Paleo Women/Diet and Menstruation

Just came across this blog post yesterday and found it interesting. It seems Dr. Clancy, an Assistant Professor of Anthropology, accidentally stumbled across information (during research for something else) she says proves that menstruation does not cause anemia. While we know from the research on this forum that it's related to diet, if what she says is correct, I think she does a fairly decent job of linking anemia to gut issues. If she only knew what the real cause was...

What gave me pause in particular was this statement regarding one study she references:

The majority of the women in that study were bleeding internally, and no one had figured it out until then because they had periods.
Still trying to suss out exactly what this means but food for thought none the less.

In the second reference below, the commonly held idea that menstruation cases anemia is shown to be false. From the abstract:

We propose that, contrary to popular understanding, a thicker endometrium suggests greater iron reserves, rather than greater risk for anemia, in healthy women.
I now wonder if the thicker endometrium is really the 'normal' or optimal state for a woman - if it's 'suppossed' to remain in this state (permanantly or for longer periods of time) and due to dietary factors (including excess estrogen which purportedly is responsible for the lining's increase in thickness) results in a constant self correcting mechanism by the body.

http://professorkateclancy.blogspot.com/2011/01/iron-deficiency-is-not-something-you.html

Clancy's References for those interested:

Bergström E, Hernell O, Persson LA, & Vessby B (1995). Serum lipid values in adolescents are related to family history, infant feeding, and physical growth. Atherosclerosis, 117 (1), 1-13 PMID: 8546746

Clancy, K., Nenko, I., & Jasienska, G. (2006). Menstruation does not cause anemia: Endometrial thickness correlates positively with erythrocyte count and hemoglobin concentration in premenopausal women American Journal of Human Biology, 18 (5), 710-713 DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.20538

Kepczyk, M. (1999). A prospective, multidisciplinary evaluation of premenopausal women with iron-deficiency anemia The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 94 (1), 109-115 DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9270(98)00661-3

Miller EM (2010). Maternal hemoglobin depletion in a settled northern Kenyan pastoral population. American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council, 22 (6), 768-74 PMID: 20721981
 
Very interesting topic, and especially the connections you've been proposing, truth seeker.

truth seeker said:
Ana said:
Mrs.Tigersoap said:
This last part had struck me at the time but I did not really know what to make of it. So, maybe during this special time of the month, women are more capable of conquering the predator's mind. This could be part of the reason why women wanted to isolate themselves during this time, to be able to observe it and conquering it?

Well if I look at my own experience while menstruating, I see there is a significant change in me, first of all my body sensations became stronger, I have a great feeling of being inside my body, of being in intimate relationship and "possesion" if that makes sense. I feel charged with force wich decreases as I menstruum.

Also my perception is sharpened, it is easier to pick up hostile presences and underlying dynamics.

I even feel between two worlds sometimes and I need to put a clear intent in mind to not feel dragged by any of them and stay in the middle. With this, some way, the "playing nice" program is countered by a strong sense of self, of staying my ground, of inner freedom to be.

So, I'm aware of a clear distinctive state, which I used to decline in the past trying to eliminate the pain and forgeting the need of connection with my body.
Absolutely! For many years now, I have thought of this time, particularly just before - premenstrual - as being particularly beneficial. For me, I've noticed that all the stuff I was willing to put up with, I was now no longer able or willing to. I am most in my right mind. Funny how this has been co-opted into making women seem crazy when it's really the reverse that seems to be the case! It's as if you are no longer able to deny what your life was showing you all along.

Same here. However, menstruating only became a positive experience, once I got rid of the misogynist associations, which before I'd been carrying around with me, and which in my mind were being reinforced by a very exhausting first day of menses, with pain, depression, bloating, need for isolation, being hypersensitive to the world 'outside'.

Interestingly, and which confirms the relations to diet being a causative factor, my problems with menses were especially bad when I was vegetarian and living almost solely on dried figs and other fruits, and bread. But my own experience with the general theme of 'womanhood' makes me think that apart from wrong diet and the havoc it wreaks, the psychological attitude plays an important role as well. Once I started to consciously accept what was happening during mens (that still being on a very high carb diet), and adjusting my negative, contracting attitude towards an open one, I was beginning to experience these states described by Ana and truth seeker and in the quoted article, of being more in touch with myself, more grounded, intolerant of things I would put up with when not menstruating, very receptive emotionally and crying much more easily when being confronted with the agony of someone else or something about the state of the world. It does feel like I'm more my-self, e.g. programs of negative introject which also get projected on others, are pretty much absent and I'm filled up with a generous, loving, accepting attitude; and also the make-nice-program is much lessened, or, more accurately, it makes me feel sick if I catch myself acting on it - as Ana said, seems the ability to capture the predator's mind is heightened.

I had my menarche at the end of age 16. Like others reported, I was so happy about it finally coming, because I was very late in comparison to others and felt that something was wrong with me. It has most of the times been regular once a month, lasting about 5 days each time.

Since adjusting my diet, namely eliminating gluten, dairy and high carb content, the pain I usually had simply vanished :) and, as Gertudes mentioned in one of the first posts of this thread, menses has a few times started without me even noticing and without experiencing any negative symptoms at all.

There was one quote posted here about a woman reporting how her menses is affected by carb consumption, which I can also confirm. When I have more carbs than advised negative symptoms of menses reappear, especially on the first day.

I'm really interested in further findings concerning this topic and what changes we paleo women will observe in the times to come, as our bodies increasingly adapt and regenerate due to improved diet.

One thing makes perfect sense to me: that the rule of patriarchy must have felt threatened by the creative and nurturing potential of women (or: 4DSTS by the creative principle of "Goddess"), which is why they had to demonize menstruation, making sure it's being associated with "filthy", "contagious", "to be kept isolated and scorned".
I find it mind-boggling what a massive and concerted effort has been institutionalized - for millenia! - in order to degrade women and what they stand for. Psychopathic mindset indeed.

I think this to be very a propos:

If it is ever shown conclusively and accepted that women's actual performance is not affected by the menstrual cycle, we might still be left with women's experiential statements that they function differently during certain days, in ways that make it harder for them to tolerate the discipline required by work in our society. We could then perhaps hear these statements not as warnings of biological flaws inside women that need to be fixed but insights into flaws in society that need to be addressed.
...
Amid the losses that form the center of most accounts of PMS, these women seem to be describing experiences that. for them, represent increased capacities of emotional responsiveness and sensitivity, creativity, and physical sensuality. If these capacities are there, they are certainly not ones that would be given a chance to flourish or even be an advantage in the ordinary dual work day of most women.



Oxajil said:
Here is one thing from Bringers of the Dawn that I was reminded of when thinking about all of this:

P's said:
How do they benefit? They keep women from uniting with each other and
men from uniting with each other here in the United States. They keep
people in fear. They convince you, by continuously putting these issues
before you, that a woman has no control over the birthing process in her
body. You don't need abortion: you never need to get pregnant in the
first place if you don't desire it. How? By will. A woman can say to
herself, "I am not prepared at this time for a child." Or, alternately,
"I am in receptivity of a child."
When you own yourself, you will not
need permission from the government about what you can do with your own
body.

I find this to be interesting as well. I could always tell when I was about to get my menses (except for the exceptions mentioned above, when it took me by surprise) and I also, on many occasions could delay menses from coming by some sort of mental willing, e.g. when I knew I'd be having a long and stressful day, I'd mentally say something like "No, not now - tonight is okay", and it worked. Often it did not come at the time I "told" my body when it would be ok; it would then come on the next day or during the night, or sometimes a few days after. No hard data of course, so fwiw.

I doubt there will be any studies on women using their will as to whether they want to get pregnant or not, but it would be nice knowing whether this actually works. - Maybe this "willing" is a natural ability, which was suppressed by both an agricultural diet and degradation of women (believing lie = closing perception) and by returning to a healthy lifestyle, the 'broken link to above' can be mended, the 'uplink' re-established. (I guess it would certainly be threatening to psychopathic men to accept such a 'power' from a woman, which would openly confirm that they are not in charge.. as all their control revolves around attempting to control life itself, so of course the woman would then be the first to target.) Just thinking out loud.

One thing I heard in naturopathy school was women talking about how their menstrual cycles adapted to other womens' cycles when they were living in the same household, i.e. their menstrual cycles adapted to one another. Don't have any data for that though.
 
Enaid said:
One thing I heard in naturopathy school was women talking about how their menstrual cycles adapted to other womens' cycles when they were living in the same household, i.e. their menstrual cycles adapted to one another. Don't have any data for that though.
Yeah, the McClintock Effect. You may find the recent article below interesting. I'm not really sure what to think as the research seems so limited. Also, although I think the author has many interesting ideas, because she seems unaware of the role of diet and the many ways it can effect the cycle, a big part of the puzzle may be missing.

_http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2011/11/16/menstrual-synchrony/
 
My friends and I at school all had our cycles within a day or even an hour of each other, so we joked about how we would get snappy and oversensitive and zitty at the same time. (The poor boys in our class didn't know what had hit them.)
What a bunch of witches we were.

This was before any of us began taking the pill of course.
 
truth seeker said:
[quote author=Ana]
Also my perception is sharpened, it is easier to pick up hostile presences and underlying dynamics.

I even feel between two worlds sometimes and I need to put a clear intent in mind to not feel dragged by any of them and stay in the middle. With this, some way, the "playing nice" program is countered by a strong sense of self, of staying my ground, of inner freedom...
Absolutely! For many years now, I have thought of this time, particularly just before - premenstrual - as being particularly beneficial. For me, I've noticed that all the stuff I was willing to put up with, I was now no longer able or willing to.[\b] I am most in my right mind. Funny how this has been co-opted into making women seem crazy when it's really the reverse that seems to be the case! It's as if you are no longer able to deny what your life was showing you all along.[/quote]

Me too Ana, My "playing nice" program is on most of the time. I have to admit that I act like a servant of others and that's what my family thinks I am (first daughter and first grandchild). My friends know better.

During the holidays and pre-cycle, TruthSeeker, I didn't want to put up with it anymore! External consideration, so I tried to think of it as a play with many scenes and lots of pipe breathing in between. It works, in 3 weeks, I discovered the roots of many programs and where they came from.

Good news that when it came. warning normal body functions to be described lol

I thought I pee myself! :-[ Yay! NOTHING! No bloating, no pain, no cramps/contractions, no gooey stuff, wow!

It's now watery, scarlet red, and takes a long time for it to oxidize (to turn brown) when it used to do it in a few minutes or come out already brown.

Has anyone else had it turn really red and watery compared to before diet?

Thanks everyone for all the great research.
 
truth seeker said:
Enaid said:
One thing I heard in naturopathy school was women talking about how their menstrual cycles adapted to other womens' cycles when they were living in the same household, i.e. their menstrual cycles adapted to one another. Don't have any data for that though.
Yeah, the McClintock Effect. You may find the recent article below interesting. I'm not really sure what to think as the research seems so limited. Also, although I think the author has many interesting ideas, because she seems unaware of the role of diet and the many ways it can effect the cycle, a big part of the puzzle may be missing.

_http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2011/11/16/menstrual-synchrony/

Thanks truth seeker, interesting indeed. And yes, there's too little data as to come to a conclusion concerning this.

Just one thing that stood out for me, as it reminded me of something, fwiw:

Menstrual synchrony is one of those ideas that seems to be confirmed in our daily lives. If we are menstruating at the same time, or close to the same time as a friend, the coincidence takes on a greater meaning, a sign of our time spent together, or closeness as friends or partners.

This recent year there was a span of maybe 4 months, where I was spending more time with my mother, we talked much more than usually and some form of bonding occurred - during that same time we found that our mens cycles started overlapping. After this time span we drifted back to distancing ourselves from each other again, and since then, no overlap of menses has occurred.

I wonder if oxytocin could play a role here, if there's anything to this theory. From the limited research it seems that picking up on pheromones is not what is happening.
 
truth seeker said:
A few of us were talking about changes in menstruation after starting to increase or go on a completely meat diet. At least two of us, I
believe, reported the not having a period for some time (for me about two months). Since we are around the same age, menopause was considered but I find the coincidence interesting enough to consider that perhaps something else is going on.

I also am probably in this "menopause period" and was asking to myself why I did not have my menstrual cycles anymore, by thinking there maybe was a link between paleo diet (started at the middle of the last October) and this fact. This is a very interesting "correlation", thank you for this thread I did not read in totality yet (I need more time because of language barrier).

Enaid said:
One thing I heard in naturopathy school was women talking about how their menstrual cycles adapted to other womens' cycles when they were living in the same household, i.e. their menstrual cycles adapted to one another. Don't have any data for that though.

I used to have my menstrual cycles at the same time than my daughter with one or two days of distance, until last October. I also have to look for data on this.

Gertrudes said:
It makes me wonder whether eating the quantity and quality of food that is actually appropriate for our bodies isn't a natural way of controlling population growth. Well, in a sense we know it is, Vegetarian Myth explains very clearly how we have destroyed the planet with agriculture and an overabundance of food production. But I'm thinking that that may also be reflected on an individual internal level.

I don't really know, but thinking about this is an interesting exercise :)

Yes, it is an interesting exercise and surely a very good question, and by looking for quickly on my mother tongue Web, I did not found anything really interesting. So the English links you all gave in the previous comments and your own experiences are, for the moment, the only way for me to understand this.
Thank you all :)
 
I wanted to share with you a couple of thoughts, added on yesterday after my previous comment... and before reading all the thread. Now, I did. And it looks more interesting now than yesterday, thank you all, again.
Without trying to correlate anything and maybe to put in a global view of the whole, my thoughts were:
If agriculture/farming was teached to humans and if this last one is so bad for us in all the senses seen here and there (Health threads), what can we think of this extract from the Bible:
Genesis 1, 28 - God blesses them and says to them: "Be fertile, multiply, fill the Earth and subject it; Dominate fishes of the sea, the birds of the sky and all the animals which crawl on the Earth."

Could it means agriculture/farming was "given" to the humans to let them the opportunity to increase their number, being a way for "4Th density SDS forces" to get more "food"? :evil:
 
MK Scarlett said:
I wanted to share with you a couple of thoughts, added on yesterday after my previous comment... and before reading all the thread. Now, I did. And it looks more interesting now than yesterday, thank you all, again.
Without trying to correlate anything and maybe to put in a global view of the whole, my thoughts were:
If agriculture/farming was teached to humans and if this last one is so bad for us in all the senses seen here and there (Health threads), what can we think of this extract from the Bible:
Genesis 1, 28 - God blesses them and says to them: "Be fertile, multiply, fill the Earth and subject it; Dominate fishes of the sea, the birds of the sky and all the animals which crawl on the Earth."

Could it means agriculture/farming was "given" to the humans to let them the opportunity to increase their number, being a way for "4Th density SDS forces" to get more "food"? :evil:

I'm inclined to think that agriculture definitely played an important role in increasing the population to have more food for STS. And all the issues of centralized control/psychopaths controlling everything became possible. Besides all the other negative effects from agriculture. I think it was a final, very important step in the downfall of humanity into its current state and it's been getting worse ever since.
 
SeekinTruth said:
I'm inclined to think that agriculture definitely played an important role in increasing the population to have more food for STS. And all the issues of centralized control/psychopaths controlling everything became possible. Besides all the other negative effects from agriculture. I think it was a final, very important step in the downfall of humanity into its current state and it's been getting worse ever since.

Observing how new pieces of puzzles fit together, over the last few years, is just... Horrifying. How humanity was being herd and locked down, exit by exit closed, one after another. Every day, every minute I realize more and more how this organic meat diet is a true life & sanity saver.
 
I wonder if the introduction of agriculture marked the domestication of the "human livestock" by 4D STS. Paleolithic people could be extremely brutal to others not of their group, as can surviving hunter-gatherer groups today. They might very well have been healthier, but I suspect we would not want to return to paleolithic lifestyle. There seems to be evidence that pathological behavior was around long before agriculture.

I don't know if anyone has thoroughly considered the effect of reduced inter-tribal brutality on population size. There are many questions and little data. But I wonder if the introduction of agriculture not only resembled our more recent domestication of farm animals and the practice of feeding them grain, but also represented an attempt to stop us from killing ourselves quite so much.

Consider this.

Before the Dawn said:
The Efficacy of Primitive Warfare

A propensity for warfare is prominent among the suite of behaviors that people and chimpanzees have inherited from their joint ancestor. The savagery of wars between modern states has produced unparalleled carnage. Yet the common impression that primitive peoples, by comparison, were peaceful and their occasional fighting of no serious consequence is incorrect. Warfare between pre-state societies was incessant, merciless, and conducted with the general purpose, often achieved, of annihilating the opponent. As far as human nature is concerned, people of early societies seem to have been considerably more warlike than are people today. In fact, over the course of the last 50,000 years, the human propensity for warfare has probably been considerably attenuated.

“Peaceful pre-state societies were very rare; warfare between them was very frequent, and most adult men in such groups saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime,” writes Lawrence H. Keeley, an archaeologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Primitive warfare was conducted not by arrays of troops on a formal battlefield, in the western style, but by raids, ambushes and surprise attacks. The numbers killed in each raid might be small, but because warfare was incessant, the casualties far exceeded the losses of state societies when measured as a percentage of population. “In fact, primitive warfare was much more deadly than that conducted between civilized states because of the greater frequency of combat and the more merciless way it was conducted. Primitive war was very efficient at inflicting damage through the destruction of property, especially means of production and shelter, and inducing terror by frequently visiting sudden death and mutilating its victims.”

Keeley’s conclusions are drawn from the archaeological evidence of the past, including the Upper Paleolithic period, and from anthropological studies of primitive peoples. These include three groups of foragers that survived until recent times—the !Kung San, Eskimos and Australian aborigines—as well as tribal farmers such the Yanomamo of Brazil and the pig and yam cultivating societies of New Guinea.

Wade, Nicholas (2007-03-27). Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (p. 150-151). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

So I think that there may be a bigger picture in which agriculture represented a step backward in terms of health and independence but possibly a step forward in other ways.

Something similar seems to be happening in modern times. Agriculture is again involved, and health is impacted but, at least temporarily, exposure to violent conflict has been reduced for many people. I don't think it will last, but it may represent a special window of opportunity for those who recognize it (and are careful about what they eat!) to learn and grow.
 
Primitive war was very efficient at inflicting damage through the destruction of property, especially means of production and shelter, and inducing terror by frequently visiting sudden death and mutilating its victims.”

Keeley’s conclusions are drawn from the archaeological evidence of the past, including the Upper Paleolithic period, and from anthropological studies of primitive peoples. These include three groups of foragers that survived until recent times—the !Kung San, Eskimos and Australian aborigines—as well as tribal farmers such the Yanomamo of Brazil and the pig and yam cultivating societies of New Guinea.

I find this contradicts itself inflicting damage through the destruction of property, especially means of production and shelter
property in it self is a farmers concept
destruction of shelter only if its a permanent shelter not a windbreak or igloo
means of production like what? the three groups mentioned keep no life stock and their hunting tools are easily replaceable

and during the Upper Paleolithic period
This shift from Middle to Upper Paleolithic is called the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. The Neanderthals continued to use Mousterian stone tool technology, but were probably extinct by about 22,000 BC. This period has the earliest remains of organized settlements in the form of campsites, some with storage pits. These were often located in narrow valley bottoms, possibly to make hunting of passing herds of animals easier. Some sites may have been occupied year round, though more generally, they seem to have been used seasonally; peoples moved between them to exploit different food sources at different times of the year. Hunting was important, and caribou/wild reindeer "may well be the species of single greatest importance in the entire anthropological literature on hunting."[6]

same story what property? what shelter? what means of production?

so I don't know how he can come to these conclusions

I do agree with Megan on I wonder if the introduction of agriculture marked the domestication of the "human livestock" by 4D STS.

domestication also involves breeding ,selecting who breeds with whom,and ''wild''humans did raid each others tribes/clans for women
thus undermining any breeding attempt by 4D ''owners''
kidnapping girls from the guys up the road does keep genetic diversity up but there where other more peaceful ways too

there is the old story of the ''chief'' offering his wife/wives to the visiting white explorer/anthropologist ...little did he know that the women in the tribe called dibs on the fresh genetic material and it had nothing to do with the chief being generous ;)
 
rrraven said:
I find this contradicts itself inflicting damage through the destruction of property, especially means of production and shelter
property in it self is a farmers concept
destruction of shelter only if its a permanent shelter not a windbreak or igloo
means of production like what? the three groups mentioned keep no life stock and their hunting tools are easily replaceable...

I went back to the source for clarification, Lawrence H. Keeley, War before Civilization, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 174. The citation is from the last part of the book, from a passage that reflects primarily on warfare in later periods. There is not a lot of data about paleolithic warfare. Keeley says this:

War before Civilization said:
With regard to prehistory, nothing comparable to the surveys of historical and ethnographic societies cited earlier exists as yet. Any attempts to survey 2 million years of human prehistory for evidence of violence and armed conflict face several daunting difficulties. The first is that most regions of the world are poorly known archaeologically—the rare exceptions being Europe (especially the west), the Near East, and parts of the United States. The most unequivocal evidence of armed conflict consists of human skeletons with weapon traumas (especially, embedded bone or stone projectile points) and fortifications. However, humans have buried their dead for only the past 150,000 years or so; before this, the human remains that have been found were often disturbed and fragmented by scavengers and natural forces. Even during the past 150,000 years, many prehistoric peoples disposed of their dead in ways—for example, cremation and exposure—that left no remains for anthropologists to study. Only among some peoples—those for whom the use of stone- and bone-tipped weapons (which can survive embedded in or closely associated with human skeletons) was commonplace—is it easy to distinguish accidental traumas from those inflicted by humans. The use of these weapons occurred only during the past 40,000 years, and in many regions perishable wooden and bamboo spears and projectiles continued to be used until modern times. Until humans began living in permanent villages, fortifications would have not repaid the labor required to construct them (Chapter 3). But humans seem to have become sufficiently sedentary only during the past 14,000 years, and permanent villages are common in most regions only after the adoption of farming (8000 B.C. at the earliest). Thus it is possible to document prehistoric warfare reliably only within the past 20,000 to 30,000 years and in a only a few areas of the world. Granting these limitations, what does the archaeological evidence say about the peacefulness of prehistoric peoples?

Some authors have claimed that the evidence of homicide is as old as humanity—or at least as old as the genus Homo (that is, over 1 million years).25 But many of the traumas found on early hominid skeletons have been proved by subsequent investigation to have had nonhomicidal causes or cannot be distinguished from accidental traumas of a similar character.26 For instance, the paired “spear wounds” found on some South African Australopithicine skulls are now recognized as punctures created by leopard canines as the predator carried these luckless ancestors of ours, gripping their heads in its teeth. As another example, Neanderthals seem to have been especially accident prone, compared with the modern humans who followed them. Neanderthals’ bones evidence many injuries and breakages (one study determined that 40 percent of them had suffered head injuries). Which, if any, of these injuries were caused by human violence cannot be determined. Since the heavy musculature and robust bones of Neanderthals imply that their way of life was much more strenuous and physically demanding than that of more recent humans, it seems probable that most of the traumas in question were accidental. Why they so often “forgot to duck” remains a mystery, however.

Whenever modern humans appear on the scene, definitive evidence of homicidal violence becomes more common, given a sufficient sample of burials.27 Several of the rare burials of earliest modern humans in central and western Europe, dating from 34,000 to 24,000 years ago, show evidence of violent death. At Grimaldi in Italy, a projectile point was embedded in the spinal column of a child’s skeleton dating to the Aurignacian modern humans in Europe, ca. 36,000 to 27,000 years ago). One Aurignacian skull from southern France may have been scalped; it has cut-marks on its frontal (forehead). Evidence from the celebrated Upper Palaeolithic cemeteries of Czechoslovakia, dating between 35,000 and 24,000 years ago, implies—either by direct evidence of weapons traumas, especially cranial fractures on adult males, or by the improbability of alternative explanations for mass burials of men, women, and children—that violent conflicts and deaths were common. In the Nile Valley of Egypt, the earliest evidence of death by homicide is a male burial, dated to about 20,000 years ago, with stone projectile points in the skeleton’s abdominal region and another point embedded in its upper arm (a wound that had partially healed before his death). The one earlier human skeleton found in Egypt bears no evidence of violence, but the next more recent human remains there are rife with evidence of homicide.

The human skeletons found in a Late Palaeolithic cemetery at Gebel Sahaba in Egyptian Nubia, dating about 12,000 to 14,000 years ago, show that warfare there was very common and particularly brutal.28 Over 40 percent of the fifty-nine men, women, and children buried in this cemetery had stone projectile points intimately associated with or embedded in their skeletons. Several adults had multiple wounds (as many as twenty), and the wounds found on children were all in the head or neck—that is, execution shots. The excavator, Fred Wendorf, estimates that more than half the people buried there had died violently. He also notes that homicidal violence at Gebel Sahaba was not a once-in-a-lifetime event, since many of the adults showed healed parry fractures of their forearm bones—a common trauma on victims of violence—and because the cemetery had obviously been used over several generations. The Gebel Sahaba burials offer graphic testimony that prehistoric hunter-gatherers could be as ruthlessly violent as any of their more recent counterparts and that prehistoric warfare continued for long periods of time... [Text continues into the neolithic period.]

Keeley, Lawrence H. (1997-12-18). War before Civilization, chapter 2. Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

And that's about it. Without more data one can look at more recent examples and project into the past to form a picture, but that is about all.

The limited evidence does not rule out an even earlier STO period, not that I have seen.

As I think about history and what is known of prehistory, Castaneda's notion of "the predator's mind" comes to mind again and again.
 
Alice said:
SeekinTruth said:
I'm inclined to think that agriculture definitely played an important role in increasing the population to have more food for STS. And all the issues of centralized control/psychopaths controlling everything became possible. Besides all the other negative effects from agriculture. I think it was a final, very important step in the downfall of humanity into its current state and it's been getting worse ever since.

Observing how new pieces of puzzles fit together, over the last few years, is just... Horrifying. How humanity was being herd and locked down, exit by exit closed, one after another. Every day, every minute I realize more and more how this organic meat diet is a true life & sanity saver.

I thought about a "chain", something like that:

Agriculture/farming ---> new food for humans ---> physique dependence ---> psychic dependence ---> more menstruation for women ---> less chivalrous spirit for the men ---> more people ---> more suffering ---> more food for STS 4Th density forces and more influence on our Humanity.

It is the best way found to express my mind better than my not so good English use...
 
A few of us were talking about changes in menstruation after starting to increase or go on a completely meat diet. At least two of us, I believe, reported the not having a period for some time (for me about two months). Since we are around the same age, menopause was considered but I find the coincidence interesting enough to consider that perhaps something else is going on.

Seems a lot of Women-gone Paleo is experiencing this.
Lighter periods, less bleeding, less cramps etc.

See this discussion from paleohacks : http://paleohacks.com/questions/998/ladies-how-has-the-paleo-diet-affected-your-periods#axzz1iWP925Pl

I have a Mirena IUD, and after going 100% Paleo, I've actually started bleeding again (very light, watery), after not having any period since insertion.
I know I should have it removed. I really should. I just don't have a working alternative just yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom