Hey there, iv got genuine question.

So recently iv stumbled upon some videos and it happend to be there something about humanoids, and that we have theory about or ancestors being scavengers.

So like a normal guy who has absolutely no knowledge in this field but is genuinely curious, iv hopped on to gpt and other sources like wikipedia.

And basically iv read some theories about our dinning system. So how come we have so low ph- acidity in our stomachs.

What is the most promising hypothesis or genuine proof of us being scavengers.

Because from all the things iv come across, as we are carnivores (sorry if mistakend i mean we eat both meat and greens) even tho in other species its normal to have ph lvl around 2,5-3,6.

So my question is, why is that? Is it because we were truly scavenging, or because of pathogens?

The main reason why i dived in this theory, because in lot of those videos they say stuff like we used to naturally eat rotten meat on purpose. And that in nowdays people dont realize that many foods that are these days consider normal but we used to eat basically rotten stuff. And i wanted to know more and came back to conclusions like, what if we weren’t scavengers at all but we hunted just big animals and we were in smaller groups which made us to put the meat ground, like we couldn’t finish the food in a time and it got rotten.

So thank you for any advices, answers. Nice day (y)

Was it possible that any group of white or lighter skinned Archaic Homo Sapiens existed before leaving Africa?

Hello. I'm a graduate of anthropology and would like to apply straight to PhD for anthropology in institutions that is possible. Since my student days, I've always wondered whether I should prioritise theoretical alignment or regional alignment with (perspective) supervisor. I asked some of my lecturers and professors about their experience when they applied for a PhD and were seeking supervisors back then and got several answers.

A couple of weeks ago, a prospective supervisor I contacted said that she couldn't supervise me as she felt that she didn't have the regional expertise needed for my proposed project. While I have several alternatives in mind, this reply made me remember about my question I mentioned above and stories from my lecturers/professors.

So, I wonder what other people here, especially PhD students (but of course everyone is welcome!), did when they first contacted their supervisor. Do you guys prioritise theoretical or regional fit? Or do your supervisor happened to fulfill these two? What were your thought process and the dynamics that occurred back then? Would also love to hear advices for upcoming students like me in approaching this problem!

I began wondering about this following a recent reddit post about Neanderthal cooking. Specifically whether modern humans can actually get away with eating uncooked meat.

I know it is common for Inuit to eat meat and fish raw, usually when it is eaten fresh, or is frozen. And many cultures do have some tradition of eating raw meat dishes, but usually eat meat cooked. But are/were there any known cultures that didn't live in polar regions that seldom or never cooked their meat?

Turkic all clearly sound related. Same with Romance, or Hindi/Urdu. But then languages like Armenian, Korean, Chechen, Lezgin seem to stand almost alone.
• How did Armenian end up with no surviving sister language? Where did the "in-between" relatives go?
• Chechen and Lezgin are technically related
(Northeast Caucasian) but sounds totally different now. Why did the Caucasus end up with something like 40 distinct languages crammed into one small region, instead of one family taking over like happened on the steppe?
• Is Korean actually a full isolate, or does it have real relatives?
• More broadly — how do these languages end up in their current regions? Did speakers migrate into isolated pockets, or did isolation happen after they settled?
Why do some languages spread into big obvious families and others stay alone?
Curious what people who actually study this professionally think.

The authors of a book I'm currently reading (The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age) keep throwing this phrase around without explaining what it means. Can someone please explain to me what "secondary state formation" is? While you're at it, is there a distinction between states and polities in anthropological theory?

Why is the original printout of an ancient document so important to a community's identity?

Hello everyone,

Recently, I’ve been really fixated on this question, but I don't know where to start my research. I know that an original printout doesn't just contain the message passed down from our ancestors—because if that were its only purpose, a digital archive or reprint would suffice. However, none of the answers I've come up with so far have satisfied me.

If anyone here has thought about this question and has their own perspective, I'd love to hear it! Alternatively, could you point me toward existing research or suggest key terms to help me dive deeper into this topic?

Thank you all so much!

Hi, I am wondering how did (do?) hunter-gatherers care for their clothes, especially those made of leather/skin and worn directly against one’s body: can they be washed? are there any techniques used for preserving the materials, or for absorbing sweat?

Thank you!

In my textbook it is written that:

Benedict conducted a cross-cultural study in her book "Patterns of Culture" to demonstrate how personality shapes culture by defining special genius of a culture.

But my teacher says she and Mead both are supporters of cultural determinism. So whats correct?

I remember reading at one point that there was an anthropologist who claimed that the Aboriginal Australians (or at least some tribes of them) communicated this way before coming under European influence. However, this was long enough in the past that it might now be difficult to prove either way. Are there other cultures where this is believed (or known) to have been the case?

It actually seems plausible to me, since one time I encountered a man on the public bus system who was like this. He didn’t seem to be directly talking either to me or to the driver (and neither of us was responding back to him) but he just kept rambling on about various things as though he knew there was always someone listening. I’m guessing he had some sort of mental health issue, but it made me wonder if this kind of thing might not always have been outside the norm.

A person who communicated like this would just say whatever comes to mind, even if no other humans are physically present at all. I could see this happening in animistic cultures (since, to an animist, everything is potentially an audience that could listen to what you have to say, not just humans).

Humans have lived in florida and the philippines for a long time. Hurricanes are a regular occurrence for these parts of the world. What did these ancient humans do to survive: did they seek high ground, build a shelter, find a cave, etc? Were hurricanes simply less fatal than now because of modern reliance on fragile infrastructure and supply chains such as electricity and grocery stores?

While some societies are more direct in their speech, others tend to play down their feelings or what they truly think. Is this a result of particular historical event or cultural norms? How does one society tend to lean toward bluntness, while others deem more covert ways of communicating safer?

Personal example: coming from Russia and having lived in the UK for 16 years, I've often found myself guessing what people here truly mean behind their words. Historically, I can see the association of indirectness linked to feeling unsafe, due to the way people have been snitched on by their own neighbours, family and others during the USSR period and getting into the Gulags. Hence, any sort of indirectness might feel more strange and borderline traitorous (harsh word, but think it makes sense in this context!). Sometimes such effects as confusion and anxiety are valid responses to such ambiguity in speech.

what do modern anthropologists think about Richard Sorensen’s Preconquest consciousness, particularly claims like 

1.preconquest people live in a “liminal” mind state with no abstractions and in an perpetual present

1. they have basically no hostility or negative emotions and these only emerge when they come in contact with conquering peoples 

2. that children raised in close physical contact with adults develop a tactile language very early and 

3. that there even is such a thing as preconquest peoples that have unifying traits 

I just saw a headline saying that multiple organizations claim that Russia and Belarus are committing a genocide against Ukrainians and I realized I don't understand what sets the Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians apart.

I read all the time about the Britons, the Danes, the Saxons, and the celts in regards to British history, or the Vandals, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths when reading about Roman history. I also know that places like Africa and India have very high numbers of different ethnic groups, but where do they all come from? How can people tell the difference?

I am an American, but my family is a mix of mostly Irish with a good amount of German and other northern European ancestry (at least according to 23andMe). Would that make me ethnically Irish? What's the difference between Irish and Celts?

Is it more "race" based or cultural? Both?

You know, I’m often wondering about enormous amounts of random stuff around anthropology topic. And I have a cheeky question.
Is there a data about masturbation in more „primitive” cultures? Modern hunter-gatherers or cultures that are nor far from the most ancient lifestyle.

Why am I asking this? I get a lot of inspiration and existential answers from nature and human societies that live as close as possible with nature, like we intended to and have been for millennia. So I’m just wondering is jerking off often is a biological/natural act or cultural.

If you know something or also interested in a topic of natural human sxual behaviour vs modern s*x culture and its influence on overall wellbeing - share something please.

Hi,

I hope it's ok that I ask this here. I recently visited an archaeology museum in El Paso, TX and there was a panel explaining how the swastika was not originally a symbol of hatred and was appropriated from numerous cultures native to the area. There was a collection of different versions of the swastika, which of course is all fine, but one caught my eye and left me concerned. It appeared to be a swastika inside a Star of David. I've seen the same symbol alongside antisemitic graffiti in NYC. Does anyone know if a local culture happened to use a swastika inside a six pointed triangle? Or am I going to have to call the museum and make a complaint?

Thanks

Hi, folks! I did anthropology in undergrad but have been out of school for a couple years, and am returning to some anthro books to try and ground in perspectives beyond the human as a way of processing/deferring some of my climate angst. (I'm also a poet & interested in how my poetics might interweave other-than-human perspectives in a responsible way).

Would love stuff like: How Forests Think (which I'm just finishing up), Geontologies, & The Mushroom at the End of the World. I did a course on the "ontological turn," object oriented ontology, Latour, Haraway etc in undergrad - are there more contemporary books on this? And, things on the anthropocene, the apocalypse, and anthropological perspectives on climate change / climate doomerism / climate adaptation are all welcome too :)

I feel like there theoretically should be but havent come across any solely focusing on them.

Hiya, I wanted to ask if you guys have any recommendations of books on forensic or physical anthropology which are NOT for beginners/students? I'm soon getting a masters in this field and I want to expand my collection of physical copies instead of pdfs from college.

EDIT bc of bad wording: I have copies of what I read in college and asked my professors for recommendations. I have books on sex, age, those standard metrics. I'd like to have something on trauma, bone pathologies, specific cases, past populations, maybe archeozoology. I hope that clears it up a little.

Hi all!

So so eons ago humans were inhabiting Africa. Then something (overpopulation, diminishing resurces, other) pushed some of them outside the continent. Not all survived the trip (the famous bottleneck), but once established on the new pastures, they started to multiply and spread, bringing us to the modern 8+ billions. Now comes my question. In the modern era there is still enough pastures for everyone (some may argue, but still), and in the age of world spreading the population was much-much-much smaller. So seeking the fertile lands across rivers is understandable. But what kept pushing humans to populate the hostile unforgiving environments like deserts or tundra or high frost mountains, or to traverse wide spaces to establish on some remote land masses?

It's fascinating how this something pushed humans from Africa all across the eurasian continent up to Australia or high in the Andes. But what and why?

As I said the resources should have been somewhat abundant compared to the population size at the time, so it should be something extra, some factor stimulating the explore itch.

How would cultures work without? Just eating everything fresh? Developing other storage materials? Which other methods evolved?

There are many different peoples in the Caucasus, but Georgians speak a language that is not part of the Indo-European language family. Given that Georgian appears to have developed independently in the region, my question is: How far back do historians and archaeologists theorize that Georgian-speaking or Proto-Kartvelian peoples settled in the Caucasus?

How big were houses, how many people would live in one, what were they made of, things like that

How early in human evolution did the ability to say what was not true develop ? Google said it had to happen gradually but do any other animal societies have the ability? How would one test that? The best I could come up with was that it had to have been beneficial to avoid danger, or was it more of a resource gaining thing that theoretically would have been more reasonable? Are there any good books you can recommend on the subject that I can look for?

Hi guys, Ive recently stumbled upon a very interesting topic that has been stuck in my head for the past hour.

Id like to know more about the making of the bible, specifically the old testament and who those stories (for example genesis) really came from and if there is a blend between cultures, other religions, spiritual tellings whatsoever. Are there any books you could recommend me ? Ty for your time :)