(Part 2) Best products from r/Anthropology

I'm not sure how they compare to other textbooks, but Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind seems to give a broad and relatively up-to-date overview, and Exploring Biological Anthropology: The Essentials is a somewhat more concise version.

Like other users mentioned, The Fossil Trail has pretty interesting background, and The Complete World of Human Evolution is a solid but truly concise overview if you don't want to go for a full textbook, or would rather spend the difference on a lucky replica tarsier skull. Fossil and genetic research within the last year will make any book a little dated, but is easy enough to catch up on.

The CARTA symposia lectures available on YouTube or its site are a good resource.

For example, this one could be interesting for the emphasis and associations even if you've covered the material in a book, and gives a sense of a prominent researcher in the field (coauthor of 'The Complete World...', and author of Lone Survivors, which might also be worth checking out).

These presentations from a symposium on the origins of violence are another example (20 min. each, 3 per video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRsQDfgwP08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaQ-oEpNG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q3N5kainhw

They give a range of viewpoints, and again personalize some of the academics involved.

From the institutional / sociological side, I suggest Max Weber's theories on charisma as the primary form of legitimating leadership. Other anthropologists have explored this notion in greater depth - there's a fantastic book by Charles Lindholm. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Charisma-Charles-Lindholm/dp/1557864535

Also, another idea about this I really like is related to shamanism, as shamans are leaders who exercise this charismatic kind of leadership through incredible creativity and dynamism. I think it's Mircea Eliade who suggests that shamanism is the primary example of religious leadership, and the first to evolve in the history of religion. And I can't remember where I heard this, but apparently some scholars have argued that the paintings in the Cheveux Cave are portrayals of a shamanic ceremony, so that would kind of help prove that theory. SO to look at it from an evolutionary perspective, that would also place charisma as central to the development of leadership if shamans can be considered the first religious leaders (which I like to believe).

David Hume's "The Natural History of Religion" kind of outlines this too in a really beautiful way, if you're interested in checking out philosophical arguments as well. He talks about polytheism as being the first form of religion and how/why (he believes) it shifts to monotheism in various parts of the world. And in the case of the earlier forms of polytheism (which Hume argues came into existence to explain natural phenomenon like rain and storms and famine and drought and death), everything in the world is more uncertain because the will of the gods/spirits is volatile since there are so many and they argue and stuff. In this scenario, a shaman would function as the mediator between the spirit world and the human world, allowing the community he/she leads some kind of assurance that there are things which can be controlled (through his/her ability to heal).

Sorry if this is alot, I just love this topic! And I hope this helps.

My first year in the Master's program I took a seminar in Culture and Economy. We had a pretty good stack of books we read through out the semester. I highly recommend these.

Stephen Gudeman- The Anthropology of Economy

Wilk and Cligget- Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology 2nd Ed

Marshall Sahlins- Stone Age Economics

Karen Ho- Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street

Colloredo-Mansfeld- The Native Leisure CLass: Consumption and Cultural Creativity in the Andes

Nancy Munn- The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim Society

Michael T. Taussig- The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America

Taussig is a great writer. Wilk and Cligget's book is good for basic foundations Economic Anthropology. Karen Ho's book is also a great institutional ethnography as well. Happy Reading!

I watched the Gun Germs & Steel documentary and read part of Collapse, mainly the part about the DR & Haiti.

I've read elsewhere that his facts are weak, or incomplete, what have you. I don't dispute that, but it's not really what bothered me about him.

All objective reality aside, there is always some subjective element in the conversation somewhere. And there is an underlying agenda, some bit of philosophy, some reason he's working on the point he's trying to make. And I came away feeling like I'd been exposed to much deeper, more profound work from so many other authors. Even if all of Diamond's facts are correct, his point is still ugly, a bit dull, and not very useful. I mean, at the end of the day, after reading Gun Germs & Steel, what does that leave us saying about colonialism? What does it add to our ideas and attitudes about the historical relationships between peoples?

Others have said much deeper things about colonialism, with deeper and more useful agendas. This book, for example, was great. It starts with a bit of etymology and moves through some historical events, but most of the book is analysis of the journal entries of colonists/planters around the world. It's fascinating and provides a view of the intermixing of ideas about race and identity, economics, desire, sexuality, and politics/the state, all woven into historical context. It's deep and rich and it gives you a new perspective on history and your place in it.

What I read of Diamond was boring, a bit trite, and it certainly didn't add anything to my perspective on colonialism, or the current situations in the DR or Haiti. Sure, ecological devastation has been harmful. He's not wrong about that. He might not be 'justifying' western dominance exactly, but maybe he's just walking that fine line between 'justify' and 'explain.' Western preeminence seems to be a salient part of his agenda. And he could be right about that, but what kind of a point is that to make? Is that useful?

Sorry I'm not really an expert (this just what I've gleaned off various books/documentaries etc. maybe a professional anthropologist can correct it I've way off the mark) but I will say Northern Scandinavia is nothing is comparison to many regions.

People have been living in North Eastern Russia, not far from the coldest places on the planet, since before the ice age (I'm not sure if they headed south actually during the ice age and then returned after but people have lived in Siberia since 25,000 y.a.). By comparison living in Northern Scandinavia in the Viking age is a tropical holiday.

I can't point you to a website with my source/more info as I just remember reading it in this book. Has a chapter on NE Russian natives with a lot more info if you want.

Most hunter gatherers in the arctic or warmer temperate regions were nomadic to some degree. The inuit had seasonal camps. But whether hunter gatherer or farmer you couldn't realistically migrate from the high arctic down to temperate regions for summer.

They just coped. And developed very specialised technology very early. Traditional winter clothes of the inuit seem to still be better superior to modern military jackets!. That book I mentioned has accounts of sophisticated techniques for making winter clothes being practised at the end of the ice age in Siberia!

They also have biological adaptations

As for what they'd do during the long nights. Who knows. But bearing in mind that hunter gatherers in all parts of the world had lots of down time and farmers worked very hard but would have much more to do in some seasons compared to others even in warmer parts. People just hung out I guess, told stories, made art. Some prehistoric art show signs of being something someone would've worked for hours, days on.

tl;dr didn't move - just good at surviving!

That is exactly what I am interested in doing! So since I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about this I believe I can help. As for what to read: I started with Your Inner Fish because it brings human evolution back to when we first got out of the water and explains very, very early brain evolution and development of the brain in utero. Also an easy read. Next I have been tackling "Evolution of the Human Brain" by Lieberman (can't find an amazon link for it, sorry). I'll admit it is not an easy read and it is not impeccably edited but I believe all the facts are there and it is very comprehensive. You can learn a lot from this book. I will also suggest The Brain. Now, I can't speak to the quality of this one because it has just come out, but the guys who wrote it are incredibly smart and I expect nothing but great material from them.

As for schools: you must know now that it really all depends on the person you want to work with. They could be anywhere in the world. I mentioned before, this is my thing, so I can tell you that the schools I have interest in because they have one or more people researching this area are: UC San Diego, George Washington U, possibly NYU if you can tie it into neuroscience and work with the medical center, then there are people abroad as well if that's something you would consider.

Hope that helps.

edit: the book is called "Evolution of the Human Head" not Brain.

Warp-faced woven bands like those you've shown here really do only have a certain number of pleasing geometric designs due to the inherent limitations of the craft - you only have x number of warp threads, and they can only be combined in y number of ways if you want to end up with a useful band. Of course, if you use a large number of warp threads, you have a very great latitude in designing motifs... but the majority of simple functional bands will only have a relatively small number of possibilities. Warp-faced woven bands form the top edges of cloth woven on a vertical loom, so you see clothing articles that use the woven band as a decorative bottom selvage. Woven bands were everywhere for thousands of years.

That being said, there certainly are cultural reasons why some weaving patterns persist with certain peoples - for example, see the band shown in the bottom right of the picture you've posted: abstract lozenge designs symbolizing a particular female body part were often used to decorate clothing worn by marriageable women. Embroidery designs quite often mimic these much older woven band designs.

If you have a burning curiosity to dig deeper, I'd recommend borrowing a copy of Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean by Elizabeth Barber - it's a real doorstop of a tome, but I promise it's not near as boring as it sounds from the title.

https://www.amazon.com/Primitive-Dover-Books-Anthropology-Folklore/dp/0486473309 here's a book on the topic.

but yeah, there's a couple of common ideas I've heard on this.

1. the human brain is the same no matter where you go, so people will find the same things (symmetry, repetition, composition) pleasing all over. and when real things are abstracted they get abstracted the same ways. (beginners all draw faces the same way)
   
   
2. what art you can make and how it comes out is partly defined by the tools you have to make it with. wood carving at a basic level looks pretty similar no matter where you are because carving wood with hand tools presents the same physical challenges all over. ditto weaving, knitting, basket making, and suchlike.
   
   
3. representational art looks the same because it's trying to look like a real thing and that real thing looks the same.
   
   
4. abstract art is based off the patters you see when you are either in the dark for too long or if you close your eyes and press on them a little, this produces the same patterns no matter where you are so if somebody draws that it'll look the same.
   
   
5. art is a trade good, it moves around. art is a land mark, people come from all over to see it. new art influences artists that see it and then they make things that are like it.

I don't know of any "in-depth" studies of Native American cultures as a whole, but if your interested in a certain area, or language, or settlement or whatever there might be a lot of good books or information on the internet about it. If your interested, this book http://www.amazon.com/California-Indians-Their-Environment-Introduction/dp/0520256905 has really great essays to give a context to what you're trying to understand about different groups of people, for California at least

I did an anthro of art class in undergrad and the prof was a biological anthropologist who was most interested in the evolution of consciousness (which can be seen through art). Our textbook was Calliope's Sisters, which was a good intro, I think, to human consciousness as seen through art. It's a bit old now, but I'd glance at a copy if you can get your hands on one. That may help focus your reading.

As for where to go to grad school, when you find some books or articles that you really like and that are recent, find out where the person who wrote it is teaching and get in touch with them. If they aren't taking students, they may be able to help. Undergrad profs are also a great source of guidance for grad school choices.

Firstly (not that it's a big deal)- I am not a sir because I'm a woman. Be careful what you assume on the internet.

Secondly- hominins is what you call human ancestors, hominids means something else.

Thirdly- assuming that people behave similarly to particles is an oversimplification to say the least. In anthropology we use statistics and mathematical modeling, but we are very careful interpreting the results because people are people not particles. You might be interested in the history of anthropological theory- in the 1970s we thought we could be more scientific and model human behavior in a variety of mathematical ways (Processual Theory). There was a huge lashback to that way of doing anthropology (Post-Processual Theory) for a variety of reasons one of which is individual agency (Agency Theory) another of which is that different humans in different environments experience the world differently and therefore react differently to the same stimuli (Phenomenology Theory). A History of Anthropological Theory is a very basic introduction to some anthropological theory.

Fourthly- you linked to two studies by mathematicians to prove your point that human behavior can be modeled by math. Anthropologists are much more careful about modeling such behavior for the reasons I have outlined above, and since you asked for an anthropologists help, I hope I have provided that.

Agreed about the syllabi. I saved all of mine from college for later reference.

I find Anthropological "readers" to be a great place to start. They are a quick way to get familiar with the range of topics, styles, theories, etc that Anthropologists cover. Conformity and Conflict is a good one. I personally found this Anthro Theory book to be very useful. It has a lot of foot notes and chapter summaries. If you're interested in the religious side of cultural anth, this one is aight.

Straight up reading full ethnographies is time consuming and doesn't give a good overview imo. Could burn you out. /shrug

Also Anthropology is the fucking shiiiiiiiiiit. Represent. >.>