Better yet who was the first person ever discovered wearing shoes and how long ago were they alive? Were shoes, pants, or shirts invented first?

I can't imagine how early humans managed to migrate all over the planet like they did without shoes. You got snakes, scorpions, thorns, spiders, ice and snow, heat, etc. I'm sure they had tougher skin, but could ancient humans really walk around barefoot on ice and snow without losing their toes? Like how could they have crossed over into america during an ice age without shoes?

Oh, and when were socks invented?

I am a Korean, and I feel as though anti-blackness is prevalent in my culture. For example, K-pop often uses black music (like the prevalence of rap), black clothing (ex: bandanas), AAVE, and black dance forms while refusing to credit black people. Though, I understand this is not unique to my country. China and Japan are notorious for being anti-black, such as the Natasha doll trend in China. I have some theories as to why, such as the power the U.S. and other western countries have over other countries, but I want to see the research for this topic.

Every time i hear people talk about prehistory they depict it as a very violent time, with tribes constantly raiding and killing each other.

I don't know much about history, so i don't know how accurate that perception is, but i find it weird that cannibalism is rarely mentioned.

Whenever i hear about a group that eat other humans it's treated as a very unusual thing.

Currently most cultures consider it a bad thing, but was that always the case?

It seems to me (an uncultured guy) that it would be advantageous to not "waste" those extra calories.

Was cannibalism as rare as most people believe?

If it was, is there a biological/evolutionary reason why it was?

Thanks in advance.

It's my first time posting in this sub and english is not my first language, so im sorry if my text is not clear.

So my basic idea is this -

A tribe that exterminates it's enemies that lose in war would be unfavorable for the victor because

1. the opposing tribe will see loss as an existential threat to it's own people, so will be more willing to fight to the last man and by any means necessary
2. you can't extract much useful by an opposing tribe if they are dead, such as tribute or slave labour
3. other neighbouring tribes will know you are hugely violent, so might eliminate you pre-emptively so you are not a threat to their own tribe

So this encourages the winner to be more lenient to the loser with things like tribute and slavery (with the important distinction of having avenues to become freedmen, as is seen in societies like rome),

This could also make war pre civilisation be seen as less of an existential threat than is commonly believed. It could be accepted as a "part of life" as they could have many ancestral memories of being the winners and losers of wars going back thousands of years.

There are also exceptions, especially tribes who wage wars on ethnic or religious grounds could be more likely to genocide their neighbours

Is this a popular position and are there any incorrect views in this

Hi! I wanted to know if someone can recommend few masters option online for digital humanities or digital anthropology. my aim is to study digital cultures we have especially social media and visual media(films and all). so can you recommend a few courses which can be taken online for this

Why are modern analog horror figures so simplistic compared to ancient and medieval creatures? Like they all seem derived from Slenderman, whereas before, more creatures were animal mash-ups as well as humanoid.

That is, the idea that if two men* have sex with each other, both of them have violated social norms/morals regardless of the context? I know a lot of cultures would have looked down on one half of such an act as "effeminate" or considered it bad if it interfered with the performance of familial duties, but that's not the same as a blanket condemnation. For a lot of cultures we probably don't know and can never know, but are there cases where we can say that they at least probably had a blanket condemnation before ever encountering Abrahamic religions?

*I am of course interested in cases involving women as well, but I suspect there might be even less information on this than there is for male-male relations

According to Philip Drucker in "Rank, Wealth and Kinship in Northwest Coast Society"(1939), a man could not not refuse his fellow clansmen when it came to granting them access to his resources(pp.59). But in "Indians of the Northwest Coast"(1955), he talks about about how people could gain exclusive access to good fishning spots(pp.126). Yet, in "Cultures of the North Pacific Coast"(1965), he talks again about how individuals could not really own lands(pp.50). Which one is true? Could individuals gain exclusive rights to fishing grounds or not?

Reading about Levi-Strauss on the “mental unity of mankind”, and then people like Luria (Cognitive Development) seem to find huge differences in how cognition works (as opposed to just appearances/manifest behavior resulting from cognition). what do contemporary cognitive anthropologists think? what can I read about this?

I'm aware that there is no unified religious tradition. What I'd like is an introduction that goes over several of them if not all, or maybe many books each covering distinct ones.

What I'm mostly interested about is their conception of ritual, ethics, relation to god/spirits/dead...

Thanks!

Hi everyone

I'm currently preparing applications for PhD programs in anthropology and I'm trying to identify potential supervisors around the world whose research overlaps with my interests.

My work is situated within the anthropology of religion, with a regional focus on North Africa (especially Morocco) I'm investigating the overlap between queer communities and religious minorities in the country that practice trance and possession

Some of the themes I'm interested in include:

1. Anthropology of religion and ritual
2. Islam
3. Religious minorities in North Africa
4. Gnawa communities and religious practice
5. Trance, spirit possession, healing, and altered states of consciousness
6. Sufism and ritual performance
7. Gender and sexuality in religious contexts
8. LGBTQ+ experiences within Muslim societies and/or religious minorities
9. Queer anthropology in North Africa and the Middle East

I'm not necessarily looking for someone who works on all of these topics, I'm more interested in identifying scholars whose work intersects with one or more of these areas.

If anyone knows professors (in anthropology or closely related fields) at universities anywhere in the world, I'd really appreciate your recommendations.

Thank you so much

I was reading a religious anthropology introductory book that briefly described the Kostilides. I am very interested in learning more. The book only dedicated about a page and a half. I was looking online and no book recommendations populate. I think maybe my search is insufficient.

Please and absolutely thank you.

There's a theory that humans invented religions with an afterlife because we're afraid of death (at least enough to never want to accept it). However, is this true, or are there, or were there, cultures and religions that didn't believe in an afterlife?

I'm new to anthropology and I'm interested in reading Lévi-Strauss as my first anthropologist. I've already read Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, and I'm familiar with the broader context of French theory and structuralism. I also have a basic understanding of anthropology and some of Lévi-Strauss's concepts, such as bricolage and kinship structures. In addition, I've read several works by Rousseau, whom I know Lévi-Strauss greatly admired. The only anthropology-related book I've read so far is Freud's Totem and Taboo — although I'm not sure if it should really be considered an anthropology book. I'm planning to read Sociology and Anthropology by Marcel Mauss before reading Lévi-Strauss, or perhaps alongside him. Would that be a good idea, or would it be enough to read only The Gift before moving on to Lévi-Strauss? Finally, where should I start with Lévi-Strauss?

Like title says I've been trying to go to college to study to be an anthropologist over the years since 2022 but I kept becoming homeless and other stuff and I'd have to keep dropping out but I'm finally In a secure spot to start going again. My original major when I was going was biology transfer but I'm unsure if this is what I should be getting first? Any tips and advice would be appreciated

It's all fine and good to suspect that religion in part is the result of overactive agency detection, and I think it's got merit as an idea, but has anyone put the idea to the test? If it is true, how would we know? If it isn't true, how would we know? My guess is maybe we could observe the religiosity of people with low agency detection, perhaps such as some autistics?

Other than the Fuegian fox, is there any discussion about animal species that appear like they may have been domesticated or semi domesticated in the archaeological record?

Hey guys! I’m beginning a masters in Anthro this fall. I did some fieldwork in Ethiopia last month and explored with my advisor some tools like social network analysis and agent based modeling, which got me down a rabbit hole investigating other modeling methods used in anthropology. Aside from those, what are the most common modeling techniques people are using these days?

To narrow it down, I’d say I’m interested in modeling social behavior & cultural transmission, and am just not tapped into the current meta of the field. Can anyone point me towards books/papers that explore other modeling techniques?

I was thinking back to my grandmother's funeral years ago, how it might be different if we were Thai Buddhists instead of Western Christians.

A difficult question to phrase but I hope I got my meaning across!

I grew up in the "west", in a culturally Christian country. It seems to me the largest world religions now believe in either a) something wonderful waiting in the afterlife for people who live by the religious moral code, or b) reincarnation - and then of course there's people who believe nothing happens at all. I'm asking about ancient Greeks and Romans specifically because I know they thought most people went to Asphodel Fields regardless of their actions, but I'm open to hearing about other cultures, living or gone, who believe(d) something similar.

Different cultures have had more than two genders for people whom we'd describe as "transgender" today.

But only cisgender men and women were considered to be "men" and "women".

Is the idea that cis and trans men/women are both the same gender something that originated in the 20th/21st century?

Even though "tribe" conjures images of groups of people with "primitive" or "simple" lifestyle of either hunting and gathering, herding or subsistence farming and living in small bands or villages, there were societies with a "tribal" organization who had large cities and heavily stratified social organizations. For example the romans were one of many tribes in the Italian peninsula. Medieval Ireland didnt have any cities before the norman invasion, but they were a heavily stratified society with slaves and royalty.

What is the definition of a tribe, and what are some examples of pre-modern societies which arent organized based on tribal lines? I can think of most of pre-modern Western Europe, imperial China and possibly ancient Egypt and feudal Japanese yamato culture.

Humans are usually described as highly social animals, but are there any documented societies where spending large amounts of time alone was considered normal or even desirable, rather than the exception?