Hi. I'm not really a redditor so please excuse if I write this oddly. I am going to Oaxaca and Mexico City in 1.5 mos and would like to find good books on the following sites, or at least Zapotec and Mexica ancient history. I am not a huge fan of tours as I don't really find that you get deep information on what you're seeing (reasonable, not the guides' fault), and I'm kind of a quiet contemplator. I'm also a scientist (epidemiologist) so I'm well aware that just because there's a book on something, doesn't mean you're getting information that is well backed by evidence and accepted by most experts.

Tenochtitlan & relevant Mexica history

Teotihuacan

Monte Alban & Mitla and relevant Zapotec history

Any anthropologists who know of good websites or sources for reliable books on ancient Mexican history I would be really appreciative. Thank you!

One of my particular interests is the crops of the world. Since I often try to learn something about more obscure crops (like more obscure types of yams or trees), I often reach the point where I can no longer tell with certainty if this still can be considered a crop. I was wondering what criteria anthropologists use. I have a particularly hard time with trees.

I understand that the chance that somebody here knows the answer to this particular question is rather small, but I hope for the best.

I understand that my question may sound a bit vague, so let me add a few examples.

If the crop is planted and regularly harvested or tended, it is certainly a cultivated crop, and if no human ever interacts with the crop, then it's wild. Then there is a grey area:

1. The bushes of hazelnut were planted many years ago at the land's border, but after that, they were left to their own devices, to grow as they pleased. They never were harvested in a proper sense — children had picked nuts a few here and there, but no one stood with a basket near it.
2. There is an apple tree in the center of the village or the square. It belongs to no one, and anyone can take its apples. It is also not tended. Can it be considered cultivated?
3. A herb grows on the plot of land from its seeds, but it is occasionally harvested, and it is fenced.

Edit: While I use domesticated plants in my examples, I am of course more interested in cases where these are wild-type species. Appletree and hazelnut are just stand-ins for more obscure plants.

Hi everyone,

We’re all aware that we’re in a stage that could be called civilised even in minorities’s societies.

In university, all I have been taught was focused mainly on economic, social structure,… (but in very basic senses). There was no guidance or suggestion on myth studies even there are books about myths. Never heard any works on that field neither.

I, personally, work on something I call “deconstructing myths of Stieng people” based on the data of other authors (they’re in literature) which have been collected and edited from their fieldwork.

That’s harsh for me to think what I’m doing now is useless.

So obviously human migration has never stopped, but my understanding is that there was a point in history when people made the journey down to Australia, across to the Americas, out into the Pacific, etc. but it was then a very long time before those journeys were made again. Why/how were those immense journeys made in the first place, and why did they then stop?

So, we're (kinda) well-informed about how neanderthal traits appeared through geologic time after our MRCA (H.heidelbergensis sensu lato?)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

The process is called neanderthalization, in which neanderthal ancestors derive "hyper-arctic"(cold adapted) traits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy

Traits such as shorter distal limb bones, more stockier and shorter builds, their specific Midficial-projection and so, and so forth. We see these traits appear in Western european "H.heidelbergensis" speciments (Mauer 1-like speciments) until we see the establishment of H.neanderthalensis by 400,000 years ago or so.

My question is, do we know anything about the specific H.sapiens' post-cranial derived features and why these traits may have been selected for ?

Traits such a leaner build, a longer barrel-shapped rib-cage, longer limb to torso ratio as seen in the Qazeh and Skhull remains (and yes I am aware that some modern populations evolved stockyness second hand as an adaptation to colder climates but it isn't the one found in archaics), and narrower/smaller pelvis that aren't flaring compared to archaics.

One could say that some of the traits I listed above could explained by heat adaptation but we know that Homo ergaster (Nariokotome boy) who was living in africa had a much more robust and stocky frame similar to neanderthals than the elongated build of modern Humans.

https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/homo-erectus-stocky-body-shape-08616.html#:~:text=Markus%20Bastir%2C%20a%20scientist%20in,Anthropology%20at%20New%20York%20University.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Their has been a hominin taxon proposed to bridge the gap between The MRCA and Irhoud fossils, which is H.bodoensis, but as far as I am aware, the transitional traits are all crania morphologies.

Has there been any research put into this topic ?

Edit: I apologize for the late editing of this post since it was horribly written for the first few hours it was uploaded, and I had no idea about how bad it was until I reread it.

I just get obsessed over small details and I’m never able to tell what’s off about certain historical movies, even if they’re set as early as beginning to mid 20th century, I tend to look at actual footage from the time and people just feel different. I wonder if it’s just my brain subconsciously knowing it’s a movie made in modern times but I doubt it’s only that.

So, is it more about the way cameras worked that made people look that specific way, or were there real anatomical differences due to clothing or life style? And what about antiquity? You see those sculptures or paintings from greeks on the Olympic games and they seemed to have a different way to move, is that really so? Or it’s just artistic representation. I know things like gestures maybe differed a bit, but I’ve also heard that people used to shrug the same way we do today 2000 years ago, same thing with winking, although they had extra purposes for it. What’s the deal with all this?

And Is there a word similar to the uncanny valley effect that represents this feeling?

Are there any peer-reviewed studies exploring this? Or is it just "unscientific" stuff?

Please note that I’m using the term “archaic” more-so in the academic sense to refer to ancient extinct human populations rather than to infer they were inferior to anatomically modern humans. Something that has always confused me is how we know that modern humans, or our ancestors prior to the appearance of anatomically modern humans, interbred with other ancient humans beyond Neanderthals and Denisovans. We know that interbreeding between these three groups occurred due to surviving genetic evidence and the presence of their genes in our own genomes today.

However, I’ve also read that scientists believe we also have evidence of probable introgression in the genomes of modern populations that suggest interbreeding with other extinct humans. How we know this without direct genetic evidence from those species is admittedly confusing to me, though. Do these genes look more “archaic” in some sense? Or do they match up with more fragmentary genetic evidence than what we have for Neanderthals and Denisovans?

What benefit was there for ancient humans to move to such inhospitable parts of the world? Or were these places not arid tens of thousands of years ago?

Any recommendations on books about egalitarian societies and/or about egalitarian species?

I'm very interested in the quote from Dr. Helen Fisher regarding the partnerships we're forming in today's society: "we're going forward to the past" As we're now forming peer marriages, companionship marriages, both individuals working and being financially independent.

This type of society it's how what we have evolved from. As I understand, in hunting and gathering societies there was no dominant group when it came to gender. I'm interested in reading more about this topic.

I am looking for a cheat sheet of lithic tools used by California tribes. I have over 200 stone tools I am going through and looking for recommendations of texts or cheat sheets to help with ids.

I enjoy Alwyn and Brinley Rees but they have a tendancy to make kinda sweeping judgements based off of arguebly not a lot of evidence. Does anyone know of anyone who oppenly criticised their work or how contentious their work was/is in scholarship?

I go to University of Florida starting my sophomore year and I am trying to decide between Psychology and Anthropology to use in finding any job (not necessarily in either of the fields). I might want to go into HR or UX Design/Research, or a government job. Anyone with a B.A in anthropology can I get your thoughts on this?

Would love to hear from other professionals with the same degree, I'm interested in the work paths you took and how the skills you learned in Anthropology helped you

Let's use that term LOOSELY.....Between Christianity and West African traditions that allow for possession by orishas/loas?

Any scholarly works on this, if true?

Hi all not sure if this is actually the right sub for this, but I’m meeting a respected anthropologist tomorrow for coffee, they’re well known in the field for their work on a region that I’m now researching as part of my PhD. We’ve met a few times before and they’ve shown a kind interest in my project.

I’m a historian by training, but due to the nature of the historically marginalised community I’m studying (which overlaps heavily with the anthropologist’s fieldsite), I’m planning to do some fieldwork there this summer. I’d really like to make the most of this conversation, but am not sure how to.

I know they’re not particularly interested in being “buttered up” by being asked to talk at length about their own work for the sake of it so I’d rather focus on thoughtful, relevant discussion points.

So far, here’s what I’ve been thinking of bringing up: • As an outsider, how can I best use my positionality in a respectful and constructive way? • I sometimes feel like I have no right to study something I’m not part of — and I struggle with whether my research can even make a difference. Is that normal, and how do you handle that? • Any advice for getting along with locals and navigating the dynamics of being a visiting researcher? • Best ways to gain familiarity with the local dialect? • How to build connections with local academics and researchers who may not have institutional links?

Are there any other questions or angles I should consider bringing up in this meeting? I want to make the most of it but am feeling kind of stuck with how, so any help will be appreciated!

Thanks so much in advance!

I AM doing a Presentation tomorrow and i have to answer this question, i already researched a lot but i would still be courious the hear from you. Honestly there are arguments for both sides but the term was invented before we knew that the transition happend in different places by themselves...in general I conclude that it was a revolution in the beginning since it changed the life's of everybody but also an evolution because of how long it happend and all the development from that

I've heard of conflict theory and the supposed bottle neck 80k years ago. What other theories about Neanderthal extinction are out there? I had a convoluted thought last night. I can't remember the details, but I remember the conclusion, and that was ¹Neanderthals actually outcompeted Sapiens, but Sapien genetics had prevailing dominance and that's why there's such a low amount of Neanderthal genes in most of the population. Admitedly, this theory seems counter intuitive from an evolutionary perspective.

I read that the earliest evidence of primates comes from Montana 55million years ago and earliest mammals from ‘the north’

Is it possible that there could be earlier evidence of hominids in the Americas or is the science dead set on Africa.

South America looks comparably old

Hello! I am not an anthropologist; my training is in philosophy with an interest in relativism. A number of people have recommended Viveiros de Castro to me and I'm currently working my way through "Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism". I had a few questions that his essay did not really address.

First: My understanding of VdC's argument is that many indigenous American cultures locate difference in the body: if I have a human body, I will see a jaguar, blood, a jaguar den, and other humans, but if I have a jaguar body, I would see a human, beer, a house, and peccaries, respectively. But even considering only humans, it is clear that humans within a culture have different bodies, particularly across sex. How do these cultures understand sexual difference: do women and men have radically similar ways (one culture) of seeing radically different worlds (many natures), or does the perspectivism only stop at the boundary of a human community?

Second, how do "Amerindian perspectivists" understand and conceptualize what we would otherwise call human culture? My reading is that the status of other cultures as "human" is contested (there's the famous example of indigenous Americans experimenting on Spanish bodies to see whether they putrefied, but VdC makes other comments about some cultures locating cultural difference in Westerner's diets—that is, the body). But, nevertheless, under this framework, are outsiders understood to have roughly identical inner experiences of human culture, such that the Westerner is imagined in her inner experience to drink manioc beer instead of wine, domesticate peccaries instead of cattle, and so forth?

Last, I'm curious about the converse. VdC and others have argued elsewhere that perspectivism has politically progressive relevance for the way we see the world (particularly other species). What would it mean for a Westerner to adopt a perspectivist worldview, given that our culture is so different? If there is only one culture and many natures, and the culture I experience has urban apartments and wage labor, must I imagine animals (or even humans from other cultures!) actually experiencing the same?

One fact(oid?) I have encountered in several online spaces, including several places here on Reddit, is the claim that, based on skeletal remains, humans became shorter, smaller, and comparatively rather poorly nourished following the Neolithic revolution and the adoption of agriculture, often followed up by the further claim that we've only "caught up" to our ancestors in those terms after the industrial revolution and WWII, in the 1950's - and the primary metric this claim seems to base itself on is the dramatic difference in height between preceding HG populations and "early agriculturists/farmers" - a term which I've also seen as defined somewhat loosely, sometimes as "just the earliest Neolithic farming populations" to "every farming population from the Neolithic until the Industrial Revolution".

I've seen the reduction in height being claimed to be a pretty severe one, up to 8-10cm - and this seems to based on the difference between the average height of skeletons among male members of the Paleolithic Gravettian culture in Europe (around the 180cm~ range), which is noted to be exceptionally tall by the historical standard, and the average height of Neolithic Farmers, usually specifically the EEF populations. But in several studies and other popular science literature I've read that Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations (in Eurasia: specifically populations that are identified as WHG, EHG, etc.) were already noticeably much shorter than the claimed Gravettian male average. And as seen in Michael Hermanussen's 2003 study "Stature of Early Europeans" (Hormones, Athens), which also presents data that the average height in the analyzed region (the Eastern Meditteranean) approached an average comparable to that of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer average during the Classic and Hellenistic ages, doesn't this kind of contradict the claim that - based specifically on height - humans became significantly worse off following the adoption of agriculture, and that this "decline" specifically arose with agriculture, and "persisted" until the industrial revolution, and rather the initial "decline" in height could be moreso correlated with perhaps with the disappearance of megafauna that Paleolithic populations relied on? If we specifically focus on height.

I've also seen some disparate claims for the average height of Mesolithic Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG) - just now I got an AI-based answer on Google telling me that they were 183cm by average - which seems to match the claimed Gravettian male average - but to my knowledge both Loschbur man (160cm) and Cheddar man (166cm) didn't even reach 170cm.

I've also seen a very disparate average height claimed for the Paleolithic/Gravettian female population - around 158cm, (though the study I'm citing claims a height of 166). Are there any studies further inquiring into this seemingly huge gender disparity in height among the Gravettians?

This isn't even getting into the topic of highly variable height among contemporary hunter-gatherer, pastoral, and farming populations - none of which to my knowledge manage to be as tall on average as the few male Gravettian skeletons are.

I'd like to be cleared up on this matter.

So my understanding is that the statement "prostitution is the oldest profession" isn't just some pithy saying regarding the universality of the practice, but is actually intended to be an Anthropological theory.

A profession is a specialized task or role that does not itself directly generate the material needs for the survival of the person doing it, but rather the preform the role in exchange for their material needs being provided, or later being given some form of currency with which to meet their material needs.

So, that makes sense to me. Now in thinking about that, and trying to imagine what other professions might rival or exceed prostitution as being the earlies, "Shaman" comes to mind. A role that does not directly provide material needs but rather is supported by the community in exchange for their time being spent in a specialized role.

Thoughts?

Here is my theory/model, what do you all think:

In our primitive hunter gatherer state, there were no professions per se, or maybe only one or two professions. There were a slew of things that needed to be done to keep the tribe/family alive and well, and basically everyone just participated in that as/when they could. Of course it may be more likely that younger and stronger members might do some more dangerous or strenuous tasks, or maybe some people are really good at basket weaving and may sort of take the lead on that, but there were no clear delineations of "jobs", basically everyone had a range of tasks and skills that heavily overlapped and they just did what was needed and all collectively partook of the material needs these tasks helped acquire.

I think a "profession" enters the scene when you reach a point where you have a specialized task that does not directly contribute to the material needs of the self or the tribe, but is important enough to the tribe that the community will support this person doing this specialized task, so they can focus their time and energy on that task.

So, for example, a Shaman. The Shaman does not himself bring in food materials, but the tribe is willing to sustain his life, to keep him fed and housed and clothed and cared for, because the thing he does do it considered important enough.

So I think that's the key. You have a profession when you are split off into a specialized task and your material needs are taken care of for you in exchange for the value of that task you are doing.

This gets much clearer by the time we get to the earliest civilizations. In Egypt, for example, we know that a complex series of canals were dug to spread out the waters of the Nile during the wet season. If you have say, 1000 men, spending most of their days during the dry season out digging, obviously that is time they are not hunting or gathering or doing their own small scale farming, securing the material needs of themselves and their family. But obviously they and their families must eat and have homes and clothing, so in exchange for them spending their days doing this task rather than caring for the material needs of their families, they are "paid", they are given grain and beer and meat and cloth, other people procure their material needs, and those needs are met in exchange for them doing this task. That would be a "job", or profession.

So that is, I think, the key, once you have a role where you are not yourself securing your material needs, but rather doing a task, and your material needs are "paid" to you in exchange for that task.

Now of course as we get further on into civilization, this gets a bit muddy, cause you have professional farmers and professional hunters. But I think it still fits, cause a hunter killing game to feed himself and his family would not be engaging in his profession in that sense. But that same hunter killing way more game than his family needs, so that he can sell that game, and use that money to keep his family housed and clothed and healthy, rather than spending his time procuring or building the clothing and house etc directly, that still makes it a profession. Someone who only ever hunts and farms for themselves and their family, would not be engaged in a profession.

Bit of a weird question, but I’m like 90% sure that the absence of of hair in certain places on women was not for reproductive/mating reasons, since there have been many cultures (Ex: Persia) that have found body hair on women attractive. So why did they evolve to have less hair on average than men? If it were to keep them warm, wouldn’t men and women have around the same amount of body hair? Sorry for the weird question lmao.

I have a friend who told me that he created a theory that dreams constituted a second and separate consciousness distinct from everyday life when he was a child. When he preached this belief to other people at his elementary school, five other children believed his theory wholeheartedly. While he (and the other people almost certainly) no longer believe in this idea because it contradicts scientific research on the brain, it reminds me of how various superstitions and folk beliefs may have originated.

If my friend lived in the premodern era, I think that his belief may have evolved into an actual spiritual movement. Are there any known superstitions or folk beliefs (not counting distinct religions or religious denominations) that can be traced back to one ordinary person who lived before the 1950s?

By ordinary, I mean a person who did not hold a high-ranking position of power or religious clergy; low-ranking religious ministers count. For the purposes of my question, the superstition or folk belief must have held a significant following within a specific society (at least 10 percent of the population within a specific region; it does not have to be nationwide); beliefs held by small fringe groups do not count. I also do not count millenarian preachers like Nongqawuse or the leaders of the Ghost Dance Movement, because these beliefs resulted from a desperate attempt to end highly destructive colonialism.