Ancient people sure knew what was up.
>>424355
Finding fertility beautiful is inferior to finding good health beautiful. I'm glad we grew.
>>424355
Literal fakes made by a german turnip farmer looking to play a prank on his fellow krauts.
>inb4 fertility goddesses
That's only speculation.
You could look at the Holstein-Stadel and say that they were all furries.
Paleolithic society was literally tumblr utopia.
>matriarchy
>social values based on muh feels and muh dreams
>fat bitches get worshipped
>mostly just leisure and inventing a stick in thousands of years but who cares if you're in touch with nature
There's a reason why so many of these cunts go for neopagan horsecrap and claim that civilization is bad.
>>424437
those depicted the change in form from other creatures to human
>>424444
I think you mean muh noble savage
>>424437
Which they were. Germans were always furries.
>>424444
Solid post, solid digits
>>424444
>matriarchy
The matriarchy thing is a myth. The division of labor by gender wasn't present, but it wasn't women-ruled by any means, these theories are outdated 1970s shit.
>social values based on muh feels and muh dreams
There's really no way to confirm this. I would argue "feels" are different from intuition, though, which was probably very pragmatically important in a land without extensive societal infrastructure.
>fat bitches get worshipped
We don't know the purpose of these artifacts.
>mostly just leisure and inventing a stick in thousands of years but who cares if you're in touch with nature
This is a myth, partially spread by the Unabomber manifesto. From what we can see of hunter gatherers in recent history, people like the Inuit worked 15 hours a day to barely scrape by.
>>424444
This is accurate in the sense that tumblr utopia before tumblr existed is where these bullshit notions came from, but there not only isn't any proof of any of this, all the evidence that does exist, including our own biology, argues against it.
>men are larger, stronger, faster, more aggressive and will cheerfully dominate women given half a chance
>the vast majority of women feel good when they submit to a man
>but uh, tiny hunter-gatherer bands that relied on the prowess of individual men in hunting for survival were ruled by women
Yeah, okay.
>>424653
>The division of labor by gender wasn't present
Verus esse, frater meam nigrem? Hunter-gatherers don't have gendered division of labor? Who managed to get you to believe that? Hunting is the prototypical gendered labor, along with war.
>>424381
Yes, your current perspective is way superior.
Fool.
>>424653
>the Inuit
That's a really retarded example and you know it.
HIGH TEST
I
G
H
T
E
S
T
>>424408
Not all of them, and he did copy an original when making fakes.
>>424444
Sounds like a low stress, laid back life, full of resting and fucking and friendly chatter among a welcoming group. I miss it.
>>424653
>The division of labor by gender wasn't present
Que? Males would patrol the territory and hunt, females would tend to the home, family and gather.
Division of labor by gender was much, much stronger in savage times.
>>424752
>matriarchy
>Sounds like a low stress, laid back life, full of resting and fucking and friendly chatter among a welcoming group
Confirmed for NEET with no experience of women.
>>424782
I have experience of women a plenty. I have no experience of matriarchy though.
>>424355
Isn't it possible they were self portraits, and that the models weren't actually fat but that's just how it looked from their perspective
>>424755
It's not end all be all and it's contextualized with the specific people. Hell the three main Pygmy groups of the Ituri had different ideas of gender roles and child raising who themselves were different from other Pygmy groups and so on and so forth.
>>424653
steatopygia was real I feel at some point in early OOA migration, it may not be all that symbolic
>>424700
>>but uh, tiny hunter-gatherer bands that relied on the prowess of individual men in hunting for survival were ruled by women
Majority of hunter-gathereres got about half of their calories from both hunting and gathering, not one or the other, you fool.
>>424355
Flat is justice and civilization
>>425144
Did you think at all, at any point in your life, before making this post? If half their calories are dependent on gathering, a time-consuming but unskilled drudgework anyone can do, and the other half comes from hunting, a difficult task whose success is contingent on the skill of the hunters, how does that in any way contradict them relying on the hunters to avoid starvation?
I'm well aware of the caloric distribution, and I was when I posted that.
Yo can someone hook it up with big booty bitches throughout history? I sometimes day dream of the countless slave owners that plowed big black asses/cocks.
>>425351
>You seem to be just posting assertions based on popular conceptions of "cavemen".
Its observable in smart apes, and "it just works". If our old savage grandpas didnt use it, they were at fault.
When looking at history I like to assume that the people always did the best possible thing, given their knowledge at the time. Sure, lots of stupid shit has been done throughout history, but the people doing it didnt know its stupid.
This kind of model allows me to speculate on a macro level at least, where the actions of a few idiots dont muddy the water too much, and the end result is a sensible model.
>Hunting is the prototypical gendered labor, along with war.
During the medieval era, hunting became associated with prestige. Hence, only nobles were allowed to hunt big game in certain areas. Before that, hunting was a matter of necessity. A mobile group of nomads that barely sustains itself can't afford to broadly discriminate by gender. On the other hand, agriculture creates a surplus food supply and population boom that can enable more women to be sedentary housewives. Arguments that women were totally incompetent at hunting seem to be unfounded. Even today, their lower center of gravity can make first-time female shooters quite accurate with guns, although I know spears and bows rely more on strength.
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1495490475
>Aeta women [...] have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta.
Though these are contemporary hunter-gatherers.
>>424755
You seem to be just posting assertions based on popular conceptions of "cavemen". I should rephrase myself; gendered division of labor was present to an extent, but it didn't resemble power relations of "patriarchy" or "matriarchy", the latter of which I believe to be a myth. I know of matrifocal and matrilineal societies, but no truly matriarchal ones as the poster I replied to implied.
http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/Course_files/anth-490-edward-h-hagen/kuhn-and-stiner-2006-whats-a-mother-to-do-the-division-of-labor-among-neandertals-and-modern-humans-in-eurasia.pdf
http://www.econ.ku.dk/mehr/calendar/seminars/30112012/Hansen_et_al___2012__pdf.pdf
http://www.archaeology.org/news/3255-150501-hierarchy-egalitarian-dolmens
>>425378
Pardon me, I deleted my post and re-posted at>>425379
due to formatting.
>Its observable in smart apes, and "it just works". If our old savage grandpas didnt use it, they were at fault.
>When looking at history I like to assume that the people always did the best possible thing, given their knowledge at the time. Sure, lots of stupid shit has been done throughout history, but the people doing it didnt know its stupid.
>This kind of model allows me to speculate on a macro level at least, where the actions of a few idiots dont muddy the water too much, and the end result is a sensible model.
None of this shit is really evidence, especially when talking about the behavior of people living in radically difference societies tens of thousands of years ago. "Common sense" just doesn't cut it when you're extrapolating that far back, bro, especially if you want to claim any sort of scientific validity.
>>425387
Also, without written records, statements like "their knowledge at the time" are basically meaningless.
>>425230
>how does that in any way contradict them relying on the hunters to avoid starvation?
Because it implies if they failed to gather they wouldn't also starve. They relied on both sources, not solely on one or the other.
>>425387
When talking about prehistory very often common sense is all you have, since there isnt any evidence to be found.
And when some evidence is indeed found, its so scarce and inconclusive, that it can be interpreted in many ways, making it useless.
From skeletons we can tell males are more suitable for going out in the cold, for fighting and hunting without projectile weapons, for fighting other males out of the territory. So common sense dictates they probably did.
From skeletons and fractures we can tell women spent more time on their knees, or bowing down, probably walking and gathering. We can tell they ate a lot of gathered foodstuffs. So we can speculate that there was probably such labor division.
History isnt science, lad. Its looking at the available 7 puzzle pieces and making a drawing of what you think the whole 500 piece kit must have looked like. Its speculation, and common sense.
>>424731
>That's a really retarded example and you know it.
I'll give you it's a rather extreme one,
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
>Sahlins claimed that for the Bushmen of the Dobe region of Southern Africa, the “work week was approximately 15 hours.”
>Cashdan flatly contradicts Sahlins: According to her, Lee found that the Bushmen he studied worked more than forty hours per week.
>Colin Turnbull studied Mbuti pygmies who hunted with nets. Due to the advantage conferred by the nets, these Mbuti only needed to hunt about twenty hours per week. But for them: “Netmaking is virtually a full-time occupation... in which both men and women indulge whenever they have both the spare time and the inclination.”
>for two groups of Australian Aborigines Sahlins does give quantitative estimates of time spent in “hunting, plant collecting, preparing foods and repairing weapons.” In the first group the average weekly time each worker spent in these activities was about 26 1/2 hours; in the second group about 36 hours.
>this does not include all work; it says nothing, for example, about time spent on child care, in collecting firewood, in moving camp, or in making and repairing implements other than weapons.
>If all necessary work were counted, the work-week of the second group would surely be over 40 hours.
I'll admit that a link from the "anarchist library" isn't promising, but since it's a critique of anarcho-primitivsm , you can check the secondary sources.
>>424444
Actually it's not even a controversial opinion that hunter gatherer society is better.
Everyone is healthier, lives longer, eats better.
Agriculture fits more people on a square kilometer, but humans are not K strategists
>>425387
>None of this shit is really evidence, especially when talking about the behavior of people living in radically difference societies tens of thousands of years ago.
While citing a single contemporary Filipino hunter-gatherer tribe that even your own source calls an exception somehow is? Come on, man. Looking at the behavior of other apes and extrapolating from known traits of our own dimorphism is a damn sight better than that.
>>425426
Depends on what you value. Yes they lived healthier and worked less on average, but they also died more often to violence and raids, and most of them practiced infanticide to keep their numbers from getting too big.
>>425397
>When talking about prehistory very often common sense is all you have, since there isnt any evidence to be found.
"All you have" doesn't mean "a decent substitute for empirical evidence". If all my pantry contains is chili peppers, doesn't make them a viable substitute for sugar in cooking a cake. Sure, you can speculate, but any attempt to construe "common sense" ideas as rigorously methodological scientific evidence is just hollow posturing, often to support pre-existing ideological bias about the "state of nature", whether inclined to feminism or conservatism. There are too many possible variables and unknowns for your conclusions to be sound.
And when some evidence is indeed found, its so scarce and inconclusive, that it can be interpreted in many ways, making it useless.
Then it's useless by your own admission.
>From skeletons we can tell males are more suitable for going out in the cold, for fighting and hunting without projectile weapons, for fighting other males out of the territory. So common sense dictates they probably did.
Skeletal remains are not "common sense", but cold climates are hardly something universal to human living, projectile weapons have many advantages over ranged weapons, and this gives us no real educated guess as to the frequency and importance of male-male conflict.
>History isnt science, lad. Its looking at the available 7 puzzle pieces and making a drawing of what you think the whole 500 piece kit must have looked like. Its speculation, and common sense.
This isn't history, you cock goblin. It's pre-history. Anthropology and human evolution are fields when the two intersect, this doesn't mean we can discard empirical rigor entirely. It's like you're attempting historical praxeology.
>>425426
>Actually it's not even a controversial opinion that hunter gatherer society is better.
No, it's not, but it's also completely uncontroversial that all the stuff Anon listed is horseshit. The real hunter-gatherer situation that our bodies and minds are adapted to isn't anything like Butthurt Tumblrina Daydreams: The Movie™. Even something like Dark Ages Germanic tribal life was closer to paleo man.
>>425426
>lives longer
>60% of pre-columbian native american males died from violence
Wew lad.
>eats better
Paleofag detected. Prehistoric people ate fucking everything, from insects to rodents and bitter plants that hadn't been artificially selected by farming. Also other people.
>>425445
Oh wow, just misquote one source I posted which specifically referred to female competence in hunting to another poster and ignore the other three that actually addressed the rise of gender division in the upper paleolithic which was addressed to you. Good one, faggot.
>>425470
>Prehistoric people ate fucking everything, from insects to rodents and bitter plants that hadn't been artificially selected by farming. Also other people.
>implying any of that isn't healthy for you
>>425426
>humans are not K strategists
>>424437
every civilization on earth had furry shit somewhere
>>425470
Wew lad.
Lawrence Keeley is "primitivists BTFO'd" the Scholar.
>>425480
>eating scavenger species is healthy
>eating other humans is healthy
>what is bioaccumulation of toxins
>what is kuru
Feel free to eat rats and bugs if you want though, buddy.
>>425499
You only get kuru from eating brains, just like you only shitpost from being a faggot. Man the fuck up and eat your long pig.
>>425506
Yes, but a society eating meat from the same or similar species makes you much more vulnerable to contracting diseases and prions in general. It also means other people are more likely to eat you.
>>425512
>he's not making mad natty gains by eating enemy protein
>>424355
>a personification of fertility shows the beauty standards of the time
k
Does anybody else think that these things used to be made in honor / remembrance of dead wives who died during childbirth?
I do and it makes me pretty sad.
>>424703
I'd rather be able to walk.
>>425230
>but unskilled drudgework anyone can do
I invite you to travel to the Amazon and try to survive on your own only from gathering.
>>425542
Yes, actually, I think some variation of this is the best theory; given how they often find the figures either buried with beads and little heaps of pigment or smashed in a corner of some cave this seems like the best supported general idea.
I tend toward thinking the variant that says the figurine is a (fatter, therefore more appetizing to the gods) proxy for a pregnant woman that was sacrificed in advance of labor and destroyed if the actual woman died (i.e. the gods took her, so we can't get them used to double portions) is more probable, though.
Still, of all the theories this one seems by far the most plausible and doesn't require any selective blindness to biology, cave paintings, pre-modern societies or anything else.
>>425553
>implying the Amazon is a reasonable average for prehistoric human habitat
>implying male Amazon indians can't gather more easily than female indians can fight a jaguar
>>425470
Height is a good predictor of health and sufficient nutrition. After the switch from hunter-gatherer to agriculture average height drops and takes an enormous amount of time to recover.
When farmers eat 2-3 types of food, hunter-gatherers eat 50, 100. There isn't any shit like the potato famine when the whole territory is dependent on one crop and then everyone dies. Eating insects is actually a great example. Grubs are good for you, you know? Great source of nutrition, any survival guide worth shit will teach you to eat them. we don't eat them because we are squeamish, that's it. And yet we eat water rocks with snot in them.
>>425458
We are talking about history, not what laymen think about history. Well over half the people on this board think the stereotypical cavemen are in any way accurate. These are generally the same people who make daily threads begging for evidence for their holocaust denialism, I gather.
BTW, hilariously, gender equality amongst Comanches exceeded that of the European colonizers at the time. And height. And health. And quality of life.
