New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 7 Notes

by: Amanda Notetaker

Week 7 Notes ANTH 160

Amanda Notetaker
GPA 3.79

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover the back half of lecture 5 and the beginning of lecture 7. Something to note: next week is fall break so there will be no class on Thursday. Lecture 7 will be finished up but ther...
Human Life Course
Dr. Tanya M. Meuller
Class Notes
Anthro, 160, week, 7, notes, seven, Lecture, 6, Anthropology
25 ?




Popular in Human Life Course

Popular in Anthropology

This 11 page Class Notes was uploaded by Amanda Notetaker on Saturday October 8, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to ANTH 160 at University of New Mexico taught by Dr. Tanya M. Meuller in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 2 views. For similar materials see Human Life Course in Anthropology at University of New Mexico.


Reviews for Week 7 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/08/16
Anthropology 160.001 The Human Life Course Week 7: October 4, 6 Week 7 Readings: Low, Chapter 5, Sex, Appearance and Mate Choice Low, Chapter 6, Sex, Resources and Human Lifetimes (Tuesday, Thursday October 4, 6): Finish N!ai!, Population Growth 10/4 OVERVIEW OF LAST WEEK: Food sharing seen in bats –share with kin and friends (who you roost with more than 60% of the time) Grooming behavior among impala (top is male and bottom is female) One-for-one exchange of grooming Primate examples of reciprocal altruism:  Baboon alliances –aggression, grooming, help each other get copulations o Alpha status is often challenged; many times other males will distract the alpha so the friends can copulate with the females of the group. o Grooming alliances facilitate healthiness, lowers of cortisol, increases in dopamine and serotonin.  Vervet monkeys –those who have recently groomed non-kin are more likely to respond to that individual’s stress call. For kin it makes no difference, being kin is enough. o Cognition to distinguish friend or foe implies to help those with whom you associate often.  Chimpanzees –male rank acquisition, cooperative hunting, meat sharing. o Cooperative hunting is beneficial for role taking. Silently through body language, they assign roles to hunters and execute their plan of attack. When the hunt is done, the one who struck the blow divides the meat. First: give to those in the hunt. Next: give to those in your alliance. Last: share with females you want to copulate with. Male rank alliances are used to overthrow an alpha and expand boundaries. Cetaceans and altruism  Historical and recent anecdotes of dolphins aiding drowning humans o Considered good luck to sailors  Dolphin behaviors with other dolphins o Standing by: animal stays with another animal in distress but doesn’t offer obvious aid  Benefit: deter predators, alert the injured, and monitor the condition of the injured o Assisting: approaching an injured and swimming between captor and prey, attacking vessels, pushing injured animal away from captor o Supporting: one or more animals maintain a distressed animal at the surface of the water  Can take up to weeks o Cooperative hunting; build bubble nets around fish  Behaviors extended to other dolphin and whale species o Dolphins will try to support orcas but body size is an issue o When dolphins are aiding someone outside of their species, Among Humans  Tit-for-tat reciprocity is an explanation for food sharing o When food comes in large packages sharing is more likely  Large packages = high calories  Because large packages reflect asynchronized daily variance in food acquisition  Because individuals in possession of large food packages are likely to be far along the diminishing- returns curve. Such a situation will yield a net benefit over time to the food-sharing participants  Reciprocity should be more balanced among non-kin than among kin o Share and accept that you may receive less among kin  Among non-kin, people should give more to those from whom they receive more o Contingent sharing: my willingness to share with you relies upon your willingness to share with me Gardening among Yanomamö shows those with lower genetic relations (x- axis) do not tolerate as much of an imbalance in labor giving/labor received (y- axis) as those with higher relatedness. *There is a positive correlation between labor given and labor received among unrelated families Actual ACHE tribe data: food that comes in large packages is shared more widely than food that comes in small packages • Variance in acquisition for game vs. plant foods • Sharing as a risk reduction strategy • For Ache, 40% chance of coming back empty handed • For Hadza –97% for big game • Sharing benefits greatest for asynchronously acquired, medium- large packages • Short-term vs. long-term risks –sickness, illness, day-to-day variation, dependency load *Sharing among hunter-gatherers is more extensive than sharing among agriculturalists • Is sharing generalized or contingent? • Context-dependent nature of sharing • Are there non-food benefits to sharing –mating and offspring survivorship, prestige • Tolerated scrounging? Are poor hunters lazy, have no ability, or what? • Diminishing returns to consumption “Work transforms material things into property.” “Contingency” –what’s fair? What determines need? Luck, maximal group production requires work effort by all, even crummy foragers work effort weakly correlated with output? Hoarding taboo –violation of “social contract” Time predicts production –work effort strongly correlated with output Do we have an evolved psychology to recognize opportunities for sharing, cheating, recognition, rewarding, etc. for an economic game? Bargaining game: Dictator game: FOOD SHARING FOR RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM Food sharing is always facilitated by kinship  High degree of relatedness in small band systems  Degree of reciprocity can be modified by relatedness Payback in other currencies:  Show off hypothesis: men share food and hunt large game because it is risky and a signal of quality and may increase fitness  Favors to children (Ache), even when meat is shared throughout the camp  Prestige: do men respond more to its rewards, are they more driven by status than women? o Men have more to gain from higher access to reproductive partners Risk Reduction (short or long term)  Health insurance –covered for the unforeseen  Variation in family size, dependency ratio, through the life course o Dependent offspring verses sharing for just self  Unpredictable returns o Not guaranteed you’ll come back with meat when you go hunting  Division of labor between men and women  Defense against predators and conspecifics o Remove some people from a production role, help minimize attack threats by sending some to stand watch instead of hunt Tolerated scrounging: more costly to defend something against hungry conspecifics than to share and get something in return (Gurven et al. 2000) Reputation for generosity: use of reputation because it depends on a specific set of characteristics that an individual advertises to provide an intended (or sometimes unintended) impression of “self” in the minds of others *Reputations for different traits may each lead to high status *Part of a “quest for status” Signal of intent and quality  Individuals who consistently share food intensively signal a willingness to cooperate with specific partners  Intent could be useful for securing trade relationships, forming coalitions, and generating allies in disputes  Sharing of valuable resources signals high quality  During times of temporary disability (or illness), people with a strong reputation for being high producers and being generous are more likely to receive help (food and support) Gurven et al 2000 –Ache on reservation Those who produce a lot and give a lot: philanthropic Those who produce a lot and give little: greedy Those who produce little and give a lot: means-well Those who produce little and give little: never-do-well Does it pay to be generous?  Consistency (average number of families with which one shares) more important than breadth of sharing  Sharing individual production more important than family production  “Greedy” individuals give more absolute quantities of food to others than “means-well” individuals but still receive less assistance from others when disabled END LECTURE 5 10/6 BEGIN LECTURE 6: Life History Theory and the Evolution of the human Life Course –Hominin Characteristics Behavioral Ecology and Paleoanthropology  Why the inherent difficulty of studying long-term change using behavioral ecological theory: o Behavioral ecology (BE) focuses on short-term changes, links ecology to behavior o With long-term macro-evolutionary change, cannot easily measure variation in key ecological factors o Can’t extrapolate so-called “long-term” patterns in BE studies to “long-term” macro-evolutionary changes  effects of localized conditions, demographic changes, etc.  What model of recent human origins is appropriate? o Single point of origin (out of Africa) or multiregional in-situ evolution  The mitochondrial eve: a single female/small group of closely related females  Multiregional: a Chinese theory saying Homo erectus left Africa and settled Asia, middle east, Indonesia, etc. and from there, there was an emergence of a new species (Homo heidelbergensis), which eventually evolved into Homo sapiens. **Genetically there is no evidence for multiregional  If replacement theory is true, what could have given early humans such an adaptive advantage? o A marked change in “cultural” traits from archaic to modern humans  New diverse, regional technologies, appearance of artistic forms (behavioral modernity)  New social structure then subject to selection itself?  Obstacles to Paleobiological / BE fusion: o Phylogenetic heritage + tinkering = evolutionary change  Natural selection as a creative process o How to know who is an evolutionary dead end or representation of ancestors?  For a long tie Neanderthals were thought to be a part of lineage  now more evidence for interbreeding  Homo erectus with 12 subspecies? Uncertainty of who represents the first Homo Changes in dietary patterns and jaw formation help track the rise of hominids Obstacles: 1. Limitation of fossil data a. Few specimens b. Only hard tissues survive c. Fossils are samples fraught with error, which makes inference difficult. Inferring behavior requires a link of behavior to morphology or some environmental condition. d. Lack of specimens of key-aged individuals i. All we have are adult fossils: cannot determine teeth emergence, pelvis development, etc. 2. Phenotypes of hominin ancestors can never be firmly established, nor can the costs and benefits of past behaviors or traits Cost-benefit Logic: in the field of behavioral ecology, it is assumed that alternative behaviors are associated with different costs and benefits.  All alternatives can be ranked according to net fitness benefits/costs  We then assume that organisms have evolved the ability to perceive these costs and benefits and are motivated to choose the alternative that will lead to the highest fitness *The assumption that humans are fitness maximizers applies evolutionarily, but not modernly Trying to understand Hominin Traits: In trying to assess appearance of new traits throughout hominin history, must assess costs and benefits of those traits in terms of reproductive fitness Need to specify conditions that favor those traits (with theory), and then use whatever evidence available to see if those conditions were met at relevant time period Closely Related Aspects of Humans: 1. Locomotor behavior (bipedalism) a. Homo erectus first to not show this trait  emergence of fire also in this species. Indicates long arms linked to survival method of climbing trees 2. Foraging behavior a. Big and small game hunting, extraction of roots, tubers 3. Social structure a. Group living / cooperation b. Feeding competition lends to group complexity 4. Life history a. High fertility b. Long lifespan c. Delayed maturation Uniqueness of Humans: 1. Bipedalism a. Energetically more efficient than quadrupedalism i. Expending a quarter amount of energy via bipedalism ii. Could travel 11km for the same level of energy expenditure as a chimp over 4 km iii. Use extra energy for: 1. Increase in body size 2. Increased range size 3. Decreased cost of reproduction TWO LEGS!!!!irst, big brains or walking on two legs? What conditions fostered this? Climatic shift to patchier forests, and hot, open terrestrial environments where arboreal food resources are limited and where terrestrial resources are distributed in highly dispersed patches over large areas. Chimpanzees as Models  Chimpanzees are good models of early hominids since they are semi-terrestrial, often live in relatively dry African environments, and are of similar body size to some early hominids  Diet  Mostly fruits, plants, also termites, meat  Tool Use  Tool use variable (termite fishing, stone hammers crack open palm oil nuts), chimp “cultures”  Latest headlines indicate that chimpanzees have entered the “stone age” Case Study: Cooperative Hunting in Wild Chimpanzees  Boesch (1994) studied two groups of wild chimpanzees, one group residing in the Taï National Park, the other residing in the Gombe Stream National Park  Two strategies were considered, the hunter which hunts either cooperatively or alone, and the cheater which only takes part in the meat-eating episode of a hunt In the Taï population, cooperation was found to be stable. This is not the case for the Gombe population. Why? Hunting success of solitary individual Presence/absence of social mechanisms existing to limit the access of meat to non-hunters Environmental differences


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Jennifer McGill UCSF Med School

"Selling my MCAT study guides and notes has been a great source of side revenue while I'm in school. Some months I'm making over $500! Plus, it makes me happy knowing that I'm helping future med students with their MCAT."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.