Europeans Descended From Hunters, Not Farmers

[Agrippa]

What you wrote means that the two had a long interactions and the hg's with there super nordic intelligence decided to stick with eating rudolf the red nose reindeer and santa's other reindeers because of santa's helpers tasted better,was cleaner and no plagues

In fact you can see the same pattern in many regions of the world, long interactions, group getting farmers, H-G's again if possible etc.
The H-G existence was just not able to compete against farmers on the base of social specialisation and production. But as long as the farmer societies were weak and even beyond H-G's and herders were superior in combat, better selection, better training in daily life (while hunting, later riding with the herd and still hunting as well, defending herd etc., more group oriented spirit, strategic thinking and planning than simple farmers without social stratification).

This interactions played an important role, especially in the forming of the Corded Ware People, which had most likely combined economy (plants and animal husbandry) and hunting being still important - with stock-breeding being most important, making them mobile, group oriented, giving them the necessary nutrition - finally the advantage of the horse as well.

But first we see European H-G and Neolithic farmers (which came partly already mixed to Central-Northern Europe) living side by side, with just limited contacts, later mixing, and finally outbreeding of the non-European features which were not adaptated to the European climate nor advantageous, but they might have influenced certain features of certain Europeans, probably even the Corded - at least in a very limited way (admixture).

[Agrippa]

YOU CHOOSE

There is no choice on the long run, simply because H-G couldnt compete with social stratified societies with higher production on the long run.
In the Americas we can even see that humans might have been partly responsible for the extermination of certian big mammals and reduced the numbers of others, in some regions there were not enough natural food sources at all - so in certain areas at a certain time American humans had no choice but using farming, even if the productivity was even lower than in Europe and lead in the worst areas to even absolute reduction- even degeneration like if its about Istmid Zentralids. Simply a frugal saving variant - just compare them with Northern American, much more progressive-balanced Silvids.

[Educate Me]

That is generally true, but in south america the extermination of the gliptodontes didnt force the hunters to adopt farming, they just started hunted other animals.

[Agrippa]

ienjoylurking said:

That is generally true, but in south america the extermination of the gliptodontes didnt force the hunters to adopt farming, they just started hunted other animals.

But most of the time this people were reduced as well because the best food sources were reduced. Another point is South America is a wide area with different kinds of socioeconomic adaptations to the given or already manipulated (by humans) environment.

Basically there are two ways to cope with limited ressources, control of population growth and balanced ressource use, or inventions and new developments (like farming).
I heard recently that in the Amazonas area f.e. there were huge areas of human settlements before Europeans came and that the "black soil" (terra preta), a more fertile terra was produced by them using charcoal and a certain flora. If thats true or not and how the latest results are, I dont know, but we can assume that at least limited farming was much wider spread in Southern America and the population was much higher in Precolombian times. But not all areas were reached by American Neolithics and not all regions were usable for agriculture.

The people which lived (afaik exclusively) from quite primitive hunting (+fishing) and gathering, were the people in Tierra del Fuego (Fuegide) which practised birth control and infanticid, selection of newborns.

[Educate Me]

Why japanese women have bad teeth/evolving to eat mush

interesting and somewhat related to this

renpage.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-japanese-women-have-bad-teeth.html



Actually, that wouldnt surprise me, (farming in the amazonas)

amazonian and paraguayan indians belong to the same Family, Tupi-Guarani, the paraguayan Guarani indians were farmers who came from the Amazonas

[Agrippa]

Actually, that wouldnt surprise me, (farming in the amazonas)

The Yanomami-Indians use limited agriculture but have not learned (like the old Amazonians probably had - or better must have if they reached such a population level) to keep up the high productivity, because the population is low, thats not necessary anyway and they use the soil for a short time and then they go on. Their semi-nomadic lifestyle (which needs much space) might be only possible (if going after what I said above) because the original Amerindian population was drastically reduced either by a catastrophy, diseases-plagues of Europeans or other influences.

[eufrenio]

agrippa said:

Well, the results come from a rather small sample and we shouldnt judge too fast and dont forget, there is still much dispute about that, at least here on the board and outside of it as well..

That´s right, it seems like a small sample.

Based on DNA analysis of ancient skeletons from Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the study sways the debate over the origins of modern Europeans toward hunter-gatherers who colonized Europe some 40,000 years ago.

[nockwasright]

agrippa said:

Herders are best - simple reason, farmers must not be that intelligent, farmers are just the base of higher culture, but they basically have just to do certain works, not being genius. Mainly upper classes and warriors were the real elite. In H-G and herder warriors all group members had to have a certain standard at least more so than in sedentary and dependent farmer societies.

We are of course in the realm of pure speculation, but still I don't see how this can be.

First the ghatering part is the less intellectual challenging in absolute. Then, the hunting likely required
most of all ability to run, good sight, eye arm coordination, physycal courage, and, here you are right, group cohesion. Also because HG lived in very small groups, differently from farmers. I don't see much intelligence involved. Surely Cassius Clay would have greatly outperformed Nietsche.

I'm not advocating that agriculture is instead the work of geniuses, but that it does not require less intelligence than HG. It is less demanding on the physical, group bonding level, I agree on this.

On the other hand however, the stratified society may have allowed some types to exist and reproduce themselves, types that would have meet early death in the HG society.
The stratified society gives a role, and sometimes an important role, to nerds, who couldn't hit a dead elephant with a ball, but could count, and can write software and other things that really make a difference now.
Gives a role to the very gifted with verbal skills, and ability to understand/describe/justify/exploit other's feelings who maybe shit his pants when sees an angry cat, but could be politician, priest, scribe, court poet, and now absolutely dominates the world (politicians, writers, phylosophers, showbiz people, businessmen, lawyers ...).
In the end gives a role to what we call "superior intelligence" now, while the HG society didn't.

Also, aren't the pygmyes still hunting ghatering? They should have undergone a super positive selection by now.


I see your perspective gives importance to the mere pysichal idoneity to some activities of the past (running after beasts), but really there is no reason for this at all.

[Agrippa]

nockwasright said:

We are of course in the realm of pure speculation, but still I don't see how this can be.

Its not just pure speculation because we have different groups which were influenced in a different way and the results are - different

First the ghatering part is the less intellectual challenging in absolute.

As what? The point is in an agrarian society JUST ONE might have the idea, if they are not totally stupid the others might follow. The daily work was simple and comparing seeding with gathering, oh well, the later has more to offer. Just think about what you have to know for it, the places, the risks, what is eatable, etc.
Some farmer wives did almost their whole life nothing else but sitting on the ground and milling grains on their knees until they get arthrosis...
And their were much more working hands involved in a farmer society which could "produce something" that way, even inferior elements. Thats again not to the same extend true in H-G's so the simple conclusion is, even if looking at the gathering part, that we should see a decrease ON AVERAGE and thats what the case.

Then, the hunting likely required
most of all ability to run, good sight, eye arm coordination, physycal courage, and, here you are right, group cohesion.

Yes, things, positive selection we see in H-G, and to the same extend, partly even more in herder warriors, at least alright in mobile farmer-warriors, but again the worst results in sedentary farmers.

Also because HG lived in very small groups, differently from farmers. I don't see much intelligence involved.

Social intelligence was important as well, but partly different and partly not AS IMPORTANT, we see that especially urban types have often rather negative tendencies in behaviour, both culturally and genetically. The basic average intelligence of H-G shouldnt be underestimated because the selection was higher and nutrition better usually (!).

Surely Cassius Clay would have greatly outperformed Nietsche.

I might remind you we are speaking about Europe. Sure he would, but again I dont say H-G is the optimum because it isnt, individual selection too high, group selection partly not high enough - herder warriors in a crucial time were the optimum.

I'm not advocating that agriculture is instead the work of geniuses, but that it does not require less intelligence than HG.

But its the case, especially in traditional, settled, sedentary and dependent farmer communities. For being a farmer in such an already complete agrarian structure you dont need to be intelligent, even dumb people could make it. In a small H-G group, or in herder-warriors, if they even survived, in the future generations this group would have declined much more than in a (biologically uncontrolled -no Eugenic- but dependent) farmer society in which such genes could be spread better.

It is less demanding on the physical, group bonding level, I agree on this.

Whats a very important point since intelligence alone is not good enough, if the personality using it is not group oriented it might be even worse than 10 idiots.

On the other hand however, the stratified society may have allowed some types to exist and reproduce themselves, types that would have meet early death in the HG society.

And mobile farmer-warriors or herders as well, partly not that bad if they were not group oriented. In bigger agglomerations negative selection, contraselection is a much bigger problem without (Eugenic) control. And as I said, even intelligence alone is not the key though it should be a precondition in an ideal case.

But there were positive types included which might have been benefitting for the group, I spoke about those physical weak Asthenics in particular, which might have partly good psychic features at least if they are a small minority. But they are just the inspiration (in the best case, in the worst they just spread nonsense and make the group weaker not just with their existence but with their ideas as well) never the backbone.

The backbone are balanced and propulsive (progressive) types, always were, and those were "produced" in the highest frequency in herder-warriors but NEVER in pure farmers. In the best case the pure sedentary farmers worked for them in such a way, that this had more muse. In the worst case this warrior class suffered from high losses and lost on the long run biologically because again - in a small group what you reach, if you have success, the group has success, its biological success - your group of related people gains territory, more females, more ressources, etc. Even if you die, your brothers and cousins in the group win with you - if the group wins. Thats positive group selection and that DOESNT TAKE PLACE to the same extend in farmer groups and surely not in advanced societies, in states.
Even in early farmers we see settlements of different people, see that losers in war won biologically. That mass was more important than class. Because every working hand was advantageous in a farmer group, they didnt need to select by their own children and wars became more and more wars between elites for the land+people.
Before that they took usually just the women if and wanted the land, after that, people means a productive force, you dont destroy it because you mainly want to get supplied by it. So oftentimes elites died in wars "for" the peasants - they might have been great people, genius, warriors, sportsmen, attractive, whatever, but oftentimes the end of their line was finally near whereas the peasant which cared least for anything survived, brought his children through by simply doing nothing else but simple things which were told him - no great achievement finally, but biologically in the mass more successful.

The precondition for a biological progression would have been that those which had the most promising features, those which were superior, would have won biologically. That was sometimes the case, especially if the times were barbarous, because then it was again a fight of groups of related people for ressources, group and just secondary individual selection. Whenever that happened, we see stature in warrior graves increasing, CI decreasing, FI increasing. We see how reduced types might survive, but mainly in poor graves, whereas the rich ones were dominated by very progressive individuals which lived for the most part a rather mobile life.
Soon after things settle down, only elites fight each other again and biological success is not related to versatile features - we see again the opposite trend.

The stratified society gives a role, and sometimes an important role, to nerds, who couldn't hit a dead elephant with a ball, but could count, and can write software and other things that really make a difference now.

Thats a social, cultural, technological and economic advantage. As I said, a mass of people provides ressources for further innovations, for specialised people, simple as that - they wouldnt have the opportunity otherwise.

But what people do you see in the university of many regions, as most successful ones? Are they closer to typical farmer types of poor regions or herdsmen...I can say you and thats for sure, they are closer to the later!

And thats the point, the biological potential was produced by other selective regime, BUT IT WAS USED BY LATER CIVILISATIONS! Now the problem is that this genetic frequencies constantly decreased and decrease now at a tempo, especially in Europeans, which is unbelievable.

Gives a role to the very gifted with verbal skills, and ability to understand/describe/justify/exploit other's feelings who maybe shit his pants when sees an angry cat, but could be politician, priest, scribe, court poet, and now absolutely dominates the world (politicians, writers, phylosophers, showbiz people, businessmen, lawyers ...).

Question is, with the exception of physically and psychic Asthenics described above, which have their role, as being creative, inspiration mainly, would this people IN THEIR MAJORITY really fail if trained from youth on? Most won't. But they were the backbone then and are it now as well.

In the end gives a role to what we call "superior intelligence" now, while the HG society didn't.

Maybe not certain types which are defined more by other psychic characteristics than intelligent, f.e. their creative tendencies, sensitive and imaginative traits etc., but the average would be better off in Europe in the late Mesolithicum than it is now and thats for sure.

Also, aren't the pygmyes still hunting ghatering? They should have undergone a super positive selection by now.

Its crucial to point to the difficulties of life and crucial was that Europeans had to go through the Ice Age, have reacted to changing climate but had the great chance of evolving in hard and demanding times but still with enough proteins.
And thats the basic problem of both poor H-G's and farmers, that their nutrition is often one sided and they have to cope with low energy. So they reduce, not evolve on in a versatile direction. Same if you compare Boskopids and Sanids - thats just reduction, even to a degree of degeneration.

You need both, high demanding selective, no abundance and chance of all groups and individuals which are more or less healthy to survive, but at the same time enough food for further developments, not just saving (like Bambutids = Pygmies, Sanids = Bushpeople or ancient Homo floriensis).

You could only compare H-G which live like European H-G after the Ice Age in the Mesolithicum, not tropical H-G's in areas of retreat, which were pushed there by stronger (Negrid) groups.

I see your perspective gives importance to the mere pysichal idoneity to some activities of the past (running after beasts), but really there is no reason for this at all.

Its the general selective regime. Especially in later times, when their was not enough free land available, things were even worse than first, but the good thing is that didnt last too long and other contraselective, negative trends are of greater importance in modernity. But generally a degradation is visible if going from the Mesolithic times to the 19th century in many regions of Europe. The protein level was low, plagues, hunger and risk taking became most important for selection, not good versatile features. But thats something I already mentioned. Things are quite clear, we have to distinguish technological progress from biological developments, and biologically we see a decrease of progressive features since the late Neolithicum (with some opposite developments for certain regions and in certain periods) after sedentary farmer life became more dominant in most regions of Europe - worst conditions in the times of Feudal Europe to the 19th century with a dominance of dependent, sedentary and socially and spacially relatively immobile farmers as the most important group in the reproductive circles.

[Educate Me]

Agrippa, do you think your average nobel rprize winner resembles more a calvin klein model or athlete than a typical techie nerd?

[Agrippa]

ienjoylurking said:

Agrippa, do you think your average nobel rprize winner resembles more a calvin klein model or athlete than a typical techie nerd?

As I said, most are Leptosomic-Athletic, sinewy Leptosomic or gracile Leptosomic - Asthenic, thats the range you saw even in ancient groups as well. The point out of which group they come and could they form, if they deviate strongly, form a group on their own which would be versatile and efficient.

Social specialisation can go too far if the cohesion and efficiency is lost.

Lets look at those people which get a nobel prize for:

"for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material"

Very important, they should be known on this board, lets look at them:
nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1962/

Well, they are, like many, progressive Leptosomics, maybe somewhat more refined, partly weak Asthenic in some cases, but still in the range.

Whats nearer to them, the refined but still strong-progressive herder-warrior variants or the reduced farmers or coarse hunter gatherer groups on a low level. As I said, herder-warriors and mobile farmer-warriors with sufficient nutrition and proteins from a combined economy and hunting, but which had to fight in small groups for their own territory were the best. And they are closer to them than other averages of primitive groups, coarse H-G's or reduced farmers.

They might deviate, but they are still in the spectrum of what I said, but would in many cases look more out of place in primarily agrarian, sick (plagues), grain eating reduced populations...

Btw, Watson is a great guy generally speaking and a staunch advocate of Eugenics like everyone who has an idea about population genetics and is rational.

[nockwasright]

agrippa said:

But what people do you see in the university of many regions, as most successful ones? Are they closer to typical farmer types of poor regions or herdsmen...I can say you and thats for sure, they are closer to the later!

I guess you are referring to the physical appareance of the intellectual elites, which you say are more on the HG look than of the farmer.
Must then be factored that, even accepting the correspondence phenotype-social selection (that is not proved, as farming = brachicephalisation and infantilisation is an hypotesys), and even accepting that intellectual elites fall more in the HG look (also not proved) it would not be enough to prove your assumption.
That kind of look may be just sexually selected, and then carried along by the top elements of society because of their power to choose.

An example: Mr. Neolithic Farmer is a fat, sturdy, short, stocky great phylosopher. He invents a religion, nominate himself priest and gets along well. He decides that is God's will he can marry the prettiest chick in town, the Most Leptosomic She Farmer. Lucky Offspring is Leptosomic AND bright ... so he can choose the best and brightest among the leptosomics hotties. Further Offspring looks like he hunted gathered as hell but actually is just skilled with lofty and cunning words turns out he is Schopenhauer.

Mr. Upperpaleo stocky philosopher instead hits his clumsy feet with his own rock and dies in the wood. Some HG fellow asks where's lardball, still talking shit about that religion and stuff of his? Didn't come back. Oh well, sorry but its good for the GROUP.

[Agrippa]

nockwasright said:

agrippa said:

But what people do you see in the university of many regions, as most successful ones? Are they closer to typical farmer types of poor regions or herdsmen...I can say you and thats for sure, they are closer to the later!

I guess you are referring to the physical appareance of the intellectual elites, which you say are more on the HG look than of the farmer.
Must then be factored that, even accepting the correspondence phenotype-social selection (that is not proved, as farming = brachicephalisation and infantilisation is an hypotesys), and even accepting that intellectual elites fall more in the HG look (also not proved) it would not be enough to prove your assumption.
That kind of look may be just sexually selected, and then carried along by the top elements of society because of their power to choose.

An example: Mr. Neolithic Farmer is a fat, sturdy, short, stocky great phylosopher. He invents a religion, nominate himself priest and gets along well. He decides that is God's will he can marry the prettiest chick in town, the Most Leptosomic She Farmer. Lucky Offspring is Leptosomic AND bright ... so he can choose the best and brightest among the leptosomics hotties. Further Offspring looks like he hunted gathered as hell but actually is just skilled with lofty and cunning words turns out he is Schopenhauer.

Mr. Upperpaleo stocky philosopher instead hits his clumsy feet with his own rock and dies in the wood. Some HG fellow asks where's lardball, still talking shit about that religion and stuff of his? Didn't come back. Oh well, sorry but its good for the GROUP.

First of all, what you say makes some sense if looking at attractivity alone, but what you missed was that there is a correlation between headsize (braincase) and intelligence and between physique and personality and between physical-racial type and physical efficiency.

Taking all three things together things are pretty clear.

Concerning brachycephalisation, oh well, I wouldnt overestimate brachycephalisation on its own though the correlation with self-domestication is clear since you dont find too much pre-Neolithic brachycephalic individuals, and for sure no populations. But its important to stress that there are different reasons for brachycephalisation, there is a thread about that.

Even more important for the physique - psychic correlation, as I said above, intelligence alone doesnt make it, its the combination with a certain, rational and group oriented spirit, how you use your potential intelligence.
And again, your point would be only true if you have a post-mix selection: F.e. in the family of the elite male those mixture results (f.e. stupid-ugly vs. beautiful-intelligent) which are desirable would have been selected and again spread more - their combination would have been stable and spreading. The problem with mixtures is that, without selection, they are instable and can lead to a negative combination as well (negative features from both sides). And thats the basic problem I mean, even if such mixtures took place, they might be present, might have more chances to survive and to use their potential sometimes, but they average of the population declines because biological success in such mass society is negatively correlated to desirable progressive features, especially in modernity, but earlier as well...

[nockwasright]

Obviously the resulting offspring could be ugly AND stupid too.

I was just pointing out that whatever is wired in us about beauty wired itself in the HG society as men had been HG for almost all his existence, agriculture is 12k y old at best.

Thus you may find a correlation between HG physycal traits and positive traits as intelligence, wit, anything the society values, only because the power of choosing a mate given by social status is exerted to mate with a beautiful spouse, i.e. a more HG looking spouse.

Then all the correlation you assume between body and personality-ability could be statistichally right but not for evolutive reasons.

Still I see that a stratified society allows more and different kind of abilities to thrive, and particularly allows the only intellectually gifted, but otherwise less than average person, to survive and pass on his genes, which means saving precious genes for our only intellectually challenging present.

[Agrippa]

Still I see that a stratified society allows more and different kind of abilities to thrive, and particularly allows the only intellectually gifted, but otherwise less than average person, to survive and pass on his genes, which means saving precious genes for our only intellectually challenging present.

Thats right, but its the duty of us to prevent general degeneration from happening and that has to mean to correct or select (praenatal) to combine advantageous-desirable features without allowing negative genes to further spread in the genpool.

I would never say we should go back to a H-G or herder-warrior lifestyle for many reasons...

The point is just that there is no positive selection since than and we rather use up whats good and increase the worst - thats not really long term oriented and sustainable and the reason why we need measures - especially human Eugenic.

However, I might add that the correlation between beauty and intelligence, between certain personality traits and physique, is practically proven. That is not absolute, but statistically true.

The correlation between physique and psyche can be observed in animals as well, especially domestic ones, f.e. dog and horse "races".

Concerning certain positive and generally desirable traits, they have costs you know, thats the simple problem why some lifeforms degenerate from a higher differentiation to a lower, from more to less potential even without overspecialisation but simple reduction of abilities.
In this case we see one sided developments as well though, but the main point is that selection was based more on resistance to hunger, unergonomic-monotonous hard work, frugal and compliant, small-social oriented, plagues etc.

I explained the reasons above (no group selection, but single individual adaptation to bad conditions - elite is fighting and risk taking, creative and expansive, but the biological winner is the indolent mass - reflected by a weak culture of the mass as well - most pure farmer religions and cultures were disadvantageous and weak, reflect the fear of the sedentary farmer and his hard and monotonous life. You see the important input of more mobile and warlike people which inspired the group and directed it too something higher from those small farming communities...

There are 3 main reasons for a correlation of beauty with intelligence (at least inside a racial group) in my opinion:
1. The positive co-selection you mentioned, beauty-meets-intelligence couples.
2. General health. General health is on average positively correlated with intelligence as well and healthy people (without really influencing problems) are generaly more attractive most likely, though there are contradicting studies on that...
3. Beauty is generally correlated with harmonious-progressive features, it is the unconscious sign for - this is a desirable feature combination including intelligence (just compare an individual with a stupid mimic in one situation and a disciplined, intelligent looking on the other, especially if its about males).

The main problem is that there is not just intelligent-balanced-elegant looking beauty, but also a cheaper way to be sexually attractive - infantile features, even if imbalanced, can compensate, at least in females, and just coarse ones in males (whats expensive if it means tall and robust bones as well, but there are also ways to fake it).
However, that excluded (especially unbalanced) means to see the clear results I mean.