPONSE B: Michael Witzel's book: The Origins of the World's Mythologies He traces myths back to essentially Africa. I view this as essential reading for anyone with a scholarly interest in myth. Its a bit dense though. Don't expect a page turner.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has there ever been an exploration of common "monster" myths possibly describing earlier humans? Could an ogre have just been the village neanderthal?
RESPONSE A: I think it's important to note just how long ago the Neanderthals were around. Most populations were starting to die out by around 40,000 years ago, which is still firmly in the "Ice Age." The people and cultures who live throughout Eurasia today are NOT the ones who first encountered the Neanderthals. They're their biological descendants to an extent, but culturally, linguistically, religiously, and even phenotypically, they are completely different people. It's likely that most tales about Neanderthals were simply forgotten just as the meanings behind cave paintings from that period were forgotten.
RESPONSE B: Not really as "common monster myth" as you may be looking for, but several cultures tell stories about people who lived in the area before them, sometimes turning them into almost folklore-like beings. The Tuniit appearing in Inuit stories, or the many different peoples of the Leobor Gabála Érenn (although that one is mostly considered mythical), for example. You might wanna look into those kinds of stories
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is the raven's ability to talk so underrepresented in folklore? Being scavengers, crows and ravens are most commonly associated with themes of war and death - but I couldn't find a single mention of their ability to mimic sounds, including human speech. I struggle to believe that it was a complete mystery to the ancient/medieval people - so why is it never talked about? Isn't it an exciting thing to interpret through legend?.. Or was it just so irrelevant that it didn't stick?
RESPONSE A: You'll have to check this but I think I once read an ancient source about Odin's ravens Hugin and Munin being taught to speak by Odin at some point. Anyway Odin uses them to keep himself informed about what's happening in the 9 words, and it seems that the ravens talk to him to do so, so yeah, they talk! And they are associated with the god of knowledge/poetry/magic Hope this will help!
RESPONSE B: Perhaps you just need to look outside of Europe.
In Europe Ravens & corvids are often associated with death.
But in the Pacific Northwest & Siberia Raven is a trickster & a culture hero. He is a cunning liar and spinner of tales. He also likes dressing up in various disguises to pass himself off as human or another animal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some of your favourite anthropology documentaries? Or just documentaries you've watched and enjoyed, including docuseries and YouTube stuff - any media, really. I love PBS Eons on YouTube but they don't have a tonne of anthropology stuff, I'd love for a BBC style documentary on this stuff. Extra marks if it's paleolithic! I thought it's better to ask here rather than Google as you lot will have an eye for inaccuracies and such. Lots of love from an environmental scientist.
RESPONSE A: Two things, first a general idea of how to find more stuff to watch, and then my favorite documentary. 1. If you haven't used it yet, check if your local library (or school) grants you access to an online video provider called Kanopy. Their anthropology (and general documentary) selections are preposterously good. 2. This doesn't have to do with the paleolithic, is fairly old, and both the film and sound quality are often poor. That being said: *Ongka's Big Moka* \- an ethnographic film that follows Ongka, a leader in a Highland New Guinea community, as he plans a feast - is a great, great film.
RESPONSE B: Stefan Milosavljevich on Youtube!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some of your favourite anthropology documentaries? Or just documentaries you've watched and enjoyed, including docuseries and YouTube stuff - any media, really. I love PBS Eons on YouTube but they don't have a tonne of anthropology stuff, I'd love for a BBC style documentary on this stuff. Extra marks if it's paleolithic! I thought it's better to ask here rather than Google as you lot will have an eye for inaccuracies and such. Lots of love from an environmental scientist.
RESPONSE A: My favorite is The Rise Of Man: Homo Sapiens Invents Civilization. It's a 2 disc set, The first disc covering the science of Neolithic development, and the second a fictional depiction of the Neolithic through 4 eras and characters.
RESPONSE B: Two things, first a general idea of how to find more stuff to watch, and then my favorite documentary. 1. If you haven't used it yet, check if your local library (or school) grants you access to an online video provider called Kanopy. Their anthropology (and general documentary) selections are preposterously good. 2. This doesn't have to do with the paleolithic, is fairly old, and both the film and sound quality are often poor. That being said: *Ongka's Big Moka* \- an ethnographic film that follows Ongka, a leader in a Highland New Guinea community, as he plans a feast - is a great, great film.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some of your favourite anthropology documentaries? Or just documentaries you've watched and enjoyed, including docuseries and YouTube stuff - any media, really. I love PBS Eons on YouTube but they don't have a tonne of anthropology stuff, I'd love for a BBC style documentary on this stuff. Extra marks if it's paleolithic! I thought it's better to ask here rather than Google as you lot will have an eye for inaccuracies and such. Lots of love from an environmental scientist.
RESPONSE A: My favorite is The Rise Of Man: Homo Sapiens Invents Civilization. It's a 2 disc set, The first disc covering the science of Neolithic development, and the second a fictional depiction of the Neolithic through 4 eras and characters.
RESPONSE B: Stefan Milosavljevich on Youtube!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do people have a Problem with Guns, Germs and Steel? I first read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel in 2015, and it's what got me into anthro in the first place. The arguments in the book made a lot of sense to me, and answered questions that had always been at the back of my mind. Nowadays, I see a lot of criticism for the book on history reddit, and I'm wondering why. What are the flaws people point out in Diamond's reasoning, and what better theory do they have to explain the huge technological disparity between 16th-century Eurasia and the rest of the world?
RESPONSE A: If you want a much more thoughtful version of the ideas in that book, by a historian who actually understands the limits of the evidence he uses, check out Alfred Crosby's *Ecological Imperialism*
RESPONSE B: AskHistorians has many threads, worth mining, but I thought part of this one was notable: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wd6jt/what_do_you_think_of_guns_germs_and_steel/ Diamond being an island biogeographer and bringing that approach of "determinism". E.g. the particular species of an island aren't determined, but the number of species and how competitive they'll be compared to those of bigger islands kind of are. I'd also note that a more accurate summary of late European advantages might be "guns, GERMS, and ships". The germs were really key vs. the Americas (as were malaria and yellow fever in keeping Europeans out of Africa), per Mann's *1491* and *1493*. But being able to sail around the world was big too: Europeans could keep bothering everyone else, without retribution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do people have a Problem with Guns, Germs and Steel? I first read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel in 2015, and it's what got me into anthro in the first place. The arguments in the book made a lot of sense to me, and answered questions that had always been at the back of my mind. Nowadays, I see a lot of criticism for the book on history reddit, and I'm wondering why. What are the flaws people point out in Diamond's reasoning, and what better theory do they have to explain the huge technological disparity between 16th-century Eurasia and the rest of the world?
RESPONSE A: If you want a much more thoughtful version of the ideas in that book, by a historian who actually understands the limits of the evidence he uses, check out Alfred Crosby's *Ecological Imperialism*
RESPONSE B: One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that Diamond accepts some dubious primary sources claims from conquistadors. Some of the battles which say things like 200 defeated 200,000 are hotly contested with a belief that (a. The Spanish overstated enemy (b. The Spanish do not include a sizable allied native force.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: iscussion, or directing me to a more appropriate sub would be awesome. Tl;dr: Could an "intelligent" species have developed in the paleogene period (66-23Mya), and how far could such a civilization advance along a humanity-like trajectory before dying out to leave absolutely no trace for us in the contemporary era?
RESPONSE A: Paleoanthropology is quite dependant on what have been found. Therefore, it is possible, but if there is no possible way to test that hypothesis it is (at this point) outside of the realm of proper science. Its just speculation and fiction. Still, for you purposes, I think there are some pieces of anthropological history that might be insightful. For example, for a long time the main theory on how people came to America was "clovis first". That is, the first human population in America was defined by a certain type of projectile point, "clovis point". Since the 90s, "clovis first" started to die, mainly because of discoveries of older archeological remains in other sites of the continent. Monteverde (one of the most well known examples) in Chile is an interesting example. AFAIR, the evidence of lithic use was scarce, but there was strong evidence of wood structures and bonefires. So, considering how late it was discovered, I would say that a culture with little or no use of lithic would have a greater chance of remaining undiscovered. This is specially true in areas with lots of humidity. Of course, that doesn't mean that there were other non-hominid cultures before us; but it may be useful for fictional purposes. Hope it helps
RESPONSE B: I believe this is almost exactly what you're wanting info on: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-an-industrial-prehuman-civilization-have-existed-on-earth-before-ours/ It's a paper which disscusses the sort of remains and traces an industrial scale society from tens of thousands to millions of years ago or more would leave and how we could detect them or not if it were to exist (not that the researchers believe one did, of course)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are there any popular pop culture anthropology concepts that are outdated or dangerously misunderstood? Or just very popular 19th and 20th century ones that later turned out to just be racist/ classist/ not enough data.
RESPONSE A: judging by the usual questions on this sub, the idea that there are universals. I click the hide button very quickly. Time and space is the minimum requirement if you want to learn about a human characteristic
RESPONSE B: If i may post a pop anthropology i picked up that led me to ask a question here. There was a period where hunter gathere life was thought to be "Nasty, short and brutish" that was rightly corrected starting in the middle of the 20th century. However by the time me in the 2010s comes across the topic it has evolved into hunter gatherer life being some kind of perfect utopia where everybodies basic needs are met and nobody works for more than a few hours everyday with no downsides vs those nasty brutish agriculturalists keeling over and dying from disease and nutritional deficiencies. This post did a good job showing me some of the drawbacks that ultimately led to agricultural societies dominating most parts of the globe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why did humans evolve to have such flat faces compared to other animals / human species? I know we have more osteoblasts than osteoclasts (or the other way round?), but was there a reason that this occurred?
RESPONSE A: When it comes to how the shape of our faces changed from monkeys it likely had somethong to do with the change in diet, as early hominids had eaten things that were harder to chew. I may misremember the details but I think some of it was described in "How Humans Evolved" by Boyd and Silk. EDIT: plus there's a hypothesis that the shape of our chins changed because we punched each other in fights: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/brv.12112
RESPONSE B: A lot of the human face shape is due to the decrease in jaw size. The reason for this is: 1) humans have tools to cook and eat with. This means teeth are much less necessary to tear and grind food, and we also don’t need the musculature to chew as much. So the jaw muscles decreased a lot and teeth got smaller. 2) humans have tools to use as weapons so teeth aren’t needed for defense and aggressive, intimidating display. This further encouraged the jaw and snout to get smaller 3) humans exhibit neoteny—a retention into adulthood of newborn traits. Probably a lot of this is due to encouraging the neural growth and plasticity of newborns, but it could be that some of this process encouraged a more baby-like face because some genes might be involved with both. So basically as humans emphasized brains and the tools and weapons we could create, evolution stopped selecting for mouth as weapon and tool. There might also be evolution selecting for a different mouth shape to facilitate speech.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ve noticed certain things done in some cultures would be seen as too "dramatic", "cheesy", or "corny" in other cultures. Has there been any actual studies done on these cultural differences in what is considered socially okay? Or is it too vague and difficult to define to do work on? Much thanks for any answers.
RESPONSE A: I think the best point of reference would be the notion of authenticity as it is variously experienced within cultures. Walter Benjamin wrote short reflections on kitsch along these lines. The authentic work of art is viewed in his terms as having an aura of some sort - the inauthentic has no aura or an imperfect one, often because it indexes social or generational difference. You’d find this research in cultural sociology and cultural studies fields more often than anthropological fields I suspect.
RESPONSE B: The problem with looking at this kind of pop-culture category is that it's very difficult to quantify or problematize. How do you define "cheesy" or "corny" in a way that can be actually scored and analyzed? And more difficult, how do you evaluate it cross culturally? So many of these kinds of concepts are wrapped up in language and cultural context. How would you, for example, score "corniness" across linguistic and cultural boundaries? Is something that a native speaker views as corny seen by a non-native speaker in a different way? You're basically talking about trying to rate the level of "corniness" of something in one culture based on how people in another culture view it. That's pretty bad anthropologically, because in essence it places decontextualized cultural values or perspectives into a "ranking" or similar classification that is not internal to the culture. It might be possible to objectively define or describe a phenomenon like "corniness" enough that you might be able to try to identify how such a phenomenon *within a particular culture* is experienced or identified by people in that culture, it would be inappropriate (and anthropologically fairly useless) to pull individual examples of "corny" behavior from one culture and ask people with a different cultural background (lacking context, cultural competence, etc.) whether that was "corny" to them as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do nomadic people have a concept of "home"? Would they ever feel homesick, by extension? I've never really suffered from that much myself, but I've seen friends of mine completely go to pieces over missing home when they went off to university. And this has me wondering: the concept of home - the house we grew up in, our belongings, familiar surroundings, etc seem very deeply ingrained in settled people. But is this a sentiment or a feeling we only developed when we settled down? Or do hunter-gatherers or pastoral nomads have similar feelings, just expressed with a different focus maybe?
RESPONSE A: \- I mostly heard this from anthropologists studying Mongolia (and a book *The Silent Steppe* written by a Kazakh nomad) but pastoral nomads tend to move with the same group of families between a few seasonal locations. So they would associate these familiar locations as their home. \- The book *Nomadic Life in Mongolia: Stories of the Enkhbat Family and Their Belongings* (I think made for a Japanese museum exhibit, not super high quality) shows 40 objects which the family carries with them in their ger / yurt home, talks about where they acquired them etc. But they had hundreds of objects when they did a full \*inventory\* (edited).
RESPONSE B: This is an interesting question. Don't some nomadic people travel with their own lodging? Tents and such? If so, it stands to reason that it *might* feel a little like home, if they arranged their familiar belongings in the familiar domicile in a familiar way, even if the location was new. Don't some people who travel excessively for work deck out their hotel rooms with photos and knick-knacks in an attempt to give the environment a "home" feeling?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: sentiment or a feeling we only developed when we settled down? Or do hunter-gatherers or pastoral nomads have similar feelings, just expressed with a different focus maybe?
RESPONSE A: Yes, absolutely! The idea of "nomadic" peoples, who kind of just move around and don't have a specific home, is an example of how anthropology was a handmaiden to colonialism. For example the Sami people - it is easier to disenfranchise people and steal their lands if you first are able to "prove" that they have no home on them. The reality is that nomadic people know their lands very well, and do have homes on them. They might have multiple homes, but they tend to move pretty predictably with the seasons, weather patterns, animal migrations, and other food sources. Traditional pastoralists in the Andes tend to move up and down the mountains at different times of year so their animals will always have food to graze on. As for the concept of "home," I have to imagine that varies culturally as it does with non-nomadic peoples. Maybe home is the place you come to be with your community and hunker down for winter, or maybe it is with your extended family, or just the lands you occupy in general. I'm not a nomad, but I know when I return to my hometown it isn't as much seeing my family or visiting my childhood home that feels like I've really returned home, it's the landscape and being out in nature, or even hearing the very specific accents, which is not too different from where I live now, but different enough that I notice it!
RESPONSE B: This is an interesting question. Don't some nomadic people travel with their own lodging? Tents and such? If so, it stands to reason that it *might* feel a little like home, if they arranged their familiar belongings in the familiar domicile in a familiar way, even if the location was new. Don't some people who travel excessively for work deck out their hotel rooms with photos and knick-knacks in an attempt to give the environment a "home" feeling?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there any truth to the theory that survivors of a famine pass on different or modified genes to their descendants? While doing some research into the Irish famine in my free time I came across a video claiming that descendants of the famine have unique genetic features. As someone not well versed in genetics or anthropology i'm wondering is there any truth to this claim? I'm particulary interested in the Irish experience and would like to know how they differ genetically from the rest of Europe.
RESPONSE A: In this video on behavioral genetics, R. Sapolsky talks about the Dutch hunger winter andits effects on offspring conceived during that period (the whole video is interesting, I just linked to where this specific discussion starts). Here's a study on the phenomenon.
RESPONSE B: There's a link and studies have shown, see below https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/south-asian-health-colonial-history_uk_620e74fee4b055057aac0e9f "South Asians have a tendency to generate and store fat and not burn it off, amassing low lean muscle mass. This, he points out, is because South Asians are “starvation-adapted”, due to having to survive at least 31 famines, especially during the 18th and 19th century. Surviving just one famine doubles the risk of diabetes and obesity in the next generation, even without a famine, according to a study by Brown university. The risk of cardiovascular disease increases 2.7 times for their grandchildren. Exposure to even one famine has a multi-generational effect of causing metabolic disorders including diabetes, hyperglycemia and cardiovascular diseases. Imagine having an exposure to at least 24 major famines in a 50-year period.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there any truth to the theory that survivors of a famine pass on different or modified genes to their descendants? While doing some research into the Irish famine in my free time I came across a video claiming that descendants of the famine have unique genetic features. As someone not well versed in genetics or anthropology i'm wondering is there any truth to this claim? I'm particulary interested in the Irish experience and would like to know how they differ genetically from the rest of Europe.
RESPONSE A: Rachel Yehuda studies epigenetics at Mt Sinai. She's worked with plenty of mice and rats to show that they can pass down fear responses to their offspring. She's also worked with descendants of Holocaust victims and pregnant people who were in the twin towers and escaped. It's astonishing and pretty awful.
RESPONSE B: There's a link and studies have shown, see below https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/south-asian-health-colonial-history_uk_620e74fee4b055057aac0e9f "South Asians have a tendency to generate and store fat and not burn it off, amassing low lean muscle mass. This, he points out, is because South Asians are “starvation-adapted”, due to having to survive at least 31 famines, especially during the 18th and 19th century. Surviving just one famine doubles the risk of diabetes and obesity in the next generation, even without a famine, according to a study by Brown university. The risk of cardiovascular disease increases 2.7 times for their grandchildren. Exposure to even one famine has a multi-generational effect of causing metabolic disorders including diabetes, hyperglycemia and cardiovascular diseases. Imagine having an exposure to at least 24 major famines in a 50-year period.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: any truth to the theory that survivors of a famine pass on different or modified genes to their descendants? While doing some research into the Irish famine in my free time I came across a video claiming that descendants of the famine have unique genetic features. As someone not well versed in genetics or anthropology i'm wondering is there any truth to this claim? I'm particulary interested in the Irish experience and would like to know how they differ genetically from the rest of Europe.
RESPONSE A: It's definitely not that DNA codes are modified by going through the survival. However, having certain genes before the famine even starts, and these genes giving you an edge on survival (let's say you are smaller than average, so you can survive on less food - or the genes for the roots of your teeth give you bigger roots than normal, so you lose your teeth less readily than other people in the midst of a famine, making it easier for you to eat really rough/tough food). The people who lack those traits have less children. Those genes are reduced by percentage in the overall population/genome.
RESPONSE B: There's a link and studies have shown, see below https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/south-asian-health-colonial-history_uk_620e74fee4b055057aac0e9f "South Asians have a tendency to generate and store fat and not burn it off, amassing low lean muscle mass. This, he points out, is because South Asians are “starvation-adapted”, due to having to survive at least 31 famines, especially during the 18th and 19th century. Surviving just one famine doubles the risk of diabetes and obesity in the next generation, even without a famine, according to a study by Brown university. The risk of cardiovascular disease increases 2.7 times for their grandchildren. Exposure to even one famine has a multi-generational effect of causing metabolic disorders including diabetes, hyperglycemia and cardiovascular diseases. Imagine having an exposure to at least 24 major famines in a 50-year period.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there any truth to the theory that survivors of a famine pass on different or modified genes to their descendants? While doing some research into the Irish famine in my free time I came across a video claiming that descendants of the famine have unique genetic features. As someone not well versed in genetics or anthropology i'm wondering is there any truth to this claim? I'm particulary interested in the Irish experience and would like to know how they differ genetically from the rest of Europe.
RESPONSE A: Here's a paper on it related to the dutch famine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579375/ Popular press article on it:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.html
RESPONSE B: There's a link and studies have shown, see below https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/south-asian-health-colonial-history_uk_620e74fee4b055057aac0e9f "South Asians have a tendency to generate and store fat and not burn it off, amassing low lean muscle mass. This, he points out, is because South Asians are “starvation-adapted”, due to having to survive at least 31 famines, especially during the 18th and 19th century. Surviving just one famine doubles the risk of diabetes and obesity in the next generation, even without a famine, according to a study by Brown university. The risk of cardiovascular disease increases 2.7 times for their grandchildren. Exposure to even one famine has a multi-generational effect of causing metabolic disorders including diabetes, hyperglycemia and cardiovascular diseases. Imagine having an exposure to at least 24 major famines in a 50-year period.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to this claim? I'm particulary interested in the Irish experience and would like to know how they differ genetically from the rest of Europe.
RESPONSE A: Hello Angrynut750, What you’re talking is epigenetics, rather than genetics per se. The famine won’t effect effect which genes are passed from generation to generation (beyond perhaps those under the influence of natural selection), but environmental stress can influence which genes are expressed, active and when and some of these changes can be achieved through passed on. This is where epigenetics comes in. Epigenetics refers to the inheritance of changes that do not result in an alteration of an individual’s DNA sequence. The most well known form of epigenetic modification is the binding of a methyl group binds to a cytosine (one of the four DNA nucleotide bases). With regards to your question about the Irish then, if they differ genetically from the rest of Europe, it would not be because of any epigenetic changes that resulted from the Irish potato famine in the nineteenth century. In fact, I would be surprised if they differed markedly at all anyway. They may be identifiable as Irish (i.e. they may have an increased likelihood to possess some particular gene variants and be missing others), but Ireland has simply never been isolated long enough for its human population to diverge significantly from the rest of Europe. Indeed, Ireland has had successive waves of visitors, migrants and invaders (e.g., Romans traders, Vikings, the English etc) contributing to and mixing with its gene pool.
RESPONSE B: It's definitely not that DNA codes are modified by going through the survival. However, having certain genes before the famine even starts, and these genes giving you an edge on survival (let's say you are smaller than average, so you can survive on less food - or the genes for the roots of your teeth give you bigger roots than normal, so you lose your teeth less readily than other people in the midst of a famine, making it easier for you to eat really rough/tough food). The people who lack those traits have less children. Those genes are reduced by percentage in the overall population/genome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Chinampas (floating gardens) were invented by the Aztec civilization. They were artificial islands used in Mesoamerican agriculture in Xochimilco (modern day Mexico City). Are there any examples of this technology used outside of Mesoamerica? Why aren't Chinampas used in large scale today? I watched this video by Andrew Millison and the thought of Xochimilco being surrounded by these "floating gardens" is amazing to me. Why has this technology died? Is this a useable agricultural technique in different climates like the Pacific Northwest?
RESPONSE A: The Aztecs were a late arrival to the Mesoamerican scene and didn’t “invent” the chinampas system. Similar systems have been used long before, not only in Mesoamerica but in South America too, from Colombia to Bolivia. Here in Ecuador they occupied vast areas, from the lowland rivers to the highlands wetlands and lakes.
RESPONSE B: There's evidence to suggest that chinampas were in use in the Tequila Valleys approximately 1500 years ago, though the evidence isn't as solid as we would like. That would mean that chinampas predate the Aztecs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any books related to Anthropology that will spark interest in a layman like "Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari"?
RESPONSE A: I would highly recommend Who We Are and How We Got Here by geneticist David Reich https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_We_Are_and_How_We_Got_Here
RESPONSE B: Just FYI, Sapiens is chockfull of errors. His central thesis is good, but he gets so many of the details wrong. He is also a historian, not a biological anthropologist.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any books related to Anthropology that will spark interest in a layman like "Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari"?
RESPONSE A: "Our Kind" by Marvin Harris, a bit older but still great as an intro. "Masters of the Planet" by Ian Tattersall about human evolution.
RESPONSE B: Just FYI, Sapiens is chockfull of errors. His central thesis is good, but he gets so many of the details wrong. He is also a historian, not a biological anthropologist.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any books related to Anthropology that will spark interest in a layman like "Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari"?
RESPONSE A: You may like Catching Fire: Did Cooking Make Us Human? by Richard Wrangham which explores a chunk of human evolution.
RESPONSE B: Just FYI, Sapiens is chockfull of errors. His central thesis is good, but he gets so many of the details wrong. He is also a historian, not a biological anthropologist.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Any books related to Anthropology that will spark interest in a layman like "Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari"?
RESPONSE A: Just FYI, Sapiens is chockfull of errors. His central thesis is good, but he gets so many of the details wrong. He is also a historian, not a biological anthropologist.
RESPONSE B: "Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina Youth Gangs" by Norma Mendoza-Denton was a really great read. The last chapters get a little heavy with the linguistic theory but I'd say the bulk of the book can be engaged with ease and interest by non-anthropologists and non-academics. I absolutely loved it. The title makes it sound like another opaque read but the content is informative (regarding both the youth gangs study and of broader reflexive ethnographic practice) without losing the reader in complexity. Chapters 1-6 are the most engaging while chapters 7-9 are geared more toward linguists, but I was able to thoroughly enjoy the first six chapters without trying to engage the sociophonetic stuff at the end. Highly recommend :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Any books related to Anthropology that will spark interest in a layman like "Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari"?
RESPONSE A: Just FYI, Sapiens is chockfull of errors. His central thesis is good, but he gets so many of the details wrong. He is also a historian, not a biological anthropologist.
RESPONSE B: One of the best primers on the archaeology sub-field is *Biography of a Hacienda: Work and Revolution in Rural Mexico* by Elizabeth Newman. It's a specific case study of historical archaeology, but it does a better job of conveying the broader field to the laypeople in my life than I can with a PhD in the field. Add to that the fact that it's very concise/accessible and you have a great primer!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there any truth to the idea that Archaeologists are a bit too prone to simply labeling items with unclear functions Ritual or Ceremonial objects, or this grossly unfair? How exactly do archaeologist quantify that something might have had religious significance, and is there a possible temptation to read a bit too much into things without much foundation when it might be better to just say that the function and purpose of what they found is unclear at present time?
RESPONSE A: Not exactly related to *objects*, but: There is definitely literature that asserts that one of the most generalized characteristics of ritual *spaces* is extreme cleanliness and an absence of portable artifacts. This no doubt leaves open some potential for interpreting structures or spaces that are simply lightly used as ceremonial.
RESPONSE B: I think it's both true and unfair. It certainly seems true that the ritual/ceremonial label is placed on many objects that have unknown purposes, but it's unfair to think that it is due to laziness on the part of archaeologists. It's unfair because people assume ritual, ceremony, and religion are all the same but they aren't. There are entirely secular ceremonies and rituals. Militaries across the world are full of ceremony and ritual. The Changing of the Guard is a perfect example of a ceremony. Similarly, handing out awards or promotions in the military often includes a ritual. Here's a ceremonial object that has no relation to religion what so ever: an aircrew badge. It doesn't have a function. It isn't a tool. It isn't designed to do anything except be worn on a uniform. There are rules about who can wear them and how to wear them. If one of those was pulled out of the ground by archaeologists 1000 years from now, they'd rightly call it a ceremonial object.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there any truth to the idea that Archaeologists are a bit too prone to simply labeling items with unclear functions Ritual or Ceremonial objects, or this grossly unfair? How exactly do archaeologist quantify that something might have had religious significance, and is there a possible temptation to read a bit too much into things without much foundation when it might be better to just say that the function and purpose of what they found is unclear at present time?
RESPONSE A: If the utility of an object is unknown almost all researchers will state so. They may make educated estimates about their use. There is no shame in not having a clear picture. This will invite scrutiny and analyses, which will in turn help clarify their role.
RESPONSE B: I think it's both true and unfair. It certainly seems true that the ritual/ceremonial label is placed on many objects that have unknown purposes, but it's unfair to think that it is due to laziness on the part of archaeologists. It's unfair because people assume ritual, ceremony, and religion are all the same but they aren't. There are entirely secular ceremonies and rituals. Militaries across the world are full of ceremony and ritual. The Changing of the Guard is a perfect example of a ceremony. Similarly, handing out awards or promotions in the military often includes a ritual. Here's a ceremonial object that has no relation to religion what so ever: an aircrew badge. It doesn't have a function. It isn't a tool. It isn't designed to do anything except be worn on a uniform. There are rules about who can wear them and how to wear them. If one of those was pulled out of the ground by archaeologists 1000 years from now, they'd rightly call it a ceremonial object.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: lawed in the last 2-3 centuries but there are still many places today that use it. Since it's not effective, why has it been able to persist for so long? Obviously people centuries ago didn't have the scientific methods and statistical infrastructure to study the effects of the practice, but how come on the scale of thousands of years, rulers didn't catch on to the fact that they were beating people only for the problem to continue? How come more effective means of deterring crime didn't arise to compete with civilizations that used corporal punishment?
RESPONSE A: Do you have sources for it not being effective. I was sea Ching for this exact thing a few weeks ago, but was only able to find work about corporal punishment against children.
RESPONSE B: Two points. First, practicality. Compared to alternatives like imprisonment, corporal punishment is very cheap. All you need is one person to physically deal out the punishment, and afterwards the convicted is free to go, his debt to society having been paid. Imprisonment at any scale requires a prison, guards, and food for the prisoners. So for a small village or ancient city-state, that would be a tremendous burden. Also considering a small community, a person in prison is someone not contributing to the overall productivity of the community. So the direct and opportunity costs combined are very large. Second, justice. Before modern times, justice wasn’t really about rehabilitation or even deterrence. Older ideas of justice are more about balance. If you hurt someone, you create an imbalance in the natural order of things. You’ve incurred a debt that must be paid by you being hurt to a similar level, even if not in the same way. The same with the ultimate corporate punishment: death. If you murder someone, you’ve wounded the entire community, and the only way to rebalance the scales and restore “rightness,” however defined, to the community is to forfeit your life in payment. These ideas are not long gone. See above where I used the common phrase of paying one’s debt to society. The general principle is that while we live in a very individualistic age, most of human history saw much more collectivist identities, and justice is for the sake of the collective and not about the individual.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Almost every scientific study has concluded that corporal punishment for criminals is severely ineffective at its intended purpose. Consider this, why is institutional corporal punishment so common across many cultures in human history and even today? I'm mainly referring to judicial corporal punishment on adults not necessarily parent-child physical discipline. I understand that in the latter case, it's usually because parents have internalized the practice as normal and don't want to think of themselves as being victims and/or their parents as abusers. However, in terms of justice systems across *thousands* of years of history ranging from Europe to Asia to Africa it seems like the practice emerged independently and was continually practiced for several generations. In many areas it's been recently outlawed in the last 2-3 centuries but there are still many places today that use it. Since it's not effective, why has it been able to persist for so long? Obviously people centuries ago didn't have the scientific methods and statistical infrastructure to study the effects of the practice, but how come on the scale of thousands of years, rulers didn't catch on to the fact that they were beating people only for the problem to continue? How come more effective means of deterring crime didn't arise to compete with civilizations that used corporal punishment?
RESPONSE A: Do you have sources for it not being effective. I was sea Ching for this exact thing a few weeks ago, but was only able to find work about corporal punishment against children.
RESPONSE B: You're assuming deterrence is the intended purpose of legal punishment. That's a secondary goal, at best, for most people in most cultures, especially throughout history.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: were not seen as personifications of nature or natural forces, but rather as supernatural beings governing certain areas of human endeavor.* > >*Some deities were associated with aspects of the natural world, but the deities themselves were almost always clearly distinguished from the phenomena they were associated with. Furthermore, even those deities associated with natural phenomena were usually associated with cultural phenomena as well.* I understand that, firstly, it's difficult to talk about "what pagans believed", as we are talking about a great many widely different societies. The author provides some evidence against nature worship for Greeks and Sumerians, and implies that the same goes for at least most of the rest pagan societies. However, just a Wikipedia search on the term "Nature Worship" brings up pre-christianic examples that don't seem to fit the simple distinction between "divine beings" and "the natural phenomena that these beings caused". I've also found a widely supported answer on an /r/AskHistorians question, claiming that even the Greek gods weren't viewed so much as persons, as much as "aspects of divine power", which seems to run counter to the author's thesis. What do you think?
RESPONSE A: That piece seems to be about the extant religions that "worshipped deities" in the greater Mediterranean region at the time of the invention of Christianity. They were called pagans by Christians but theists by animists. Animism is the more nature worshiping mode of religion. They do not worship deities. The traditional animists I have known understand the forces of nature as spirits and hang out in sacred groves.
RESPONSE B: This is a very arbitrary and semantic definition of "nature." pre-enlightenment, enlightenment, romantic, modern, and postmodern periods all conceptualize nature differently. That's literally just the past 400 years. It is very fair to say that what you consider natural would not be considered natural, and vice versa, for any arbitrary time period in history. That is before even addressing the fact that "pagans" are not a monolithic group, culturally, temporally, or even individually.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How close ethnically are modern Greeks to the ancient Greeks?
RESPONSE A: How are you defining "ethincally?"
RESPONSE B: From a genetic perspective (as limited as our understandings of ancient Greeks from a genetic perspective is) modern Greeks are close to Mycenaean era Greeks (no classical era genomes yet) but modern Greeks tend to have a noticeable Slavic-like shift in their ancestry (20-25% if my memory serves me well, wich it regularly does not) that is lacking in Mycenaean Greeks and Greek islanders to a lesser degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How close ethnically are modern Greeks to the ancient Greeks?
RESPONSE A: Modern dialects of the Greek language spoken today are directly descended from dialects of the ancient Greek language spoken in the past, the same way that Mandarin and Cantonese are descended from classical Chinese, and French and Italian are descended from Latin. Clearly the modern Greeks do not practice pagan religion anymore, having converted to Christianity. And they have inter-mixed with other populations from around the Mediterranean region for millennia.
RESPONSE B: From a genetic perspective (as limited as our understandings of ancient Greeks from a genetic perspective is) modern Greeks are close to Mycenaean era Greeks (no classical era genomes yet) but modern Greeks tend to have a noticeable Slavic-like shift in their ancestry (20-25% if my memory serves me well, wich it regularly does not) that is lacking in Mycenaean Greeks and Greek islanders to a lesser degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ? If not, when and why did this practice cease? If so, in what cases and what is the process of doing so legally and ethically (I assume there's a lot of paperwork, especially when working abroad)? Are there disiplinary restrictions or taboos against this these days? Have you or any of your colleagues ever gone armed into the field?
RESPONSE A: I carried a .45 when I worked in Yellowstone as an archaeologist but it was only for grizzly bear protection. It was in an undershirt armpit harness so it wasn’t visible at all especially under my hi vis vest. It wasn’t super necessary honestly and I never drew it even though I bear sprayed multiple bears during the years I worked there. I mostly just felt safer at night with it since it’s not like I was going to let loose with the bear spray while I was in my tent and a bear was ripping it’s way in. Bears would usually just sniff around your tent at night and lumber off anyway. Edit: just so you know I’m only in my late 20’s so this wasn’t a “back in my day” thing and it is perfectly legal through my employers and the park to carry a firearm
RESPONSE B: I'm just imagining the ethics approval board upon reading that I plan to have a kalashnikov on me. I work in an area with insurgents and lots of armed folks, so getting basic approval was hard enough. Never mind how that would never be permitted with whatever visa I was travelling under. I can't imagine a single case where being armed would be anything but a liability, all other issues aside. I carry a machete but that's more in case I run into some animal where it might be helpful (so not elephants), but really more to hack away at jungle growth. Safest thing you can do if you need to travel in areas where a weapon ever occurs to you as a good idea is to just not go to those areas. Second safest thing you can do is to trust your handlers, as you should be anyway, and gtfo if it ever comes down to actual threats to your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: field armed—together with his whole company of gauchos. The arms are only mentioned in the context of hunting (incidentally, not an applicable consideration in the case of Clastres). Levi-Strauss' fieldwork was conducted in the 30s. My question is: do anthropologists ever carry weapons into the field anymore? If not, when and why did this practice cease? If so, in what cases and what is the process of doing so legally and ethically (I assume there's a lot of paperwork, especially when working abroad)? Are there disiplinary restrictions or taboos against this these days? Have you or any of your colleagues ever gone armed into the field?
RESPONSE A: Why would you need to be armed in the field? Seriously though practicality is really the main reason. Have fun explaining to an IRB why you're packing heat, that project is going to have a hard time getting past review. We can also look towards parallels in investigative journalism. There are plenty of journalists who go into super dangerous territory unarmed, because people find firearms, weapons, etcetera kinda off putting. Developing rapport with our informants is already hard enough. People often mistake anthropologists for government agents, or are leary of us, bringing a firearm into the mix can at worst confirm those suspicions.
RESPONSE B: I carried a .45 when I worked in Yellowstone as an archaeologist but it was only for grizzly bear protection. It was in an undershirt armpit harness so it wasn’t visible at all especially under my hi vis vest. It wasn’t super necessary honestly and I never drew it even though I bear sprayed multiple bears during the years I worked there. I mostly just felt safer at night with it since it’s not like I was going to let loose with the bear spray while I was in my tent and a bear was ripping it’s way in. Bears would usually just sniff around your tent at night and lumber off anyway. Edit: just so you know I’m only in my late 20’s so this wasn’t a “back in my day” thing and it is perfectly legal through my employers and the park to carry a firearm
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: in the context of hunting (incidentally, not an applicable consideration in the case of Clastres). Levi-Strauss' fieldwork was conducted in the 30s. My question is: do anthropologists ever carry weapons into the field anymore? If not, when and why did this practice cease? If so, in what cases and what is the process of doing so legally and ethically (I assume there's a lot of paperwork, especially when working abroad)? Are there disiplinary restrictions or taboos against this these days? Have you or any of your colleagues ever gone armed into the field?
RESPONSE A: Why would you need to be armed in the field? Seriously though practicality is really the main reason. Have fun explaining to an IRB why you're packing heat, that project is going to have a hard time getting past review. We can also look towards parallels in investigative journalism. There are plenty of journalists who go into super dangerous territory unarmed, because people find firearms, weapons, etcetera kinda off putting. Developing rapport with our informants is already hard enough. People often mistake anthropologists for government agents, or are leary of us, bringing a firearm into the mix can at worst confirm those suspicions.
RESPONSE B: I'm just imagining the ethics approval board upon reading that I plan to have a kalashnikov on me. I work in an area with insurgents and lots of armed folks, so getting basic approval was hard enough. Never mind how that would never be permitted with whatever visa I was travelling under. I can't imagine a single case where being armed would be anything but a liability, all other issues aside. I carry a machete but that's more in case I run into some animal where it might be helpful (so not elephants), but really more to hack away at jungle growth. Safest thing you can do if you need to travel in areas where a weapon ever occurs to you as a good idea is to just not go to those areas. Second safest thing you can do is to trust your handlers, as you should be anyway, and gtfo if it ever comes down to actual threats to your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the professional/expert consensus on Sapiens? The book seems to be catered to the general public (since I, a layman, can follow along just fine) so I wanted to know what the experts and professionals thought of the book. Did you notice any lapses in Yuval Harari's reasoning, or any points that are plain factually incorrect? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: It definitely has received a lot of criticism, which is pretty inevitable considering how broad its ambitions were and how many sub disciplines it breezed through. Here for example is a review by Christopher Hallpike https://www.newenglishreview.org/C_R_Hallpike/A_Response_to_Yuval_Harari's_'Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind'/
RESPONSE B: Sapiens attempts to explain all of human civilization in a few hundred pages. It's an interesting read that paints in broad brush strokes and raises some interesting points, but like its spiritual kin "Guns, Germs, and Steel," and "Salt," it's super reductive. When you zoom that far out, nuance disappears. I found myself saying "yeah, but . . ." more than a few times each chapter.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the professional/expert consensus on Sapiens? The book seems to be catered to the general public (since I, a layman, can follow along just fine) so I wanted to know what the experts and professionals thought of the book. Did you notice any lapses in Yuval Harari's reasoning, or any points that are plain factually incorrect? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Sapiens attempts to explain all of human civilization in a few hundred pages. It's an interesting read that paints in broad brush strokes and raises some interesting points, but like its spiritual kin "Guns, Germs, and Steel," and "Salt," it's super reductive. When you zoom that far out, nuance disappears. I found myself saying "yeah, but . . ." more than a few times each chapter.
RESPONSE B: I very much appreciated the review below. that said there have been several threads about this book on the sub and r/anthropology sub previously https://www.petermichaelbauer.com/sapiens-or-how-i-decide-to-read-a-book/?fbclid=IwAR1w8HnA9ohXw6U7uWvvJnRMkJaL0imWgdE3zDAqRzGvUjVEFeMUtFvHF5k
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How come humans (and some apes?) need pillows to sleep comfortably It seems like our necks physically need some soft support beneath them in order for us to sleep comfortably. Is this just a "flaw" in our design, part of us standing straight? Does needing a pillow (or leaves I guess) relate to some evolutionary advantage? I saw in a previous thread here that some apes use "pillows" as well.
RESPONSE A: It's because we have a curvature of our C spine, which is why pillows are used when laying on our backs. Our heads are also heavy, so when sleeping on our side they tend to put our head at an angle unless supported. This can cause pain over time. Many apes and people who don't use pillows sleep with their arm tucked under their head as a "pillow" and that is, probably, the evolutionary answer to why this is still a thing. Plus, it just makes us less comfortable. It doesn't harm us. No evolutionary advantage to do away with it. Many cultures don't even use pillows, especially if they're still living close to nature. Edited with a little bit more explanation.
RESPONSE B: I feel like you haven't gotten great answers to this yet. Like, okay, we don't "need" them, but why is elevating our head and neck more comfortable to begin with?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: making money doing so professionally, while the demand for accountants is nearly infinite so everyone can decide to be an accountant and still find someone willing to pay for their services.
RESPONSE A: There might be merit to the theory. Money often has a binarification effect on humanity, because you can either purchase something or you cannot. There is no market value to unpurchasable goods. In a pre- or post- capitalist society the music/dance/art/etc. that is produced in children's play scenarios continues to develop into adulthood, there is no disconnect, there is no dis-identification with one's own art, no matter what level of complexity it is, because it is always created in the spirit of play / genuine expression. It is only when people conceive of society as valuing that art as a skill for "work" that the judgement, the disconnect, becomes a reality.
RESPONSE B: I’ll answer based on my background in Arts education, please remove if it’s off topic. The attitude towards the Arts you describe wasn’t even common in recorded history. Medieval aristocratic culture saw the arts as a mark of an educated person. Later, accomplished philosophers and scientists were expected to engage in Arts and literature and they were complementary of sciences and mathematics. In eastern cultures, arts were part of self-discipline and personal growth as well as to communicate culture. It was the introduction of public schooling (at least in places like America, the UK, Australia etc) which forced the discussion of what was “needed” for educated people - particularly those who were needed for the workforce. The debate on the place of the Arts in modern schooling is relatively recent (late 19th Century with strong debates in the 20th Century starting with Dewey). It is still being discussed right now in discussions of curriculum where ALL students are entitled to an Arts education from early childhood to adolescence. Scholars like Elliot Eisner and Maxine Greene discuss the place of the Arts in education as crucial but these arguments are in response to relatively recent debates. So, to answer your question, it is not universal or ingrained into human experiences, at least evidenced in the way it is dealt with from an educational perspective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: as photography, electricity, telephones, etcetera for the first time? Are there any reports by anthropologists and ethnographers that have worked with uncontacted groups about this?
RESPONSE A: From Wade Davis' The Wayfinders: >"The Waorani [people]...were not peacefully contacted until 1958, though their homeland is scarcely 150 kms from Quito, the national capital of Ecuador and a city settled for well over 400 years. In 1957, five missionaries attempted to contact the Waorani and made a critical mistake. They dropped from the air eight-by-ten glossy black-and-white photographs of themselves in what we would describe as friendly gestures, forgetting that the people of the forest had never seen anything two-dimensional in their lives. The Waorani picked up the prints from the forest floor and looked behind the faces to try to find the figure. Seeing nothing, they concluded that these were calling cards from the devil, and when the missionaries arrived they promptly speared them to death."
RESPONSE B: It’s not exactly what you are asking, since they weren’t uncontacted, but I think it’s still what you are looking for: in napoleon chagnon’s (somewhat controversial) book “Yanomami: the fierce people”, some of the last chapters describes specific instances of Yanomami people dealing with modern technologies. For instance, one of chagnons Yanomami friends join him in visiting a huge city (I can’t remember - maybe Brasilia?). Chagnon describes how he reacts to the plane ride, how he deals with his first meeting with a car, and his first meeting with a vending machine. When they get back, he simply does not try to explain how large the city was, because he knows they won’t be able to grasp it and wants him to compare it to other nearby settlements. Edit: I also remember an instance, maybe in “the innocent anthropologist”, where the anthropologist claims that some peoples who didn’t grow up with photographs struggle with interpreting what they see in a picture. But this claim always seemed strange to me, and i have never heard it mentioned any other place.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: jarring at this age but also as relieving as you might imagine. I’m working in education issues too so this is very complicated to think about, but it makes too much sense. I’ve poked around and haven’t been able to find much good research, but I was hoping with at least the strides in awareness and discourse about neurodivergence in recent years, anthropology may have found ways to discuss autism in adults well and in a representative, relativistic way. I was also wondering if anyone on here is autistic or knows of autistic anthropologists? I just cant help but shake the feeling that in many ways neurodivergence and anthropology can work so beautifully together and I was hoping someone could give some insight? Thank you to anyone in these complicated times.
RESPONSE A: Archaeologist and "high functioning"...I went to school to satisfy my special interests and anthropology seems to encapsulate everything within the human experience, so I went for it. Also, Indiana Jones a little...lol. I loved it. I noticed it draws some interesting characters that I would guess to be on the spectrum but I dunno. Good luck to you!
RESPONSE B: My 30F first degree was in Anthropology/Applied Sociology and I'm autistic. I personally grew up feeling kind of like a foreigner/alien/cultural outsider, and taking anthropology 101 as an elective in my second year of college really changed my view of the world. I absolutely loved it, still do really. I would have liked to go farther but I didn't think I'd be good enough to do a PhD, and long story short I got a federal job and ran with it. But I think for certain autistics studying people is such an interest that Anthropology really is just the perfect degree, so I'm not entirely surprised to know I'm not the only one. If you get bored Bones is a pretty fun tv show that features a forensic anthropologist and she was kind of my 'ah ha' moment because she reminded me of myself - the main character reads as autistic. I was formally diagnosed a few months later.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: to find much good research, but I was hoping with at least the strides in awareness and discourse about neurodivergence in recent years, anthropology may have found ways to discuss autism in adults well and in a representative, relativistic way. I was also wondering if anyone on here is autistic or knows of autistic anthropologists? I just cant help but shake the feeling that in many ways neurodivergence and anthropology can work so beautifully together and I was hoping someone could give some insight? Thank you to anyone in these complicated times.
RESPONSE A: I can't think of studies about this or of anthropologists who have been diagnosed with autism or asperger's, sorry. I do think, as you, that an anthropology researcher with autistic traits could achieve very interesting results in his/her research. It is a common trait among autistic individuals that they take fewer things for granted, and have to struggle to learn some norms and behaviours which come instinctively to neurotypical members of the population---this also means that they are able to look at these patterns and behaviours as if from outside. I am also interested in others' answers, looking forward to them!
RESPONSE B: My 30F first degree was in Anthropology/Applied Sociology and I'm autistic. I personally grew up feeling kind of like a foreigner/alien/cultural outsider, and taking anthropology 101 as an elective in my second year of college really changed my view of the world. I absolutely loved it, still do really. I would have liked to go farther but I didn't think I'd be good enough to do a PhD, and long story short I got a federal job and ran with it. But I think for certain autistics studying people is such an interest that Anthropology really is just the perfect degree, so I'm not entirely surprised to know I'm not the only one. If you get bored Bones is a pretty fun tv show that features a forensic anthropologist and she was kind of my 'ah ha' moment because she reminded me of myself - the main character reads as autistic. I was formally diagnosed a few months later.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Autism & Anthropology Hello I’m an anthropology grad student who at 23 has been told I should be evaluated for autism. It’s rather jarring at this age but also as relieving as you might imagine. I’m working in education issues too so this is very complicated to think about, but it makes too much sense. I’ve poked around and haven’t been able to find much good research, but I was hoping with at least the strides in awareness and discourse about neurodivergence in recent years, anthropology may have found ways to discuss autism in adults well and in a representative, relativistic way. I was also wondering if anyone on here is autistic or knows of autistic anthropologists? I just cant help but shake the feeling that in many ways neurodivergence and anthropology can work so beautifully together and I was hoping someone could give some insight? Thank you to anyone in these complicated times.
RESPONSE A: Archaeologist and "high functioning"...I went to school to satisfy my special interests and anthropology seems to encapsulate everything within the human experience, so I went for it. Also, Indiana Jones a little...lol. I loved it. I noticed it draws some interesting characters that I would guess to be on the spectrum but I dunno. Good luck to you!
RESPONSE B: You may find this special issue of Ethos from 2010 ”Rethinking Autism, Rethinking Anthropology" covers some of the ground you're interested in, and points the way to scholars who share that interest. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913303/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Autism & Anthropology Hello I’m an anthropology grad student who at 23 has been told I should be evaluated for autism. It’s rather jarring at this age but also as relieving as you might imagine. I’m working in education issues too so this is very complicated to think about, but it makes too much sense. I’ve poked around and haven’t been able to find much good research, but I was hoping with at least the strides in awareness and discourse about neurodivergence in recent years, anthropology may have found ways to discuss autism in adults well and in a representative, relativistic way. I was also wondering if anyone on here is autistic or knows of autistic anthropologists? I just cant help but shake the feeling that in many ways neurodivergence and anthropology can work so beautifully together and I was hoping someone could give some insight? Thank you to anyone in these complicated times.
RESPONSE A: I can't think of studies about this or of anthropologists who have been diagnosed with autism or asperger's, sorry. I do think, as you, that an anthropology researcher with autistic traits could achieve very interesting results in his/her research. It is a common trait among autistic individuals that they take fewer things for granted, and have to struggle to learn some norms and behaviours which come instinctively to neurotypical members of the population---this also means that they are able to look at these patterns and behaviours as if from outside. I am also interested in others' answers, looking forward to them!
RESPONSE B: You may find this special issue of Ethos from 2010 ”Rethinking Autism, Rethinking Anthropology" covers some of the ground you're interested in, and points the way to scholars who share that interest. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913303/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: why do humans traditionally shame prostitution but not those who consume it?
RESPONSE A: Is there a particular time or place you are interested in?
RESPONSE B: This video manages to indirectly address your question through the philosophy of the social construct. To summarize, and also apply to your question, I would answer that in it's most simplest form: The John, one who solicits sex work, is a person of privilege and power. Whereas the worker is the one in a disadvantaged position. This is, of course, relative. But relatively speaking, societies in which sex workers are considered a proud people are few and far between. At least in my limited understanding (I'd love to stand corrected.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: People with anthropology degrees: what is your career now? For those who have degrees in anthropology, what are you doing or what have you done for work? Is your job related to your degree? Did you find the degree useful? Did you get a masters or only undergraduate degree?
RESPONSE A: BA and MA in Anthropology. Currently a clinical educator and researcher at a med school in New Zealand focussing on cultural safety in interaction, communication theory and decolonising practice.
RESPONSE B: Got my undergrad degree in cultural anthro in 2014. Immediately I started in the workforce in hunger relief, with my expertise now being in federal child nutrition programs. My minor in global health helped me bring my 2 passions together. ​ I would say that while I'm not an anthropologist, my training and degree gave me the opportunity to better serve our younger generation in a more culturally competent way. Food is such a great way to connect people to their culture while also exploring others, and now I get to do that on a massive scale!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: People with anthropology degrees: what is your career now? For those who have degrees in anthropology, what are you doing or what have you done for work? Is your job related to your degree? Did you find the degree useful? Did you get a masters or only undergraduate degree?
RESPONSE A: BA and MA in Anthropology. Currently a clinical educator and researcher at a med school in New Zealand focussing on cultural safety in interaction, communication theory and decolonising practice.
RESPONSE B: I got my BA in Cultural Anthro in 2012. Wanted to get a job in Organizational Effectiveness but roles were scarce when I got out of school from the recession. Spent the first 5-7 years working as a recruiter and finally got a chance to switch over to an Cultural engagement OE role. Best thing that ever happened to me. The work was fulfilling and related very closely to what I loved about the field. I was doing focus groups and field word, engagement surveys. I recently took on a new role as the company's Performance, Learning, and Talent Manager, and honestly I miss the work of my old role but this job is a lot more challenging in a good. way and I find my degree has definitely helped me across my who career. I just started working towards a master in I/O Psych as that would be a better professional degree at this point for my field than an Anthro masters. ​ Also, my ex had a masters in anthro and she ended up doing data science for a non-profit but she had a focus on physical anthro.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: People with anthropology degrees: what is your career now? For those who have degrees in anthropology, what are you doing or what have you done for work? Is your job related to your degree? Did you find the degree useful? Did you get a masters or only undergraduate degree?
RESPONSE A: I did mine at the University of Calgary. The hands on labs were the best part of my entire 4 years. U of A offers the same program as far as I remember. It also depends on whether you want to take Cultural Anthropology or Biological Anthropology. Cultural Anth in Calgary was lacking in my opinion. But I can't speak for Cultural Anthropology in Edmonton.
RESPONSE B: BA and MA in Anthropology. Currently a clinical educator and researcher at a med school in New Zealand focussing on cultural safety in interaction, communication theory and decolonising practice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: People with anthropology degrees: what is your career now? For those who have degrees in anthropology, what are you doing or what have you done for work? Is your job related to your degree? Did you find the degree useful? Did you get a masters or only undergraduate degree?
RESPONSE A: BA and MA in Anthropology. Currently a clinical educator and researcher at a med school in New Zealand focussing on cultural safety in interaction, communication theory and decolonising practice.
RESPONSE B: Got my BA in Anthro (in 2009), and immediately did a Masters in Management (similar to an MBA). I think there is one person from my cohort who is still in anthropology, going down an incredibly long and expensive PhD road. I’m in Project Management/Marketing now and love it. It’s been a few years, but in probably my first 2-3 jobs out of school I got asked “Anthropology...what’s that and how does it help”...I don’t think they really cared, but it was always a good talking point. I would say things how it’s the study of people, culture, etc, and having that open world view is great in marketing. I love my career path. I don’t think my anthropology degree hurt, but I also don’t think it really helped. If money was never an issue, I would have gone down the PhD path...I find the subject fascinating.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: People with anthropology degrees: what is your career now? For those who have degrees in anthropology, what are you doing or what have you done for work? Is your job related to your degree? Did you find the degree useful? Did you get a masters or only undergraduate degree?
RESPONSE A: I got my undergrad in 2017 and I do community education and outreach. I wouldn't say I use my degree directly but having a better understanding in how culture plays a role in communities really helps me be more effective at my job.
RESPONSE B: BA and MA in Anthropology. Currently a clinical educator and researcher at a med school in New Zealand focussing on cultural safety in interaction, communication theory and decolonising practice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What careers outside of anthropology do anthropology majors most often (or are more than likely to) get into? Title says it all
RESPONSE A: Depends on your interest. A lot of the folks I went to undergrad with work in NGOs or non-profits, went on to teach in primary & secondary ed, museums, and/or switched fields. Grad school peers: NGOs or non-profits, academia, started their own foundations, start-ups, a few are in game development, too.
RESPONSE B: It depends on your area of specialty. For example, a forensic anthropologist might work for some kind of international agency investigating war crimes and inspecting mass graves. However, I think this type of work requires an advanced degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What careers outside of anthropology do anthropology majors most often (or are more than likely to) get into? Title says it all
RESPONSE A: I'm, uh, doing a long-term, immersive study of local kitchens and the culture of restaurant workers. It's an unauthorized participant observation, really - they're even paying me for my labour. I've learned quite a lot. Really, though, even though this isn't what I planned on doing after my degree, studying humans in school really did prepare me for working in kitchen culture, and I could easily write several papers about it.
RESPONSE B: After getting an anthropology degree, i did data entry, fell into accounting, and then data management. After a while gave up on trying to get into something related to anthro.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What careers outside of anthropology do anthropology majors most often (or are more than likely to) get into? Title says it all
RESPONSE A: I'm, uh, doing a long-term, immersive study of local kitchens and the culture of restaurant workers. It's an unauthorized participant observation, really - they're even paying me for my labour. I've learned quite a lot. Really, though, even though this isn't what I planned on doing after my degree, studying humans in school really did prepare me for working in kitchen culture, and I could easily write several papers about it.
RESPONSE B: I have a b.a. in anthro. I graduated in 2011 and the job market was not great. I worked at home depot at the time designing kitchen cabinets and I really enjoyed that. Decided to go back to school for interior design and graduated last year with a b.f.a. & now work in the commercial design field. I think my anthro and sociology studies really helped to shape my design philosophy. I love thinking about people and culture and how design can be a conduit for social justice and change. Designers can really influence how people feel, interact with each other, build community etc. I would love to figure out how to become a design anthropologist or something like that. It's my end goal to do a lot of community engagement design work which involves user surveys, local culture studies etc. to figure out what the people actually want/need.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What careers outside of anthropology do anthropology majors most often (or are more than likely to) get into? Title says it all
RESPONSE A: Anthro grads are peppered throughout the government, NGO, and international organization space - especially those connected to development or humanitarian work. I've known some PhD anthropologists who did monitoring and evaluation for development programs or were on staff at IOs like the World Bank or WHO. People with undergrad degrees in anthro, but masters in other fields like international relations, public policy, or public health are pretty common.
RESPONSE B: I'm, uh, doing a long-term, immersive study of local kitchens and the culture of restaurant workers. It's an unauthorized participant observation, really - they're even paying me for my labour. I've learned quite a lot. Really, though, even though this isn't what I planned on doing after my degree, studying humans in school really did prepare me for working in kitchen culture, and I could easily write several papers about it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What careers outside of anthropology do anthropology majors most often (or are more than likely to) get into? Title says it all
RESPONSE A: I'm, uh, doing a long-term, immersive study of local kitchens and the culture of restaurant workers. It's an unauthorized participant observation, really - they're even paying me for my labour. I've learned quite a lot. Really, though, even though this isn't what I planned on doing after my degree, studying humans in school really did prepare me for working in kitchen culture, and I could easily write several papers about it.
RESPONSE B: Most of them (that I know personally) work for an NGO, but your degree doesn't have to define you in the age of the internet. Rack up those skills if you must.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are there any cultures in which all names are unisex (i.e. no personal name has a male or female connotaion)? From what I can find, while pretty much every major culture (especially nowadays) has unisex names, there are also definitely "male" and "female" names. Has there been any culture which lacked gendered personal names, in which all names could equally be applied to a man or woman?
RESPONSE A: Pretty sure most Chinese names are unisex, so much so that it's standard to put your sex on resume and formal documents because no one would know otherwise.
RESPONSE B: Tibetans and related people often have two-part names where the first part is unisex, for example Tshering (long life) with the second part kind of indicating the gender, for example Dolma (the female bodhisattva Tara). Sonam and Pema are also very common unisex names, often used alone. But it can be confusing too as in the case of the Dalai Lama, who was born as Lhamo Thondup, Lhamo meaning goddess. In my husband’s birth culture (Punjabi Pakistani) unisex names used to be really common too, like with the Sikhs. But women usually had Bibi as ending, meaning lady. So there’s lots of old ladies there still whose names are Anwar Bibi, Rasool Bibi, Manzoor Bibi, Rehmat Bibi, and so on. I’m not aware of a culture with exclusively unisex names.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: much anything involved with human transportation. But all these technologies have only existed in the past couple hundred years or so, nor are they present in every contemporary society. Do toddlers in pre-industrial societies go nuts for anything? Did Roman tots point at all the carts going down the street? Did Viking tykes go nuts for longboats? Are there commonalities between or patterns across what toddlers obsess over?
RESPONSE A: Some of the surviving children’s toys from the viking age in Ireland include toy boats and animals such as a horse. This could suggest some obsession from kids around the 10th C. Ireland.
RESPONSE B: In pre industrial societies, children are engaged in chores/work early on and pick up cultural knowledge, not through formal teaching, but through exposure. But that doesn't really answer your question about play and childhood obsessions. Of course, content of play is naturally going to relate to specific cultures and environments. Some common if not not universal themes are you will see girls playing with dolls and boys playing with implements of hunting and/or war. Not necessarily exclusively, but this is generally true. Wish I knew more on the specific topic, but a couple of resources are here: The Association for the Study of Play Children's Play in Diverse Cultures Play and Cultural Context And, an excerpt from the last article is here: >Studies on play in different cultural contexts enlighten the various ways in which culture flows throughout play activities. The availability of time and space, of objects and playmates; adult role models and attitudes toward play are some of the contextual aspects that affect the frequency, duration and nature of children's play. In a South American Indian community, boys often play bow-and-arrows; boys and girls of varied ages dive and swim in the river and play chase around the village, with little or no adult supervision. They use primarily natural objects in their pretend play (i.e., sand, water, stone, plants). Urban children in large towns play more often with manufactured toys, at home, at school or playgroups, playgrounds or parks, usually with some adult supervision, especially when they are younger; locomotor play and chase play tend to occur in protected spaces. ​
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: My toddler is obsessed with trains: What occupies young children's imaginations in pre-industrial societies? My toddler is gaga for trains. He threw a tantrum the other night because I wouldn't let him get on the train while we were waiting for his mother at the station. From my discussions with other parents and from an Onion article, this is apparently a common thing for children his age. He is not limited to his "choo choo"s though; he also loves airplanes, busses, trucks, cars and bikes, pretty much anything involved with human transportation. But all these technologies have only existed in the past couple hundred years or so, nor are they present in every contemporary society. Do toddlers in pre-industrial societies go nuts for anything? Did Roman tots point at all the carts going down the street? Did Viking tykes go nuts for longboats? Are there commonalities between or patterns across what toddlers obsess over?
RESPONSE A: Some of the surviving children’s toys from the viking age in Ireland include toy boats and animals such as a horse. This could suggest some obsession from kids around the 10th C. Ireland.
RESPONSE B: The standard gauge for railroads derives from the specs for Roman chariots gliding along Roman ways, those masterpieces of civil engineering. How cool is that? That you might play with them, together with boys you never met from about 2000 years ago?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some good anthropology podcasts to listen to?
RESPONSE A: The podcast "Tides of history" is currently doing a series about pre-history and the development of civilisation. The host is an history professor, and does a great job presenting the subject matter in a very interesting way. Just skip the interview episodes, he's kind of rubbish at interviews.
RESPONSE B: I really enjoy a podcast called Sapiens, from sapiens.org
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some good anthropology podcasts to listen to?
RESPONSE A: The podcast "Tides of history" is currently doing a series about pre-history and the development of civilisation. The host is an history professor, and does a great job presenting the subject matter in a very interesting way. Just skip the interview episodes, he's kind of rubbish at interviews.
RESPONSE B: The familiar strange
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I am an Anthro major who graduated in 2009 but did not continue in anthropology. What are some of the biggest changes or most exciting discoveries in the field over the last 10 years? Most of my classes/areas of interest included Paleolithic Europe, human evolution, prehistoric art, primate biology. Did not gravitate to cultural anthropology beyond the one required class. I’ve followed the big stories that make it to newspapers/social media, but am curious to hear about the just as big but not quite headline worthy studies/discoveries. Or the medium sized stories. Or just a small story that is so fascinating in a way only those with a passion for the subject may understand.
RESPONSE A: I’d say the discovery of Homo denisovans in Siberia
RESPONSE B: Very recently, there was a discovery in western Idaho that pushed back our presence in the Americas to 16,000 years ago. That's roughly 1,500 years back from what was previously known, and it's a pretty big deal considering how much it further debunks the ice-free corridor theory. Here's an article https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/08/coopers-landing-idaho-site-americas-oldest/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are there “woman in white” legends across so many seperated cultures
RESPONSE A: I would say its due to universally recognizable themes. They are young women who died in distress. Betrayed by lover (husband or otherwise), wearing white\* a symbol of a broken marriage or the lost opportunity for one, sometimes killing their children (also could be attributed to what we now know as post-partum psychosis) and then dying by suicide. Due to the intense emotions around her death, her spirit wanders and tempts unfaithful young men to their death. Women being cheated on or treated poorly by their lovers happens across cultures. Women going through post partum psychosis is a culture-agnostic medical condition. Hopeful men following women into dark corners I would say is commonly recognizable. Known abusers are found killed in the woods and its easier to blame the local ghost than to actually find the killer, similar to 'small town justice.' And then a universal 'scary woman in the woods is going to eat you', to keep children obedient and not wander into the woods. I'm more surprised that this motif isn't listed in the Aarne-Thompson-Uther index. The Motif-Index of Folk-Literature categories E200–E599 seem to have some possibilities, but I don't have a copy and can't find summaries at this moment. Edit: This is what I get trying to info dump before a meeting. \*White is a symbol of purity/spirituality and marriage in western cultures. Wearing white as a ghost represents the distortion of such. Lover out of wedlock, unfaithful husband, killer mother, etc. Ghost wants to return to purity/marriage, but cannot. In Eastern cultures white represents mourning, death, misfortune, which fits within theme.
RESPONSE B: Could you provide some examples?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are there “woman in white” legends across so many seperated cultures
RESPONSE A: The missing element here is: what is the historical age of these various legends, and how many shared examples of it can be attributed to sharing of ideas / stories from cultural interaction?
RESPONSE B: Could you provide some examples?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has there been any natives who respond to what anthropologists say about their culture? Anthropologists write about foreign cultures. Malinowski writes about Trobriand islanders. Geertz writes about Balinese. Ferguson writes about Thaba-Tseka. Has any of those natives write back responding to what the anthropologists wrote?
RESPONSE A: I visited Rapa Nui (Easter Island) and there is a person at the Rapa Nui Museum who's job is basically to explain to people that Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is a racist, imperialist screed. It completely ignores European Colonial contact, decades of slave raids, attacks on the island by Europeans raiding for food or valuables, epidemics, cultural shifts brought on by Europeans bringing other Polynesians to the island and leaving them there, and all other effects of colonial contact, and creates a false narrative that the island's ecology collapsed because the native population mismanaged their resources. The people at the museum are friendly and patient about it, and so are most of the tour guides, but go around generally talking about Diamond and you're likely to get punched.
RESPONSE B: Vine Deloria has great commentary and criticism about North American anthropologists and Native American tribes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Has there been any natives who respond to what anthropologists say about their culture? Anthropologists write about foreign cultures. Malinowski writes about Trobriand islanders. Geertz writes about Balinese. Ferguson writes about Thaba-Tseka. Has any of those natives write back responding to what the anthropologists wrote?
RESPONSE A: I'm sure there was no intent, but "natives" in this context is a pretty loaded term due to its dehumanising use by colonial powers who used their cultural differences as justification for forced conversion and removal of autonomy. "People" would have been a better word to use.
RESPONSE B: I'm one of the unwashed that took exactly one anthropology class at university, but I still think about the cognitive experience of reading Body Ritual Among the Nacirema for the first time. The professor sold it straight faced as a typical reading assignment and it sailed right over the heads of the majority of the class (me included).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did the Romans realize they had shared linguistic heritage with the Indo-European peoples they met/conquered, or is PIE really a relatively new discovery?
RESPONSE A: I’m terribly sorry but I can’t remember the source where I first picked up the notion of a common ancestral language. It had to do with European colonialism where scholars now had unprecedented and relatively safe access to resources to put the puzzle of a common language together. Something to do with a British officer/amateur linguist making the observation that several words in Sanskrit and Latin were very similar despite the two languages being separated in two different parts of the world.
RESPONSE B: I asked a related question before, and someone told me that in Julius's book on the Gaulic Wars he says that he and his comrades spoke Greek to each other because the celtic people they were fighting would have a harder time figuring out what they were saying. Apparently latin and Celtic languages of mainland Europe were quite similar.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it likely that some of our oldest customs and traditions may have originated in prior species of human, then adopted by homo sapiens?
RESPONSE A: There’s no way to track this, but there’s really no way to refute this. One thing about anthropology is that you can’t think like these people did, so it is impossible to determine the why. There is evidence that Neanderthals buried their dead and included grave goods (implying some degree of spirituality), but there is no way to determine if this is why modern humans do the same. There are a number of things that happened globally that occurred independently, but there is really no way to determine the impact of customs from other groups on Homo sapiens.
RESPONSE B: Approaching the question from a biological perspective, we might flag any behavior seen early on in both sapiens and Neanderthals. When two closely related groups share physical features, it is generally assumed their last common ancestor also shared that feature. Sometimes however, similarities do arise due to convergence and, in the case of behavior, it’s difficult to know what information may have transmitted between the two species. There is cranial morphological evidence for linguistic capability in erectus. Given a broad interpretation where traditions constitute behaviors that are learned rather than genetically inherited, language could be a candidate for a pre-sapiens tradition. Despite a paucity of material evidence, it also seems likely that erectus created rafts or boats, so some sort of maritime tradition such as weaving reed boats may be a practice that predates our species. Though contested, some argue that our reduced sexual dimorphism as compared to many other primates suggests that fairly monogamous pair-bonding has been a dominant mating pattern for basically our entire genus. If I’m not mistaken it’s in Australopithecus that reduced sexual dimorphism becomes apparent. Other behaviors I would think of as potential candidates would include the use of medicinal and culinary herbs (there is evidence of Neanderthals drinking chamomile tea for example), decorative use of red ochre and the punishment of antisocial conduct.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the lands of the Hatti and the Hurrians. However it seems to be that this myth also occurred amongst Hurrians and Hatti. I now think it was a myth that originated in the Proto-Indo-European Mythology, which was most likely practiced by nomadic pastoralists of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. These people used horse carts and were really mobile, which lead to an expansion of their culture. The Uruk period in Mesopotamia started in 4500 BC and lasted until 3100 BC. During this same period the Kvalynhsk culture of the Pontic steppe developed into the Yamnaya culture, which around 3300 BC started the initial waves of the Indo-European migrations. Given their regional proximity and the mobility of the steppe pastoralists, there certainly could have been contact between these early cultures around that time, and maybe this is what lead to the existence of a Storm god vs Dragon Serpent story in both Indo-European and ancient Near Eastern religions. These are my thoughts on this subject, what I want to know is what are the main theories for why these two cultures share this myth, if there are any? Did the Mesopotamian adopted this myth from interactions with Indo-European cultures or vice versa? Or is it actually a case of a myth which independently developed amongst two separate cultures? I also posted this question in /r/askhistorians which hopefully results in an interesting response.
RESPONSE A: I don't know for sure, but cultural anthropologists would say that the reason is probably due to cultural proximity and contact rather than "biology" or the "collective unconscious". I would avoid calling this kind of "mythic theme" or "mytheme" an "archetype". If there is that large of a similarity, then it is hard to imagine independent development. It seems that you have answered your own question when you talk about their regional proximity
RESPONSE B: Well I’ve heard of this being referred to as the Chaoskampf and I’ve also seen it being broader as an event with more of a sky god in general fighting a lizard or serpent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How's impactul is Corona compared to other "flashbulb memories" like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor? Is it even close to that culturally intense, is it worse? Etc
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure what the best answer to this is, but a small issue with your question is pegging it to flashbulb memories and not an overall experience. Flashbulb memories are basically vivid snapshots of an intense, typically surprising, experience, like watching the towers fall on 9/11 or finding out JFK had died. Corona is a bit different as it’s a longer and slower. So people might have flashbulb memories during it (I have a few that feel flashbulb-y), but for me it’s more defined by the opposite: lots of monotony that bleeds together. That monotony contains a lot of stress, uncertainty, and fear, but on the other hand I think from mid-March to mid-May I remember very few specific events or days at all. That doesn’t mean this can’t be a culturally intense/awful experience, nor that it won’t shape us and our cultures in ways that will carry forward, just that it’s a very different kind of experience. (Apologies, typing on phone and without many references, so apologise in advance for errors)
RESPONSE B: I work with an anthropologist who is currently interviewing/documenting the human experience of COVID-19 globally, to help write a book for future generations. In tandem, we are releasing the interviews via a podcast, called Stories of COVID, and you can listen (and sign up for your own interview!) here: www.storiesofcovid.co
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: on a houses door and ask to lodge. It seems that many of the homeowners were more than happy to house a stranger for the day. Where did this culture of being so comfortable come from and when and why did this stop?
RESPONSE A: I think the better question might be why isn’t this an aspect of culture that’s still in place today? I’m an amateur genealogist. Throughout the censuses of the late 1800s and early 1900s it’s extremely common for families to rent out rooms in their homes. If you were unmarried or new to the country it was cheaper than renting an apartment for yourself, and was an easy way for a family to make some extra money. I think this stopped sometime after World War II. While I don’t know for sure, I think the booming economy made it much easier for people to rent or own their own place. My guess is also that some laws meant to end the most egregious of tenement housing also made it more difficult for individuals to rent out rooms. Landlords/renters were probably more liable for aspects of leasing out rooms, and didn’t want to deal with legal or financial risks. If you’re traveling a long distance before the advent of the automobile, you’re not going to have a lot of choice in where to spend a night. It’s not like driving across the country now, where you can say, okay just 50 more miles today then we’ll hit the next big city where I’ll find a hotel. It might seem weird to us 21st century folk to just take in a stranger for the night, but it’s probably something everyone had to do at some point. So you’d do it for this passing stranger, and next time you’re traveling a different stranger would take you in. TLDR; I’m not a historian or anthropologist, but my guess is economic and legal changes made it easier for people to rent, and put more risk on landlords/renters. The advent of the automobile also made it easier for travelers to get to their destination quickly, or to stop in major cities with hotels. E: minor typos
RESPONSE B: OP you might consider asking this question to /r/askhistorians
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Have sibling relationships changed over time and do they differ greatly in different cultures? I was discussing siblings with someone who never speaks to his older brother even though they live in the same house. He doesn’t even know what he’s interested in or what to get him for Christmas, and this made me wonder if this sort of separation is a cultural thing (they’re Chinese, I am not) or maybe if this is something that has been fairly common everywhere throughout human history and I just didn’t realise.
RESPONSE A: When I lived in the same house with my 3 years younger sister when we were in high school, there was was probably a good 2+ years we hardly spoke. Just didn’t have a reason to. Divergent adolescent paths and personalities played a role. We’re not Chinese. I don’t think it’s an ethnicity thing. We get along great now btw. Along robojod’s note on family reproduction, my (Latin American) mother is the second youngest of 11 siblings total. She hardly knew her oldest brother until after they both emigrated here to the US. My uncle is old enough to be my grandfather and then some. I think those structures have a more consistent pattern like the one they referred to.
RESPONSE B: I can’t speak for time, but across cultures very anecdotally it seems like sibling relationships are more or less the same. I.e. they entirely depend on the family and the people. Of my Chinese friends however none of them have siblings due to the One Child Policy so I can’t speak for that (I also wonder how this law in particular might affect the rare cases).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Have sibling relationships changed over time and do they differ greatly in different cultures? I was discussing siblings with someone who never speaks to his older brother even though they live in the same house. He doesn’t even know what he’s interested in or what to get him for Christmas, and this made me wonder if this sort of separation is a cultural thing (they’re Chinese, I am not) or maybe if this is something that has been fairly common everywhere throughout human history and I just didn’t realise.
RESPONSE A: When I lived in the same house with my 3 years younger sister when we were in high school, there was was probably a good 2+ years we hardly spoke. Just didn’t have a reason to. Divergent adolescent paths and personalities played a role. We’re not Chinese. I don’t think it’s an ethnicity thing. We get along great now btw. Along robojod’s note on family reproduction, my (Latin American) mother is the second youngest of 11 siblings total. She hardly knew her oldest brother until after they both emigrated here to the US. My uncle is old enough to be my grandfather and then some. I think those structures have a more consistent pattern like the one they referred to.
RESPONSE B: I don't remember the exact details but during the Pellopenesian War (Ancient Greek) a female of extensive power was ask to turn on her brother or they'd kill her son. Her response: I only have one brother but can always have more sons
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some approachable books for a lay audience about Pacific Northwest indigenous peoples? "Approachable" as in "not requiring a deep theoretical background." Long and complex books are more than welcome.
RESPONSE A: Here's a Journal of PCNW anthropology with a lot of great book reccos. https://www.northwestanthropology.com/books-on-the-pnw
RESPONSE B: Great start for Indigenous authors about their own histories. Though, not solely focused on PNW peoples.https://ravenreads.org/blogs/news/canadian-history-books-by-indigenous-authors I've acquired a few books over the years published in small runs independently, by Indigenous people themselves, but they're often hard to find unless you visit the community. If you're really interested in specific Nations' books, an email to specific band offices might help you find books not written by white people.Use the Native Land map https://native-land.ca/ to find which areas you're interested in and which Nations are in those areas.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some approachable books for a lay audience about Pacific Northwest indigenous peoples? "Approachable" as in "not requiring a deep theoretical background." Long and complex books are more than welcome.
RESPONSE A: (I'm Haida so this is gonna be a very biased list) * *A Story as Sharp as A Knife* by Robert Bringhurst translates and compiles Haida stories, myths, poetry and histories as transcribed by anthropologist Ron Swanton in the early 20th century, interspersed with commentary, analysis and historical background. In my professional opinion, it slaps. * *Looking At Indian Art of the Northwest Coast* by Hilary Stewart. You can't learn about PNW peoples without learning about formline art. There are tons of books on the topic, but this one is physically the closest to me right now so it's the one I'm recommending * *Athlii Gwaii: Upholding Haida Law on Lyell Island* I haven't personally read this one yet, but the protests on Lyell Island are v important and definitely worth learning about * *The Golden Spruce* by John Vaillant. Though not an ethnography, this book gives a pretty solid history of Haida Gwaii and the Haida Nation, and is an easy read * *This Is Our Life: Haida Material Heritage and Changing Museum Practice.* I've only read a few chapters of this for a paper I wrote but if you're interested in museology and issues pertaining to repatriation this book's got you covered.
RESPONSE B: This was a really fun book I read in university, it might have been for Anthropology class but I think it was actually History class. It's set in the Blackfoot tribe in Alberta so not really PNW but still a good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Grass,_Running_Water
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fedition_americas+%28RSS%3A+CNNi+-+Americas%29 I've asked here before about what seems to me to be the somewhat elastic estimates about human arrival in America, is this new research solid enough for us to finally push the date past the 20000 year mark with reasonable confidence?
RESPONSE A: All I know is that it is a good thing that this did not come out until today. Because yesterday I just finished grading papers asking students to explain the current theories of how and when people first populated the Americas. I agree that this does't necessarily match up with the genetic data, but its possible an earlier wave of people may have died out or were so small their genetic contributions aren't noticed in modern Native populations. I'm curious to see what happens if they try the optically stimulated luminescence dating of the sediment the footprints are in rather than seeds as some archaeologists have pointed out, just because seeds can technically have gotten there in other ways, especially in a context that was near water. But footprints are so intriguing since they are unequivocally human not a is this or is this not a crude stone tool.
RESPONSE B: The 20,000 mark is designated for the Kelp Highway availability. 21,000 before present could be argued to only extend the Kelp Highway window. However, I'm interested in all finds regardless of age. I kinda think of the Americas in this way, "The oceans were large barriers to humans reaching the Americas; however, it would have been difficult to miss the Americas if you found a means to get here." It should be noted that most of the genetic data suggests a Kelp Highway / Beringia crossing. I don't know how this early date jives with that data. Having said that, if a small group got here by some other means as could be evidenced by certain genetic data from small, South American groups, they might not have had the genetic diversity to people the Americas until the Kelp Highway / Beringia route allowed for a greater genetic population.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ? Here's a link to a CNN article on this issue: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/23/americas/footprints-humans-arrive-in-north-america-scn/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fedition_americas+%28RSS%3A+CNNi+-+Americas%29 I've asked here before about what seems to me to be the somewhat elastic estimates about human arrival in America, is this new research solid enough for us to finally push the date past the 20000 year mark with reasonable confidence?
RESPONSE A: Came here to see if anyone else had seen this awesome news! This helps to solidify evidence at other sites such as stone tool that date back 30,000 years being found in central Mexico. So we could have been here before the last ice age. And although it is also highly probable that there were successive waves of new peoples arriving over the milinea and adding their DNA, I have always thought that linguistics should be given a great deal more attention. As there were over 500 distinct languages spoken here and it takes a long time for languages to grow so far apart that them become distinctly different.
RESPONSE B: All I know is that it is a good thing that this did not come out until today. Because yesterday I just finished grading papers asking students to explain the current theories of how and when people first populated the Americas. I agree that this does't necessarily match up with the genetic data, but its possible an earlier wave of people may have died out or were so small their genetic contributions aren't noticed in modern Native populations. I'm curious to see what happens if they try the optically stimulated luminescence dating of the sediment the footprints are in rather than seeds as some archaeologists have pointed out, just because seeds can technically have gotten there in other ways, especially in a context that was near water. But footprints are so intriguing since they are unequivocally human not a is this or is this not a crude stone tool.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Were people night owls before electricity? Did people stay up late to work or party? Or is this a modern "vice"?
RESPONSE A: The ethnographic record of a number of Northwest Coast groups (North America) reflects that they held dances that lasted late into the night. Some of them lasted all night. The dances were religious practices and involved 20-30 people - an extended family/village. Also a number of fishing practices took place at night.
RESPONSE B: When they lived together in France, John Adams complained that Ben Franklin would come home every night past 2am and often nap in meetings. This is surprising as Franklin is known for the saying "Early to bed early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise" and claimed to go to bed at 10pm and work at 5am. When Adams confronted home, Franklin claimed that, in Europe, politicking is done after midnight, and implied that "Early to bed..." is good for the farmers but not for the cultured.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Books on Inuit mythology/folklore I’m asking for recommendations for books written about Inuit mythology and/or folklore. Preferably books written by an anthropologist or published by a university. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: In these kinds of cases, I think it's appropriate to suggest Google Scholar as a resource. Google Scholar: "Inuit mythology" Google Scholar: "Inuit folklore" Note that in addition to these searches returning a variety of sources, you can also find published reviews of those sources, which can help you to narrow down what your chosen readings will be. I encourage this approach, because it helps you to develop your own researching abilities, so that you aren't forced to rely on others to provide you with information.
RESPONSE B: You can find a lot of Inuit in *Franz Boas* works. In case you don't know, Franz Boas is a german classic Anthropologist that moved to America and created Cultural Anthropology in US. Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and others. But I don't know about contemporary works
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Books on Inuit mythology/folklore I’m asking for recommendations for books written about Inuit mythology and/or folklore. Preferably books written by an anthropologist or published by a university. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: You can find a lot of Inuit in *Franz Boas* works. In case you don't know, Franz Boas is a german classic Anthropologist that moved to America and created Cultural Anthropology in US. Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and others. But I don't know about contemporary works
RESPONSE B: Depending on your purposes (and especially because you work for a university), it may be more appropriate to look for works by Inuit Peoples than non-Inuit anthropologists. Indigenous knowledge systems are an important topic to work with Indigenous sources when possible. You may have a resource at your university that contacts various groups like this, or you may be able to reach out to public education groups directly. For example, the University of Saskatchewan in Canada has a department of Indigenous Engagement.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Books on Inuit mythology/folklore I’m asking for recommendations for books written about Inuit mythology and/or folklore. Preferably books written by an anthropologist or published by a university. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Depending on your purposes (and especially because you work for a university), it may be more appropriate to look for works by Inuit Peoples than non-Inuit anthropologists. Indigenous knowledge systems are an important topic to work with Indigenous sources when possible. You may have a resource at your university that contacts various groups like this, or you may be able to reach out to public education groups directly. For example, the University of Saskatchewan in Canada has a department of Indigenous Engagement.
RESPONSE B: Never in Anger by Jean Briggs
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Books on Inuit mythology/folklore I’m asking for recommendations for books written about Inuit mythology and/or folklore. Preferably books written by an anthropologist or published by a university. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: You can find a lot of Inuit in *Franz Boas* works. In case you don't know, Franz Boas is a german classic Anthropologist that moved to America and created Cultural Anthropology in US. Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict and others. But I don't know about contemporary works
RESPONSE B: A Kayak Full of Ghosts by Lawrence Millman is a good read. Lots of stories, and great variety of different folklore. They're rather dated, but you might check out Eskimo Folk-Tales by Knud Rasmussen, & Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo by Henry Rink.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Books on Inuit mythology/folklore I’m asking for recommendations for books written about Inuit mythology and/or folklore. Preferably books written by an anthropologist or published by a university. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Never in Anger by Jean Briggs
RESPONSE B: Out of curiosity, why source mythology etc. from a university etc. rather than actual Inuit people? The colonial approaches to gathering information with first nation peoples is notoriously incomplete and at times even incompatible, incorrect, or harmful to the communities they study.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: lot smaller than they are today. Is there a consensus that the stereotypical view of labour in prehistory is wrong?
RESPONSE A: > Different subsistence strategies involve different kinds of work, allocated to different people. In foraging societies, most work is assigned according to gender. In general, men do most of the hunting and fishing, and women do most of the gathering of food from plants. *However* these patterns are rarely rigid. Instead, in practice, the roles of men and women overlap so that men may participate in gathering and women may assist in hunting and fishing. **The stereotypical view of men as the sole hunters and women as gatherers is not supported by actual data and practice**. So basically, in a lot of foraging and hunter-gatherer societies, men did do the hunting and women the foraging. But these roles tended to overlap a lot and also tended to be reversed in a lot of societies. So the stereotype of men being the hunters and women being only „nurturers“ is wrong. Women did of course nurture their offspring but they also had the role of hunting and gathering. In fact, it should also be added that in societies where men hunted and women foraged: > [based off a study on the Ju/hoansi foraging people] Men spent more time and energy in subsistence work than did women, [but] women provided the bulk of the calories (55 percent). Women were more productive than men because success in hunting is appreciably lower than success in food collecting. On average, men killed one animal for every four days of hunting. And on average, women gathered enough plants, fruits, insects, and nuts in a few hours work several times a week to feed everyone in a camp each night. TLDR; Women were very important figures in early hunter-gathering societies. They did not only nurture their offspring but also played the roles of gatherers and hunters. The stereotype that generalizes women as playing solely a „nurturer“ role is false. Source: Cultural Anthropology, 4th edition - Nancy Bonvillain
RESPONSE B: I just read this article on Japanese National Geographic (this is the English version) a few weeks ago about growing evidence for your friend's perspective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Seeking Participants: Dissertation on Tattoos and Feminine Personhood I’m a university student/baby tattoo artist planning to study the impact of tattoos on feminine personhood and social relations. If anybody would like to discuss this please let me know! If you have tattoos, or don’t, and you feel they may impact your femininity, please get in touch. So far I have been gathering historical and modern examples of tattooed women, and drawing comparisons to male counterparts. The academic consensus at the moment seems to be that tattooed women are fragile, vulnerable and unstable. In my experience, this is certainly not the whole picture when it comes to tattooing, nor has it ever been. From mummified priestesses, to the free-spirited circus freaks of America, to my work colleagues today, there are plenty of tales of strength yet to be celebrated by scholars. @dandy.tattoo on insta :)
RESPONSE A: I’ve never wanted tattoos, mostly because it is a huge commitment I was sure I would regret. Also most ink I see in my community is inferior artistry in my opinion. HOWEVER, I recently had major surgery, and I could now see myself getting a tattoo to cover my scar. It would be a celebration of overcoming adversity.
RESPONSE B: I find this academic perspective so interesting because it's the opposite of how I feel about my tattoos! To me (23F), my tattoos symbolize freedom, bodily autonomy, beauty, and my values. I've never seen my tattoos as an outlet of emotional instability, but rather as a form of self expression and ownership of the body that I live in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Seeking Participants: Dissertation on Tattoos and Feminine Personhood I’m a university student/baby tattoo artist planning to study the impact of tattoos on feminine personhood and social relations. If anybody would like to discuss this please let me know! If you have tattoos, or don’t, and you feel they may impact your femininity, please get in touch. So far I have been gathering historical and modern examples of tattooed women, and drawing comparisons to male counterparts. The academic consensus at the moment seems to be that tattooed women are fragile, vulnerable and unstable. In my experience, this is certainly not the whole picture when it comes to tattooing, nor has it ever been. From mummified priestesses, to the free-spirited circus freaks of America, to my work colleagues today, there are plenty of tales of strength yet to be celebrated by scholars. @dandy.tattoo on insta :)
RESPONSE A: You probably have already seen this article as it was published a while ago, but I think this is very interesting discovery. https://siberiantimes.com/culture/others/features/siberian-princess-reveals-her-2500-year-old-tattoos/
RESPONSE B: I find this academic perspective so interesting because it's the opposite of how I feel about my tattoos! To me (23F), my tattoos symbolize freedom, bodily autonomy, beauty, and my values. I've never seen my tattoos as an outlet of emotional instability, but rather as a form of self expression and ownership of the body that I live in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Seeking Participants: Dissertation on Tattoos and Feminine Personhood I’m a university student/baby tattoo artist planning to study the impact of tattoos on feminine personhood and social relations. If anybody would like to discuss this please let me know! If you have tattoos, or don’t, and you feel they may impact your femininity, please get in touch. So far I have been gathering historical and modern examples of tattooed women, and drawing comparisons to male counterparts. The academic consensus at the moment seems to be that tattooed women are fragile, vulnerable and unstable. In my experience, this is certainly not the whole picture when it comes to tattooing, nor has it ever been. From mummified priestesses, to the free-spirited circus freaks of America, to my work colleagues today, there are plenty of tales of strength yet to be celebrated by scholars. @dandy.tattoo on insta :)
RESPONSE A: I am a woman identifying person, who studied anthropology, specific theoretical focus on personhood and pet animals. My tattoos are based on pazyryk tattoos of animals and one stone relic from a burial. one e.a. wallis budge drawing of a bennu bird "from a ritual." Cool project and one... Close to my body. I'm happy to help.
RESPONSE B: I find this academic perspective so interesting because it's the opposite of how I feel about my tattoos! To me (23F), my tattoos symbolize freedom, bodily autonomy, beauty, and my values. I've never seen my tattoos as an outlet of emotional instability, but rather as a form of self expression and ownership of the body that I live in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Seeking Participants: Dissertation on Tattoos and Feminine Personhood I’m a university student/baby tattoo artist planning to study the impact of tattoos on feminine personhood and social relations. If anybody would like to discuss this please let me know! If you have tattoos, or don’t, and you feel they may impact your femininity, please get in touch. So far I have been gathering historical and modern examples of tattooed women, and drawing comparisons to male counterparts. The academic consensus at the moment seems to be that tattooed women are fragile, vulnerable and unstable. In my experience, this is certainly not the whole picture when it comes to tattooing, nor has it ever been. From mummified priestesses, to the free-spirited circus freaks of America, to my work colleagues today, there are plenty of tales of strength yet to be celebrated by scholars. @dandy.tattoo on insta :)
RESPONSE A: Love this topic! I'm (31F) definitely down to talk! (For what it's worth, I've got half my back done and am working on a thigh piece for when COVID restrictions let up).
RESPONSE B: I find this academic perspective so interesting because it's the opposite of how I feel about my tattoos! To me (23F), my tattoos symbolize freedom, bodily autonomy, beauty, and my values. I've never seen my tattoos as an outlet of emotional instability, but rather as a form of self expression and ownership of the body that I live in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Seeking Participants: Dissertation on Tattoos and Feminine Personhood I’m a university student/baby tattoo artist planning to study the impact of tattoos on feminine personhood and social relations. If anybody would like to discuss this please let me know! If you have tattoos, or don’t, and you feel they may impact your femininity, please get in touch. So far I have been gathering historical and modern examples of tattooed women, and drawing comparisons to male counterparts. The academic consensus at the moment seems to be that tattooed women are fragile, vulnerable and unstable. In my experience, this is certainly not the whole picture when it comes to tattooing, nor has it ever been. From mummified priestesses, to the free-spirited circus freaks of America, to my work colleagues today, there are plenty of tales of strength yet to be celebrated by scholars. @dandy.tattoo on insta :)
RESPONSE A: I find this academic perspective so interesting because it's the opposite of how I feel about my tattoos! To me (23F), my tattoos symbolize freedom, bodily autonomy, beauty, and my values. I've never seen my tattoos as an outlet of emotional instability, but rather as a form of self expression and ownership of the body that I live in.
RESPONSE B: I for one, as a modern woman, feel very empowered by my tattoos! Ive got two fairly small but noticeable ones that both have very important meanings (and were designed by me) and i honestly cant wait to get my next one
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If we take newly born babies from let's say hunter-gatherer era and raise it in current modern society, will the babies be able to learn just as well as babies from current society?
RESPONSE A: I feel the need to point out that there are animals that rival our own intelligence in many areas, the reason we took over is more due to our language abilities than our intelligence.
RESPONSE B: I think prenatal nutrition would be a large factor. If they lived somewhere with a varied diet, I’m with the others saying they’d grow up just fine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: to know about them from a video on YouTube and some articles. All I know that we do not have many proofs of their existence, but a few large teeth and bracelets were discovered near Russia. One bracelet had a very fine hole which is speculated to only possible to be made using a high power drill. I just want to know more about them. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Here's a handful of articles on the Denisovans that you may be interested in: Siberia’s ancient ghost clan starts to surrender its secrets Denisovans were artists, cave dates suggest How We Found an Elusive Hominin in China A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau Mysterious human relatives moved into ‘penthouse’ Siberian cave 100,000 years earlier than thought
RESPONSE B: Almost everything we know about Denisovans comes from their DNA because very few bones and potential material culture findings exist. There are assembled genomes for multiple Denisovans individuals. Usually, DNA degrades quickly as bodies decay, but Denisova cave in Siberia happens to have a year round 0 Celsius temperature, perfect to help preserve the DNA. In that cave was also found material (I think a finger bone?) that was found to be an individual who was the offspring of one Denisovan and one Neanderthal parent. Scientists have used vast databases of present human genomes to try to see which populations of human beings might have some Denisovan ancestry. The fact that Papuan and other Austronesian peoples were found to have Denisovan ancestry as well as other bone finds have shown that Denisovans probably lived all the way down into the tropics, not just in Siberia where their DNA was recoverable from remains. Finally, I think the coolest fact about Denisovan DNA is that modern Tibetan populations with a more high altitude adapted highly oxygenating blood, have inherited this adaptation from Denisovans. This research is spearheaded by Svante Paabo's ancient human DNA lab, so if you are intrigued and open to reading genomics research, I recommend searching his name in the literature.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can someone tell me about the Denisovans? I came to know about them from a video on YouTube and some articles. All I know that we do not have many proofs of their existence, but a few large teeth and bracelets were discovered near Russia. One bracelet had a very fine hole which is speculated to only possible to be made using a high power drill. I just want to know more about them. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Almost everything we know about Denisovans comes from their DNA because very few bones and potential material culture findings exist. There are assembled genomes for multiple Denisovans individuals. Usually, DNA degrades quickly as bodies decay, but Denisova cave in Siberia happens to have a year round 0 Celsius temperature, perfect to help preserve the DNA. In that cave was also found material (I think a finger bone?) that was found to be an individual who was the offspring of one Denisovan and one Neanderthal parent. Scientists have used vast databases of present human genomes to try to see which populations of human beings might have some Denisovan ancestry. The fact that Papuan and other Austronesian peoples were found to have Denisovan ancestry as well as other bone finds have shown that Denisovans probably lived all the way down into the tropics, not just in Siberia where their DNA was recoverable from remains. Finally, I think the coolest fact about Denisovan DNA is that modern Tibetan populations with a more high altitude adapted highly oxygenating blood, have inherited this adaptation from Denisovans. This research is spearheaded by Svante Paabo's ancient human DNA lab, so if you are intrigued and open to reading genomics research, I recommend searching his name in the literature.
RESPONSE B: Check out http://johnhawks.net. His blog has been around for decades and he's done tons of great research and meta-research on the denisovans, and their cultural impact, not to mention his work on other branches of Homo.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do all cultures clap their hands at impressive, public displays of skill such as dance performances, etc.?
RESPONSE A: In Ancient Rome if a crowd did Not like a performer/speaker they would clap to drowned them out until they give up and leave the stage. This is the origin of the word "explode" to exit with applause. When people tried to describe the sound of gunpowder/nitro etc it was described as "explosive".
RESPONSE B: How about the double pat - I'm done with the hands. When I rub my daughters' backs I'll finish with a double pat. I don't know why I do that. I told them it was "the international way to say 'I'm done.'"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I can't wrap my head around how It is possible for societies all around the world that never had any contact with each other to share so many similarities. What are your thoughts? Looking at human societies in pre modern times one tends to see very similar structures. Caste systems, slavery, aristocracies, kings, etc. No matter the Continent this does seem to be the default conditions of all complex societies. How do anthropologists explain such commonalities?
RESPONSE A: I teach the anthropology of religion and get asked this a lot regarding myths, with the assumption that all “common” myths come from one, singular “original” myth. This isn’t true, of course. If you remove the lens of culture/society from the biological entity of a human being, we are all the same - we experience things, process incoming information and data, and we get a “result.” The reason so many cultures have stories about the rising and setting of the sun is because all humans, regardless of culture, look at the sun rising and setting and think “huh. I wonder why it does that? OMG WHAT IF IT JUST STOPPED DOING THAT!?!” … and lo, Helios, Ra, and their ilk arrive to carry the sun across the sky every day and make us feel a little more secure about things we don’t understand, and more importantly - things we can’t control.
RESPONSE B: I recommend reading Against The Grain by James Scott. It was actually a recommendation from a earlier thread, but also does well to answer this question. Further, Scott would probably argue that for thousands of years, the ‘similarities’ you list were actually very far from the human norm, and those are all relatively recent constructs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.