OLD CONTENT
sciencenordic.com/first-stone-age-farmers-norway-gave-after-short-period-time
the first farmers in Norway appear to have given up relatively early. They stopped growing crops after a relatively short period of time and returned to hunter-gatherer-fisher lifestyle.
...
However, settlements in the coastal areas grew and were strongly linked to the sea, where food was plentiful.
Characteristic ceramic objects tell the story of a maritime culture.
Nielsen says the arguments have gone back and forth as to why people returned to a fishing culture or gave up farming. Some think its an obvious way to live, given the country's huge coastal resources. On the other hand, why would the people who introduced agriculture end it?
Because it wasn't us; it was those whom we tried to teach - without success.
---
www.thevintagenews.com/2019/06/27/neolithic-city-overcrowded/Archaeologists recently discovered that the transition from foraging to a communal farming lifestyle caused problems for people who lived at a 32-acre site in southern Turkey that was occupied from 7100 B.C. to 5950 B.C. Çatalhöyük was home to as many as 8,000 people at its peak.
...
“The scientists found that the number of injuries, evident in skeletons, increased when the community was at its largest, suggesting that as Çatalhöyük’s population boomed, violence became more frequent,” said Live Science. “About 25 percent of the 95 examined skulls showed healed injuries made by small spherical projectiles, probably a clay ball flung by a slingshot. Many of these clay spheres were also preserved around the site, according to the study.”
But were these Aryans? No:
Bull (Auroch) heads from Catalhüyük in Angora Museum. Photo by Stipich Béla CC BY 2.5
Neolithic hunters attacking an auroch, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Photo by Omar Hoftun CC BY-SA 3.0
Besides the absence of respect towards cows (a distinguishing Aryan characteristic) another dead giveaway is their worship of high sexual dimorphism:
Mother Goddess from Çatalhöyük flanked by two feline lionesses, neolithic age (about 5500-6000 BC), today in Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. Photo by Nevit Dilmen CC BY-SA 3.0
These were the Gentiles we tried and failed to teach.
---
I told you so:
www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/anatolian-hunter-gatherers-adopted-farming-practices-ancient-dna-study-suggestsAn international team of researchers has generated genome-wide SNP data on eight prehistoric individuals, including an Epipaleolithic Anatolian hunter-gatherer, five early Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers, and two early Neolithic farmers from the Levant. As they reported in Nature Communications today, the researchers found that the Neolithic Anatolians derived a large portion of their ancestry from the Epipaleolithic Anatolian, indicating genetic continuity in the region.
...
When they modeled the Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers' ancestry, they noted the best fit suggested that Anatolian hunter-gatherers provided the most — about 90 percent — of their ancestry. This, the researchers added, indicates there was long-term genetic stability in central Anatolia, even as the subsistence strategy changed.
The later Neolithic Ceramic Anatolian farmers, though, shared more alleles with the early Holocene Levantines than the Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers did. Still, the researchers noted that the Neolithic Aceramic Anatolian farmers contributed about three-quarters of the Neolithic Ceramic Anatolian farmers' ancestry.
~75% of ~90% is still at least ~68% Gentile. Hence the atrocious behaviour as mentioned in the previous post.
---
This has been a growing enemy narrative recently:
www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/our-worst-mistake-part-1/Content?oid=13669919www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/our-worst-mistake-part-2/Content?oid=13801092Discuss. I will respond later.
---
The exaltation of the Paleolithic lifestyle by those such as Christopher Ryan (Gentile?) stems primarily from the fact that those societies were more allowing of sexual promiscuity among women. This caters to the PC, and hence False Left worldview that women have the "right" to be as equally promiscuous as men. Moreover, his criticism of Neolithic societies as being patriarchal is only applicable to Gentiles who adopted the practice of farming without changing their behavior, and is thus intellectually dishonest. This is no doubt designed to facilitate the backlash to patriarchy as manifest in the present day far-right movements.
---
Yea that "patriarchy started in the Neolithic" bullshit got brought up in my history class a few weeks ago. As if the Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle doesn't REQUIRE gender-roles, and as if farming DOES...
---
www.zmescience.com/science/gender-inequality-neolithic-emergence-22062019/Archaeologists at the University of Seville in Spain have studied prehistoric societies in the Neolithic Period in the Iberian Peninsula from the perspective of gender. They looked at two types of evidence: biological and funerary.
In the first category, the team focused on demographic proportions between men and women, as well as other clues such as diet, genetic data, and common diseases. For the funerary evidence, they analyzed how “important” a burial site was — whether it was an individual or collective burial, the position and orientation of the body, as well as any goods placed in the tomb.
They found that at the start of the Neolithic, there was no significant difference between men and women in this regards, suggesting a generally equal society. However, as things progressed, it started to change. A key indicator is the growing association of men with violence. Male bodies started exhibiting more arrow wounds, their tombs featured more weapons or projectiles, and men were increasingly depicted in fighting scenes in cave paintings, whereas women were not. Hunting and warfare were a masculine business. Conversely, women’s’ burial sites were more likely to contain ceramic pots, indicating a separation of gender roles.
Interestingly, out of all the aspects considered in this study, the ones that show the greatest difference between males and females are related to violence: projectiles, trauma including impact by arrowheads, and graphic depictions of war and hunting.
The absence of patriarchy at the beginning of the Neolithic (a.k.a. Golden Age) fits our model of innately anti-sexist Aryans. The subsequent emergence of patriarchy could be accounted for, as rp suggests, as merely the behaviour of the Gentiles who had learned farming from us. This is reinforced by the cave paintings which clearly indicate that these people were hunting alongside farming, as we would expect Gentiles to do. Indeed we have noted in the past that Gentiles who learned farming usually left their women to do most of the actual farm work while their men hunted just as they always did. This would also mean that the selective pressure (for Aryan traits) exerted by farm work would have been mostly avoided by the Gentile men. This then ties back into the present-day observation that more men than women retain certain traits adaptive to hunting but maladaptive to farming:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/non-aryan-adhd/(This is on top of the selective pressure (for other Aryan traits) exerted by diet being avoided by Gentiles of both genders (since the men would probably share their hunted meat with the women).)
---
scifare.com/science-news/article/european-inequality-traced-back-to-the-neolithic-age/
After analyzing the teeth from more than 300 Neolithic-age skeletons, a team of researchers from across Europe have found links between access to prime farming lands – along with their fruits – and hereditary inequality.
...
The team found those people buried with a prestigious Neolithic tool, known as an adze, had substantially less variation in the ratio of the element strontium – it incorporates into the enamel of teeth, like calcium – compared to people buried without one.
...
They also found that those with higher than expected variation in strontium ratio levels, almost exclusively, were buried without an adze – of the 41 samples, only one was buried with the stone tool.
“We think that’s because there’s a particular kind of soil type those farmers preferred, called loess soils,” Bentley said.
For Neolithic farmers, it was land that drained water well, was easy to work and because loess soils are found primarily along the river valleys of central Europe, it was fertile land that was great for growing crops.
Considering how varied strontium signatures can be, the incredibly narrow variation seen in skeletons with the Neolithic tool implies their diets were sourced, almost exclusively, from a narrow region that’s closely related to the loess soil regions.
“Individuals who weren’t buried with adzes were probably farming further afield or obtained their food further away, from slightly less preferred soils,” Bentley said. “It’s a real hint at a system of inequality that surely got magnified over the generations.”
If you ask me what is going on here, the people buried with adzes were Aryans who loved farming, whereas the people buried without were Gentiles who had learned farming but who were not sentimentally dedicated to it and thus did not care for being buried with their adzes.
We already know that the Aryans migrated following the rivers, so it is no surprise that they farmed on the valley land. On the other hand, the Gentiles on lower-quality land could still have produced enough food so long as they had been willing to keep their population down. But they were not: they were outnumbering the Aryans 41:1! So of course they didn't have enough food to go round!
Moreover, what the data shows is that Aryans have less variation in strontium than farming Gentiles, in other words all Aryans had similarly high strontium whereas some farming Gentiles had high strontium and other farming Gentiles had low strontium. In other words Aryans were sharing food fairly, whereas it was the farming Gentiles who were not sharing food fairly.
Now read carefully:
The researchers also found a similar difference when they compared genders. Men, on average had substantially less variation in strontium ratios than women. They also found that approximately eight of every ten individuals with higher than expected ratios of strontium were female.
Did you catch it? In the second sentence the author is talking about
variation in strontium ratios. In the third sentence, however, the author subtly switched to talking about the strontium ratios themselves! A less careful reader primed by the claim of a "similar difference" in the first sentence would easily misread that women had higher variation in strontium (ie. more women have low strontium), when in fact more women had high strontium!