(that's what violent conquest tends to look like in the genetic record)

A good way to look at the northern middle east (Turkey, North western Iran north iraq & syria) is as giant genetic bridge of the Caucasoid race (North Africans, Europeans, South Asians).

Yeah I see them as our equivalent to the Bering bridge

I saw an interesting video lecture about the early Indo-Europeans once. The professor joked that you could make the case that the IEs were proto-hippies because they may have cultivated psychedelic drugs, and about 1/4 of Scythian warrior graves were female.

lmao

Idk hunter gatherers and EEF fit more in with it in my mind

hunter gatherers because nature worship and tree huggers

EEF because matriarchal peasants who got conquered by the archetypal conquerer people

Weaklings basically

Yes.

Its time to get your tinfoil out boys.

Coronavirus is a US made bioweapon, released in Iran and behest of the Rockefellers & judes. And now is being exploited to bring about the NWO.

https://youtu.be/antCutjUi0s

It's the cycle of ancient history.
>someone sets up civilization
>civilization gets conquered by nomads
>nomads become civilized

Except pastoralists burned it to the ground

Mongols are similiar too

At least in parts of the empire

Sometimes but not always.

I've been wondering how mobile hunter gathere populations actually were considering certain sites where they lived have evidence for continuous inhabitation which seems like good evidence for distinct territory/hunting grounds

EEF encroached on this slowly
The only really nomadic populations I can think of relied on grazing and were highly violent

Pastoralists are well optimized to win wars against early civilizations but very badly optimized for maintaining control over early civilizations. (limited numbers + highly decentralized organization)

That's why groups like the Suebi just continually comitted genocide on their neighbours afaik

If you can't rule them

As for how mobile hunter gatherers were, no more mobile than they could walk, I would imagine.

Also wondering about the lack of permanent settlements before agriculture because fishing is a thing

@21ooAB sorry mate wont be able to join, was having a game with a budy and its ran over the ideal time, sorry for any fuck about for you

I know that permanent or semi-permanent fishing villages were a thing centuries before the first cities.

The earliest archaeologists thought that the invention agriculture was a sudden thing but it was probably a very gradual process.

I invented agriculture

If I had lived back then I probably wouldn't have bothered with grains and instead planted stuff which was already available like trees which bear fruit

Stuff that doesn't require tilling and can be spaced out

Perfect for low population density environment

Afaik literally what people in the Amazon rainforrest did

As in the forrest is cultivated in many areas even ignoring stuff like Terra Preta

Something last

But fruit doesn't stay edible for nearly as much time as grains do.

You will not be able to feed yourself through an entire year with just fruit production.

Depends. You can dry fruit which makes it last longer and supplement with meat

And in warmer regions with year round growing conditions you can plant and eat as you need

Unless there's not enough space for it

Space or too much population pressure

Also fish

https://voiceofeurope.com/2020/04/austria-rejects-migrant-quotas-backs-hungary-czechia-and-polands-strict-asylum-policies/ seen that felix