Post reply

Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: May 19, 2023, 10:17:28 pm »

Duchesne the Turanist is back:

One of the great achievements of whites is the domestication of horses 6000 years ago and riding of horses 5,500 years ago by Indo-Europeans. This was done by the uniquely aristocratic culture of Indo-Europeans -- primus inter pares -- and horses are the aristocrats of animals.

See also:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 16, 2023, 10:02:24 pm »

"Part 2:"

Western civilization has been the single most war-ridden, war-
dominated, and militaristic civilization in all human history.
Robert Nisbet

Yes. Which is why we are trying to kill it ASAP.

horse riding and tribal raiding were indeed key
elements in the migratory movements of Indo-Europeans. The
significance of horse riding was that it "greatly increased the
effectiveness and the scale of herding," which led to the
accumulation of larger herds, which necessitated larger
pastures, which in turn intensified tribal alliances and
conflicts.8 It has been estimated that horse-riding would have
allowed for the use of territories up to five times larger than

I agree.

Horse riding increased the efficiency of surprise attacks and
retreats in raiding. Cunliffe notes that horse-riding probably
increased the overall speed of movement by about ten times.
Gimbutas estimates that a horse could carry a rider 20-30 miles
in one day—that is, about 4 to 5 times the distance traveled on
foot. "
In light of these facts, including the points presented in Part
One on the pastoral way of life of the IE migrants, one could
safely say that, starting in the fifth millennium and through the
fourth millennium, the Indo-Europeans initiated a most
dynamic way of life driven by the invention of wheeled
vehicles, the secondary products revolution, horseback riding,
large-scale herding, and aggressive raiding.

I agree. No part of which is aristocratic.

There is no denying, however, that Drews puts together a
superb case envisioning the arrival of the Mycenaeans as a
conquest by a class of chariot-warriors ("big men, taller and
broader" than the typical native inhabitants) rather than a
migration of impoverished pastoralists who had been evicted
from their original homeland and were seeking new lands "in
which to make an honest living."13

Drews is correct. The alternative hypothesis is laughable.

I think we miss much if we forget the aristocratic context of
these migrations, the constant competition for prestige and
honor among the noble elites, and the fact that the excess of
young men who were pushed or pulled to migrate were finely
built characters eager for adventure and joy within a culture
that afforded them with the opportunity to express themselves
as individuals and expected them to be jealous of their tribe's
dignity, as well as their own.


Let me start addressing this restless ethos by drawing attention
to the fact that the major themes of IE poetry revolved around
the heroic deeds, immortality, and fame of individual men.
Poets were highly respected in IE societies; they were not only
the repositories and transmitters of the overall cultural
knowledge but were also entrusted with singing the praises of
heroes. The preoccupation with going into battle in order to
seek personal recognition found expression in such poetic
phrases as "imperishable fame" and "to overcome death."
Fortson writes that a warrior valued battle above all else
because it afforded the opportunity to attain fame, which
brought immortality, and in this sense fame was a way of
overcoming death. 0

I agree that poets should write about heroes. But true heroes should not particularly desire to be written about. One who does outstanding deeds for the sake of being written about is already not a hero.

Combined with this heroic poetry was a highly individuated
mode of reckless but "glorious" fighting. Michael Speidel, in a
captivating paper, argues that "an outstanding feature of Indo-
European culture" was a style of "berserk-like" fighting in
which individual warriors would throw off armor or garments
in sight of the enemy, "showing off their utter fearlessness,"
rushing ahead yelling and "raging uncontrollably in a trance of
fury." "Flashing eyes, frenzy, and swirling-storm tactics are
customs natural to berserk-like warriors everywhere."23
Speidel cites numerous documentary sources, Roman writers,
mythological stories, and sagas showing that this style of
fighting—"naked, shouting, barefoot, flowing-haired, and often
in single combat"—was "for love of fame and out of daring."
The less protected the body and the greater the capacity to
sustain pain and maintain one's courage and "willfulness"
unbroken, the more heroic and human the fighter was in the
eyes of his peers.

The single and singular warrior in combat was idolized. Having
the opportunity to fight in this way, the " outdo
other warriors" was the "highest happiness." A life that lacked
deeds was the "greatest grief."26 The "manhood" of warriors
depended on deeds of berserk daring.

We are supposed to admire this?!

This psychological state
of fighting—the wild, beast-like howling and "stormy
unruliness"—carried to an extreme the individuality and
singularity of the warrior. The etymology of "gone berserk"
stresses the "trance-like state madness" of fighters, their
animalized transfiguration into wild creatures, a bear or a wolf,
separated from social controls of any kind, in an utter state of
fury (furor, menos, or wut).27

I am reminded of vampires during feeding.

Azar Gat, in his
recent book, War in Human Civilization, admits that pastoral
peoples exhibited a higher disposition for warfare than non-
pastoral cultures.

Of course!

John Keegan, in his
encyclopedic study, A History of Warfare, is quite definitive in
his assessment that the pastoral peoples of the steppes,
Scythians, Huns, Mongols, were a "new sort of people" in
being "warriors for war's sake, for the loot it brought, the risks,
the thrill, the animal satisfactions of triumph."

Which is why their bloodlines must be eliminated.

if we agree that the IE were a people of
the steppes, the first horseback riders and inventors of chariots,
we can make the inference that they were the first peoples from
the steppes to engage in warfare for the sake of the joys, the
risks, and the prestige it brought.

They were. Which is why their bloodlines must be eliminated.

young pastoralists had to "learn to kill, and to
select for killing" their domesticated animals. "It was flock
management, as much as slaughter and butchery, which made
the pastoralists so cold-bloodedly adept at confronting the
sedentary agriculturalists."33

We will avenge their flocks! We are the disciples of Cain!

The IE economic lifestyle included fierce competition for
grazing rights for specific areas, constant alertness in the
defense of one's portable wealth, and an expansionist
disposition in a world in which competing herdsmen were
motivated to seek new pastures as well as tempted to take the
movable wealth (cattle) of their neighbors. This life required
not just the skills of a butcher but a life span of horsemanship
and arms which brought to the fore certain mental dispositions
including aggressiveness and individualism, in the sense that
each individual, in this male-oriented atmosphere, needed to
become as much a warrior as a herdsman.

I agree.

Indo-Europeans were also uniquely ruled by a class of free
aristocrats. In very broad terms, I define as "aristocratic" a state
in which the ruler, the king, or the commander-in-chief is not
an autocrat who treats the upper classes as unequal servants but
is a "peer," who exists in a spirit of equality as one more
warrior of noble birth.

A ludicrous definition. The exact opposite definition would be correct.

Let me pull together a number of traits I have found in the
literature which, in their combination, point to a life of
aristocratic equality and, in Nietzsche's words, of "vigorous,
free, joyful activity." First, all IE cultures from the "earliest"
times in the fifth millennium—when ranking was just
emerging—have seen the presence of warriors who sought to
demonstrate their standing and wealth, by dressing in
"ostentatious" ways; for example, with long or multiple belts
and necklaces of copper beads, copper rings, copper spiral
bracelets, gold fittings in their spears and javelins—with
variations of styles depending on place and time but all
demonstrative of an "individualizing ideology."
Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian of the first century
BC, had this to say of the Celts: "The clothing they wear is striking:
tunics and breeches dyed and embroidered in various colours....
They wear bracelets on their wrists and arms, and heavy necklaces of
solid gold, rings of great value and even corselets."

A true aristocratic court requires uniforms.

Second, the IE warriors "were interred as personalities
showing off the equipment of life and their personal position in
a final coup de theatre, rather than joining a more anonymous
community of ancestors."35 Kurgan burials commemorated the
deaths of special males; the stone circles and mounds, and the
emphasis on "prestige weapons and insignia," were intended to
isolate and self-aggrandize the achievements of warriors.

True aristocrats cremate.

Third, IE aristocrats developed a distinctive tradition of
feasting and drinking, in which "individual hospitality rather
than great communal ceremonies" dominated the occasions.
These feasts—backed by a "prestige goods economy"—were
"cheerful" events of gift-giving and gift-taking, performance of
praise poetry, and animal sacrifices.3

But we will avenge the sacrificed animals before we cremate ourselves.

They were also an opportunity for the less
powerful or younger warriors to attach themselves to patrons
who offered opportunities for loot and glory. The more
followers the patron could recruit, the greater the expectation
of success and loot to be gained by all.

Why are bandits being called "aristocrats" FFS?!

Fourth, as Gimbutas has clearly articulated, and as Anthony
has further noted, this was a culture in which "all [the] most
important deities lived in the sky." While Gimbutas described
these sky gods in negative terms as the gods of a belligerent
people, one may see them as the gods of an energetic, life-
affirming people whose gods were personified as celestial
heroes and chieftains.
The sky-gods of the Indo-Europeans reflected—to use the
words of Christopher Dawson—their "intensely masculine and
warlike ethics, their mobility."

It is safe to say that Gnosticism never crossed the minds of such barbarians.

The relationship between the chief and his followers was
personal and contractual: the followers would volunteer to be
bound to the leader by oaths of loyalty wherein they would
promise to assist him while the leader would promise to reward
them from successful raids. The sovereignty of each member
was thus recognized even though there was a recognized
leader, "the first among equals." These "groups of comrades,"
to use IE vocabulary, were singularly dedicated to predatory
behavior and to "wolf-like" living by hunting and raiding, and
to the performance of superior, even superhuman deeds.4

In short, vampirism.

In contrast to the
radical transformations we saw in Europe, the IE invaders who
came into Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia were eventually
assimilated to the far more advanced civilizations of this
It is noteworthy that they borrowed Hattic words for "throne,"
"king," "heir apparent," and for a wide variety of bureaucratic
positions or functions—which are indicative of IE
acculturation to non-aristocratic forms of government.

Which are actually the truly aristocratic forms of government.

The Vedas pictured a people of enormous pride
with a fondness for feasting, dancing, and for making war.

I know.

But while the Rig-Veda was "decidedly pastoral" in its values
and practices, the number of non-Indo-European words
contained in the 1,028 hymns of this classic text suggest "a
close cultural relationship" between Indo-Iranian speakers and
4 8 the old native folk. The Indie speakers who moved into the
Indus valley came into an area already inhabited by a civilized
culture known as "Harappan," and as the Indo-Europeans
penetrated deeper through the Ganges south to Banaras, in the
course of centuries, "they gradually gave up their pastoral
habits and settled into agricultural life." 9

From our perspective, it was a mistake for us to teach them our ways. We should have eliminated their bloodlines instead.

This settled agriculture involved the cultivation of semi-arid
areas by means of river irrigation. As the Rig-Veda reported,
"They made fair fertile fields, they brought the rivers. Plants
spread everywhere over the desert, waters filled the hollows."50
Now, the importance of this point, which I can only outline
here, is that this river-based agriculture took on an "agro-
bureaucratic" character; centralized patterns of irrigation and
social control became the order of the day in the effective
handling of water supplies (canals, aqueducts, reservoirs and

Doesn't this sound much more aristocratic than what we have been reading about above?

Similarly, the pastoralists who moved into the land of Iran
came to fall within the orbit of a hydraulic system of
agriculture and a form of "despotic" rule

Which is what aristocracy actually means.

should not underestimate the oppressive character of the
Achaemenid monarchy as symbolized in the uniquely Eastern
practice of prostration.5 4

What is oppressive about it? It is done voluntarily! If we want to talk about oppression, let's start with the victims of all the raiding that Duchesne describes the Turanians do! Did those victims volunteer to be raided? (Here's a thought: perhaps they prostrate to their rulers in gratitude because their rulers defend them from the raids!)

reports a speech made by Callisthenes, a pupil of Aristotle, to
Alexander and his elite companions, in which he derided the homage
of prostration as a "humiliating custom,"

That is what you get from Aristotelianism.

The humanistic idea underlying this
transformation was the assumption that, if culture be
conceived as a 'privilege' due to 'noble birth,' there can
be no higher claim to such a privilege than that inherent
in the nature of man as a rational being. Thus instead of
vulgarizing that which was noble, the cultural
development of Greece ennobled the whole human race
by offering it a programme for a higher form of life, the
life of reason.68


This is how inferior our enemies are.

There were no
Possessors of the Way in aristocratic Greece; no Chinese Sages
decorously deferential to their superiors and expecting
appropriate deference from their inferiors. The search for the
truth was a free-for-all, each philosopher competing for
intellectual prestige, in a polemical tone that sought to discredit
the theories of others and to promote one's own

Except it is not a search for the truth, but (as Duchesne admits before the end of his own sentence) a mere competition to come up with something novel (and hence become famous for doing so). An actual seeker of truth would seek to discredit only false theories, while reacting to true theories with sincere deference. It is the seeker of prestige who seeks to discredit theories of others irrespective of whether the theories of others are true or false, for the sake of promoting one's own.

Far more that their counterparts in most other ancient
civilizations, Greek doctors, philosophers, sophists,
even mathematicians, were alike faced with an openly
competitive situation of great intensity. While the
modalities of their rivalries varied, in each the
premium, to a greater or less degree, was on skills of
self-justification and self-advertisement, and this had
far-reaching consequences for the way they practiced
their investigations as well as on how they presented
their results.

We are supposed to admire this?!

the roots of the West are to be found in a profoundly
different aristocratic character that first came into the light of
history in the Pontic steppes.

Western civilization must die.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 16, 2023, 10:01:37 pm »

"Part 1:"

Greeks started to condemn traditional aristocratic-
Homeric values, "claiming them to be hubris, the root cause
of disorder, injustice and violence."

It is! I more accurately call it Achilleanism, which Duchesne seems to acknowledge:

as embodied with intense passion in
the figure of Homer's Achilles, a character fundamentally at
odds with any form of servility to a ruler.

But is Achilles aristocratic?

It is the aristocratic character especially
who welcomes and values the "proud, exalted states of the
soul," which are experienced firsthand through "combat,
adventure, the chase, the dance, war games," and in general
all that presupposes "a strong physique, blooming, even
exuberant, joyful activity.""

This is what we call the barbaric character. When we talk about the aristocratic character, we mean something almost the opposite: one who gets involved in competition (against the barbarians) with the utmost reluctance, only out of duty to defeat them, but who would every time prefer they never existed in the first place.

Why did they Indo-
Europeanize the West but not the East?

Because the true aristocrats did their duty in the latter.

the Indo-Europeans were a "new type"
of warlike society in the sense that "some men," not just the
king, were free to strive for personal recognition. They were,
moreover, horse-riders in possession of a more dynamic
economy which included ox-drawn wheeled wagons, cattle
rearing, and ploughs, combined with a healthier diet of
meat, bone marrow, and dairy products, which gave Indo-
Europeans a more robust physical anthropology.

I agree. Aristocrats, in contrast, are pictured as more gracilized than average.

For thousands of years Old Europeans were living quite
well in harmonious interaction, "of humans in nature, and of
men and women with each other as complementary"—until
horse-riding warriors from the Kurgan Culture of the Pontic
steppe came in three massive waves during the period 4500-
2500 BC, and dominated this "Old European kin-group
society" with their hierarchical social structure and their
"sky-oriented pantheon of warriors.

I agree. And this is consistent with our observation of Western civilization being more patriarchal than non-Western civilizations (which as Duchesne has already admitted the Turanians failed to influence culturally to the same degree).

(One thing that has always annoyed me is False Leftists who think non-Western civilizations are more patriarchal on the grounds that physically less masculine men compensate for their lower sexual dimorphism (which they are presumed by the False Leftists to feel insecure over) by being more culturally patriarchal. The truth is much simpler: physically more masculine men are more culturally patriarchal because they perceive greater difference between themselves and women.)

The fact that this economy was more nutritious
explains why the "physical anthropology of the deceased [in
the new Kurgan-style burial mounds] speaks of a population
that was more robust-appearing with males averaging up
to 10 centimeters taller than the native Eneolithic [Balkan]
population."5 7
The PIE lexicon was rich with words for domesticated
animals in addition to the horse: cow, ox, bull, sheep,
ram, lamb, goat, dog, as well as words for ducks and pigs.
There are also words for coagulated or sour milk, butter,
and curds.5 8 Diakonoff says that the IE economy, as it was
located in the Balkans and the Danube basin (which he thinks
was the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans) "must
have been an economy based on high grade agriculture and
animal breeding, which supplied milk and meat food for the
population in relative plenty."
By contrast, he reminds us that "the mass of Sumerians
and Akkadians had no meat or milk in their daily diet.

This is what you get with a true aristocracy in charge.

The real resemblance lies in the singular presence
of weapons in the burials, which show that this was "an
essentially warlike" culture. Andrew Sherratt thinks that
the "battle the ideal of a society whose self-
image was not work but warfare."6 2

Specifically, warfare to raid those who do the work. Because if no one worked, there would be nothing to raid, and warfare would not be profitable. If everyone practiced the Turanian way, it would not be viable. The Turanian way  is only viable when there are others who do not practice it. Thus the Turanian way is parasitism. Who (other than Duchesne) would call parasites "aristocrats" FFS?!

It is worth contrasting the mobility of the Indo-Europeans
with what Sherratt sees as the "constrained" and "small-
scale of activity" of the farming communities of Old Europe,
whose "efforts were often narrowly focused on fixed points
within the world which they had created."6 5

I agree.

expansion—typified in the spread of a culture of drinking,
feasting, and horses—is equally disruptive of the native
archaic societies as were the prior expansions by Indo-
Sherratt also observes a "profound change in attitudes"
suggested by more colorful woolen clothing replacing the
older garments of skin and linen, new finery and jewelry,
new dress fashions, weapons with decorative elements, extra
"ostentation on the part of particular individuals,"72
Posted by: rp
« on: March 14, 2023, 01:37:27 am »

Just read some more of the chapter, and Duchesne actually mentions "agro bureaucracy" and the "hydraulic state" and even quotes Wittfogel! He says that although the Turanians left a significant linguistic impact on India and Iran, they ended up being absorbed into the older river valley civilizations, which led to renewed monarchism in those civilizations, unlike in "Europe" where there eventually arose a private-property based "aristocracy" (feudalism). I actually find this narrative convincing, doubly so given the substantial archaeogenetic evidence.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 14, 2023, 12:01:40 am »

"Duchesne criticizes this as "despotism" and "subservience""

He is terrified of:

A hydraulic empire (also known as a hydraulic despotism, or water monopoly empire) is a social or government structure which maintains power and control through exclusive control over access to water. It arises through the need for flood control and irrigation, which requires central coordination and a specialized bureaucracy.[1]
Most of the first civilizations in history, such as Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Sri Lanka, and Pre-Columbian Mexico and Peru, are believed to have been hydraulic empires.[citation needed] The Indus Valley civilization is often considered a hydraulic empire despite a lack of evidence of irrigation (as this evidence may have been lost in time due to flood damage).

This fear is nothing new:

Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power is a book of political theory and comparative history by Karl August Wittfogel (1896–1988) published by Yale University Press in 1957. The book offers an explanation for the despotic governments in "Oriental" societies, where control of water was necessary for irrigation and flood-control. Managing these projects required large-scale bureaucracies, which dominated the economy, society, and religious life. This despotism differed from the Western experience, where power was distributed among contending groups.
Lattimore, who shared Wittfogel's interest in ecological structures and material conditions, argued that the history of Inner Asia was dominated by the interaction between settled agricultural societies that flourished in the relatively well-watered rim and the pastoral societies that survived in arid Central Asia.

State control over reproduction (ie. National Socialism) should be considered the next level of hydraulic despotism where "water" includes "blood".
Posted by: rp
« on: March 13, 2023, 10:27:44 pm »

In the chapter (which I am not quoting here out of copyright concerns) Duchesne explains how Neolithic societies were actually more stratified than pastoral societies, with the example being monarchism and the willingness to recognize the monarch (i.e. "aristocracy" in the truest sense of the word) as superior. Yet Duchesne criticizes this as "despotism" and "subservience", and contrasts it with the supposed hubristic "aristocratic" (i.e. Achillean) attitude of unwillingness to recognize a superior out of thirst for personal glory.

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 13, 2023, 10:11:24 pm »

a time when the social order was under the spell of mighty and
turbulent aristocrats thirsting for glory and plunder without consid-
eration for the pain and hardship they brought onto the world.

In which case "aristocrats" is the wrong term. We need to reclaim the term "aristocrat" from rightists by presenting what true aristocracy is about:'s-world-is-evil-and-a-prison-for-the-truly-good!/msg17890/#msg17890

(False Leftists are so insensitive that they cannot even tell the difference between the two competing claims to aristocracy.)

Posted by: rp
« on: March 13, 2023, 09:29:48 pm »

The "Aristocratic" Egalitarianism of Indo-Europeans and the Primordial Origins of Western Civilization  (Chapter from Duchesne's book "Uniqueness of Western Civilization):

EDIT: looks like for some reason, I cannot access the whole chapter, although I was previously able to
EDIT 2: Ok, turns out I was automatically granted access through my University because I was connected to their VPN.
Posted by: rp
« on: March 10, 2023, 07:15:41 pm »

This brings up another question: were the Pelasgians from the Steppes or the Caucasus?
Posted by: rp
« on: March 09, 2023, 12:41:31 am »

"And unlike the Western scientists I figured out without any DNA testing."
It looks like Dr. David Reich believes that Indo-Anatolian (the originator of Proto Indo European) came from West Asia (Iran?) and not the Steppes, on the basis of 731 new samples. He thinks the Pontic Caspian Steppes was only a site of secondary dispersal, not primary.
Reich grew up as part of a Jewish family in Washington, D.C.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 08, 2023, 11:30:38 pm »

"What do you think?"

I told you so.

The Sethites were to gradually expand northwards into the Turanian steppe that offers the best pastoral land for their herds, and hence gradually to become Turanians*.

And unlike the Western scientists I figured out without any DNA testing.
Posted by: rp
« on: March 08, 2023, 11:15:43 pm »

Sethite myth confirmed?:
Southern Arc papers are finally here. The biggest upending in archaeogenetics since the original Haak et al 2015. The consensus amongst all scholars now is that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans was in West Asia (North Caucasus, SE Anatolia or Armenia).

First diffusion: Caucasus mountains into Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
Second diffusion: Steppe into various river valleys.

What do you think?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 03, 2023, 11:25:47 pm »

Thousands of Yamnaya skeletons were found in graves and analysis has shown signs of changes caused by horse riding.

Scientists from the University of Helsinki and Hartwick College in New York focused on the remains of five individuals that had been unearthed from kurgans, or prehistoric burial mounds, in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.

A study of their bones proved them to be “the oldest humans identified as riders so far” because they exhibited clear signs of “horsemanship syndrome”, which included changes to the riders’ pelvis, thigh, spine and back.

Yamnaya individuals originated in Ukraine and are known for their equine prowess which is said to have allowed them to spread throughout Europe.

The riding opened up new possibilities in transportation, warfare and supply chains which led to horses becoming one of the most prized possessions for millennia.

Volker Heyd, a study co-author, said that mounting steeds gave the people the ability to greatly enhance their mobility.

“[It] enabled them to keep large herds of cattle and sheep and, as we now know, to guide them on horseback,” he said.

David Anthony, from Hartwick College, added: “It made herding cattle and sheep three times more efficient, it changed the human conception of distance and it was an aid in warfare.”

The new findings show people were riding horses for around 1,000 years before previously thought and also suggest humans had kept horses as livestock for their milk for around 500 years before deciding to learn to ride them.

Skeletons in the study displayed changes to their femur caused by gripping onto the sides of the horse, a well-known morphological change to the human body among horse riders.

There was also some evidence of degeneration to the vertebrae in the spine which may have been the result of the up-and-down movement of horse riding.

The scientists write that signs of “biomechanical stress” on the skeletons “provide a viable way to further investigate the history of horseback riding and may even provide clues about riding style and equipment”.

The team also said that a position called “chair seat”, which involved no saddle or stirrups, was also employed by early riders despite it being “physically demanding”.

It requires the rider to constantly squeeze their legs together to stay on the back of their steed and is a test of one’s balance and strength as it would also be used when fighting or herding livestock.

See also:
Posted by: rp
« on: February 21, 2023, 12:44:49 am »

Turanians looking like the psychopathic vampires they are:
🝫 ✹ ᴰʳᵉᵃᵐ ᴶᵒᵘʳⁿᵃˡⁱˢᵗ
Khanty mother and child eating fresh reindeer, Yamal, Siberia.