label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: Is there a possibility of an ancient civilization that we haven’t yet discovered due to a lack of evidence? redirected from r/askhistorians
RESPONSE A: We didn't know about Gobekli Tepe until very, very recently. This was a very complex site, so it won't be surprising if we find older civilizations as well.
RESPONSE B: The lost city before the Xia Dynasty, it is supposed a civilization existed before the Xia Dynasty (whose only existence was discovered through recorded records of oracle bones). Some anthropologists, suggest there was a civilized culture as far back as 8,000 BCE, not to be confused with other cultures like the Jiahu cultures. Such speculations believe a city was even constructed, but no concrete evidence has been agreed upon.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I live in Germany and while the cost of going back to university would be manageable, not making any money for 3,4,5+ years, would be a huge gamble at my age. I know anthropology has a poor reputation in terms of employment prospects, even for people who've been pursuing it since their undergraduate years, so maybe it's just a pipe dream? The people closest to me are skeptical and think I should just keep a passing interest in these topics and try to make peace with my lot. I would really appreciate honest, constructive opinions from people already in Anthropology. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I think as someone said, what you want to do is consider how your background in engineering can apply to anthropology. I can easily see an engineer working with non-profits, the UN, and a host of other such groups on projects that combine anthropology and engineering. Most anthropologists these days take a more practical approach to the work. It's not just about describing, but about applying solutions, develop systems to help, etc. An anthropology-engineer could be extremely useful in working with developing infrastructure, food production, water solutions, etc. in places where you are working with smaller communities or marginalized groups. I would do some research into anthropologists and the work they do, and then reach out to departments/faculty/people in NGOs, to discuss your position and your interests. I don't think going blindly into it is a good idea. Do your homework and see how your skills can be applied and combined. Once you know that, doing a degree in Anthropology might be on the table. But, research first. I'd be more optimistic of your chances of employment in the field than most of the people who have actual degrees to be honest. Anthropology is incredibly interdisciplinary these days.
RESPONSE B: You’ve got at least 35 years left of working. That’s a long time to be miserable. Having a stable, well defined career path is good. Also, doing invigorating work that you love is good. There are very few situations where you will get both so it comes down to what is more important for you personally. Just don’t be super unhappy. Your 30’s are a great time in life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a hardware engineer, I have a respectable job, with decent pay, and I'm relatively successful. Only problem is, I'm super unhappy. I changed jobs and what I do now is as good as I could ask for, but I'm starting to think I'm in the wrong career altogether. My real interests lie in history, politics, law, sociology, and philosophy. I'm drawn to anthropology for how it straddles all these disciplines. Because my background is so drastically different, and I have no network in the humanities, I would probably have to start from the absolute bottom of the ladder. I live in Germany and while the cost of going back to university would be manageable, not making any money for 3,4,5+ years, would be a huge gamble at my age. I know anthropology has a poor reputation in terms of employment prospects, even for people who've been pursuing it since their undergraduate years, so maybe it's just a pipe dream? The people closest to me are skeptical and think I should just keep a passing interest in these topics and try to make peace with my lot. I would really appreciate honest, constructive opinions from people already in Anthropology. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: My partner is a hardware engineer and I majored in anthropology. I now work in communications. Most people don't realize that when you get a degree in anthropology, you'll probably not end up working in that field. Not to say you can't, but most don't. So maybe look into taking some anthro-related classes, but keep your day job. You can expand your breadth of knowledge and use the skills you learn in your current position, but even more so if you move into an engineering people-management role.
RESPONSE B: https://sustainability.asu.edu/person/john-anderies This was one of the instructors I had in college. He does math modeling a lot and coauthors academic papers in anthropology. Great guy. Check out some of the research interests and some of the papers he's on. Some are basic anthro, others archaeology, others complexity science. Engineering is a mindset and a toolkit and can be very compatible with understanding humans...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: could ask for, but I'm starting to think I'm in the wrong career altogether. My real interests lie in history, politics, law, sociology, and philosophy. I'm drawn to anthropology for how it straddles all these disciplines. Because my background is so drastically different, and I have no network in the humanities, I would probably have to start from the absolute bottom of the ladder. I live in Germany and while the cost of going back to university would be manageable, not making any money for 3,4,5+ years, would be a huge gamble at my age. I know anthropology has a poor reputation in terms of employment prospects, even for people who've been pursuing it since their undergraduate years, so maybe it's just a pipe dream? The people closest to me are skeptical and think I should just keep a passing interest in these topics and try to make peace with my lot. I would really appreciate honest, constructive opinions from people already in Anthropology. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: https://sustainability.asu.edu/person/john-anderies This was one of the instructors I had in college. He does math modeling a lot and coauthors academic papers in anthropology. Great guy. Check out some of the research interests and some of the papers he's on. Some are basic anthro, others archaeology, others complexity science. Engineering is a mindset and a toolkit and can be very compatible with understanding humans...
RESPONSE B: You would not be any happier in anthropology - especially if you don't already have an idea of what you want to pursue or how far you want to go. You can't do anything with a BA or BS and a graduate degree in anthropology is one of the longest out there with little return in terms of pay. Why do you want to do anthropology? It's not easier - if anything it would take up way more of your time to stay relevant in your field because you have to if you want to get a job. You might not be happy with engineering but you need to find out why first. I'm an anthropologist in a US PhD program. I would not recommend it to anyone trying to be happy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a huge gamble at my age. I know anthropology has a poor reputation in terms of employment prospects, even for people who've been pursuing it since their undergraduate years, so maybe it's just a pipe dream? The people closest to me are skeptical and think I should just keep a passing interest in these topics and try to make peace with my lot. I would really appreciate honest, constructive opinions from people already in Anthropology. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: BS in Anthropology & Sociology here and I’ve been clawing my way out of limited job prospects for the past decade. I now work as a dev at a major tech company and I would never go back. Anthropology and capitalism don’t mix well and you’ll need to eat and pay rent.
RESPONSE B: I have my degree in anthropology because I love the subject, but I knew I wouldn’t get a fancy job. I was really hoping I’d be able to utilize my education to get into HR especially with the push centered around implicit bias, diversity, and inclusion. I never heard back from any of the HR jobs I applied to except for 1 that was part time and $13/hr where you just post jobs on Indeed, but the hiring manager said I wasn’t qualified. I wouldn’t go into anthropology unless you know you want to become a professor or pursue something with biological anthropology and become some forensic pathologist maybe. You could also focus on archaeology and become a surveyor as that’s the other field where having an anthropology degree can be helpful. Personally for me the best job I could land when I graduated was as a receptionist I then got promoted to legal assistant and now I work from home for a company that generates leads for other businesses. My work is laidback and I’m actually done for the day (it’s noon where I am) so things worked out for me in terms of not having a job that sucks. Although I believe anthropology is incredibly useful and would encourage to study it for yourself. In terms of a career I’m not sure how helpful it would be especially since most people don’t even understand what anthropology is. You could try getting into marketing I suppose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: since anthro loves to talk about kinship.
RESPONSE A: Responding on the go since this is a subject very close to my heart and work. To your first two points about why “poor” people have fewer children in developing countries, research has shown that there are a couple of factors at play that all have an independent AND interlinked impact. Before I go into them, I’d like to spend a minute to broaden out this idea of poor more to say that rather than use poor as simply a marker of economic status, the question, and therefore your answers are better served if you use “poor” as a proxy for a number of allied factors like poor quality of work, lower education achievements, low awareness, low health outcomes etc. Having said that, now to jump into reasons for why developing countries show higher replacement rates as compared to developed countries : 1. While investment in the future, is one lens to look at, another strong reason for having more kids is that more kids = more sources of income for a household dependent on daily-wage work. 2. Such countries are marked by lower quality of public health services - therefore child mortality rates are high. Having more children is a way to hedge your bets and make sure at least one or two of your children make it to adulthood. 3. Patriarchy is a sucks and son-preference is a real thing, especially since boys are seen as productive, economic agents and girls are not. (See point one) People will keep having children until they have sons, often with no luck. 4. Combine point 3 with the point about the lack of female agency and right over their bodies and choice of contraception. Hope this helps! Since I’m typing this up on my phone, I can’t add in any references at the moment, but happy to share any on any point that catches your eye :)
RESPONSE B: There are a lot of great answers up here already, but wanted to leave a recommendation for a good ethnography on the subject: “Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage” by Edin & Kefalas It’s a great read that digs into this very vividly in an eye-opening way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: dogs. How essential were they to prehistoric people and what were some of their uses? I know they were used as containers and water bottles, are there any other uses we know of? The idea of a plant-grown practical object really fascinates me. I'm growing some bottle gourds myself right now and I'd love to know more about how primitive people used them.
RESPONSE A: Gourds are also for musical instruments. Both for percussion and resonating chamber for harped instruments. Similar to the body of a guitar. Examples: Balafon and Kora).
RESPONSE B: Because they are organic, they don’t necessarily preserve well in many contexts or seeds will preserve but the gourds themselves won’t. This can make it pretty difficult to determine how they were used in many contexts and so we are left with many, not necessarily mutually exclusive, theories. In all likelihood, bottle gourds probably had many uses. Immature gourds are technically edible. Additionally, dried gourds could be rattles used in entertainment and ritual purposes for example. In many parts of West Africa, the gourds were historically decorated and used in divination rituals or containers for ritual substances and its no stretch to suppose they had similar functions in other places and times. As you point out, more practical uses would be bottles for liquids (water, beer, milk, etc…) or as containers and tools like bowls or ladles. For early hunter gatherers though, the most vital and attractive feature probably was for storing water. Consider how wide-spread and populous humanity became after the end of the Pleistocene coinciding with the hypothetical domestication of the bottle gourd. That kind of distribution and adaptation could only have been possible in many parts of the world if humans had a way to store and transport potable water in areas where such water was scarce. Though biologically humans can live a few days without water, that doesn’t consider how rapidly our capabilities decline once we begin to dehydrate. Without the ability to transport water, even a day’s walk over an arid terrain could be a limiting factor in humans’ successful dispersal over an area or adaptation to that area.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to dogs. How essential were they to prehistoric people and what were some of their uses? I know they were used as containers and water bottles, are there any other uses we know of? The idea of a plant-grown practical object really fascinates me. I'm growing some bottle gourds myself right now and I'd love to know more about how primitive people used them.
RESPONSE A: Because they are organic, they don’t necessarily preserve well in many contexts or seeds will preserve but the gourds themselves won’t. This can make it pretty difficult to determine how they were used in many contexts and so we are left with many, not necessarily mutually exclusive, theories. In all likelihood, bottle gourds probably had many uses. Immature gourds are technically edible. Additionally, dried gourds could be rattles used in entertainment and ritual purposes for example. In many parts of West Africa, the gourds were historically decorated and used in divination rituals or containers for ritual substances and its no stretch to suppose they had similar functions in other places and times. As you point out, more practical uses would be bottles for liquids (water, beer, milk, etc…) or as containers and tools like bowls or ladles. For early hunter gatherers though, the most vital and attractive feature probably was for storing water. Consider how wide-spread and populous humanity became after the end of the Pleistocene coinciding with the hypothetical domestication of the bottle gourd. That kind of distribution and adaptation could only have been possible in many parts of the world if humans had a way to store and transport potable water in areas where such water was scarce. Though biologically humans can live a few days without water, that doesn’t consider how rapidly our capabilities decline once we begin to dehydrate. Without the ability to transport water, even a day’s walk over an arid terrain could be a limiting factor in humans’ successful dispersal over an area or adaptation to that area.
RESPONSE B: Hmmm That’s very interesting. Can you post where you read that? Having a geographic context and timeframe would be helpful. Whether domesticated or cultivated would be a big difference.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: NOT TO DO and I'm having a hard time figuring out what TO DO. And all the storage rules I am seeing appear to assume you are in a museum with all of those resources. Not a PhD student whose collections are going back to property owners who won't have the perfect ideal museum storage conditions to keep artifact boxes. Heck, even my house where they are currently is never 68 degrees because I can't function in temperatures that low. Any advice or suggestions? Or even a better subreddit to post in (I couldn't seem to find anything for conservation related stuff).
RESPONSE A: Hey! Conservator here. Celluloid is the biggest risk in this collection. Keep the collection in the pastic mylar you've got it in. Get some archival quaility boxes and tissue paper and store the collection in a cool, stable area such as a basement or fridge with low humidity (if it's a fridge or freezer it can't be opened regularly). The celluloid boxes will need to off-gas so don't seal them tightly and leave them well away from other collections. The other plastics you have will need a similar treatment but they probably won't be off-gassing and don't need to be stored at such precise conditions. Bakelite is pretty stable and could just be stored under normal museum conditions- cooler room temp, relatively stable conditions, low RH, no light etc. Depending on what you've got, the plastics could all be housed together (obvioulsy not anything like celluloid that is off-gassing). I would make a point of only giving the celluloid and other off-gassing and vulnerable materials to the church or museum who already have collection practices in place. Make it clear to them what you are giving them and why. Edit** you can also post on r/askconservation
RESPONSE B: this is a very interesting question and I would ask @bobmuckle on twitter as he has done excavations on Japanese internment camps in canada. I would really like to see what he or his followers respond to on this topic. Also I think he took a class to excavate an Ataris dump site.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: of those resources. Not a PhD student whose collections are going back to property owners who won't have the perfect ideal museum storage conditions to keep artifact boxes. Heck, even my house where they are currently is never 68 degrees because I can't function in temperatures that low. Any advice or suggestions? Or even a better subreddit to post in (I couldn't seem to find anything for conservation related stuff).
RESPONSE A: Hey! Conservator here. Celluloid is the biggest risk in this collection. Keep the collection in the pastic mylar you've got it in. Get some archival quaility boxes and tissue paper and store the collection in a cool, stable area such as a basement or fridge with low humidity (if it's a fridge or freezer it can't be opened regularly). The celluloid boxes will need to off-gas so don't seal them tightly and leave them well away from other collections. The other plastics you have will need a similar treatment but they probably won't be off-gassing and don't need to be stored at such precise conditions. Bakelite is pretty stable and could just be stored under normal museum conditions- cooler room temp, relatively stable conditions, low RH, no light etc. Depending on what you've got, the plastics could all be housed together (obvioulsy not anything like celluloid that is off-gassing). I would make a point of only giving the celluloid and other off-gassing and vulnerable materials to the church or museum who already have collection practices in place. Make it clear to them what you are giving them and why. Edit** you can also post on r/askconservation
RESPONSE B: Contact the repository and ask how they would like to handle it. There may be a discard policy in place, and object curation may not be required if sufficient documentation is submitted. Edit: I work at a repository for archaeological collections, and I believe our staff would rather not curate unstable materials (a bunch of those materials were recently deaccessioned from history collections because they were causing problems). Sometimes things get submitted that get discarded during collection processing. Deciding what to keep is a balancing act.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ting at a few late 19th and early 20th century sites and have celluloid (which is very unstable), bakelite, and other early (and later) plastics. Now my issue is what to do with them long-term. I know they aren't supposed to be kept in airtight containers because that can cause degradation and explosions, so all the (archival) plastic bags they are currently in have holes poked in them for air. But them I'm reading guidelines about how they shouldn't be stored in any plastic or wood and only acid free materials. And that they have to be stored with like materials only, away from any other artifacts, including plastics of different types, and that they have to be kept at temperatures lower than 68 degrees at all times. This is all what NOT TO DO and I'm having a hard time figuring out what TO DO. And all the storage rules I am seeing appear to assume you are in a museum with all of those resources. Not a PhD student whose collections are going back to property owners who won't have the perfect ideal museum storage conditions to keep artifact boxes. Heck, even my house where they are currently is never 68 degrees because I can't function in temperatures that low. Any advice or suggestions? Or even a better subreddit to post in (I couldn't seem to find anything for conservation related stuff).
RESPONSE A: Contact the repository and ask how they would like to handle it. There may be a discard policy in place, and object curation may not be required if sufficient documentation is submitted. Edit: I work at a repository for archaeological collections, and I believe our staff would rather not curate unstable materials (a bunch of those materials were recently deaccessioned from history collections because they were causing problems). Sometimes things get submitted that get discarded during collection processing. Deciding what to keep is a balancing act.
RESPONSE B: this is a very interesting question and I would ask @bobmuckle on twitter as he has done excavations on Japanese internment camps in canada. I would really like to see what he or his followers respond to on this topic. Also I think he took a class to excavate an Ataris dump site.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: built in the US tend to be very similar regardless of the climate they are built in. My apartment in Florida is very similar to my friend’s apartment in Utah, for example, although we certainly have more hurricane-adapted features. Is this the new form of vernacular architecture, or adapting our buildings to our environment? Indigenous cultures had many different kinds of dwelling that were suited for their environments. When/why did this practice fall out of favor? It seems counterintuitive to me. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: As an architect i can suggest that the disappearance of vernacular building was brought about specifically by the advent of professional architects in the early modern era. To take the example of English architecture ( which directly influenced American architecture) local materials and techniques were abandoned in favour of neoclassical architectural fashions originating mostly in renaissance Italy from the 16th to 18th centuries- the transition was completed by industrialisation in the 19c whereby construction materials could be transported long distances from their sources - at this point displays of status and prestige superseded practical and ecological concerns and ultimately resulted in first, international modernism, and then postmodernism where aesthetic and technological concerns became completely detached from practical considerations. It is only with the ecological movement in the 1970s and heritage movement in the 80s that questions of context and energy embodied in materials and appropriate technologies became relevant once again and resulted in the reassessment of vernacular traditions.
RESPONSE B: I just finished reading The Geography of Nowhere by James Howard Kunstler, and he discusses this topic. The tl;dr is that there was a strong vernacular architectural tradition prior to the Great Depression/WW2. After that the combination of ugly, inhuman, but trendy Modernist planning (Le Coubosier), the privatization of public spaces dues to capitalism, and the rise of the automobile led us to rapidly build out cites with generic buildings. The other thing he points out is that in many places, it is illegal to build buildings that are human scaled and attract pedestrians. Think of regulations like curb setbacks, parking requirements, height limits, and the elimination of mixed use zoning.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: what means would they have obtained such knowledge? 2. Different classes would have had access to different types of foods. Assuming that the lower class didn't have much access to animal flesh, what type of person would be the most likely to look as fit as the examples above? 3. Did gladiators (yes I know they're Roman) look like this, or were they somewhat chubby, as many people claim? I really appreciate all the answers. This is a topic that I've started becoming more curious about after my trip to historical art museums across Europe. It struck me as odd that there were statues and paintings of soldiers (Leonidas, etc...) that were significantly less fit (but obviously not out of shape) than some of the mythical characters
RESPONSE A: Greek statues show an idealized, perfect human form reflective of their standards of beauty, even when the pose, face etc is naturalistic, so they’re not the best source if we want to know what the average Ancient Greek’s body looked like. Greek physicians were aware of the connection between food and physical fitness. Athletes were advised to go on special diets during training, including abstaining from sweets and alcohol, and another diet called xerophagy in which only dry foods were consumed. Some of the beliefs Greeks held about food may have been accidentally true; for instance, Greeks encouraged athletes to eat more meat, not because they knew protein helps build muscle, but because they thought eating meat makes you more fierce. The wealthier you were in Ancient Greece, the more access you had to food, and to less-healthy foods like sugar (usually in the form of honey) and meat (and pork was the favorite meat, because other livestock animals that provided labor, hair or milk were considered more valuable alive than dead). However, we shouldn’t assume wealthy Greeks led lives of leisure even if their diet was less-healthy than the lower classes. Many kings and nobles led active lifestyles (through hunting, going to war, etc), and moderation from excess was a big Greek cultural value in general.
RESPONSE B: You might also receive a great answer from the wonderful folks over at r/AskHistorians if you haven't already posted this question there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: this? If so, through what means would they have obtained such knowledge? 2. Different classes would have had access to different types of foods. Assuming that the lower class didn't have much access to animal flesh, what type of person would be the most likely to look as fit as the examples above? 3. Did gladiators (yes I know they're Roman) look like this, or were they somewhat chubby, as many people claim? I really appreciate all the answers. This is a topic that I've started becoming more curious about after my trip to historical art museums across Europe. It struck me as odd that there were statues and paintings of soldiers (Leonidas, etc...) that were significantly less fit (but obviously not out of shape) than some of the mythical characters
RESPONSE A: Greek statues show an idealized, perfect human form reflective of their standards of beauty, even when the pose, face etc is naturalistic, so they’re not the best source if we want to know what the average Ancient Greek’s body looked like. Greek physicians were aware of the connection between food and physical fitness. Athletes were advised to go on special diets during training, including abstaining from sweets and alcohol, and another diet called xerophagy in which only dry foods were consumed. Some of the beliefs Greeks held about food may have been accidentally true; for instance, Greeks encouraged athletes to eat more meat, not because they knew protein helps build muscle, but because they thought eating meat makes you more fierce. The wealthier you were in Ancient Greece, the more access you had to food, and to less-healthy foods like sugar (usually in the form of honey) and meat (and pork was the favorite meat, because other livestock animals that provided labor, hair or milk were considered more valuable alive than dead). However, we shouldn’t assume wealthy Greeks led lives of leisure even if their diet was less-healthy than the lower classes. Many kings and nobles led active lifestyles (through hunting, going to war, etc), and moderation from excess was a big Greek cultural value in general.
RESPONSE B: Follow up questions. If so, how did they train? How did their machines or their gym look like? How was a typical ancient Greek workout?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did your typical ancient Greek have the resources & capabilities to build their bodies to be as fit as those commonly seen in the statues of their gods? We know today that to build muscle, one needs to eat at a constant caloric surplus, train effectively, and consume a certain ratio of macronutrients to prevent muscle catabolism and promote proper growth and development of said muscle. However, these are facts that have been proven true by modern science. I'm wondering how often ancient Greeks were exposed to individuals who looked the way they depict their gods to be, because even by today's standards, some of these characters are in ridiculous shape. So I have several questions regarding this matter ​ 1. Did the common Greek have the resources or the knowledge to build a body like this? If so, through what means would they have obtained such knowledge? 2. Different classes would have had access to different types of foods. Assuming that the lower class didn't have much access to animal flesh, what type of person would be the most likely to look as fit as the examples above? 3. Did gladiators (yes I know they're Roman) look like this, or were they somewhat chubby, as many people claim? I really appreciate all the answers. This is a topic that I've started becoming more curious about after my trip to historical art museums across Europe. It struck me as odd that there were statues and paintings of soldiers (Leonidas, etc...) that were significantly less fit (but obviously not out of shape) than some of the mythical characters
RESPONSE A: Follow up questions. If so, how did they train? How did their machines or their gym look like? How was a typical ancient Greek workout?
RESPONSE B: You might also receive a great answer from the wonderful folks over at r/AskHistorians if you haven't already posted this question there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The massive flow of porn available today is unprecedented in human history. What kind of studies exist on what changes, if any, that has had on humans? I wonder what have anthropologists come up with in regards to modern porn. Has it made a difference?
RESPONSE A: So heres one academic article, if you have access to the journal "Porn Studies" this might be interesting: "‘It is disgusting, but … ’: adolescent girls’ relationship to internet pornography as gender performance" (Scarcelli 2015). There is also a fair amount of moralising/handwringing papers about, such as: "Social bonds and Internet pornographic exposure among adolescents" (Mesch 2009) This is a topic that I think most contemporary textbooks/readers on gender and sexuality will cover indirectly, and feminist journals would be a good place to look for more material. Sexuality and private sexual behaviour generally are always tricky subjects to research accurately, as people simply don't tell you the truth, and it is extremely difficult to elicit information about something that is socially frowned upon. A general anthropological point to make is that the volume of mass communication in the latter 20th century and early 21st has had profound effects on social relations, but in many cases has not radically altered their content. From my own research background, for instance, the family and parental relations of Filipinos working overseas are not radically altered by distance and the mediation of their relations by the internet; rather the online/mediated relations tend to resemble those people make in real life (see Daniel Miller and Maria Madianou's book on this for more detail). So I would imagine that, in general, porn usage and its outcomes will tend to *reflect* RL social orientations to gender and sexuality more than it will *affect* them. Sorry I don;t have more specific answers, but I'm sure there are better analyses out there.
RESPONSE B: I don't think 10-15 years is enough time to tell.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: When and how did the heart start being associated with love, romance and emotions in general? So we know now that emotions are ultimately a product of and generated in the brain. So I was wondering when and how did feelings and emotions in general start being associated with the heart?
RESPONSE A: I think you may be looking for r/askpsychology - if it exists. Again, Anthropology will be *very* contextual to people within a snapshot of time. Edit: oh hey! It exists!
RESPONSE B: r/askhistorians should have your answer. It has to do with the Roman Empire and a plant they used as birth control. Look through their frequently asked questions, if not I gave you the keywords for your google search.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When and how did the heart start being associated with love, romance and emotions in general? So we know now that emotions are ultimately a product of and generated in the brain. So I was wondering when and how did feelings and emotions in general start being associated with the heart?
RESPONSE A: I'm currently reading Aztec & Maya: The Complete Illustrated History and they talk about ancient Aztec beliefs about the body. They believed the human body had 3 essential parts [Chapter 11: "After Death" pg 220] : 1) The head: "where a person's destiny was housed" 2) The liver: "home to the spirit" 3) The heart: "where one's consciousness lived" So not 100% exactly what you are talking about, but I think it adds context.
RESPONSE B: I don’t know the answer to this question, however I can give some information. The Bible makes reference a few times to the kidneys as the source of love. Also, romans thought that love came from the liver
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: When and how did the heart start being associated with love, romance and emotions in general? So we know now that emotions are ultimately a product of and generated in the brain. So I was wondering when and how did feelings and emotions in general start being associated with the heart?
RESPONSE A: I don’t know the answer to this question, however I can give some information. The Bible makes reference a few times to the kidneys as the source of love. Also, romans thought that love came from the liver
RESPONSE B: Its the shape of a plant the romans used for contraception. They used it so much it went extinct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium If you go down to "connection to heart (symbol)" it links to "main article: heart" which has more info for your ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Stone Age Cave Symbols May All Be Part of a Single Prehistoric Proto-Writing System ​ i'd love to read some opinions about this: ​ https://kottke.org/19/03/stone-age-cave-symbols-may-all-be-part-of-a-single-prehistoric-proto-writing-system?fbclid=IwAR112OTBH3AtbBAtQSvnvDMg4-6IC1M35Ml007gCqe8dbDh4XfTXZ-n30vA
RESPONSE A: Check out some of the youtube comments on this video. Why are conspiracy theories always only a step away if it's about something prehistorical? "Why does nobody investigate \[insert ridiculous theory here, probably about aliens\]???!!!" It seems as if there are always way more people who believe "ALIENS!" than people who believe the somewhat less sensational but well researched information out there. And it's not like the origin of symbolic thought or the building of the pyramids is boring. How impressive is it that people without cranes and modern equipment built the pyramids? No no, it has to be aliens to be interesting enough for the mouth-breathing hordes of youtube. Ugh, sorry for the little rant, but the cesspool that is the youtube comment section just drains my faith in mankind.
RESPONSE B: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/linguistics] [Is this r\/badlinguistics worthy? *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Stone Age Cave Symbols May All Be Part of a Single Prehistoric Proto-Writing System ​ i'd love to read some opinions about this: ​ https://kottke.org/19/03/stone-age-cave-symbols-may-all-be-part-of-a-single-prehistoric-proto-writing-system?fbclid=IwAR112OTBH3AtbBAtQSvnvDMg4-6IC1M35Ml007gCqe8dbDh4XfTXZ-n30vA
RESPONSE A: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/linguistics] [Is this r\/badlinguistics worthy? *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
RESPONSE B: Tangentially related, I love this article about cave paintings. It's beautifully-written and posits that the cave paintings we see are only the ones that have survived, and that the outside world may once have been covered in paintings as well. Something to think about
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Toxic foods in human cultures: did we not know or not care? The Romans used rue as a herb and it is still popular in Ethiopia, despite it being thought worth a call to poison control here (lead ore as a spice was also probably a bad move). And the Nuu-Chah-Nulth of the North American pacific coast (Koreans too, to a lesser extent) ate/eat carcinogenic bracken rhizome as a staple, and have high incidences of gut cancer that may be related to this. Even fenugreek has got some bad toxicity press despite being a fave in India. Traditional diets are widely though of as healthy, varied, and natural, especially those of Indigenous groups. It seems unlikely for some cases but is it possible that nutrition science is extrapolating from incomplete knowledge and that these foods aren't really harmful when prepared the traditional way (like cassava or olives)? Otherwise what were humans doing guzzling rue, lead, & cancer fern? Could we not figure it out through trial and error, like we did with most of the plant kingdom? Or did we know but just not care about the slow toxic buildup, because these were abundant sources of calories and flavour? Could these foods have even been antiparasitic?
RESPONSE A: None of those things make people keel over dead or violently sick after eating them, so why would anyone have assumed they might be unhealthy?
RESPONSE B: What incidence is it calling gut cancer? How would a large population know that a certain food is causing a certain issue? Especially if it’s one that affects in later life? Unless it kills you quick it would be difficult to know it’s an issue
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: but you see them and you get astonished by their inmense beauty. And these small bright and beautiful dots are there every night, with the milky way in the sky. What did they think about this? I guess they must have had some religious significance.
RESPONSE A: There have actually been several scientific papers recently touching on skygazing in the stone age. Last year Martin Sweatman and Alistair Coombs proposed that some Paleolithic cave paintings and rock art depict symbolic constellation configurations that can be dated to specific catastrophic events like comet and asteroid strikes that caused climate changes like the Younger Dryas. The dates they gave ranged from circa 15,500 BCE to 38,000 BCE. The Study is in the January 2019 issue of the Athens Journal of History: "Decoding European Palaeolithic Art: Extremely Ancient knowledge of Precession of the Equinoxes" The second paper edited by Camilla Power cites studies of hunter gatherer societies which still existed in the last few hundred years. That paper emphasizes the importance of the moon and the lunar cycles on everything from sexual equality to hunting and even to how safe the group was at night (more campfires would be needed to protect against beasts on moonless nights). It proposes that the lunar observations were at least or even more important than solar observations in a hunter gatherer society in part because it did not need a solar calendar to calculate when to plant and harvest their food, or when to bring the livestock in from the fields. That paper is "Reconstructing a source cosmology for African hunter gatherers," from January 2017, DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvswx6tg.11
RESPONSE B: I think this link is applicable to your question: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27154194/#:\~:text=Results%20indicate%20that%20the%20oldest,by%20shamanism%20and%20ancestor%20worship. I would bet a lot of these beliefs got tied into the stars at one point or another. But every culture is different and it's hard to paint with a broad brush.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: is not clear at all. What I could understand is a system where you can only marry between two families? Can someone explain to me with a practical example? I found it on a linguistics text, "female relation of the opposite moiety" should be the meaning of a reconstructed term according to this text, that became another word meaning "husband's sister", but I cannot get what kind of relationship the original one was, and now I'm curious.
RESPONSE A: My tribe, the Tlingit, is divided into two moieties along matrilineal lines, the Ravens and the Eagle/Wolf. Every community has at least one Raven clan and one Wolf clan. Tribal members traditionally may only marry a member of the opposite moiety, and children inherit the clan of their mother. The result is two inter-related clans that regard one another as their “opposite” to whom they are indebted, reliant and responsible for. Important clan functions require the participation and acknowledgment of the opposite clan. So for instance, in naming a new head of the Raven clan the Wolf side clan must be invited to witness, and by attending they acknowledge the Raven’s new leader. Through this process two clans are dependent on one another and balance in the community is achieved. It is likely that the origins of these moieties is an ancient encounter between two tribes who decided to marry across tribal lines to seal an alliance. A lot of the oral history of the dozens of Tlingit clans hints at this. You can imagine that two peoples forming such an alliance would want to establish inter marrying with one another as a standing custom, and engage in highly formal recognition of one another and indebtedness to one another to seal a partnership that would ultimately result in the two sides becoming one people.
RESPONSE B: Not an expert, but a system in which the society is divided into two. Kind of like clans but dual rather than multiple groups. Often the two systems have rules about intermarriage and physical and ritual space between the two moieties. For example, you may need someone from the other moiety to perform funeral rituals for one of your kin members. Generally, the moieties are unranked.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: means "new frontiers" in pure Chinese. I know that the native Uyghur Turks of the region were never really a unified body, and that there are other groups also native to the area, but that gets complicated fast. Also, doesn't count as that literally says "Xinjiang Autonomous Region" in Uyghur.
RESPONSE A: Dzungaria and the Tarim Basin (Altishahr)? Your question requires Xinjiang to exist as a geographical or cultural region prior to becoming a Chinese administrative region. There may not be a satisfactory answer. It looks like at least two geographical regions, and, as you said, more than one cultural and language family. 'At the time of the Qing conquest in 1759, Dzungaria was inhabited by steppe dwelling, nomadic Mongolic speaking, Tibetan Buddhist Dzungar people, while the Tarim Basin (Altishahr) was inhabited by sedentary, oasis dwelling, Turkic speaking Muslim farmers, now known as the Uyghur people. They were governed separately until 1884.' - Wikipedia
RESPONSE B: r/Orangutanion, you're trying to fit a very western-colonial-centric concept into a region that whose history doesn't support the concept you want. The region known as Xinjiang as always been a migratory, fairly sparse, border area between Slavic, Persian, and Chinese cultures, as well as the thousands of Central Asian groups that inhabited and moved through the area. There's no "indigenous" population whose "ancestors have inhabited the land since time immemorial" or whatever you're imagining. Accordingly, it's not an "evil empire comes in and oppresses ethnic minorities" story. That narrative only really fits 19th century Western colonialism, because those empires were very sudden in their founding and caused sweeping, catastrophic changes to the established indigenous cultures they acted upon. In contrast, Xinjiang has always been this place controlled by one group or another, or sometimes by nobody.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What's the best native, minimally-colonial Uyghur name for Xinjiang? It obviously isn't Xinjiang, as that literally means "new frontiers" in pure Chinese. I know that the native Uyghur Turks of the region were never really a unified body, and that there are other groups also native to the area, but that gets complicated fast. Also, doesn't count as that literally says "Xinjiang Autonomous Region" in Uyghur.
RESPONSE A: r/Orangutanion, you're trying to fit a very western-colonial-centric concept into a region that whose history doesn't support the concept you want. The region known as Xinjiang as always been a migratory, fairly sparse, border area between Slavic, Persian, and Chinese cultures, as well as the thousands of Central Asian groups that inhabited and moved through the area. There's no "indigenous" population whose "ancestors have inhabited the land since time immemorial" or whatever you're imagining. Accordingly, it's not an "evil empire comes in and oppresses ethnic minorities" story. That narrative only really fits 19th century Western colonialism, because those empires were very sudden in their founding and caused sweeping, catastrophic changes to the established indigenous cultures they acted upon. In contrast, Xinjiang has always been this place controlled by one group or another, or sometimes by nobody.
RESPONSE B: İn Turkey it is often referred to a Doğu Türkistan which translates to East Turkestan. İ believe this was the name used when it was briefly independent. İ have also heard it called variations on Cin Türkistan (i.e. Chinese controlled Turkestan)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a unisex given names despite being exclusively female in English-speaking countries, as is Ariel (except in Orthodox Jewish communities). Marie and Maria appear as male baptismal names in French and Italian culture despite being perceived as exclusively feminine in English. What causes some names to slip through the cracks of gender binary? Is there any correlation between usage of unisex names and gender rigidity? From what I understand, most Korean names are unisex to some extent while this is true of almost no Japanese names, despite both of these societies being typically regarded as patriarchal.
RESPONSE A: In Hebrew there are many unisex names, like Sharon, Tal, Gil etc. Unfortunately, I can't give any academic source or reason for this, but I believe it was more common in the past for names to be unisex and then later gendered. Might be relevant to look into :)
RESPONSE B: >Aubrey, Madison, Morgan, Taylor, and Tracy An observation about all of the above names is that they are all primarily British surnames and only secondarily, in terms of frequency of use, given names. I'm not sure what kind of insight that might provide, but unless it's pure coincidence, it probably indicates something about surnames as given names not being as uniformly gendered as specifically given names in English. But here's an interesting sidenote; in the US at least, you don't see people using German or Polish or Italian (or whatever else) surnames as given names. No, they pretty much all are either British or Irish so while there are plenty of Kennedies, Cassidies, McCaulays, Carsons, Tates, Pattons and the like, you almost never meet someone who's given name is something like Schmidt, Liebowitz, Bukowski or Gambino or something, no matter what gender. I think that's another clue about something, though what that is I do not claim to know. A final observation that isn't new to me at all is that once a name fully crosses over the gender divide --and in English it's almost always from male to female-- it almost never goes back, hence your Ashley, Evelyn, Kelsey, Leslie, Marion and the like.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did Native Americans Have Public Houses or Inns? I'm doing research into Native American trade and travel. I know there were extensive trails and trading all across ancient America. But I can't seem to figure out anything about where people would stay like a public house. If I was a native merchant and I came to a village or town, is there any archeological or historical evidence for where people would stay if they did not know anyone in town and didn't feel like camping? It might seem like an odd question but I have been researching this for almost a year now and I can find no record or even a mention. But obviously some system must have existed for people to travel on their own. Any help you might or a suggestion for where I might continue my research would be great.
RESPONSE A: Might be worth considering, for yourself, what the difference is between a public house / inn vs. a person's house who welcomes guests. The former seems to require a particular set of cultural distinctions for a society regarding money and public/private separation, whereas the latter can be considered universal.
RESPONSE B: I agree with mphillips018 that this is entirely dependent on which period, geographical region, and tribes we are looking at. The agriculturalists of the North East had very interconnected villages and presumably traders had interconnected family ties and would likely stay in their relative's long house. In the southwest it probably wasn't as necessary as each trader band would likely bring a small village worth of tents along with them. I know long distance trade to people the traders were not related to occurred, but I would imagine a trader from far off with rare goods the tribe needs would be well cared for by the tribe while they were around. Of course traveling so far they would likely be with a pretty large band so even then they might have set up their pop up village next to the town they are trading with. I'm sure many towns didn't want a band of foreign traders and fighters occupying their town. Just conjecture though. I hope someone posts some good knowledge because this is actually a pretty fascinating topic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is it that in English speaking and Nordic countries lunch is only a light meal and dinner is the main one, while in the rest of Europe it's vice versa? One would think that it has something to do with climate, but it's not only the Mediterranean countries where lunch is the main meal. In colder countries such as Russia, Poland or Germany lunch usually is the biggest meal, too. It seems to me that it may have something to do with the Protestant work ethic: you don't deserve a big meal if you haven't done all the deeds of the day. I may be wrong though.
RESPONSE A: As a guy from Pakistan I'd say every meal here is a big meal no matter what time of the day Idk why tho maybe because we feel the fear of not gerting the chance to eat properly in the next meal or maybe being too busy to not eat at all
RESPONSE B: Your premise about Nordic lunches might be a bit off. The different Nordic countries have different lunch traditions. Norway typically has the type of light lunch you refer to, but a Swedish lunch is generally a full, hot meal. From my experience Finland seems more like Sweden and Denmark is somewhere between Norway and Sweden. The most consistent difference between the Nordics and southern Europe is the dinner time. Traditionally dinner in the Nordics is eaten a few hours earlier (5-6 pm) than in southern Europe (8-10 pm). This could be due to differences in outdoor temperature; it's nicer to eat when the temperature has had time to go down a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is it that in English speaking and Nordic countries lunch is only a light meal and dinner is the main one, while in the rest of Europe it's vice versa? One would think that it has something to do with climate, but it's not only the Mediterranean countries where lunch is the main meal. In colder countries such as Russia, Poland or Germany lunch usually is the biggest meal, too. It seems to me that it may have something to do with the Protestant work ethic: you don't deserve a big meal if you haven't done all the deeds of the day. I may be wrong though.
RESPONSE A: It's not really like this in Belgium. Sandwiches are a big lunch thing.
RESPONSE B: Your premise about Nordic lunches might be a bit off. The different Nordic countries have different lunch traditions. Norway typically has the type of light lunch you refer to, but a Swedish lunch is generally a full, hot meal. From my experience Finland seems more like Sweden and Denmark is somewhere between Norway and Sweden. The most consistent difference between the Nordics and southern Europe is the dinner time. Traditionally dinner in the Nordics is eaten a few hours earlier (5-6 pm) than in southern Europe (8-10 pm). This could be due to differences in outdoor temperature; it's nicer to eat when the temperature has had time to go down a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is it that in English speaking and Nordic countries lunch is only a light meal and dinner is the main one, while in the rest of Europe it's vice versa? One would think that it has something to do with climate, but it's not only the Mediterranean countries where lunch is the main meal. In colder countries such as Russia, Poland or Germany lunch usually is the biggest meal, too. It seems to me that it may have something to do with the Protestant work ethic: you don't deserve a big meal if you haven't done all the deeds of the day. I may be wrong though.
RESPONSE A: I'm from the Mediterranean and I'd say that lunch is usually more copious than dinner, but not by much. What I can say for sure is that dinner is usually later (between 8pm and 10pm) than Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries where from what I've seen happens around 7pm.
RESPONSE B: Your premise about Nordic lunches might be a bit off. The different Nordic countries have different lunch traditions. Norway typically has the type of light lunch you refer to, but a Swedish lunch is generally a full, hot meal. From my experience Finland seems more like Sweden and Denmark is somewhere between Norway and Sweden. The most consistent difference between the Nordics and southern Europe is the dinner time. Traditionally dinner in the Nordics is eaten a few hours earlier (5-6 pm) than in southern Europe (8-10 pm). This could be due to differences in outdoor temperature; it's nicer to eat when the temperature has had time to go down a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why is it that in English speaking and Nordic countries lunch is only a light meal and dinner is the main one, while in the rest of Europe it's vice versa? One would think that it has something to do with climate, but it's not only the Mediterranean countries where lunch is the main meal. In colder countries such as Russia, Poland or Germany lunch usually is the biggest meal, too. It seems to me that it may have something to do with the Protestant work ethic: you don't deserve a big meal if you haven't done all the deeds of the day. I may be wrong though.
RESPONSE A: Your premise about Nordic lunches might be a bit off. The different Nordic countries have different lunch traditions. Norway typically has the type of light lunch you refer to, but a Swedish lunch is generally a full, hot meal. From my experience Finland seems more like Sweden and Denmark is somewhere between Norway and Sweden. The most consistent difference between the Nordics and southern Europe is the dinner time. Traditionally dinner in the Nordics is eaten a few hours earlier (5-6 pm) than in southern Europe (8-10 pm). This could be due to differences in outdoor temperature; it's nicer to eat when the temperature has had time to go down a bit.
RESPONSE B: We don't have siesta in the Nordics. And afaik our lunch breakes tend to be shorter. And we eat dinner earlier as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why is it that in English speaking and Nordic countries lunch is only a light meal and dinner is the main one, while in the rest of Europe it's vice versa? One would think that it has something to do with climate, but it's not only the Mediterranean countries where lunch is the main meal. In colder countries such as Russia, Poland or Germany lunch usually is the biggest meal, too. It seems to me that it may have something to do with the Protestant work ethic: you don't deserve a big meal if you haven't done all the deeds of the day. I may be wrong though.
RESPONSE A: A lot has to do with the type and region even within the US. My dad always talked about farmers and folks in the country back in the day used to have lunch and call it dinner and have a lighter supper later. This might have been a hold over from immigrants from Europe. Also it makes sense if you basically work at home the way farmers do. Working in a factory it makes sense to have just a small meal at work.
RESPONSE B: We don't have siesta in the Nordics. And afaik our lunch breakes tend to be shorter. And we eat dinner earlier as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why did human sacrifice die out in the Old World by the beginning of the classical era, but continued to be actively practised in the New World until European contact?
RESPONSE A: There's a bit of an Eurocentric lens to "human sacrifice"; if you look at rituals of torture and execution in Europe, they really don't look too dissimilar to Central America. And here's the extraordinary truth, hiding in plain sight: ask yourself -- have you ever noticed that the defining symbol of Christianity is, itself, an instrument of torture and execution? And the variety of bloody and painful deaths of martyrs are essential to the creation of a shared understanding of life, death and meaning? Europeans exoticised what they found in the Americas, but the *auto-da-fé* occurring at precisely the same time that the Conquistadors were arriving . . . were much more similar than you might think. A comparable brutality, enacting a worldview through performance in blood . . . the irony it all is that what Cortes saw was not at all far from the world across the ocean, and continued in Europe for several more centuries Consider the extraordinary iconography and brutality of "breaking on the wheel", see Mitchell B. Merback. "The Thief, the Cross and the Wheel: Pain and the Spectacle of Punishment in Medieval and Renaissance Europe". University of Chicago Press, 1999. . . . and the Inquisition made its way to the New World, where similar brutalities were meted out Timmer, David E. "Providence and perdition: Fray Diego de Landa justifies his inquisition against the Yucatecan Maya." Church History 66.3 (1997): 477-488.
RESPONSE B: Do anthropologists consider Christian’s burning hundreds of thousands of people at the stake to appease their god as human sacrifice? Or christians and other middle eastern religions killing gay people to appease their gods? If not what is the difference? Just wonder why the Aztecs always come up but christians never do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: A friend found some artifacts that I believe could be import evidence for North American history I live in British Columbia. A while ago a friend of mine was kayaking in the Kootenay river in the fall when the water was quite low. He came to a and bar that's normally a few feet under water and there he found a handfull of arrow heads, two stone hammers and what he thought was an obsidian axe head. He took the ace head to a local rock shop where the owner was fairly confident that the ace head is made from jade. The only place jade naturally occurs (as far as I know) is the Yukan/British Columbia boarder. The peopling of North America has always been an interest of mine. We know people came by some form near the bering straight. We know one of the oldest settlements was found along the Columbia River, which the Kootenay river is a major tributary. There's also a carved stone in our local museum that's believed to be 9,000 years old and at one point was one of the oldest man made objects ever discovered in North America. Our local native band the Yaqan Nukiy people have a unique traditional way of building kayaks, interestingly the only other culture that makes kayaks in the same fashion is found in Siberia. I believe my friends discovery may be of historical significance but my friend is afraid to tell anyone because he wants to keep the items and doesn't want them taken away. Can anyone with knowledge on the subject way in? Can I get some advice on how to talk to him about it?
RESPONSE A: They're out of context finds, so pretty worthless on their own. Get a GPS location from your friend, tell him to log the finds and hand them over to whichever organisation handles archeology in that area and let them deal with it.
RESPONSE B: Artifacts "out of context" are still significant to Tribes. Perhaps contact one of the local tribes in the area. *Im an Archaeolgist for a Tribe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: tributary. There's also a carved stone in our local museum that's believed to be 9,000 years old and at one point was one of the oldest man made objects ever discovered in North America. Our local native band the Yaqan Nukiy people have a unique traditional way of building kayaks, interestingly the only other culture that makes kayaks in the same fashion is found in Siberia. I believe my friends discovery may be of historical significance but my friend is afraid to tell anyone because he wants to keep the items and doesn't want them taken away. Can anyone with knowledge on the subject way in? Can I get some advice on how to talk to him about it?
RESPONSE A: They're out of context finds, so pretty worthless on their own. Get a GPS location from your friend, tell him to log the finds and hand them over to whichever organisation handles archeology in that area and let them deal with it.
RESPONSE B: Ugh I wish people would stop taking objects out of context. A piece of cloth is worthless on its own. A piece of cloth with special dyes from a far-away place indicates trade, maybe a hierarchical society, what the cloth may have been used for, and why or when it was originally deposited. Another reason to report is that archaeologists will want to investigate the site as soon as possible, especially by a riverbed. If those objects were exposed, there may be a site further up the river. Morally and ethically, it's simply not his heritage to keep. The British Museum and hundreds here in America are full of objects people stole, took out of context, and hid away for years. "Finders keepers" is why many local tribes here in the Midwest and indigenous societies elsewhere are reluctant to work with us. Imagine if someone "found" one of his relative's important possessions and kept it on a shelf to collect dust, instead of returning it to the rightful heirs or giving it to a place that would preserve it for descendants. Now imagine people had been doing the same to his family for a few hundred years. Regardless, report the find. At the very least, some of the CRM professionals can do their thing and hopefully find something more at the site.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: may be of historical significance but my friend is afraid to tell anyone because he wants to keep the items and doesn't want them taken away. Can anyone with knowledge on the subject way in? Can I get some advice on how to talk to him about it?
RESPONSE A: I get that your friend wants to keep the artifacts. It’s wrong, but I get it. But wouldn’t this friend at least be willing to reveal the location so the site could be investigated by a professional?
RESPONSE B: I’m not familiar with BC archaeology or it’s laws regarding finding Native American items. However, I did a lot of surveys on privately owned land after cannabis cultivation went legal in California. Some people would happily show us to areas where they had found items, or grab a box of collected items out of their house for us to document. Others would refuse to disclose anything to us, and insist on keeping the items if we located any (it was found on land they owned, so legally they own everything on it even if it doesn’t technically “belong” to them). Everyone’s different, but most would come around to letting the tribe have it back once we explained to them how important these things were to them. Again, not familiar with tribes in your area and what they believe/practice, but just for an example; some tribes here believe that everything is alive. The stones, trees, grasses, dirt, they’re all living, breathing things. So having a box full of pestles and projectile points sitting in a box in their dark closet collecting dust isn’t where they’re meant to be. If they wanted to keep the items, we’d at least ask that they put them outside in a nice spot. The tribes don’t always want stuff back (they may not have the space or need for it). But if nothing has been found in that area before, your friend would be so helpful in letting them know what he found and where he found it. At the minimum this could just give some good info, providing more proof that X people did inhabit that area. At the maximum it could expand X’s tribal territory if they previously didn’t have physical proof of inhabiting that area. Hopefully this helps!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Archaeology and NAGPRA and native american policy and opinion. How should I go about being an archaeologist in the USA? I'm going into archaeology. Im in the USA and also a member of a tribe here. I have many native friends. My quandary is, how am I going to take part in excavations without disturbing and offending the native community? I'm wanting to get involved with research. If I remain in the US, im thinking research into Paleolithic migrations would be far enough removed from extant tribes that it would not be looked down upon by my native friends. Anybody here have experience with this topic? I am also very motivated to help tribes and promote their sovereignty and restoration of their material history and lands. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like I said, I think working on ice age archaeology might be the way to go. Otherwise im moving to Europe.
RESPONSE A: I’m afraid I can’t help at all, but it’s a great question and it’s a big thing to consider when coming into this field. I’ve even considered giving up archaeology because of it. It might be more helpful asking archaeologists who are native, if you can. I know that there are jobs in repatriation, maybe that’s something to consider. I’d suggest looking into working under tribal historic preservation offices, too.
RESPONSE B: I'm an archaeologist In England, so forgive me if I misunderstand some of the context for this. I would have thought you have a pretty brilliant opportunity to work with these communities. Scientists can often be pretty bad at communicating with those outside of their field, and people are often untrusting of those outside of their community. As a member of both groups, I would have thought your in a brilliant position to help bridge a bit of this gap. Someone that knows what both groups want, and that both groups will listen too as an insider. Some people might get pissed off, but surely you could do a lot of good?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Archaeology and NAGPRA and native american policy and opinion. How should I go about being an archaeologist in the USA? I'm going into archaeology. Im in the USA and also a member of a tribe here. I have many native friends. My quandary is, how am I going to take part in excavations without disturbing and offending the native community? I'm wanting to get involved with research. If I remain in the US, im thinking research into Paleolithic migrations would be far enough removed from extant tribes that it would not be looked down upon by my native friends. Anybody here have experience with this topic? I am also very motivated to help tribes and promote their sovereignty and restoration of their material history and lands. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like I said, I think working on ice age archaeology might be the way to go. Otherwise im moving to Europe.
RESPONSE A: Have you ever heard the Life In Ruins/Our Ruined Lives Podcast? One of the hosts is Indigenous and a few episodes talk about Indigenous Archaeology in the USA...also there is another one on the Archpod network, Heritage Voices (I think) that talk about what you are asking, maybe try reaching out to them as well
RESPONSE B: 1. You'll never make everyone happy no matter what you do. 2. People avoid tribal politics by not working for their own nation, generally. 3. Ice age archaeology in North America still has ties to living people. 4. Maybe look up indigenous archeology? It's a sub-discipline focused on doing research by, for, and with the nations impacted. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde's Tribal Historic Preservation Office runs a field school with the University of Washington. There might be other similar field schools but that's the one I'm familiar with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Archaeology and NAGPRA and native american policy and opinion. How should I go about being an archaeologist in the USA? I'm going into archaeology. Im in the USA and also a member of a tribe here. I have many native friends. My quandary is, how am I going to take part in excavations without disturbing and offending the native community? I'm wanting to get involved with research. If I remain in the US, im thinking research into Paleolithic migrations would be far enough removed from extant tribes that it would not be looked down upon by my native friends. Anybody here have experience with this topic? I am also very motivated to help tribes and promote their sovereignty and restoration of their material history and lands. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like I said, I think working on ice age archaeology might be the way to go. Otherwise im moving to Europe.
RESPONSE A: 1. You'll never make everyone happy no matter what you do. 2. People avoid tribal politics by not working for their own nation, generally. 3. Ice age archaeology in North America still has ties to living people. 4. Maybe look up indigenous archeology? It's a sub-discipline focused on doing research by, for, and with the nations impacted. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde's Tribal Historic Preservation Office runs a field school with the University of Washington. There might be other similar field schools but that's the one I'm familiar with.
RESPONSE B: A very good and important question. You might ask around about schools that specifically have reputations for doing work that is actively engaged with local tribal communities. You may also see if your tribe has tribal archaeologist/historical preservation positions, which would allow you to work with your own tribe’s artifacts/historical records and would be a great way to promote historical preservation. As you said, another good option would be to place your focus earlier, although there are still potentially some similar ethical quandaries there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Archaeology and NAGPRA and native american policy and opinion. How should I go about being an archaeologist in the USA? I'm going into archaeology. Im in the USA and also a member of a tribe here. I have many native friends. My quandary is, how am I going to take part in excavations without disturbing and offending the native community? I'm wanting to get involved with research. If I remain in the US, im thinking research into Paleolithic migrations would be far enough removed from extant tribes that it would not be looked down upon by my native friends. Anybody here have experience with this topic? I am also very motivated to help tribes and promote their sovereignty and restoration of their material history and lands. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like I said, I think working on ice age archaeology might be the way to go. Otherwise im moving to Europe.
RESPONSE A: I’m afraid I can’t help at all, but it’s a great question and it’s a big thing to consider when coming into this field. I’ve even considered giving up archaeology because of it. It might be more helpful asking archaeologists who are native, if you can. I know that there are jobs in repatriation, maybe that’s something to consider. I’d suggest looking into working under tribal historic preservation offices, too.
RESPONSE B: 1. You'll never make everyone happy no matter what you do. 2. People avoid tribal politics by not working for their own nation, generally. 3. Ice age archaeology in North America still has ties to living people. 4. Maybe look up indigenous archeology? It's a sub-discipline focused on doing research by, for, and with the nations impacted. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde's Tribal Historic Preservation Office runs a field school with the University of Washington. There might be other similar field schools but that's the one I'm familiar with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Archaeology and NAGPRA and native american policy and opinion. How should I go about being an archaeologist in the USA? I'm going into archaeology. Im in the USA and also a member of a tribe here. I have many native friends. My quandary is, how am I going to take part in excavations without disturbing and offending the native community? I'm wanting to get involved with research. If I remain in the US, im thinking research into Paleolithic migrations would be far enough removed from extant tribes that it would not be looked down upon by my native friends. Anybody here have experience with this topic? I am also very motivated to help tribes and promote their sovereignty and restoration of their material history and lands. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. Like I said, I think working on ice age archaeology might be the way to go. Otherwise im moving to Europe.
RESPONSE A: 1. You'll never make everyone happy no matter what you do. 2. People avoid tribal politics by not working for their own nation, generally. 3. Ice age archaeology in North America still has ties to living people. 4. Maybe look up indigenous archeology? It's a sub-discipline focused on doing research by, for, and with the nations impacted. The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde's Tribal Historic Preservation Office runs a field school with the University of Washington. There might be other similar field schools but that's the one I'm familiar with.
RESPONSE B: You might want to look into what people have written about museum ethics in regards to sacred objects and human remains. I know there have been journal articles on this subject in the US. As well, New Zealand’s national museum has really handled this topic well, and are a leader in international museum ethics. (I’m a museum person so I tend to see things from that POV but there’s a lot of overlap with anthropology/archaeology, etc)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Funniest response you’ve ever gotten when telling someone you’re an anthropologist? This is a question for any professional anthropologists or students of anthropology. When you tell people what you do or what you study and people don’t know what it is, what’s the funniest thing they’ve assumed that it is? Example: most people think I studied ants.
RESPONSE A: "You study stars, right?" Also, my bachelor title is S.Ant, S is for Sarjana (undergraduate degree) and Ant if for antropologi (anthropology) so yeah, probably I should study ants
RESPONSE B: Related story: When I was in college my major was Anthropology while one of my best friends was studying Biology. One semester, he took an introductory Paleontology course. One project involved collecting small marine fossils from the coastal formations. Because the site was close to where I lived, he asked me to accompany him while he did his thing. I became interested and he taught some simple techniques to help him with the task. At some point a woman approached us, observing while we used the picks and brushes to carefully unearth ancient worms and clams from the rock. After some 20 minutes she inquired about what we were looking for and to my friend's explanation she promptly exclaimed, 'oh, so you're anthropologists!'. She was 50% right, but I didn't say anything. I still chuckle about that
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Funniest response you’ve ever gotten when telling someone you’re an anthropologist? This is a question for any professional anthropologists or students of anthropology. When you tell people what you do or what you study and people don’t know what it is, what’s the funniest thing they’ve assumed that it is? Example: most people think I studied ants.
RESPONSE A: When I told my very Christian grandfather that I was going to study Anthropology he said, "heh! Say hello to Charles Darwin for me. It's probably nice and warm where he's at." I just laughed. Good ol' Gramps.
RESPONSE B: I’m still in undergrad but one of my coworkers asked me what i was studying so i said anthropology with a minor in bio and he said “i didn’t know bones (the tv show) was real! i thought all that stuff was fake!”. i had to explain to him that forensic anthropology is indeed real, just not the same as what they show on tv 😭
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are there any free encyclopedia for non-Westerners to better understand Westerners and Western culture? Bangladeshi here. I am looking for a free encyclopedia of contemporary Western culture, to better understand Westerners and Western culture. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I mean, probably media is the best encyclopedia to understand what Westerners observe in terms of mainstream ideals, morality, narrative tropes, day to day life and role models. I'd watch mainly teen TV, stuff like 13 Reasons Why or Riverdale or the Avengers movies. So that my comment isn't taken entirely as trash, I suggest you also read the satirical anthropological article "Body Ritual between the Nacirema" by Mitchell Miner.
RESPONSE B: As a Bangladeshi-American, and to gently disagree with many of the comments here, I think your question is too broad. I lived in Japan, Bangladesh, and was born and raised in the U.S. This is like me asking "how do I understand Asia?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are there any free encyclopedia for non-Westerners to better understand Westerners and Western culture? Bangladeshi here. I am looking for a free encyclopedia of contemporary Western culture, to better understand Westerners and Western culture. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: As a Bangladeshi-American, and to gently disagree with many of the comments here, I think your question is too broad. I lived in Japan, Bangladesh, and was born and raised in the U.S. This is like me asking "how do I understand Asia?"
RESPONSE B: a bit off topic, but is western culture regarded by anthropologists as the area of influence of european cultures, or rather as that side of the earth that starts –or ends– somewhere around 30th meridian east?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is Homo Neanderthalensis considered a different species than Homo Sapiens while they could interbreed and produced fertile descendents?
RESPONSE A: The Homo Sapiens you're thinking of are actually designated Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Neanderthals are formally known as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Source: college anthropology, 20+ years ago.
RESPONSE B: The problem is that species is a difficult concept to define. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, but this does not account for cases like a species complex, a group of closely related species that are very similar in appearance to the point that the boundaries between them are often unclear, and members may often hybridize with one another. Scientists still dispute whether Neanderthals should be classified as a distinct species—Homo neanderthalensis—or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33580/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why is Homo Neanderthalensis considered a different species than Homo Sapiens while they could interbreed and produced fertile descendents?
RESPONSE A: The problem is that species is a difficult concept to define. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, but this does not account for cases like a species complex, a group of closely related species that are very similar in appearance to the point that the boundaries between them are often unclear, and members may often hybridize with one another. Scientists still dispute whether Neanderthals should be classified as a distinct species—Homo neanderthalensis—or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33580/
RESPONSE B: I don't know how recent a source you're basing your knowledge off of, given there's a lot of current dialogue about renaming them *Homo sapiens neanderthalensis*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why is Homo Neanderthalensis considered a different species than Homo Sapiens while they could interbreed and produced fertile descendents?
RESPONSE A: Anthropologists here! Not everyone thinks of them as a separate species. A Google Scholar search of “*Homo sapiens neanderthalensis*” will yield a lot of results. While categorizing Neanderthals, or any extinct taxa, has heuristic value, it also has other consequences. For one, it conveys a finality to the classification and that the species are separate. While there is discontinuity between *H. s. sapiens* and *H. s. neanderthalensis* interbreeding makes them bring different species precarious. Is heidelbergensis a different species that sapiens or merely archaic. It’s likely continuous with both neanderthalensis and humans and those subsequent groups interbred so is it really a separate group? We don’t know but you have to commit to something so we can talk about it. On a side note, the species concept itself is pretty precarious as we designate things as separate species or subspecies for various reasons including: ability to produce viable offspring, conservation, morphological difference, relationship to humans (see dogs), mate-recognition, ecological niche, etc. This gets even worse when talking about extinct taxa because usually all we have is morphology. We have more in neanderthalensis’ case and so the literature reflects that.
RESPONSE B: I don't know how recent a source you're basing your knowledge off of, given there's a lot of current dialogue about renaming them *Homo sapiens neanderthalensis*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is Homo Neanderthalensis considered a different species than Homo Sapiens while they could interbreed and produced fertile descendents?
RESPONSE A: I don't know how recent a source you're basing your knowledge off of, given there's a lot of current dialogue about renaming them *Homo sapiens neanderthalensis*
RESPONSE B: The Homo Sapiens you're thinking of are actually designated Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Neanderthals are formally known as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Source: college anthropology, 20+ years ago.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: where do I start if I wanna read books? I'd like to get my feet wet in anthropology and since I can't afford to go to college to study it, could I get some book recommendations?
RESPONSE A: I'm just a dumbo art school drop out but "the dawn of everything" was a great read that covers a lot of ground. I think its pretty controversial too, which is fun.
RESPONSE B: I use this open access textbook from the American Anthropological Association when I teach introductory-level cultural anthropology: https://perspectives.americananthro.org/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: where do I start if I wanna read books? I'd like to get my feet wet in anthropology and since I can't afford to go to college to study it, could I get some book recommendations?
RESPONSE A: Some unis display subject syllabus at their programs website, which is great because it follows an order. You can google the books and articles online. I find it much easier than trying to start from a random book. My advice is to look for history of anthropology and dive in the niches historically first to understand the conversations going.
RESPONSE B: I use this open access textbook from the American Anthropological Association when I teach introductory-level cultural anthropology: https://perspectives.americananthro.org/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: where do I start if I wanna read books? I'd like to get my feet wet in anthropology and since I can't afford to go to college to study it, could I get some book recommendations?
RESPONSE A: I would suggest looking at Franz Boas' study of Baffin Island if you want to get a perspective on the origins of the field. I read some of his original diaries but you could probably also find a more modern book like maybe this one that would be a bit more readable.
RESPONSE B: I use this open access textbook from the American Anthropological Association when I teach introductory-level cultural anthropology: https://perspectives.americananthro.org/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: where do I start if I wanna read books? I'd like to get my feet wet in anthropology and since I can't afford to go to college to study it, could I get some book recommendations?
RESPONSE A: I’d also add, be critical of the field and know it’s history, here is an interesting read The Racist Anti-Racism of American Anthropology, (Baker 2021.)
RESPONSE B: I would suggest looking at Franz Boas' study of Baffin Island if you want to get a perspective on the origins of the field. I read some of his original diaries but you could probably also find a more modern book like maybe this one that would be a bit more readable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: s? Or was this only of interest to primatologists/biologists?
RESPONSE A: Hello!! I don’t have time to type up a long response here as I’m running late for something but I HIGHLY recommend you read In the Shadow of Man by Jane Goodall. It will answer all your questions. It isn’t specifically about the Chimpanzee War but it is about her research. She was sent to Africa by Louis Leakey (a very well known anthropologists if you aren’t familiar) specifically to learn about potential relationships between modern chimpanzee behaviors and ancient hominids. So, in short, yes, anthropologists have always been interested in her work and it’s implications for ancient humans.
RESPONSE B: A quick search would show you that lot of anthropology research papers have been published on the Gombe Chimpanzee War. Primatology is a mix of biology and anthropology, but it’s most often classified as a sub-branch of anthropology, especially studies involving the great areas. Many of the studies of this particular incident involve the implications for long term pre-planning, calculated and intentional violence, and potential causes of the incident. Something that’s important to recognize, chimpanzees are not necessarily great models for our ancestors. In the public they are commonly thought to be more-or-less the same as our ancestors, but they’ve been evolving along their own particular track, just as we have, ever since the divergence from our common ancestor. Behaviors we see in them that we also see in humans are *likely* indications of archaic behaviors that our mutual ancestors also had, but some may als be a result of convergent evolution. Chimpanzees (including Bonobos) are the best analogy we have to our common ancestor, but it’s not a perfect match and we have to be wary of making too many assumptions based on chimpanzee behavior and lifestyles. This is something that comes up periodically at the IPS conferences I attend, where even among professional primatologists it’s felt by some researchers that they need to remind other researchers of this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What social conditions lead to 'honor killings' in cultures? Why do they even occur in the first place? It seems they only occur amongst nations/cultures with a strong tribal background and absence of rule of law, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, India etc. Prior to the 1900's, were 'honor killings' present in Europe, the Americas and China?
RESPONSE A: Interesting question, though I feel there may be better indicators than "strong tribal background" or "absence of rule of law." These are ill-defined quantities and represent colonial arguments taken apart pretty well by Guyatri Spivak in Can the Subaltern Speak and other scholars elsewhere. I suspect hierarchical / patriarchal social organization that sees some groups (generally women and folks who don't use sunscreen heavily) as having value primarily in service (physical labor or something less material like preserving honor) might be better indicators.
RESPONSE B: Yes, they were, socialist - starting with the 1860ies Austria, and, subsequently, communist, parties did a lot to eradicate this issue. Honor killings are mentioned in the criminal justice system of Imperial Russia - among Russians, White Russians and Malorossians (Ukrainians), and are analysed in a cursory retrospective look in the "Socialism doesn't create crime: serial murder and sexual crime in the USSR" and "Criminal history of the Russian Empire" by A. Rakitin. I have requested my wife to send some references to similar works regarding China, but she's busy, currently. Regarding other countries and anecdotally, you can read about this in the French classical literature, and you can find the cases of honor killing, round about 16th and 17th century (meaning - *those are the ones that I have read about*, it doesn't mean honor killings disappeared in France after that), in the French national archives online (Gallica/BNF).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , but the authors don't really address the implications at all, they just move on. I understand that indigenous oral storytelling can be incredibly accurate, even over thousands of years. So, I'm guessing it is likely that if some group of light-skinned people randomly showed up on the west coast hundreds of years (or longer?) before European colonizers, the Chetco people would be able to accurately remember it. It seems like there is an incredible event here, buried and nearly forgotten. I guess my question is, what do you think of the possibility that light-skinned Asian seafarers shipwrecked on the west coast, or are there any other stories or evidence that might corroborate this theory? Did some other group of white people accidentally land on the west coast somehow, way before European settlers made it there overland? Aside from the Vikings, who else may have "discovered" the Americas before Columbus? Sorry if this is overly broad or hypothetical, I've just been dying to talk to someone about this! Thank you!
RESPONSE A: I suggest you also ask in r/AskHistorians
RESPONSE B: I’m familiar with a number of stories a bit further up the coast. There are many stories about strange people, some described as white, or harry, or even red heads. Stories often follow a similar structure. Locals find a big wreck out on the coast. Strange people come out of it. The strange people stay around for a while, but are either killed off for causing problems, or eventually sail away back where they came from. Problem you quickly run into is, there’s very little info ever given on the timing of the stories. Could these be East Asians or Polynesians from hundreds of years ago? Or could they be Spanish on the Manilla Galleons, from a couple hundred years ago? Or could they be more recent fur traders wrecked coming down from Alaska? There’s very little to go off of. Just for fun, I tracked down the story from the notes Here's a link Again, very little to go off of as far as details in the story. The author even mentions the possibility of Japanese Junks, or Spanish ships.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did prehistoric humans treat people born with disability such as blindness?
RESPONSE A: I like when Margaret Mead says that the first sign of civilization was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed because that was evidence of someone taking care of another person instead of abandoning them to death. "Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, you cannot drink or hunt for food. Wounded in this way, you are meat for your predators. No creature survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. You are eaten first. A broken femur that has healed is evidence that another person has taken time to stay with the fallen, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended them through recovery." I think that this makes a lot more sense than thinking about civilization as we building up houses around rivers.
RESPONSE B: This video talks about archaeological findings that have shown that (some) pre-history humans were very kind to their mates with disabilities.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did prehistoric humans treat people born with disability such as blindness?
RESPONSE A: If I recall correctly, Graeber and Sahlin's recent book "On Kings" discusses this heavily and suggests the earliest examples of Kings were frequently deformed, sometimes disabled.
RESPONSE B: I like when Margaret Mead says that the first sign of civilization was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed because that was evidence of someone taking care of another person instead of abandoning them to death. "Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, you cannot drink or hunt for food. Wounded in this way, you are meat for your predators. No creature survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. You are eaten first. A broken femur that has healed is evidence that another person has taken time to stay with the fallen, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended them through recovery." I think that this makes a lot more sense than thinking about civilization as we building up houses around rivers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did humans evolve to appreciate the beauty of nature, natural earth forms seem to be the default standard for beauty. What drives our species profound appreciation for natural beauty?
RESPONSE A: I don't think it's evolution so much as it is social constructs. This is coming from an anthro class on the social and political aspects of the environment, but my understanding is that profound appreciation for nature only became a thing as we know it in the 1700-1800s, with the rise of industrialization. A sort of nostalgic appreciation for what used to be which has carried on. I'm not saying people didn't use to appreciate nature, but our relationship to it has fundamentally changed. Since we don't live near it, it seems more "otherly" and beautiful. To the question "what drives our species profound appreciation for natural beauty," it's important to remember that "our species" is incredibly socially and culturally determined, and appreciations/standards vary from culture to culture.
RESPONSE B: What unnatural forms are natural forms competing with here?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why did people live in the desert in pre-modern times? Why didn't they just migrate to lusher lands? It's obvious that most people wouldn't migrate into the desert if they had the freedom not to. It's also obvious that if a land that was previously lush became a desert, most people would leave. What I'm curious about is why *anyone* would choose to live in a desert in a pre-modern times without electricity, air conditioner or refrigeration, where dehydration and other hazards loom. Given the choice, I don't think most people would want to be be a nomad or a hunter-gatherer in a land with few natural resources and little water. So what explains the various hunter-gatherer bands, nomad tribes and other groups of people who ended up calling deserts their permanent home? Are we really talking about the select few populations who were so deep into the newly desertified land, they had no notion of escaping to greener pastures when the climate changed, then their children gradually got used to it? Or are we talking about people who were effectively exiles from the societies who controlled the greener lands all around the desert, who preferred desert life to conflict with other people? What do anthropologists think explains the tendency of some humans to live in these difficult environments?
RESPONSE A: You overestimate the hazards of an arid climate. Properly irrigated, desert soil is *excellent* for farming. The oldest continuously inhabited area in the US is Tucson, Arizona. Egypt. Iraq. Desert areas also tend to be geologically stable, and have predictable weather patterns. Flood season is X. Dry season is Y. Heat is generally less deadly than extreme cold. There are few large predators. As long as you have a predictable water source, human habitation in the desert is actually easier in many respects than elsewhere.
RESPONSE B: All I have to say is that you should read Papago Woman, by Ruth Underhill. I think that will help you truly understand.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why did people live in the desert in pre-modern times? Why didn't they just migrate to lusher lands? It's obvious that most people wouldn't migrate into the desert if they had the freedom not to. It's also obvious that if a land that was previously lush became a desert, most people would leave. What I'm curious about is why *anyone* would choose to live in a desert in a pre-modern times without electricity, air conditioner or refrigeration, where dehydration and other hazards loom. Given the choice, I don't think most people would want to be be a nomad or a hunter-gatherer in a land with few natural resources and little water. So what explains the various hunter-gatherer bands, nomad tribes and other groups of people who ended up calling deserts their permanent home? Are we really talking about the select few populations who were so deep into the newly desertified land, they had no notion of escaping to greener pastures when the climate changed, then their children gradually got used to it? Or are we talking about people who were effectively exiles from the societies who controlled the greener lands all around the desert, who preferred desert life to conflict with other people? What do anthropologists think explains the tendency of some humans to live in these difficult environments?
RESPONSE A: Many desert environments are also relatively stable for settlement with minimal flooding, insect (disease vectors) and challenging weather. With a low population density, deserts are often very accommodating for human habitation...
RESPONSE B: All I have to say is that you should read Papago Woman, by Ruth Underhill. I think that will help you truly understand.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: the desert in pre-modern times? Why didn't they just migrate to lusher lands? It's obvious that most people wouldn't migrate into the desert if they had the freedom not to. It's also obvious that if a land that was previously lush became a desert, most people would leave. What I'm curious about is why *anyone* would choose to live in a desert in a pre-modern times without electricity, air conditioner or refrigeration, where dehydration and other hazards loom. Given the choice, I don't think most people would want to be be a nomad or a hunter-gatherer in a land with few natural resources and little water. So what explains the various hunter-gatherer bands, nomad tribes and other groups of people who ended up calling deserts their permanent home? Are we really talking about the select few populations who were so deep into the newly desertified land, they had no notion of escaping to greener pastures when the climate changed, then their children gradually got used to it? Or are we talking about people who were effectively exiles from the societies who controlled the greener lands all around the desert, who preferred desert life to conflict with other people? What do anthropologists think explains the tendency of some humans to live in these difficult environments?
RESPONSE A: All I have to say is that you should read Papago Woman, by Ruth Underhill. I think that will help you truly understand.
RESPONSE B: Inertia is the first obstacle. Migration away from the type environment of your birth to a radically different environment is as radical an action as there is, even for Nomads. Not being welcome is the second obstacle, people having pointy sticks and all. It's a balance of Needs and Prospects. If needs are met, then why risk pointy sticks? And everyone who lives outside of Society develops immense pride in being separate from the rest, so the impetus is often directly against "going to Babylon", across cultures. So, the third reason is Lack of Desire to migrate away. Perhaps a fourth would be, for many, no knowledge of a better place. No Google Nav on their phones or adverts saying how great it is there. LOL
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why did people live in the desert in pre-modern times? Why didn't they just migrate to lusher lands? It's obvious that most people wouldn't migrate into the desert if they had the freedom not to. It's also obvious that if a land that was previously lush became a desert, most people would leave. What I'm curious about is why *anyone* would choose to live in a desert in a pre-modern times without electricity, air conditioner or refrigeration, where dehydration and other hazards loom. Given the choice, I don't think most people would want to be be a nomad or a hunter-gatherer in a land with few natural resources and little water. So what explains the various hunter-gatherer bands, nomad tribes and other groups of people who ended up calling deserts their permanent home? Are we really talking about the select few populations who were so deep into the newly desertified land, they had no notion of escaping to greener pastures when the climate changed, then their children gradually got used to it? Or are we talking about people who were effectively exiles from the societies who controlled the greener lands all around the desert, who preferred desert life to conflict with other people? What do anthropologists think explains the tendency of some humans to live in these difficult environments?
RESPONSE A: All I have to say is that you should read Papago Woman, by Ruth Underhill. I think that will help you truly understand.
RESPONSE B: The lusher lands already had people living there. Probably enough people that there was no spare carrying capacity for immigrants. The modern industrial world, with more food than people, is very unusual.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: come Southern sound and Southern pronunciation became so dominant in popular country music? Did the politically right Northerners willingly accept Southern aesthetics as more authentic, or was there (is there) any reflection on the apparent historical incongruity of this self-identification? (Like Yankees in NY flying Confederate flags on pickup trucks) Do you think Country music might have contributed to this cultural shift, or is it just a side-effect?
RESPONSE A: I believe you're question is unanswerable because it's a loaded question. In asking it, you have to assume that yes, antebellum south values are the aspect of prime America. But... it's not. By no stretch of the imagination is it as such. Arguably, there are eleven distinct forms of culture and values in America, the south is only one of these, with the even further south being another, and left south yet another.
RESPONSE B: It's not seen as more authentically in American if you live in New Hampshire. Definitely not. You're referring to a culture of personality thing thanks to Hollywood: John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, etc. It's a sensitivity training thing. Go ahead and imagine Danny DeVito singing "Achy Breaky Heart". Like all fads we get trained to accept things as they continue to be presented. Also, there seems to be a fair amount of "south will rise again" people and people who blame "the northeastern liberals" for many of their personal issues. SO of course they are the best Americans! They will say so. I really feel this is leftover backlash from that Civil War, the one where The North was wrong and if only the Southern Values (tm) had won we'd be in a much better position today. How you can be in a better position than "most powerful country in the world" I don't know but hey, what do I know, I'm just an Eagle Scout from New York. ALSO, Northeastern/Coastal "culture" IS still a growing pile of multiple world peoples/religions/cultures whereas "The South" and middle were distinctly homogenous (generally) for a much longer time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: within the 20 years rule in that sub, while the question is very interesting. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tsanz/why_are_the_former_states_of_the_confederacy_now/ Here's what the OP asked: > Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the "Confederate flag" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse "Lost Cause" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds? And if I could ask a follow-up question from myself, how come Southern sound and Southern pronunciation became so dominant in popular country music? Did the politically right Northerners willingly accept Southern aesthetics as more authentic, or was there (is there) any reflection on the apparent historical incongruity of this self-identification? (Like Yankees in NY flying Confederate flags on pickup trucks) Do you think Country music might have contributed to this cultural shift, or is it just a side-effect?
RESPONSE A: Maybe immigration patterns had to do with it as well? The (then) largely rural/undeveloped South didn't see major immigration as did the north and west (stereotypically, anyhow). When you see fictionalized accounts of immigrants, more often than not they're headed for the East or West coasts, not the South. Meanwhile, the South could continue to thrive on a rural, former slave-owning, population largely descendant from English and Scotch-Irish colonists.
RESPONSE B: Seems like the ~south/middle america/conservatives love to wrap themselves in the American flag to help forward their issues. I think it's pretty effective because no one wants to seem unpatriotic. I think moderates and lefties should do the same. Instead of pink cat ears people should wave and wear the American flag. The issues of the moderates and left are no less patriotic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: In the US, why and how Southern culture came to be seen as more authentically American, even though the South lost to the North in the Civil War? I am trying to port this question from /r/AskHistorians, as it falls within the 20 years rule in that sub, while the question is very interesting. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tsanz/why_are_the_former_states_of_the_confederacy_now/ Here's what the OP asked: > Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the "Confederate flag" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse "Lost Cause" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds? And if I could ask a follow-up question from myself, how come Southern sound and Southern pronunciation became so dominant in popular country music? Did the politically right Northerners willingly accept Southern aesthetics as more authentic, or was there (is there) any reflection on the apparent historical incongruity of this self-identification? (Like Yankees in NY flying Confederate flags on pickup trucks) Do you think Country music might have contributed to this cultural shift, or is it just a side-effect?
RESPONSE A: Maybe immigration patterns had to do with it as well? The (then) largely rural/undeveloped South didn't see major immigration as did the north and west (stereotypically, anyhow). When you see fictionalized accounts of immigrants, more often than not they're headed for the East or West coasts, not the South. Meanwhile, the South could continue to thrive on a rural, former slave-owning, population largely descendant from English and Scotch-Irish colonists.
RESPONSE B: I don't think it has.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: _now/ Here's what the OP asked: > Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the "Confederate flag" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse "Lost Cause" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds? And if I could ask a follow-up question from myself, how come Southern sound and Southern pronunciation became so dominant in popular country music? Did the politically right Northerners willingly accept Southern aesthetics as more authentic, or was there (is there) any reflection on the apparent historical incongruity of this self-identification? (Like Yankees in NY flying Confederate flags on pickup trucks) Do you think Country music might have contributed to this cultural shift, or is it just a side-effect?
RESPONSE A: I think you are begging the question in the traditional sense of the term. First you need to establish that the premise of your question is correct, then you can ask about it. I would respectfully submit to you that your premise is off, or if anything, maybe a reflection of where you grew up and/or currently live. As for your idea about the South and country and western music, I would submit to you that you are again mistaken and that far from being specifically southern, country and western music is specifically Appalachian in origin and that this, rather than the south, is what accounts for the "pronunciation" you've rightly identified. That said, this is a complicated subject and there is a great deal more to be said about it, but I must off to bed.
RESPONSE B: Seems like the ~south/middle america/conservatives love to wrap themselves in the American flag to help forward their issues. I think it's pretty effective because no one wants to seem unpatriotic. I think moderates and lefties should do the same. Instead of pink cat ears people should wave and wear the American flag. The issues of the moderates and left are no less patriotic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I am trying to port this question from /r/AskHistorians, as it falls within the 20 years rule in that sub, while the question is very interesting. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tsanz/why_are_the_former_states_of_the_confederacy_now/ Here's what the OP asked: > Anyone who's driven around the American South has seen the "Confederate flag" somewhere, often hanging or flying near an American flag. Much of Southern culture and identity seems to be focused around patriotism, even while people espouse "Lost Cause" ideology. How did this region go from insurrection to fervent patriotism, and how have those two ideas been reconciled so completely in many peoples' minds? And if I could ask a follow-up question from myself, how come Southern sound and Southern pronunciation became so dominant in popular country music? Did the politically right Northerners willingly accept Southern aesthetics as more authentic, or was there (is there) any reflection on the apparent historical incongruity of this self-identification? (Like Yankees in NY flying Confederate flags on pickup trucks) Do you think Country music might have contributed to this cultural shift, or is it just a side-effect?
RESPONSE A: I think you are begging the question in the traditional sense of the term. First you need to establish that the premise of your question is correct, then you can ask about it. I would respectfully submit to you that your premise is off, or if anything, maybe a reflection of where you grew up and/or currently live. As for your idea about the South and country and western music, I would submit to you that you are again mistaken and that far from being specifically southern, country and western music is specifically Appalachian in origin and that this, rather than the south, is what accounts for the "pronunciation" you've rightly identified. That said, this is a complicated subject and there is a great deal more to be said about it, but I must off to bed.
RESPONSE B: I don't think it has.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Karen Ho did an ethnography of Wall Street. Is there more of ethnography of economists and ethnography of advertising agency? The two are separate questions but I just lump it in one thread as both interest me. If anyone hasn't read it, Karen Ho's work is called "Liquidated".
RESPONSE A: It isn't focused in the US like Liquidated, but William Mazzarella wrote Shoveling Smoke, it's an ethnography of advertising agencies in India. Very interesting book that looks at two agencies in Bombay as one markets the condom brand KamaSutra, saying the erotic images they produce are traditionally Indian ideas, the second case markets a local Indian aesthetic for a cell-phone company in an increasingly globalized world. I love this book, it gives an insight into the process of advertising and marketing.
RESPONSE B: One of my professors did his PhD ethnographic research on Chilean economic think tanks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Karen Ho did an ethnography of Wall Street. Is there more of ethnography of economists and ethnography of advertising agency? The two are separate questions but I just lump it in one thread as both interest me. If anyone hasn't read it, Karen Ho's work is called "Liquidated".
RESPONSE A: One of my professors did his PhD ethnographic research on Chilean economic think tanks.
RESPONSE B: I don't know about ethnographies of advertising agencies, but here are some sources on social studies of economy and finance: Caitlin Zaloom has an ethnography of financial traders and Karen Knorr-Cetina is a sociologist also working on financial markets. Donald Mackenzie's book "Do Economists Make Markets?" seems like what you're looking for, but he's a sociologist as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Karen Ho did an ethnography of Wall Street. Is there more of ethnography of economists and ethnography of advertising agency? The two are separate questions but I just lump it in one thread as both interest me. If anyone hasn't read it, Karen Ho's work is called "Liquidated".
RESPONSE A: I don't know about ethnographies of advertising agencies, but here are some sources on social studies of economy and finance: Caitlin Zaloom has an ethnography of financial traders and Karen Knorr-Cetina is a sociologist also working on financial markets. Donald Mackenzie's book "Do Economists Make Markets?" seems like what you're looking for, but he's a sociologist as well.
RESPONSE B: Swimming with sharks is a book by an anthrpologist about the people who work in the City of London
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Karen Ho did an ethnography of Wall Street. Is there more of ethnography of economists and ethnography of advertising agency? The two are separate questions but I just lump it in one thread as both interest me. If anyone hasn't read it, Karen Ho's work is called "Liquidated".
RESPONSE A: I haven't read it but there's a new book out called Songs of Profit, Songs of Loss by Daniel Souleles which is an ethnography of people working in private equity finance. Not economists or advertising agencies per se, but close.
RESPONSE B: Swimming with sharks is a book by an anthrpologist about the people who work in the City of London
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: that analyzes or makes me think about American culture from an outside perspective.
RESPONSE A: I know that essay was part of a larger book on American Culture. Not sure how current you are looking for in terms of the writings, the copyright is from 75. I’m not sure how outside of a perspective the rest of the essays are The Nacerima: Readings on American Culture, by James P Spradley and Michael A Rynkiewich
RESPONSE B: Body Ritual Among the Nacirema is wonderful and necessary, but the kind of outsider perspective you get here is because it is a satire on ethnographic writing. That's what makes it brilliant, but you're unlikely to find that level of "outsider" alien treatment of one's own cultural practices too frequently outside of Nathan W. Pyle's comics. However, there are a *lot* of works that analyze elements of American culture. What's great about this is that you can choose an element that interests you and dig deep. A few that interest me personally are: Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community by Faye Ginsburg - discusses the history and politicization of reproductive rights in the US, using the debate and activism over a clinic in Fargo, ND as a case study. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics by Susan Friend Harding - looks at evangelical/fundamentalist Christian culture in the US, especially as the community began to dominate in political arenas in the 1980's. Fat: The Anthropology of an Obsession - A collection of essays about cross-national and cross-cultural conceptualizations of "fat." Includes essays on how it's treated in parts of the US, but all of the examples give an amazing context and perspective to how we understand "fat" as Americans. It almost has a similar effect to Nacirema, where you really see how culture is bound up with behavior and thought. I often recommend these books, as I really like looking at American cultural views and practices through an anthropological lens too. If you have any other specific elements of American culture that captivate you, I might be able to recommend some that more specifically strike your interests.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Am I hanging a Balinese demon mask on my wall? I bought this mask a year ago while traveling in Bali without putting much thought into it beyond aesthetics. After suggesting to hang it on the wall, my girlfriend said it looked scary. To ease her concerns, I looked into the meaning behind the mask and found that the masks typically are either depictions of Barong, a positive spirit, or Rangda, a demon queen. Looking at images online, I have a hard time identifying which of those masks I now own. Neither my girlfriend or I are particularly spiritual, but at the same time if I'm going to display imagery in our home I'd prefer for it have a positive context rather than accidentally endorsing a demon queen. Are there any Balinese Redditors or religious anthropologists that can comment? All help is greatly appreciated! Balinese Mask
RESPONSE A: I collect Balinese wood carvings. I have three barong masks, a large bat and a bipedal frog dressed in red with a spear. So cool to come across a thread about them. Thanks.
RESPONSE B: I grew up with a Rangda mask (and a barong) in my childhood home. I don’t think this is a rangda based on serval things the main being that many Rangda masks have several feet of hair with a red mirrored strip of fabric down the middle of that. However even if it is a Rangda mask seeing her as evil is an overly simplistic understanding. Rangda is chaos and destruction. The negative in the world but those are understood as needed things and her battle with Barong is never to be won simply balanced. Hindu gods are rarely all good or bad and Rangda is no exception.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What were the standards for female hygiene like in the ancient world?
RESPONSE A: Side question...Can anyone direct me to information on grooming habits throughout history. Like why did men start cutting their hair while women didn't? Why is it socially acceptable for men to not shave while women are pressured to? You know anything along those lines.
RESPONSE B: In addition to any good answers you may get here, this question is frequently discussed in /r/askhistorians; it's in their FAQ. Here's the subsection: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/health
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What did ancient people think about farting? We now understand that the breakdown of food inside the stomache releases gases which have to be expelled, hence the invisible "wind" which pops or erupts from inside us. But what were early humans' explanations for why an input of solids should lead to an output of solids AND gas?
RESPONSE A: The Romans certainly had opinions. The emperor Claudius issued an edict for farting at dinner banquets. There's also fart jokes that date to the Sumerians
RESPONSE B: It is only in the past century that people understood how methane was generated in the intestine. So you don't have to go very far back before this question was unsolved.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What did ancient people think about farting? We now understand that the breakdown of food inside the stomache releases gases which have to be expelled, hence the invisible "wind" which pops or erupts from inside us. But what were early humans' explanations for why an input of solids should lead to an output of solids AND gas?
RESPONSE A: Last I checked, the oldest known joke is a fart joke. Something like, "A strange thing happened recently. A woman sat on her man's lap and did not fart."
RESPONSE B: It is only in the past century that people understood how methane was generated in the intestine. So you don't have to go very far back before this question was unsolved.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: avanna, rain forests, swamp forest... unlike the other great ape species like gorillas who were more specialized. Why didn’t they migrate out of Africa too like humans did if they were so successful?
RESPONSE A: The short answer is a.) they aren't well adapted to covering long distances, b.) because they are covered with hair, they aren't easily able to regulate their body temperature in the way that humans are, and c.) related to both a and b, the use of fire and its attendant advantages was never available to them because it never made sense for them to adopt it given the above.
RESPONSE B: Chimps are specialized forest dwellers. They are found in the savanna now, but only in certain small patches- patches that tended to have been forests 50 years ago. So it's not like chimps are moving into the savannah and thriving, they are instead holding on to territories when they don't have any forests to go to (other chimp troops or human activity making nearby forests no good). Chimps who are on the savannah also behave differently, walk more upright, etc. Even then the savannah chimps spend a lot of time in trees, in areas that have more trees/shrubs but aren't true forests. So it's important that the parts of the savannah where the chimps live is very different than the grasslands like you'd find in the Serengeti. So here's some wild speculation: Chimps are very much forest specialists, and hence are unable to thrive well enough in the savannah to expand across it enough to have left the continent of Africa. If there was a savannah niche open, it's likely that the Chimps or proto-chimps would have moved in and through evolutionary process became a different kind of ape. However, due to competition from other species they weren't able to move into the grasslands and thrive. You might find this interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWk1TJwk1UU
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: with political content online. What do I do now? Discussing politics has become a lot more dangerous, potential informants refuse to give interviews (often simply ignoring my requests), it is impossible to conduct questionnaires (for the same reason), Instagram has been banned and is only available with VPN (Twitter and Facebook are also banned, but Instagram was the main social network). YouTube is about to be banned, most political content is on Telegram but since you can be imprisoned for a post or a comment, people comment less and post less on social networks; they also restrict their profiles quite often. What do I do now? Are there any methods to study media under severe censorship? Do you know of any previous studies in such conditions?
RESPONSE A: This seems like an opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade. First off there's a real window into longitudinal changes as the war progresses. Secondly, hard work can give you access to stuff that is surely happening online but is now much more difficult to find. Others who don't put in the effort will be locked out of the data but with effort you can get it and probably discover novel insights. Also, this situation isn't new. Look into how fax machines are credited with cracking open illicit communications (samizdat) inside the Soviet Union.
RESPONSE B: There's an ethnography I never read but learned about in undergrad called "Waiting for Castro." The writer got a rare opportunity to interview Fidel and flew to Cuba. They end up waiting months, with a constant stream of delays, excuses, postponements, new hoops to jump through. Eventually they conclude they're never gonna actually see Castro. They don't treat this as a failure, but instead wrote about their experience not seeing Castro and what they learned from it, and what it says about how the Cuban state functions. You should do the same. In my opinion your subject potentially just got a lot more interesting. Write about the chilling effect this has had, what people are saying, how they're responding to events. I think it would be a mistake to try and find your way around these new developments to keep doing what you were doing before. The situation has changed and so should your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Before the war in Ukraine, I was researching how Russian youth engages with political content online. What do I do now? Discussing politics has become a lot more dangerous, potential informants refuse to give interviews (often simply ignoring my requests), it is impossible to conduct questionnaires (for the same reason), Instagram has been banned and is only available with VPN (Twitter and Facebook are also banned, but Instagram was the main social network). YouTube is about to be banned, most political content is on Telegram but since you can be imprisoned for a post or a comment, people comment less and post less on social networks; they also restrict their profiles quite often. What do I do now? Are there any methods to study media under severe censorship? Do you know of any previous studies in such conditions?
RESPONSE A: Find people where you live with family or friends in Russia and have them put you in direct contact with Russian citizens. Your research would be confined by individual case studies, but, it's something... Good luck!
RESPONSE B: There's an ethnography I never read but learned about in undergrad called "Waiting for Castro." The writer got a rare opportunity to interview Fidel and flew to Cuba. They end up waiting months, with a constant stream of delays, excuses, postponements, new hoops to jump through. Eventually they conclude they're never gonna actually see Castro. They don't treat this as a failure, but instead wrote about their experience not seeing Castro and what they learned from it, and what it says about how the Cuban state functions. You should do the same. In my opinion your subject potentially just got a lot more interesting. Write about the chilling effect this has had, what people are saying, how they're responding to events. I think it would be a mistake to try and find your way around these new developments to keep doing what you were doing before. The situation has changed and so should your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Before the war in Ukraine, I was researching how Russian youth engages with political content online. What do I do now? Discussing politics has become a lot more dangerous, potential informants refuse to give interviews (often simply ignoring my requests), it is impossible to conduct questionnaires (for the same reason), Instagram has been banned and is only available with VPN (Twitter and Facebook are also banned, but Instagram was the main social network). YouTube is about to be banned, most political content is on Telegram but since you can be imprisoned for a post or a comment, people comment less and post less on social networks; they also restrict their profiles quite often. What do I do now? Are there any methods to study media under severe censorship? Do you know of any previous studies in such conditions?
RESPONSE A: There's an ethnography I never read but learned about in undergrad called "Waiting for Castro." The writer got a rare opportunity to interview Fidel and flew to Cuba. They end up waiting months, with a constant stream of delays, excuses, postponements, new hoops to jump through. Eventually they conclude they're never gonna actually see Castro. They don't treat this as a failure, but instead wrote about their experience not seeing Castro and what they learned from it, and what it says about how the Cuban state functions. You should do the same. In my opinion your subject potentially just got a lot more interesting. Write about the chilling effect this has had, what people are saying, how they're responding to events. I think it would be a mistake to try and find your way around these new developments to keep doing what you were doing before. The situation has changed and so should your research.
RESPONSE B: Maybe r/AskARussian can assist you with this? It's a very lively community so you may be able to find a few Russians who meet your criteria directly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: lot more dangerous, potential informants refuse to give interviews (often simply ignoring my requests), it is impossible to conduct questionnaires (for the same reason), Instagram has been banned and is only available with VPN (Twitter and Facebook are also banned, but Instagram was the main social network). YouTube is about to be banned, most political content is on Telegram but since you can be imprisoned for a post or a comment, people comment less and post less on social networks; they also restrict their profiles quite often. What do I do now? Are there any methods to study media under severe censorship? Do you know of any previous studies in such conditions?
RESPONSE A: Maybe r/AskARussian can assist you with this? It's a very lively community so you may be able to find a few Russians who meet your criteria directly.
RESPONSE B: You document all that you just wrote carefully, and keep trying for interviews. Then, you join Russia’s Facebook-equivalent (there will likely be no one discussing the war, the word “war” seems to be banned), Telegram (lots of Russians still active there), and Youtube. Now, in the case of Youtube, the Russian YouTubers I follow are all still active and focused on the sanctions. 1420 does person-in-the-street interviews and just interviewed a variety of age groups about the sanctions (and some of them did seem to know why the sanctions were happening, others either didn’t know or carefully avoided it). 1420 does an upload about once a week and has been interviewing people about such things as whether they like Americans (since the sanctions). You can thereby be holistic in your approach and show that Russians are now confined to certain state-monitored media. They speak carefully or not at all about the conflict. You can add in a bit of context (older men seem to be more willing to speak about the politics). Start writing up the context, including facial expressions, clothing, common concerns. In the 1420 YouTube video last uploaded, I found it fascinating that younger people believed sanctions would last 1-2 months or 6 months, and that older people said the banned businesses would “sneak back in.” I think you have a fascinating opportunity for highly relevant research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Before the war in Ukraine, I was researching how Russian youth engages with political content online. What do I do now? Discussing politics has become a lot more dangerous, potential informants refuse to give interviews (often simply ignoring my requests), it is impossible to conduct questionnaires (for the same reason), Instagram has been banned and is only available with VPN (Twitter and Facebook are also banned, but Instagram was the main social network). YouTube is about to be banned, most political content is on Telegram but since you can be imprisoned for a post or a comment, people comment less and post less on social networks; they also restrict their profiles quite often. What do I do now? Are there any methods to study media under severe censorship? Do you know of any previous studies in such conditions?
RESPONSE A: This seems like an opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade. First off there's a real window into longitudinal changes as the war progresses. Secondly, hard work can give you access to stuff that is surely happening online but is now much more difficult to find. Others who don't put in the effort will be locked out of the data but with effort you can get it and probably discover novel insights. Also, this situation isn't new. Look into how fax machines are credited with cracking open illicit communications (samizdat) inside the Soviet Union.
RESPONSE B: Maybe r/AskARussian can assist you with this? It's a very lively community so you may be able to find a few Russians who meet your criteria directly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to Ethically Engage with Vulnerable Populations? Hi everyone, I'm an anthropology grad student who is also working in a research capacity for a separate study. In my research job, I will be interviewing people who are in vulnerable situations; low income, from culturally oppressed groups, varying levels of homelessness, and in sensitive medical situations. I am from the majority culture background and am definitely privileged so I won't even pretend to know what their experiences are like. I'm looking forward to helping this group in this PAR-based project but I want to do so in the most ethical and sensitive way possible. I have no previous interview experience with people of these groups and would like to prepare myself as well as I can. Can anyone share your own experiences with interviewing vulnerable populations? What first-time mistakes did you make? What do you wish you'd known at the time? Anything you care to share is much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Try not to think about yourself as "helping" because that automatically creates a bit of an unbalanced dynamic. Simply listening carefully, affirming them and allowing space, and not pressing them for too many details they don't volunteer is enough to be helpful. Vulnerable populations often feel unheard and unappreciated, but you have to be careful not to represent yourself as "better" because in reality, you're just lucky not to be in their position (or not... they might feel lucky, you never know). And *they* might instinctively look to you for help as well, so you don't want to get caught in that trap. Sensitivity is about letting go of your intentions and listening to theirs. The ethics of studies like this are complex, but ultimately if you let them control the situation and be comfortable on their terms, you'll be in a position to hear a good story and they will be more likely to enjoy telling one.
RESPONSE B: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/research-ethics-for-human-geography/book251312 Consider this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to Ethically Engage with Vulnerable Populations? Hi everyone, I'm an anthropology grad student who is also working in a research capacity for a separate study. In my research job, I will be interviewing people who are in vulnerable situations; low income, from culturally oppressed groups, varying levels of homelessness, and in sensitive medical situations. I am from the majority culture background and am definitely privileged so I won't even pretend to know what their experiences are like. I'm looking forward to helping this group in this PAR-based project but I want to do so in the most ethical and sensitive way possible. I have no previous interview experience with people of these groups and would like to prepare myself as well as I can. Can anyone share your own experiences with interviewing vulnerable populations? What first-time mistakes did you make? What do you wish you'd known at the time? Anything you care to share is much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Try not to think about yourself as "helping" because that automatically creates a bit of an unbalanced dynamic. Simply listening carefully, affirming them and allowing space, and not pressing them for too many details they don't volunteer is enough to be helpful. Vulnerable populations often feel unheard and unappreciated, but you have to be careful not to represent yourself as "better" because in reality, you're just lucky not to be in their position (or not... they might feel lucky, you never know). And *they* might instinctively look to you for help as well, so you don't want to get caught in that trap. Sensitivity is about letting go of your intentions and listening to theirs. The ethics of studies like this are complex, but ultimately if you let them control the situation and be comfortable on their terms, you'll be in a position to hear a good story and they will be more likely to enjoy telling one.
RESPONSE B: Have you had the required training human subjects research training? Where you learn about informed consent and IRB’s. This training also goes into vulnerable populations. Start there if you haven’t had that training. If you had that training talk frankly with the primary investigators about your concerns.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it true that all non-africans today descended from the same ancestors that left africa? All my life, I thought there were different waves of human ancestors leaving africa which explains the phenotypical differences of non-africans but turns out every non-african, from asians to europeans shared the same set of ancestors that left. Also if this is the case, does that mean every non-african are more related to each than they are to native africans?
RESPONSE A: There is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. People from neighboring villages in Africa can be more genetically distinct from each other than, say, a British person of Celtic ancestry and a Japanese person. The amount of genetic diversity in Africa, due to "time depth" - we were there and only there for a long, long time, is quite breathtaking. Waves of ancestors leaving Africa means some of that diversity also left Africa but only a tiny amount. Here's one paper of many you might find interesting. https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/30/R1/R2/6089116
RESPONSE B: Yes, it's been proven that all humans today come from humans found in East Africa. Scientists believe humans from Eurasia changed as quickly as they did in phenotype because of interbreeding with other archaic humans. Neanderthal had been around much longer and was already fair in skin tone with lighter hair including red hair. But we are all equally related even to Africans who have no ancestry outside of Africa. Archaic humans such as Neanderthal and modern human came from the same ancestors so we were simply cousins. We have no genetic differences that are significant enough to render us different species under the homo sapien umbrella. And we certainly are the exact same biologically and anatomically. Valid question though!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Use of metals by native north Americans prior to colonization Every once in a while I hear a bit about the use of copper along the Mississippi and lead around Galina. I havent learned much about it. Anybody here care to share what they know? Thanks! EDIT: I recently saw a video of some experimental archaeology in Alaska that was trying to reproduce some precolonial cold working found in the area. I believe it was copper as well.
RESPONSE A: There was copper use in the Great lakes region. http://www.peachstatearchaeologicalsociety.org/index.php/20-copper-artifacts/316-old-copper-culture
RESPONSE B: The Old Copper Complex as mentioned above is probably the most famous of these. It was thought for a long time that copper use outside of the Great Lakes region originated in the complex. However, there are more local sources that were used in the northeast, see Levine's Native Copper in the Northeast.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Were there cultures that didn't use Violence or war to settle disputes? but instead used something like a Football match, or a non violent game, or just anything besides war... Ridiculous example, but you get the point.
RESPONSE A: You could check for the concept of Potlatch (among the North American Indians); a ceremonial distribution of property/gifts among rival tribes. Also you could check out Pakò; a ritual battle between clans (Mentawai, Indonesia), shaming the other by showing one’s greatness in various skills.
RESPONSE B: The Mesoamerican ball game played by the Aztecs was sometimes used to settle disputes instead of having a battle or minor clash but after the game they’d kill the losers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Were there cultures that didn't use Violence or war to settle disputes? but instead used something like a Football match, or a non violent game, or just anything besides war... Ridiculous example, but you get the point.
RESPONSE A: You could check for the concept of Potlatch (among the North American Indians); a ceremonial distribution of property/gifts among rival tribes. Also you could check out Pakò; a ritual battle between clans (Mentawai, Indonesia), shaming the other by showing one’s greatness in various skills.
RESPONSE B: Before Shaka Zulu introduced European inspired infantry tactics to South Africa, warfare there was very ritualistic, with little fighting. The warriors of the opposing tribes would dress in ceremonial garb, and face each other across a field, and most of the time just trade insults, do war dances, just kinda try and intimidate each other, sometimes they'd fight. But then Shaka wanted to conquer Africa and expel the Europeans and so he developed a new system of fighting inspired by the Romans where lots of people actually died. Tribal and band warfare was frequently like that, less about actually killing and more just about intimidating people. Fighting is way less attractive when there is only like a couple dozen of you and a shallow cut can be lethal. People are also less likely to fight without the powerful social structures of chiefdom and state form societies to encourage them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What were the most populated regions in Africa before humans migrated out of it? I keep getting mixed messages every time I read something. Most are included in the Great Rift Valley like Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. But then I’ve read somewhere how west Africa or even somewhere in the Sahara when it was green enough could’ve had a sizable population just as well. Another question that springs to mind is were there any parts of Africa during the ice age that were somewhat uninhabited or were humans widespread across the entire continent?
RESPONSE A: Another thing that makes this an extremely difficult question to ask is that Africa is HUGE and has not been well surveyed for archaeological sites. Even in Western countries with relatively strong laws about mandatory archaeological surveys, only tiny amount of land have actually been surveyed adequately. Kenya, the country I am most acquainted with, has large parts of the country that have not been surveyed at all. The Rift Valley has been a hotbed for archaeological sites, but stuff to the east and west has been completely ignored by archaeologists. Outside of the Rift Valley, only a tiny strip along the coast has had any real interest from the archaeological community. Without having much more comprehensive archaeological surveys done it really is a stretch to claim that any part of the continent was more populated than any other.
RESPONSE B: I'm not sure if we have a good answer to your question yet. One reason is that "before humans migrated out" of Africa is not a clearly defined time. Then if you could pin down this time you're left trying to do a survey of human population densities throughout the continent to compare and find The most densely populated areas ~100,000 years ago. I don't think the data exists.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some good anthropology podcasts?
RESPONSE A: If you're looking for any archaeology-specific ones, the Archaeology Podcast Network is where it's at: https://www.archaeologypodcastnetwork.com/
RESPONSE B: Only one I have tried is The Familiar Strange and I enjoy it a lot! Lots of interesting subjects, guests and good times.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is known about the people of North Sentinel Island? The people on this island are estimated to have arrived on the island 50,000 years ago. They have remained in genetic and cultural isolation since before the neanderthal went extinct. Studying them seems like it would be an anthropological gold mine of information. Despite being protected and essentially out of contact with the rest of the world, what have anthropologists been able to learn about them? What could they learn if they had access?
RESPONSE A: Keep in mind that while they are isolated now, that doesn't mean that they have been genetically or culturally isolated for 50,000 years. They most likely have had trading relationships with those of many different places over the centuries and millennia.
RESPONSE B: There was an anthro who made contact with them years ago. He kept giving them coconuts until they met each other out in the water. They live peacefully on the island together. They allowed him to enter. It’s a good story.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is known about the people of North Sentinel Island? The people on this island are estimated to have arrived on the island 50,000 years ago. They have remained in genetic and cultural isolation since before the neanderthal went extinct. Studying them seems like it would be an anthropological gold mine of information. Despite being protected and essentially out of contact with the rest of the world, what have anthropologists been able to learn about them? What could they learn if they had access?
RESPONSE A: Here is a video on a neighboring group https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyIBtfM7piY
RESPONSE B: Keep in mind that while they are isolated now, that doesn't mean that they have been genetically or culturally isolated for 50,000 years. They most likely have had trading relationships with those of many different places over the centuries and millennia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is known about the people of North Sentinel Island? The people on this island are estimated to have arrived on the island 50,000 years ago. They have remained in genetic and cultural isolation since before the neanderthal went extinct. Studying them seems like it would be an anthropological gold mine of information. Despite being protected and essentially out of contact with the rest of the world, what have anthropologists been able to learn about them? What could they learn if they had access?
RESPONSE A: This article by a historian but for general audiences is probably the best introduction, beyond the unfortunate title: “The Last Island of the Savages” by Adam Goodheart. Their seeming kin (surprisingly distant, according to linguists) the Jarawa also pop up in the news periodically. Here’s one example and I have a long comment contextualizing it in that thread.
RESPONSE B: Here is a video on a neighboring group https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyIBtfM7piY
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is known about the people of North Sentinel Island? The people on this island are estimated to have arrived on the island 50,000 years ago. They have remained in genetic and cultural isolation since before the neanderthal went extinct. Studying them seems like it would be an anthropological gold mine of information. Despite being protected and essentially out of contact with the rest of the world, what have anthropologists been able to learn about them? What could they learn if they had access?
RESPONSE A: Here is a video on a neighboring group https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyIBtfM7piY
RESPONSE B: >genetic and cultural isolation since before the neanderthal went extinct. This is a gigantic sweeping statement, and I do not understand how you would verify or ascertain that. I would be much more careful about such statements if I were you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 'm wondering is, why didn't the focus on sharing resources and communality extend into the lives of early agriculturalists, i.e. why did everyone suddenly make a switch to owning private land instead of doing things like developing communal farms and sharing the resources equally among the group? It's not like agriculture mandates the ownership of land or animals by a single person, at least from my perspective. Can someone further illuminate this?
RESPONSE A: That wasn't even true in England, which is probably your primary frame of reference. The idea that economic development depends on private property is very modern and suspiciously convenient for the people who claim so. England even today has a system of "commons" which survived the "enclosure acts". Up until the beginning of the enlightenment, when England started to industrialize, there were many different systems of land management in use in different regions. Beginning in the early 1600s parliament began to confiscate these commons, which had been used cooperatively by commoners, and reserve them for use by the nobility. These were known as the Enclosure Acts. (At the same time they were working on the Poor Laws which created the work house system. Related? Probably.) Did the enclosure of the commons lay the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution? Hard to say. But they did create a more unequal society where beneficiaries became very rich while some unlucky commoners became very, very poor.
RESPONSE B: Private property in this context is quite a modern concept and far removed from the beginnings of agriculture. To answer something of the spirit of the question as to why the shift, you need to look at England and other parts of Europe where there was a long gradual shift from feifs run 'communally' by a lord (or church) to land being privately owned by the common people over the collapse of the feudal system as a whole and other shifts like the Magna Carta (and the many statutes and policies that followed in it's wake). The shift even included colonial America as the original colonies were founded under 'license' or grant by the British crown, and private property rights were encoded in the Constitution to further separate the US from the monarchical systems of Europe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Where did humans get their vitamin C from when there were no oranges? "The earliest mention of the sweet orange in Chinese literature dates from 314 B.C " Makes me wonder if humans always needed that much vitamin C as now.
RESPONSE A: Certain parts of animals, notably liver, also contain vitamin C if eaten uncooked. For example, the Inuit tribes traditionally consume much of their meat raw. Cooking destroys most of the vitamin C present in the meat. Nutrition actually declined among the Inuit when settlers came in and they began cooking their food. You can get some more info and some numbers here.
RESPONSE B: I am not an anthropologist, but I can say that some species of trees are high in vitamin C. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647905/ These where common in North America once upon a time. If you get a chance to grow some I highly reccomend it. https://kysu.edu/academics/cafsss/pawpaw/pawpaw-description-and-nutritional-information/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: andry and it's in Nepal/Tibet, can a wife cheat on her husbands? A husband on his wife? Does cheating happen more or less in societies with arranged marriages? In any cases, WHY do people cheat? Do different cultures have their different reasons? Just odd how this subject seems to always be excluded when it comes to human courtship and romantic/sexual relationships.
RESPONSE A: Biological anthropologist Helen Fisher touches on these themes in her book Anatomy of Love. You might find the book Lust in Translation by Pamela Druckerman interesting as well. She focuses mainly on the phenomenon in modern day cultures across the world. Although she is not an anthropologist, she is a respected writer for the Times and has education in philosophy and a masters in international affairs.
RESPONSE B: As a biologist, even species long thought to be monogamous have been discovered to “cheat”. Pair-bond monogamy and sexual monogamy are different things, and from a zoomed-out view humans aren’t really considered to be either. Presumably, promiscuity in both males and females exists because it is either neutral or adaptive. For both men and women, producing offspring with several different partners creates children who all have your genes, but still retain diversity. Maybe your two kids with Mary are vulnerable to the new plague, but your kid with Jane inherited resistance from her mother. Your genes live on because of that diversity. There are very few negatives to having offspring by several different partners, and most of them are socially imposed and thus highly variable and likely inconsistent and thus weak in terms of selective pressure. Plus, while maternity is usually clear (cuz, yanno, half the village women help with the birth and see the baby emerge), paternity often isn’t. When assessing a lot of things in nature, there isn’t a clear adaptive cause. Always remember, in the context of evolution, “fittest” doesn’t mean best, it means most fertile. You can be the biggest chad in the world or a literal goddess whose never gotten sick a day in her life, but if you never have kids, your fitness is zero.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: be covered in a PhD degree?
RESPONSE A: Just to be a killjoy -- documentaries and Youtube videos are often \_poor\_ sources. It's not that there's nothing right in them, its that they're not sourced and referenced, so you can't tell. They're also often not current as science. A solid academic paper that you'll read in half an hour, and that comes with footnotes and peer review is going to be much, much better than anything you'll watch. Also - new techniques are changing understandings of things like population migrations very quickly. Lots of documentaries are sourced from much older data, much less reliable. So I'd much rather see you read something like: Ioannidis, Alexander G., et al. "Native American gene flow into Polynesia predating Easter Island settlement." Nature 583.7817 (2020): 572-577. . . . than watch "Kon tiki" or any of its derivatives. Similarly, a current paper like Vaesen, Krist, Gerrit L. Dusseldorp, and Mark J. Brandt. "An emerging consensus in palaeoanthropology: demography was the main factor responsible for the disappearance of Neanderthals." Scientific reports 11.1 (2021): 1-9. . . . is going to be more useful reading than any number of videos. Paleoanthropology is moving very fast -- substantially due to genetic technologies, opening up big windows. For a lot of this material, you really want to read \_new\_ papers first.
RESPONSE B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time\_Team As for the bonus, check out my comment thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/sfc7sp/am\_i\_too\_old\_to\_be\_pursuing\_a\_career\_in\_academia/huscu27/?context=3 The first few links have information about getting started in Archaeology. :)
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.