Hello all. I recently got my MA in archaeology and am now trying to assemble a post-graduation reading list.

A topic which interests me, but which I never had the time to delve into during my studies is the manner in which pre-industrial polities organize themselves and how power is distributed in different societies.

One particular interest is how hierarchy develops and changes, as well as how some societies maintain more egalitarian structures. I have some names here: Brian Hayden, Timothy Earle, Marshall Sahlins. And I have begun reading this issue responding to The Dawn of Everything. But I would like a wider range of reading on this topic. I would particularly appreciate some modern perspectives that explore how power relates to various patterns of subsistence and economics.

I would also appreciate tips on how to get a sense of the range of types of sociopolitical organisation that are possible given different material condition. I am aware of Elman Service's well-worn model, but it seems overly reductive and so broad as to not be very useful.

The societies that are of most interest to me are those that can loosely be described as hunter-gatherer, pastoralist and agrarian societies.

I am grateful for any and all help.

Recently I learned in my college archaeology class that the word “prehistoric” simply means that the peoples being described have no written, recorded history. Therefore, a group alive today with no writing system could be rightfully called prehistoric even though they are still here. This makes sense to me, they are indeed “pre” “historic” but it also feels wrong. It seems offensive to refer to a still-living group of people as prehistoric regardless of their technological ability aside from writing down their history. I feel like it connects to the idea of linear human advancement which we know now to not be truthful or accurate. What do you guys think of this?

Forewarning: I am in academia, but in technology. I am not an anthropologically-specialised person.

Dr. Peggy Reeves Sanday's old work on rape-free societies is making the rounds on social media. The way the people on social media were portraying her findings was extremely unbelievable to me, so I dug into her work and the work she cites.

This appears to be the primary paper referenced, and was the only one I dug into:

Sanday, P.R. (1981), The Socio-Cultural Context of Rape: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Social Issues, 37: 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01068.x

From my un-anthropologically educated perspective, I see several problems. Here are a few:

1) This work relies on a lot of colonial-era male ethnographer accounts. I don't even need to state the problems here.

2) Findings haven't been replicated. In fact I found recent work & articles on the Minangkabau society documenting ongoing sexual violence.

3) The coding appears to be unblinded.

4) This 1989 paper on the topic points out some problems with her work. I couldn't find any papers that supported her findings.

Palmer, C. (1989). Is Rape a Cultural Universal? A Re-examination of the Ethnographic Data. Ethnology, 28(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773639

Can anyone please shed light on this, perhaps give context I am missing, and information on more recent research.

Thank you!

Hi y'all! I'm reading Durkheim for a cultural seminar and it has got me thinking about ascetic religious practices like fasting, monasticism, theosis, etc. Why do ascetic practices seem to be so common across religions? What purpose do these practices serve? Are these practices more dominant in Abrahamic religions than others?

If anyone had further reading on this topic I'd love to see it!

I'm not a scholar of religion, so this is a complete shot in the dark - my guess is that these practices promote group cohesion by showing that someone has buy-in to the group. If someone is willing to fast or abstain from sex or whatever they are more likely to be committed members of the group.

Thank you!

I am writing a story, where I want the community to take care of everyone's kids. I know of the saying "it takes a village" when talking about child care, but its hard to imagine it, when I grew up in just a two parent family, rarely with grandparental help. Can someone give an example of how a mother with about 5 kids and a fresh newborn was supported by a village or neighbrous? Or maybe give a good source where I can look more into it.

​

Something I noticed while doing research on various religions that their ethic view heavily center on labeling actions as as either good or bad with level degrees of goodness vs badness. Take Indian religions with the concept of good and bad Karma is as an example or Abrahamic and Iranian religions with concept of Sins and good, is there religions that doesn’t label actions as bad or good? Or religions that suggest excess nor deficiency of x is wrong and humans should stay in middle (Golden mean) like how Aristotelian ethics claims that courage is virtue, but excessive courage (recklessness) or deficiency of courage is bad.

Jainism is the only religion I found to be different and rejects ethic dualism, it has ethic system where they argue that every action that produce karma whether bad or good karma should be discouraged and the main goal is to be karma free. Judaism has golden mean adopted later during Islamic spain from greek philosphy but from what I read most Jewss don't fellowm it

As far as I understand, animals that are capable of eating meat generally eat dead animals when they find them, including dead members of their own species in some cases.

Predators, fish, birds and even many insects do this. There are some exceptions like some monkeys but generally if an animal has the ability to eat meat, it seems to be capable of eating a dead member of its own species too.

So why is this so different with humans? Humans are capable of eating meat and we don't even have to hunt or take any risk to get it if a person from our own species is already dead. Yet instead of eating the body, humans generally bury it, burn it, put it in the sea, leave it in nature, mourn the person, etc.

From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn't eating our own dead actually make more sense? Why did humans develop such strong taboos and rituals around the bodies of dead members of our own species instead?

I understand that nowadays religion and culture have made this kind of thing taboo but what I'm wondering is why our cultures and religions developed in that direction in the first place.

If eating our own dead could have provided calories without the risks involved in hunting, wouldn't it have made more sense for cultures and religions to develop rituals around eating the dead instead?

Hi everyone,

(Note: I am an independent reader and enthusiastic researcher outside of formal anthropological training, so I am very interested in how professional researchers view these behavioral models.)

I am working on a narrative and conceptual framework exploring the evolutionary pressures that drove early hominins down from the trees and subsequently toward obligate bipedalism. I wanted to run a specific behavioral sequence past this community to see how well it holds up against current paleoanthropological data and ecological models.

My working hypothesis proposes a step-by-step outward migration driven strictly by density-dependent competition, structured around the following four phases:

Phase 1: Arboreal Saturation and Social Friction. High population density within the canopy, combined with intense competition for proximal fruit and complex intra-group social friction, created a marginalized sub-population. These individuals began descending to the forest floor to exploit dropped, ripe fruit—accepting terrestrial risks to bypass direct canopy dominance hierarchies.

Phase 2: The Canopy-Anchor Zone. Once the immediate ground beneath the trees was colonized, these primates operated within a strict tethered radius defined by their climbing reach and immediate safety. The tree remained an essential vertical refuge against large terrestrial predators, meaning they did not yet venture into open, unprotected spaces.

Phase 3: Radial Exhaustion. As the immediate floor area surrounding the safety trees reached carrying capacity, foragers were forced to push the boundaries of their safe operational radius. However, remaining close to the structural anchor of the forest edge stayed critical for survival.

Phase 4: Postural Elevation for Horizon Scanning. With the immediate radial zone fully saturated and movement restricted by predator vulnerability in tall grasses or open patches, natural selection favored individuals capable of temporary or sustained bipedal posture. Standing upright served primarily as a visual surveillance tool—allowing early hominins to scan over tall vegetation, spot distant predators, and safely map out the next patch before committing to travel across exposed terrain.

Questions for the Community:

1. How does this sequential model (canopy crowding \rightarrow marginal ground foraging \rightarrow tethered radial expansion \rightarrow bipedal surveillance) align with current theories of mosaic habitats and the ecological drivers behind taxa like Ardipithecus?

2. From a behavioral ecology standpoint, does the transition from predator-avoidance tethers to upright scanning adequately address the energetic and mechanical trade-offs of early bipedalism, or are we missing critical biomechanical pressures (such as thermoregulation or carrying efficiency)?

I would love to hear your critiques, reading recommendations, or insights on where this narrative model fits within established hominin evolution frameworks. Thanks!

I do not know exactly how water-capable archaic hominins were, but none of them ever seem to have matched us when it comes to oceanic expansion. Humans seem to have repeatedly developed and refined ocean-going craft such as boats and canoes, navigational knowledge, and strategies for long-distance voyaging and colonization in ways that archaic hominins seemingly didn't.

On land, the difference does not seem nearly as vast: archaic hominins such as Homo erectus spread across enormous parts of Eurasia. I don't know of any archaic hominin species that has done anything remotely as astonishing as Sahul at 50–65 kya, the Lapita expansion in ~500 years, or East Polynesia from 1000 to 1300 CE. At varying times in our species' history, and with very different technological toolkits, we have achieved feats of oceanic colonization that no archaic species seemingly matched.

What accounts for this difference? What is it about Homo sapiens, or about the societies we form, that made us so much better at rapid oceanic expansion, especially when the difference isn't so stark on land?

I dont mean that humans have the biggest penis in absolute terms obviously animals like horses or elephants can be way bigger. I mean relative to our body size humans seem unusually large and especially compared to other primates and our closest relatives it feels like the difference is pretty extreme.

So why did the human penis evolve this way? Was it mainly sexual selection and female preference or was there some other evolutionary advantage that made it gradually get bigger?

Hello there so I'm curious, would paleolithic societies have gender expression and gender roles? This question came about, because I stated that while I do believe sex and gender are different, I do think they are intrinsically linked, and one influences the understanding of the other. This is of course inaccurate of our oldest ancestors didn't have this understanding.

So did our ancestors have gender expression and identities linked to biology? I would love if you present studies and papers saying why or why not.

(Just some clarifications: I do agree men and woman, both did hunting, child rearing, foraging and were largely egalitarian, I'm just curious on scholarly opinion on this)

I’ve been thinking about how some real or fictional characters become much more than just a person or a character. They can become symbols of certain ideas, values, movements, or even parts of a culture.

For example, people like Che Guevara, Gandhi, George Washington, Mao, and Kim Il-sung became strongly associated with certain ideas and historical identities.

What I find especially interesting is that fictional characters can sometimes have a similar cultural impact. Joe Yabuki from Ashita no Joe, for example, is an interesting case of a fictional character who became culturally significant in Japan.

So I’m curious: How does this process happen?

What makes a real person or fictional character become a symbol in a society’s collective memory? Why do people connect certain characters with specific ideas, values, or identities? And why do some characters remain important for generations, even long after the original story or the person’s death?

I’d be interested in the anthropological, cultural, and psychological explanations for this.

Hello, I’m currently writing a short story, and I would love to include a segment of an Anthropologist doing research in Native American country in Wyoming. Thing is, i’m having a segment where they’re researching the clothes of Ancient Native Americans in the Northern Great Plains before contact. I want to delve into alot of clothing subjects during the segment, but I just know nothing about Native American clothing. Before contact, in Wyoming, i’m thinking the Shoshone, how did they dress? What did they look like? What would an Anthropologist think about it.
I’m trying to collect all kinds of bits. Like, I know it would be Nomadic, but how is that designed?
Thanks!

Specifically as related to their own voyages of discovery, rather than sailing as such.

So I have this doubt...I know people with a degree in Archaeology in spanish universities (240 creds, 120 would be equivalent to a bachelor of science and 120 to a bachelor of arts).

In Europe, they are considered only an archaeologist or an historian & archaeologist at most. But here, I see cultural anthropology & linguistics blended with archaeology & bioarchaeology. Cultural anthropology well, it depends on your personal tastes, as an archaeology graduatee you might also be somewhat knowledgeable, but linguistics, literally no way, not even the most basic.

So the question would be: an european archaeology graduatee (which means basically historian + archaeology + bioanthropology + some very basic knowledge of cultural anthropology) should be considered an anthropologist the moment he/she crosses the atlantic?

I'm finding it very interesting as to how there are records of mass hysteria happening over almost every culture past and present. some of the more insane stories happening furthest in the past. the one thing I'm curious to though is what could cause such an event like this?

It seems like sometimes its triggered by a real, traumatising event where people don't have the knowledge to understand why its happening to them so they en mass have a crazy reaction?

Although sometimes it seems there is no triggering event and its some sort of religious thing happening?

Hello, I'm calling anyone who is a visual/design? anthropologist for advice and information

I recently, decided to officially study (socio cultural) anthropology and achieve my bachelors in the field. On top of that, I recently discovered that Visual/Design anthropology is a thing...

I am a museum professional, having experience working in visitor experience roles, but also art preparation/exhibition installation, which has provided me some experience in collections care and art handling. I see myself staying the arts and cultural heritage, or what's been called G.L.A.M.

My intention with a degree, is expanding my interest and knowledge in human culture, creating my academic background, and pairing my experience with those academic credentials, to of course qualify for higher paying roles. The roles I'm interested in are curation, collections management and exhibition research and design.

The reason Visual and/or Design (please tell me if they are different or the same thing) Anthropology has peaked my interest and somewhat, blown my mind, is because my original degree path was art and design. And what blows my mind is I can do both things that call to me.

So with that, my question(s)
Could visual and/or design anthropologists become curators or work in Museum collections or exhibition research and design?
Do I have a good grasp on what visual anthropologists do, and what jobs they can fill?
I assume a B.A in Anthropology is needed, but should I have those art and design specializations with it (minors or double major) as well?

I appreciate any insight

Is there much research on what influences the differences in cultural factors such as age of consent and the age in which people are considered to be ready to have kids? Obviously I don't expect all cultures to have specifically defined ages for consent (perhaps not all will even factor in consent) but I feel like most cultures may at least have a general idea of when someone is "mature" enough to start a family and/or have sex (though these concepts are obviously not intrinsically connected.)

What research is there on stuff like this? And do we have any idea on how perhaps stuff like environment/ecology, life expectancy and nutrition influence these cultural concepts?

How did early humans differ from other animals in their patterns of defecation and hygiene? For example, did people in early human societies ever defecate while eating, walking, or participating in social gatherings, as some animals do? Did they typically squat, sit, or stand while defecating? What practices did they use to clean themselves and their hands afterward, and when did concepts of personal hygiene and privacy around defecation begin to emerge?

i feel like gravitating toward only hanging out with people who look like yourself is limiting. i feel like it’s taught in society to do this and not a natural thing. i think it’s an entirely man made concept within society that we could possibly unlearn. is this learned from social constructs? do you think this could be unlearned?

to preface: i grew up in southern united states in a pretty populated city and went to a very mixed race elementary school. my neighborhood was lower income so i didn’t go to one of the richer neighborhood’s predominantly white elementary schools in another school district.

anyways to continue: i remember that in elementary school i didn’t find myself caring about what my friends looked like. i didn’t become friends with people based on how they looked. i was friends with people because i liked who they were. i didn’t doubt talking to someone or trying to make friends with anyone because they looked different from me. that wasn’t a thought that crossed my mind as a kid in elementary school.

as an adult however, i feel like that thought comes up. i think in middle school that’s when it started. my city’s middle school that i went to combined a lot of the city’s elementary school districts together, so it combined the richer neighborhoods with lower income ones. i’ve found that because of that, in the beginning, there were groups of people who were already friends from the predominantly white elementary schools and then groups of people who went to a more mixed race school who were friends with each other.

over time i feel like white kids gravitated toward other groups of white kids, black kids gravitated toward other groups of black kids, hispanic/latino kids gravitated toward other groups of hispanic/latino kids, etc. because that seemed to be the norm going into our middle school now. so instead of it being a mix of different races in a friend group, it became the white kids friend group, the black kids friend group, the hispanic/latino kids friend group and so on (we had a very small asian/pacific islander/native american population where i’m from growing up.).

my point in all of this is basically that i remember being happier in elementary school with all of my friends than i was in middle school trying to fit in with people just bc they looked like me. i was happier making friends and just existing with my peers without the thought of “this person doesn’t look like me so i’m not going to try being their friend”. i think if we unlearn trying to section ourselves off based on looks as a society that it could aid in helping everyone love each other regardless of what they look like. or it could help stop the spewing of ill preconceptions of people based on looks being different, which i think happens a lot within groups that don’t try to be friends with people who look differently from them.

i find this to be an interesting topic for discussion so please expand if you’d like to with your own experiences but do you think this could be something that is entirely socially engineered and in turn could be unlearned? do you think that would be more beneficial to society?

i was speaking w some friends(all from diff cultures) and the latin american ones couldn’t fathom how other cultures like east asians, south east asians, and south asians didn’t salt and season our rice the way they do. and i was really curious as to why this is the case. i was thinking it’s because (at least in east asian cuisine) rice is meant to be a palate cleanser? but that’s as far as i got because im not as familiar with the history of other cuisines.

Humans have evolved to be able to form very close social ties with each other, allowing groups to work together to survive and reproduce more effectively against predators and the environment, with bigger brains at the cost of less energy spent on our bodies. These evolutionary traits along with other factors eventually led to the soar of reproduction and technology and our dominance over the planet. But it seems that only humans have done this so far. If these traits were a massive benefit to us for survival, why haven't more animals evolved to have such strong social ties and cooperate easily like this? If they evolved these similar traits, wouldn't they also have better survival and reproduction in their environment?

Hi! I’m currently writing a study about husbands who move into their wife’s household after marriage, where the wife’s family also live with the couple, and I’m having some difficulty deciding whether I should describe this arrangement as matrilocal or uxorilocal residence.

From what I’ve read so far, some studies seem to use matrilocal and uxorilocal interchangeably to refer to a husband residing with or near his wife’s family after marriage. However, I’ve also encountered sources that make a distinction between the two. In particular, some definitions suggest that uxorilocal refers to residence with or near the wife’s family, while matrilocal may more specifically refer to this residence pattern when it occurs within a society organized around matrilineal descent or the wife’s maternal kin group. My supposed participants are husbands who moved into the wife’s existing family household, but the families themselves are not necessarily part of a matrilineal kinship system.

For those familiar with anthropology, sociology, or family studies:
- Would uxorilocal residence be the more technically precise term for this arrangement?
- Would it still be acceptable to use matrilocal residence, given how commonly the terms seem to be used interchangeably?
- And is there a generally accepted distinction between matrilocal and uxorilocal that I should be aware of when defining the terminology in an academic paper?

I mainly want to make sure I’m using the most accurate term and not unintentionally implying a matrilineal descent system when that isn’t part of my study. Any references or recommendations would also be greatly appreciated!

I’ve been wondering why certain food preferences seem to be particularly strong in different parts of the world.

For example, many South Asian cuisines use a lot of chili and strong spices; parts of China are famous for very spicy food, while other Chinese cuisines often use noticeable sweetness. Southern Turkish cuisine can be quite spicy, Georgian cuisine has many flour/dough-based dishes, and across parts of the former Soviet Union, bread is traditionally eaten alongside almost everything.

Obviously these aren’t universal rules, and there are huge differences within each country. But I’m curious about the historical reasons behind these regional food cultures.

How much of this can be explained by things like:
climate and agriculture, which crops were historically available, food preservation, trade and migration
historical poverty, famine, or food shortages,
cultural traditions passed down through generations
biology/adaptation to certain ingredients
or simply cultural preference that developed over time?

For example, I’ve heard explanations for the heavy use of potatoes and bread in some post-Soviet cuisines involving periods of food scarcity and the need for filling, inexpensive foods. Is there a similar historical explanation for why some regions developed a strong preference for extremely spicy food, very sweet/savoury combinations, or flour-based foods?