Anthropology Research Topic help!

[gt_killa]

I'm taking Physical Anthropology and there's a research paper that I'll have to do and present on Final... and I need help with the research topics. It's still early, I do have a few topics in mind, but I just want to see if there're any other interesting topics you guys can offer!

IE: 1. Is the social structure of Colobus monkeys related to their environment?
2. What evolutionary forces are responsible for the range of human variation throughout the world?
3. Why are Neandertals considered a different species than Homo sapiens?

[Linliel]

Good luck on your paper, I have no particularly helpful suggestions but your topic reminded me of an awesome paper I read once for my sociology of science class (on anthropology):

“Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” by Clifford Geertz
http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/cour...ent/Geertz.pdf

[Thoronas]

Not sure if it's something you could do in your course but maybe do a project on the physical traits represented in different cultures visual art mediums (ie comics). Compare the male and female characters in American comics and Japanese manga and discuss how they are reflection on each cultures ideal body types.

[Sanoske]

Not sure if it's something you could do in your course but maybe do a project on the physical traits represented in different cultures visual art mediums (ie comics). Compare the male and female characters in American comics and Japanese manga and discuss how they are reflection on each cultures ideal body types.

Yea... that definitely wouldn't fly.

Um, I'm trying to remember what I did for my final papers in Phys Anth. How about anything with the whole debate on Neanderthal Heidelbergensis and all the interim forms of evolution that people have been questioning for years now. Not sure how much I remember... I'm concentrated in Cultural Anthro anyways. =/

EDIT: Looking at your examples reminded me of a great topic. Complete Replacement v. Regional Continuity. Discussing the origins of modern human evolution. Basically it states that Complete Replacement - human evolutions originated in Africa and migrated outward, replacing populations by domination. Regional Continuity states that human populations evolved separately from each other, in their respective regions. I did a bit of research on this at the end of whatever class I took, and it was pretty interesting.

[Talus]

I'm taking Physical Anthropology and there's a research paper that I'll have to do and present on Final... and I need help with the research topics. It's still early, I do have a few topics in mind, but I just want to see if there're any other interesting topics you guys can offer!

IE: 1. Is the social structure of Colobus monkeys related to their environment?
2. What evolutionary forces are responsible for the range of human variation throughout the world?
3. Why are Neandertals considered a different species than Homo sapiens?

The evolution question seems pretty straight forward. What is evolution? It's a change in genetic material in a population of an organism over a long period of time. What drives evolution? Natural selection. Populations are large, organisms mate randomly, and those with genetic traits best suited to surviving their environment passed their genes on (survival of the fittest).

The environment drives evolution in some respects as well. For example, if a predator is introduced to an environment, the population becomes faster to survive (not because they WANT to become faster, but the faster ones that can run and escape from the predator will be the ones to pass their genes on, and as a result the population as a whole becomes faster... or not, and they die out). The prime example is tanning/skin coloration. As man moved out of Africa, and north and south away from the equator, there was more variation in skin color.. darker skin protected against the loss of folate, and lighter skin farther away from the equator was needed due to less sun exposure (shorter day) and the possibility of low vitamin D levels as a result.

Neanderthals aren't considered a different species than Homo sapiens. They are considered a subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The rub:
- Some people DO consider them a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.
- Very much like modern human, probably not directly ancestral, but it appears we do share a lot of genes (but this changes regularly depending on who has done the most recent study!)
- this is our species, but like I said, a different subspecies (this is controversial, like a ton of shit in taxonomy. I blame fucking Linnaeus).
- they performed ritualistic burial of their dead, and used highly crafted tools.
- They had more prominent supraorbital ridges (eyebrow ridges), and they were larger.. which means you need a bigger brain, and they had a slightly larger brain than we (Homo sapiens) do (their brain was about 1450 cc, while ours is around 1350 cc). While they had a bigger brain, it doesn't necessarily mean they had greater intelligence than us.
- they lived 35k-130k years ago.
- they wouldn't stand out in a crowd today if they were properly dressed.

[Tristam]

The evolution question seems pretty straight forward. What is evolution? It's a change in genetic material in a population of an organism over a long period of time. What drives evolution? Natural selection. Populations are large, organisms mate randomly, and those with genetic traits best suited to surviving their environment passed their genes on (survival of the fittest).

The environment drives evolution in some respects as well. For example, if a predator is introduced to an environment, the population becomes faster to survive (not because they WANT to become faster, but the faster ones that can run and escape from the predator will be the ones to pass their genes on, and as a result the population as a whole becomes faster... or not, and they die out). The prime example is tanning/skin coloration. As man moved out of Africa, and north and south away from the equator, there was more variation in skin color.. darker skin protected against the loss of folate, and lighter skin farther away from the equator was needed due to less sun exposure (shorter day) and the possibility of low vitamin D levels as a result.

Just as an add-on, if one goes this route it may be appropriate to address sexual selection in humans, although I'm not familiar with the literature or even if there are any studies on the role of sexual selection in pre-civilization humans, it's significant. There are many non-human examples, but I just can't think of any human specific studies, would be interesting to find out. In any case I would avoid saying that mating is random, there is certainly a selection process by the organisms themselves.

Also the degree to which humans affect their enviroment changes how natural selection influences human populations. There could be feedback loops there that drive changes in physical characteristics maybe?

Again this is all outside of my expertise, hence my lack of examples, maybe it isn't as interesting as I think it is.

[Darus Grey]

Rape throughout the ages as a form of natural selection: A visual guide.

[Devia]

What evolutionary forces are responsible for the range of human variation throughout the world?

This is a fascinating topic. Geography, altitude, climate, diet, predators, etc.

[Devek]

Rape throughout the ages as a form of natural selection: A visual guide.

That explains opposable thumbs!

[Sanoske]

This is a fascinating topic. Geography, altitude, climate, diet, predators, etc.

The physiological adaptations in Inuits is a good example of this.

[Talus]

Just as an add-on, if one goes this route it may be appropriate to address sexual selection in humans, although I'm not familiar with the literature or even if there are any studies on the role of sexual selection in pre-civilization humans, it's significant. There are many non-human examples, but I just can't think of any human specific studies, would be interesting to find out. In any case I would avoid saying that mating is random, there is certainly a selection process by the organisms themselves.

What I meant by mating is random, I should have been more specific. Mating is random inasmuch mates aren't "assigned" and choice is a part of it: sexual selection is a part of it, but sexual selection has more to do with why male peacocks have pretty tail feathers, or certain birds have colorful hoods, etc. Those traits become prevalent through sexual selection.

I'm not familiar with any literature on sexual selection in humans (I'd check the journals in sociology or sociobiology, if the TC is interested).