Film: Quest for Fire, Anyone?

[Jenny_Jackson]

Just the simple acquisition of table salt proves to be a task. I like sugar in my coffee and tea. but there were no 'sweeteners', insofar as I can discover, in North West America in the year 8,000 BCE.

Nope...no sugar cane, no sugar beets and no honey bees. Even the food, no fruit, no pears, peaches or even apples in that period at that place.

I believe it is true, Ami, that the NW indians did not have sweetners. However, they were great traders and traded as far east as the Mississippi, as far south as Texas, as well as, with the fishers of the NW Coast. I'm quite sure they would have found honey someplace among their trading partners. Just a thought.

When did the 'division of labor' take place? Perhaps certain family groups were skilled in tool making, or pottery, perhaps one family has knowledge of the location of suitable stones or obsidian for tool making and refused to share the information with others.

Among the NW indian tribes women were seen as chattle. Because of this they were valuable trading material. It seems to me the division of labor would have occured quite early, most likely had alread occured when they came to North America. Women were much too valuable to risk losing to other tribes in raids, war or hunting.

Not to inject a political note here, but all three Quest, Caveman and Clan of the Cave Bear had intimations of homosexuality and infidelity; is that an 'author's message' or the way it was or might have been?

This isn't a political note. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are fairly modern cultural inventions. You need to look at sexual conventions from the stand point of the time, not today.

It was many times more violent than the 80's Mt. St. Helen's event and dumped several feet of ash thousands of miles away. Was that quake the only event or were there tidal wides generated that decimated coastal tribes? Was it a subduction quake along a fault line off the coast?

Because of the volcano type, the damage would have been fairly localized. Mazama is very much like St. Helens - Explosive, rather than calm like a Hawaiian volcano. Pieces were thrown 300 miles and are now dug out as "thunder eggs". There would have been large "pyroclastic flows" that covered much of the surrounding forest land and clogged the rivers all the way to the coast, as happened with St. Helens (Toutle River). This would have had a negative affect on the fishing in the rivers and localized along the coast at the mouth of those rivers.

Within 100 miles of the mountain, no one would have survived. 200-300 miles away from the explosion there could well have been substantial damage from falling debris from the plume cloud. 1000 miles away and more there would have been ash fall, but the affects are pretty much uncertain. Would it have been life threatening? Most likely not, but would have forced the tribes to move to new areas, north and east, for those tribes up to 500 miles from the crater.

That's all the research I've heard, Ami.

 

[cloudy]

Just the simple acquisition of table salt proves to be a task. I like sugar in my coffee and tea. but there were no 'sweeteners', insofar as I can discover, in North West America in the year 8,000 BCE.

Maple sap was used in the more northern areas. There are also other plants besides sugar cane that can supply sweetener.

Leadership in a tribe changes when it transitions from hunter/gathering to agrarian and settled. What happens if the 'Chief' has no sons? Does a daughter become accepted by the 'people', or is there a struggle for succession?

Contrary to popular "knowledge," most leadership was not passed down, except such as clan leadership, and clan leaders were always women. Tribal leadership wasn't anything as formal as you presume during that time, and right on up to contact. Most times, a tribal leader was a leader because the tribe trusted his/her judgement and wisdom. When they stopped trusting him/her, they turned to someone else.

When did the 'division of labor' take place? Perhaps certain family groups were skilled in tool making, or pottery, perhaps one family has knowledge of the location of suitable stones or obsidian for tool making and refused to share the information with others.

"Refusing to share" wasn't an issue. The more that each person knows, the better off the group as a whole was. They were smart enough to know this, your protestations to the contrary.

However, certain clans were known for certain traits. I'm from the Deer clan, known as the fast runners, or far runners. This may still hold true, or it just could be a coincidence that I ran track for years, and made it to the Junior Olympics twice.

Not to inject a political note here, but all three Quest, Caveman and Clan of the Cave Bear had intimations of homosexuality and infidelity; is that an 'author's message' or the way it was or might have been?

That's the way it was. People are people, after all. That never changes. For us, a man who was gay was two-spirited, and closer to the creator. He was treated like anyone else, may take a husband, everything. Google "berdache."

Auel even had her blonde blue eyed heroine sleep with a black man in one of her stories...again...as it was or a message?

Race lines were only drawn recently, and mostly by Europeans. Thats the way it was.

Which means the befuddled writer is left to his own devices in many cases. Such as 'horses'. There were indigenous horses in North American in about 13,000 BCE, but, not in 8,000. What happened to them? Were they hunted and consumed; all of them, each and every critter? Or perhaps my people could discover a lone band and, ''voila', civilization is in on horseback.

Horses weren't the only large animal that became extinct here. They killed them and ate them. There were no "lone bands." Besides, didn't need them. Dogs made excellent pack animals, could pull a travois, and be eaten in lean times.

 

[cloudy]

Among the NW indian tribes women were seen as chattle.

This is so far from the truth, it's ridiculous.

 

[CharleyH]

No offence, but I have fallen asleep to 'Quest For Fire' every time I've attempted a watch. I recall my mother just loving the movie. She also loved the 'Clan of the Cavebare' novels (not movie) and a book called "Sarum" ((sp) which was about the history of England. She was a true history nut.

I can see the problems in writing a piece like this Ami (ie. 8000 BCE circa North America and it depends on very specific locations). I can see a problem with sugar since it wasn't introduced into NA until sometime in the Anno Domini's (correction). Still, there must have been honey in NA at that time, me thinks? You say not even that, so I will have to concede since it's a research project I am not up to (and do not envy).

(EDIT TO ADD: RIGHT CLOUDY! Maple trees! Although the sap is bitter, no? I am intrigued at how ancient natives might have turned it sweet.)

I am not even sure that science can agree on HOW natives got here in the first place. One theory - the Bering Strait, another later with boats and another earlier with the exodus from Africa via Panacea.

(AS ASIDE: there was something in the news today about all humans originating from a specific place in the Sahara.)

I also have to just mention to you that you presuppose that life in 8000BCE was patriarchal. Like I said, it depends on the location and I assume it also greatly depends on the culture of the tribe in that location. Something to consider in your fiction.

Take a gander at Margaret Meads gender studies in New Guinea: the Arapesh, Mundugamor and Tchambuli tribes. She continues to be the leader in Anthropological studies and it's worth a look see.

As said, I don't envy your project at hand, but I hope I've given a little something. Much luck.

 

[amicus]

"...Maple sap was used in the more northern areas. There are also other plants besides sugar cane that can supply sweetener..."

Contrary to popular "knowledge," most leadership was not passed down, except such as clan leadership, and clan leaders were always women. Tribal leadership wasn't anything as formal as you presume during that time, and right on up to contact. Most times, a tribal leader was a leader because the tribe trusted his/her judgement and wisdom. When they stopped trusting him/her, they turned to someone else.


"Refusing to share" wasn't an issue. The more that each person knows, the better off the group as a whole was. They were smart enough to know this, your protestations to the contrary.

However, certain clans were known for certain traits. I'm from the Deer clan, known as the fast runners, or far runners. This may still hold true, or it just could be a coincidence that I ran track for years, and made it to the Junior Olympics twice.


That's the way it was. People are people, after all. That never changes. For us, a man who was gay was two-spirited, and closer to the creator. He was treated like anyone else, may take a husband, everything. Google "berdache."


Race lines were only drawn recently, and mostly by Europeans. Thats the way it was.


Horses weren't the only large animal that became extinct here. They killed them and ate them. There were no "lone bands." Besides, didn't need them. Dogs made excellent pack animals, could pull a travois, and be eaten in lean times.

~~~

Hello Cloudy...thanks for the input.

I don't want to start or continue an argument with you, my earlier expressed views on Native Americans and Femininity have already raised an antagonism between us.

You have, as I interpret your commentary, a great pride in tribal life, Indian lore, customs and traditions, a good thing for you, I am sure. You also have, in many cases a feminist viewpoint on many issues and I don't even begrudge you that, women have been treated poorly throughout history.

***
"...Maple sap was used in the more northern areas. There are also other plants besides sugar cane that can supply sweetener..."

I found no evidence that tree sap was used by the tribes in the area my people are located in. You may be correct, but there is no evidence to support it.

Further, although I am only remotely aware of the process for draining the sap from the tree and boiling it down, one needs to consider the lack of metal tools during that time that might have been used to insert into the tree. Further, 'boiling' was accomplished by heating rocks in a fire and then placing them in skin or cured hide containers until the liquid boiled.

***

"...Contrary to popular "knowledge," most leadership was not passed down, except such as clan leadership, and clan leaders were always women. Tribal leadership wasn't anything as formal as you presume during that time, and right on up to contact. Most times, a tribal leader was a leader because the tribe trusted his/her judgement and wisdom. When they stopped trusting him/her, they turned to someone else...."

Perhaps, Cloudy, perhaps, we don't really know do we?

While that may be the legend of your tribe, it does not necessarily hold true for all tribes in all periods of time. The speculative histories I have read are all over the board in terms of tribal leadership succession. A few, very few, mention a 'matriarchal' society. I surmise that the genetic heritage shown by European societies, even today, keep a ruling family line in continuation. That also holds true for Chinese societies and many others through the ages.

As I said earlier the information is so uncertain that a writer is somewhat left to his own devices to create a scenario. I try to envision man then, as man is now, with the passions and loyalties reflecting something about the basic nature of man and society.

I also suggest that judgment and wisdom played a very small part in determining leadership and that strength, aggression and determination, all of which I classify as, 'masculine' characteristics won out in those very threatening and hazardous times.

One can never know if my perspective is even close to truth, but in an attempt to be consistent, the line of 'Holy Men' shaman's, Seers and Medicine men and women was also passed down family lines.

***


"...Refusing to share" wasn't an issue. The more that each person knows, the better off the group as a whole was. They were smart enough to know this, your protestations to the contrary..."

Do you really think so? I don't far from it. I think the family that knew the location of the only salt deposit within a great distance, would gain status and position by keeping that information secret and within a family and trading the salt for the other needs.

The same with tool makers, the 'best' and most efficient, with access and knowledge to the location would keep both the method and the site secret to insure their own survival and status. I think that would hold true with every area of expertise and knowledge, women still keep secret recipe's from others and I suspect this is an aspect of human nature.

I suspect that here, you and I have a very deep philosophical disagreement. You seem to imply a collective sharing and collective knowledge donated to benefit the tribe. I, on the other hand, know mankind to be possessive and secretive and more concerned with the well being of 'number one' and family rather than the group unless there are other incentives. I also maintain rigorously that knowledge is discovered and perfected within the mind of one man or woman and not a group.

***

"...However, certain clans were known for certain traits. I'm from the Deer clan, known as the fast runners, or far runners. This may still hold true, or it just could be a coincidence that I ran track for years, and made it to the Junior Olympics twice..."

That is rather a wide and portent caveat, Cloudy. People then were like people now; big one's, little one's fat and thin, seeing and hearing well or not. There is in my view the inevitable and purely human concept of competition and conflict. There is also the matter of the intelligent quotient, some people are simply born smarter and more attractive than others.

That is also why we have both men and women's specialties and sports; they are physically and psychologically different. There may have indeed been a swift and agile female capable of matching her male counterpart, but I suggest that is the exception, not the rule.

***

"...That's the way it was. People are people, after all. That never changes. For us, a man who was gay was two-spirited, and closer to the creator. He was treated like anyone else, may take a husband, everything. Google "berdache."

I am familiar with the term 'berdache', and it is written in many place that many societies had the same concept.

Again a philosophical difference here. You imply that homosexuality is a natural and normal occurrence in all societies and among all people.

Science and psychology do not agree with you, nor do I. Aside from homosexual writers of fiction pushing their condition as normative, the nature of man and society simply don't brook the concept.

Early tribal life in any ethnic group is a great deal of 'role playing', with each individual from childhood on fulfilling a role in the group. Children born with poor vision or deformed or with a weak physical system were often abandoned or did not survive. The old were discarded when they became a burden.

In my viewpoint, in a primitive society, there simply is no function for an effeminate man or a masculine woman. If they did survive I suggest they would be shunned and forbidden to participate in tribal affairs.

Having multiple children throughout a woman's life, beginning very early on, was essential for the survival of the tribe. Not producing children thus, in large is a burden and not an asset.

***

"...Race lines were only drawn recently, and mostly by Europeans. Thats the way it was.


Horses weren't the only large animal that became extinct here. They killed them and ate them. There were no "lone bands." Besides, didn't need them. Dogs made excellent pack animals, could pull a travois, and be eaten in lean times.[/QUOTE]..."

History tells me that 'race lines', have been with mankind forever.

Read enough and you will find contention and differing viewpoints as to the causes of the extinction of many species. Mastodons, Cave Bears and Sabre toothed tigers.

Acknowledging such things as 'Buffalo Rock' (if I recall) where Native American's stampeded entire herds off a cliff, it is still difficult for me to accept that primitive man hunted to extinction the species in question.

Secondly, buffalo are herd animals, horse are not as much as the male usually has a harem of mares and keeps them separate. I find it entirely logical that one such, 'band' of horses lasted long enough to be captured and domesticated.

Yes, the history of man's domestication of the wolf is very interesting.


~~~

Now, Cloudy, before you get all hissy with me; you commented and basically refuted just about everything I said, I didn't seek you out.

Grant me the same right I grant you, to hold and express different opinions.



Amicus the Neanderthal....

 

[cloudy]

One small correction, ami. We don't have shamans. Never have. We have holy people, and healers, or medicine men/women. The term "shaman" is from Siberia, I believe, not from us.

Oh, and I've raised/trained/bred/shown horses my entire life, and they are, indeed, herd animals, just like buffalo. In this, ami, I most certainly know more than you do.

When I was speaking of clan traits, I was speaking of the entire clan, not just the women. A clan wouldn't last long without both men and women, after all. In matriarchal societies, men married into his wife's clan, and the children also belonged to her clan. In patriarchal societies, just the opposite.

I don't think you understand tribal society all that well. I'm honestly trying to help you, as hard as that may be for you to understand.

We looked at things so differently than Europeans that I realize it's hard for you to understand the mindset, but that's why you'll get a lot of things really wrong if you continue to think that all men, through all time think just as you do.

The nuclear family as we know it didn't really exist in a lot of societies. With the Choctaw (what I know best, of course), for example, the children's father didn't raise them, although he, of course, had plenty of contact with them. The male role in raising the children was always given to the mother's brother; kept within the clan. The clan was all, it was everything. Think of it as a large, very extended family.

Some clans were indeed richer or more powerful than others, but it wasn't just a single family, as you envision a family to be. In some societies, mostly those in the north, the clan all lived together in a single dwelling. In others, a clan's homes were all built together in a single group, and in traditional directions that "belonged" to that clan.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Jenny_Jackson]I believe it is true, Ami, that the NW indians did not have sweetners. However, they were great traders and traded as far east as the Mississippi, as far south as Texas, as well as, with the fishers of the NW Coast. I'm quite sure they would have found honey someplace among their trading partners. Just a thought.

Among the NW indian tribes women were seen as chattle. Because of this they were valuable trading material. It seems to me the division of labor would have occured quite early, most likely had alread occured when they came to North America. Women were much too valuable to risk losing to other tribes in raids, war or hunting.
This isn't a political note. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are fairly modern cultural inventions. You need to look at sexual conventions from the stand point of the time, not today.


Because of the volcano type, the damage would have been fairly localized. Mazama is very much like St. Helens - Explosive, rather than calm like a Hawaiian volcano. Pieces were thrown 300 miles and are now dug out as "thunder eggs". There would have been large "pyroclastic flows" that covered much of the surrounding forest land and clogged the rivers all the way to the coast, as happened with St. Helens (Toutle River). This would have had a negative affect on the fishing in the rivers and localized along the coast at the mouth of those rivers.

Within 100 miles of the mountain, no one would have survived. 200-300 miles away from the explosion there could well have been substantial damage from falling debris from the plume cloud. 1000 miles away and more there would have been ash fall, but the affects are pretty much uncertain. Would it have been life threatening? Most likely not, but would have forced the tribes to move to new areas, north and east, for those tribes up to 500 miles from the crater.

That's all the research I've heard, Ami.[/QUOTE]



~~~

Hi, Jenny, since I read a very delightful and well written story of yours and since you also reside out here in 'God's Country', I still have hopes for you in spite of your avatar(which I chuckle at).

"...Jenny_Jackson]I believe it is true, Ami, that the NW indians did not have sweetners. However, they were great traders and traded as far east as the Mississippi, as far south as Texas, as well as, with the fishers of the NW Coast. I'm quite sure they would have found honey someplace among their trading partners. Just a thought...."[/I]

The time frame for a 'trading' society is a bit later than the one I am writing about. This period of time, following the glaciation of much of northern North America, finds the population sparse and still transitioning out of the 'hunter gatherer' stage.

The Central American tribes and the Mound Builders of the middle west come a few thousand years later. My memory may be faulty but I think honey bees, the source of honey were an European import originating somewhere in Asia.

***


On your vulcanism commentary, if you look up Kratatoa and Pinetubo, and other historical examples, some were violent and widespread enough to disrupt global climate for years, lower temperatures with the ash the circulated around the world for a long time.

Appreciate your time and comment...


Amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=CharleyH]No offence, but I have fallen asleep to 'Quest For Fire' every time I've attempted a watch. I recall my mother just loving the movie. She also loved the 'Clan of the Cavebare' novels (not movie) and a book called "Sarum" ((sp) which was about the history of England. She was a true history nut.

I can see the problems in writing a piece like this Ami (ie. 8000 BCE circa North America and it depends on very specific locations). I can see a problem with sugar since it wasn't introduced into NA until sometime in the Anno Domini's (correction). Still, there must have been honey in NA at that time, me thinks? You say not even that, so I will have to concede since it's a research project I am not up to (and do not envy).

(EDIT TO ADD: RIGHT CLOUDY! Maple trees! Although the sap is bitter, no? I am intrigued at how ancient natives might have turned it sweet.)

I am not even sure that science can agree on HOW natives got here in the first place. One theory - the Bering Strait, another later with boats and another earlier with the exodus from Africa via Panacea.

(AS ASIDE: there was something in the news today about all humans originating from a specific place in the Sahara.)

I also have to just mention to you that you presuppose that life in 8000BCE was patriarchal. Like I said, it depends on the location and I assume it also greatly depends on the culture of the tribe in that location. Something to consider in your fiction.



As said, I don't envy your project at hand, but I hope I've given a little something. Much luck.
[/QUOTE]

~~~


It be a CharleyH kind of critter out here in the pasture!

No offense taken, Victorian England period pieces bore me to tears along with Castle intrigues.

***

"...I am not even sure that science can agree on HOW natives got here in the first place. One theory - the Bering Strait, another later with boats and another earlier with the exodus from Africa via Panacea..."

Quite correct, Charley, also a theory about Polynesians arriving in Tiera del Fuego on the southern tip of South America, and Europeans skirting the glacier in hide boats landing on the East coast and even someone long before the Vikings and a recent discovery of remains of European DNA in the Northwest; all very interesting.

***



"...Take a gander at Margaret Meads gender studies in New Guinea: the Arapesh, Mundugamor and Tchambuli tribes. She continues to be the leader in Anthropological studies and it's worth a look see...."

A lot of what Margaret Mead has published has been seriously questioned in recent years.

There is some evidence of Matriarchal societies around the world, I suspect most were a matter of necessity and circumstance as it does not jibe with the human nature I have studied and thought about.

I might suggest that since women came to the forefront around the turn of the 19th century, they have been hell bent to justify their emancipation.

(Grins)



the absolutely adorable Amicus

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=cloudy]One small correction, ami. We don't have shamans. Never have. We have holy people, and healers, or medicine men/women. The term "shaman" is from Siberia, I believe, not from us.

Oh, and I've raised/trained/bred/shown horses my entire life, and they are, indeed, herd animals, just like buffalo. In this, ami, I most certainly know more than you do.

When I was speaking of clan traits, I was speaking of the entire clan, not just the women. A clan wouldn't last long without both men and women, after all. In matriarchal societies, men married into his wife's clan, and the children also belonged to her clan. In patriarchal societies, just the opposite.

I don't think you understand tribal society all that well. I'm honestly trying to help you, as hard as that may be for you to understand.

We looked at things so differently than Europeans that I realize it's hard for you to understand the mindset, but that's why you'll get a lot of things really wrong if you continue to think that all men, through all time think just as you do.

The nuclear family as we know it didn't really exist in a lot of societies. With the Choctaw (what I know best, of course), for example, the children's father didn't raise them, although he, of course, had plenty of contact with them. The male role in raising the children was always given to the mother's brother; kept within the clan. The clan was all, it was everything. Think of it as a large, very extended family.

Some clans were indeed richer or more powerful than others, but it wasn't just a single family, as you envision a family to be. In some societies, mostly those in the north, the clan all lived together in a single dwelling. In others, a clan's homes were all built together in a single group, and in traditional directions that "belonged" to that clan.[/QUOTE]


~~~

Thank you again, Cloudy. I used 'Far-Seerer' in my story, was pleased when you used the term, 'Far Runners'.

I think it is quite true that I do not understand 'Clan', or Tribal life or even the possibility of a Matriarchy and the children belonging to the woman's family, not European at all.

Perhaps I should state that I am writing a fiction novel, not an historical one in terms of the actual history of any one tribe or clan, or even Native American's in general.

Perhaps if, as a scholar, I immersed myself in clan and tribal custom, I might be able to write something accurate enough to please some Native American's, perhaps.

But as a fiction writer, I cannot and would not adapt or adopt Native American culture as my own, even if I could, I would choose not to.

As societies and cultures change and evolve, I think one could never be totally accurate or even close while trying to think back to the era I am writing of from what history and legend we do have.

I am comfortable in my own skin and my own essentially European or Greek heritage of seeing life and existence in a particular manner.

I think I said, long ago on this forum, that my purpose in writing this continuing story was to illustrate why I thought the 5,000 year old Native American culture never became modern as did the Greeks and the Romans.

It has been an interesting quest thus far, my initial conclusions are that the climate of the Mediterranean was more conducive to astronomy and mathematics and thus writing and an alphabet.

In the 'Cloudy' and mountainous environment of the Nortwest, on can seldom see the stars let alone spend entire nights tracing their movement.

Secondly, although every society has some form of faith or other, the mysticism of Native American's seems to preclude an active investigation of 'why' things are as they are.

I am quite sure you would not enjoy the conclusions in my work, as in my world, Native American's set forth to conquer the globe before the Roman's figured out Sushi.

regards...


Amicus...

 

[xssve]

I think the first problem you run into writing stories like this, is that the paleolithic/neolithic era encompasses a very, very long period of time compared to our pleasant little interstitial, we're talking on the order of 250K years - in the 10 or 12 K years of climatic stability and we've gone from nomadic huntergatherers to the moon, and urban areas that contain more people that existed in the entire world at the beginning of this interstitial, but the history of moderns alone spans ten times that period or more.

I may be telling you what you already know, but bear with me while I recap: you can't make generalizations, anything that humans can do, they will do, eventually - it appears that Nordics crossed a land bridge even before the Asians crossed the ice bridge into North America, as many as a third of Native Americans share genes with Certain Northern European groups.

There is also evidence that Africans, and possibly even Chinese had landed in South America by boat before the Asians crossed the Ice bridge. There is a good argument that at the time the Spanish arrived in the Americas, Native Americans had a civilization that nearly equaled Europe, in both size and complexity, the single exception being that they hadn't developed advanced metallurgy.

There is also evidence that Phonecians may have travelled this far, and the possibilty of trade between N. America and Egypt has been advanced.

Shortly, people got around.

There were other complex civilizations that are seldom mentioned, Africans were among the first to create steel, the problem was that conditions in Africa do not support urban population concentrations - the promotion of Western style urban development is at the root of a lot of problems Africans currently suffer, starvation and pandemics, see Diamond.

The period of hominid development was one of massive and rapid climatic shifts, from one extreme to another, which favored a highly mobile, bipedal hominid with the ability to manufacture artifacts, with good memories and abstractional thinking abilites.

Stone tools were in use by premodern hominids, and lithic technologies were hundreds of thousands of years old before moderns even appeared.

It appears that the devolopment of language, enhanced memory, etc., was primarily inherited maternally: it seems that the females genes that pattern cereberal development supress the male ones, which obliterates the old "hunting hypothesis", i.e., that language was developed to allow groups of men to cooperate more closely in hunting and warfare. And, it explains the anomlies in this hypothesis: the HG (hunter/gatherer) diet was tilted towards the gathering, as much as 90% of the calories were from gathering, with meat making up the remainder. Gathering requires a very good memory, one that lasts form one season to the next, and is capable of dealing with changing conditions, even the ability to anticipate change. Next, it also generates stressors to communicate this information, whether to companions or offspring, in order to enhance group and individual fitness. Finally, females develop verbalization skills earlier and with more facility than males.

The Toba supereruption occurs just about the time of the theoretical MtDNA bottleneck, some 75K ya.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861776/posts

Following this, Neandertal (NT) and moderns migrating from India co-exist in Europe until about 40K ya, when NT dissapears, during the previous interstial.

It appears that Europeans penetrated at least to the outerreaches of China during the last ice age, there are prehistoric European settlements in the Gobi desert.

It should be noted that these would be anatomically modern humans, whereas it is around the time of the dissapearence of NT that it's theorized that a mutation occured in the DRD4 7R allele that increased thrill seeking and risk taking behavior, and it's at this point that human culture explodes into creativity, and technology, which had remained static for hundreds of thousands of years suddenly begins advancing dramatically.

This would be the most interesting period, I suspect, around the time of the dissapearence of the Neandertals, From about the middle of the last interglacial period to the begginning of this one - There would be NTs around at the beginning of this period, as well as some of the more exotic prehistoric mammals, and it's about the time the lithic, or Aurignacian revolution occurs.

There is evidence that these people were quite capable and comfortable with fire, it would have been difficult to survive in glacial periods without it.

There is no evidence that NT and moderns clashed, or that moderns wiped NT's out - it's more likely that NT was overspecialized in terms of hunting. They were exclusively big game hunters, they were large, average, 7 feet or more, and it appears from the types of injuries they sustained (and survived) that their method of hunting involved on individual jumping on the back of a Wooly Mammoth and physically wrestling with and distracting it, while the others killed it with their massive spearpoints.

It's likely that their caloric requirements were simply too great to survive the dissapearence of the Mammoths.

anyway, hope I didn't bore, you, it was probobly nasty and brutish, the reason modern lifespans have increased so dramatically is probobly because of modern energy adn fuel sources for lighting and heating - a very large percentage of the worlds populations still dies young from emphysema from inhaling the smoke from cooking fires, etc.

Medicine however was fairly well advanced - much of modern Western medicine comes from the European Wisewomen", (Crones, Witches) and hangmen, who knew how to use herbs to both kill and cure, and commanded extensive pharmocologies techniques, including innoculation, the fundamental application of homeopathy, and also quite familiar with the pathologies of sepsis, knowledge that was not incorporated into institutional medicine until after the Civil War.

Anyway, sorry, didn't mean to bore you, but it's a fascinating period, way more fascinating than the age of dinosaurs, to me anyway, and I was hoping to clear up a few msconceptions I've seen here and there.

Sociology, etc., will have to wait, but I should mention that both the Dineh and the Apache are both matriarchies.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Are there many maple trees in the NW? I've heard that birch sap also can make sugar.

Maple sap isn't bitter, necessarily, it's just that the sugar content us quite low. You have to boil the crap out of it (or in some other way reduce the H2O content) to concentrate the sugar enough to be sweet. BTW, when boiling it on a wood fire it picks up a little smokyness, and the most ambrosianic drink I've ever had in my life was drinking this liquid when it's about as sweet as Coke. The wood-boiled syrup also is ambrosia.

But - boiling without iron pots (or the stainless steel pan my syrup boiling friends use) is a BIG pain in the butt. Frankly, I can hardly imagine the challenge of driving all that moisture out without a good metal pot, because you have to collect and reduce a LOT of sap to get a little syrup. More then than now even, this was a luxury good, not a staple. Most cavemen (and Indians too, I suppose - how did they get into this discussion?) had to satisfy any sweet tooth they might have developed through berries and such when in season.

I suspect that there was tremendous variation is social systems in prehistory. I suspect that ascribing the social practices and institutions of neolithic North American indians of the historical period and probably up to a millennium before that to inhabitants of 8,000 BC is highly problematic. I too have heard that Margaret Mead made lots of stuff up.

I didn't think there was much doubt that the Indians walked from Asia when the oceans were lower? The last period of glaciation did not end very long ago at all - 10,000 years or less. We are in an ice age right now, BTW - they last millions of years, with glacial and interglacial periods, the latter lasting from 12,000 to 28,000 years.

 

[amicus]

sxxve....'excessive?'

Was curious about your pseudonym the first time around...finally dawned on me...ah, maybe.

Not at all boring, quite fascinating in fact, enjoyed your post immensely.

Of course, for the writing it is completely useless in specific terms but in general, as most of my research, gives parameters within which one can create.

Don't really have comment as I have viewed hundreds of website and books, which you have masterfully condensed and compiled in a relatively short post, very impressive.

Makes me curious about your profession and interests...but I shan't ask.

I do find it necessary, from time to time to exercise a little poetic license to fabricate events necessary for the plot, but not always in accordance with what I have studied about the period...the band of horses, for instance, long after they had gone missing in the area.

Another is a medical procedure, which I was pleased to see your references to.

The problem I had beginning the novel is similar to what I consider an error in the Jean Auel series, wherein she assumes the omniscient role that pervades and reads like a lecture.

I chose merely to reference some of the research as an addendum at the conclusion.

Thank you again for your thoughts, they added some depth and a few new directions to my thinking.

Regards...


amicus...

(Edited to add: "...It appears that the devolopment of language, enhanced memory, etc., was primarily inherited maternally: it seems that the females genes that pattern cereberal development supress the male ones,..."

In rereading your post, I forgot to mention the content of that paragraph, very interesting. Especially the verbalization portion; I tie that to the gender specific roles that each followed.

I often wonder, as I write, if I am so out of touch with modern readers, that my associations with most things, as they are on this forum, are not to be comprehended by those who might read.

There is also the 'show' by actions instead of telling and explaining. In this novel, I try to illustrate the females as more intuitive and more spontaneous and also more attentive to detail. This follows with your paragraph and incidentally, my thinking of the subject....thanks again....)

 

[CharleyH]

You said: A lot of what Margaret Mead has published has been seriously questioned in recent years.

By whom and how?

 

[amicus]

You said: A lot of what Margaret Mead has published has been seriously questioned in recent years.

By whom and how?

~~~

I will try to remember to do a search and paste the criticism when I find time.


amicus

 

[CharleyH]

~~~

I will try to remember to do a search and paste the criticism when I find time.


amicus

Find the time early, not late. No criticism required.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You said: A lot of what Margaret Mead has published has been seriously questioned in recent years.

By whom and how?

from wiki:

In 1983, five years after Mead had died, Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged all of Mead's major findings. Freeman based his critique on his own four years of field experience in Samoa and on recent interviews with Mead's surviving informants. The argument hinged on the place of the taupou system in Samoan society. According to Mead, the taupou system is one of institutionalized virginity for young women of high rank, but is exclusive to women of high rank. According to Freeman, all Samoan women emulated the taupou system and Mead's informants denied having engaged in casual sex as young women, and claimed that they had lied to Mead (see Freeman 1983).

. . . Some anthropologists also criticized Freeman on methodological and empirical grounds. For example, they claimed that Freeman had conflated publicly articulated ideals with behavioral norms — that is, while many Samoan women would admit in public that it is ideal to remain a virgin, in practice they engaged in high levels of premarital sex and boasted about their sexual affairs amongst themselves (see Shore 1982: 229-230). Freeman's own data documented the existence of premarital sexual activity in Samoa. In a western Samoan village he documented that 20% of 15 year-olds, 30% of 16 year-olds, and 40% of 17 year-olds had engaged in premarital sex (1983: 238-240). In 1983, the American Anthropological Association passed a motion declaring Freeman's Margaret Mead and Samoa "poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible and misleading." In the years that followed, anthropologists vigorously debated these issues but generally supported the critique of Freeman's work (see Appell 1984, Brady 1991, Feinberg 1988, Leacock 1988, Levy 1984, Marshall 1993, Nardi 1984, Patience and Smith 1986, Paxman 1988, Scheper-Hughes 1984, Shankman 1996, and Young and Juan 1985).

Freeman continued to argue his case in the 1999 publication of The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research, introducing new information in support of his arguments.

After Freeman died, the New York Times concluded that "many anthropologists have agreed to disagree over the findings of one of the science's founding mothers, acknowledging both Mead's pioneering research and the fact that she may have been mistaken on details."

 

[CharleyH]

from wiki:

In 1983, five years after Mead had died, Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged all of Mead's major findings. Freeman based his critique on his own four years of field experience in Samoa and on recent interviews with Mead's surviving informants. The argument hinged on the place of the taupou system in Samoan society. According to Mead, the taupou system is one of institutionalized virginity for young women of high rank, but is exclusive to women of high rank. According to Freeman, all Samoan women emulated the taupou system and Mead's informants denied having engaged in casual sex as young women, and claimed that they had lied to Mead (see Freeman 1983).

. . . Some anthropologists also criticized Freeman on methodological and empirical grounds. For example, they claimed that Freeman had conflated publicly articulated ideals with behavioral norms — that is, while many Samoan women would admit in public that it is ideal to remain a virgin, in practice they engaged in high levels of premarital sex and boasted about their sexual affairs amongst themselves (see Shore 1982: 229-230). Freeman's own data documented the existence of premarital sexual activity in Samoa. In a western Samoan village he documented that 20% of 15 year-olds, 30% of 16 year-olds, and 40% of 17 year-olds had engaged in premarital sex (1983: 238-240). In 1983, the American Anthropological Association passed a motion declaring Freeman's Margaret Mead and Samoa "poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible and misleading." In the years that followed, anthropologists vigorously debated these issues but generally supported the critique of Freeman's work (see Appell 1984, Brady 1991, Feinberg 1988, Leacock 1988, Levy 1984, Marshall 1993, Nardi 1984, Patience and Smith 1986, Paxman 1988, Scheper-Hughes 1984, Shankman 1996, and Young and Juan 1985).

Freeman continued to argue his case in the 1999 publication of The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research, introducing new information in support of his arguments.

After Freeman died, the New York Times concluded that "many anthropologists have agreed to disagree over the findings of one of the science's founding mothers, acknowledging both Mead's pioneering research and the fact that she may have been mistaken on details."

YIKES - THE WIKI! How ... pedestrian.

 

[amicus]

Find the time early, not late. No criticism required.

~~~

Had to water my 9 foot sunflower and make a trip to the market, have you no patience woman or a damned keyboard? (chuckles)



Key word search: Margaret Mead: Criticism

http://www.3ammagazine.com/short_stories/fiction/margaret_mead/page2.html


"...The Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Wilmington, Del., criticized Mead's methods as scandalously sloppy and her findings as patently false.

"So amusing did the natives find the white women's prurient questions that they told her the wildest tales -and she believed them!" the 46 -year-old nonprofit institute wrote recently.

Mead's book joined Beatrice and Sidney Webb's "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?" (1935) and Alfred Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (1948) atop the institute's list of the 20th century's 50 worst nonfiction books originally published in English.

"The books on the worst list are still very popular on college campuses nationwide in spite of subsequent scholarship that has demonstrated the flaws in their conclusions," said Winfield J.C. Myers, one of three editors who made the selections.

Scholarly criticism of Mead, who died in 1978, isn't new.

In 1983, Derek Freeman, an anthropologist at the Australian National University at Canberra, attacked Mead's Samoa work. "Her account of the sexual behavior of Samoans is a mind-boggling contradiction," he wrote in "Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth."

Freeman said Mead was inexperienced in fieldwork and stayed only six months in the territory -hardly long enough to draw such sweeping conclusions about Samoan society.

He also said Mead was duped by her teen-age subjects and ignored evidence that did not support her hypothesis in order to please her mentor, Columbia University professor Franz Boas, a pioneer of the cultural school of anthropology.

In 1996, Martin Orans, an anthropologist at the University of California at Riverside, argued in his book "Not Even Wrong: Margaret Mead, Derek Freeman, and Samoa" that Mead's field records do not support her claims, which are so grandiose that they could not be empirically tested...."

(partial article, complete at link)

So there...still a doubting Thomas of the ubiquitous Amicus who is never wrong and never lies?

Silly girl.


ahem

ami

 

[Weird Harold]

Are there many maple trees in the NW? I've heard that birch sap also can make sugar.

There are many, many, maple rees in the NW -- unfortunately, very few of them are sugar maples. Compound the arguments against paleo-indians making maple sugar/syrup by about a factor of ten to get sugar from other varieties of Maple.

I didn't think there was much doubt that the Indians walked from Asia when the oceans were lower?

"Clovis First" and the "Bering Land Bridge" have been taught as gospel for so long it's hard to get people to even consider other theories. However, numerous (releatively recent) finds on the East Coast of the US and in Chile have been reliably dated to the period when the ice corridor and Bering landpridge were impassible.

I think it is still likely that large numbers did come over the Bering Landbridge, but it's now fairly clear they were he "Second Americans" and not the "first."

Secondly, buffalo are herd animals, horse are not as much as the male usually has a harem of mares and keeps them separate. I find it entirely logical that one such, 'band' of horses lasted long enough to be captured and domesticated.

Aside from the roughly five thousand year gap beween the last known horse fossil and your time frame, The North American Horse wasn't big enough to be usefully domesticated. The wild canids were bigger than the horses.

Personally, I'd quit reading any book that proposed a revnant herd of domesticated horses in pre-columbian America.

 

[amicus]

There are many, many, maple rees in the NW -- unfortunately, very few of them are sugar maples. Compound the arguments against paleo-indians making maple sugar/syrup by about a factor of ten to get sugar from other varieties of Maple.



"Clovis First" and the "Bering Land Bridge" have been taught as gospel for so long it's hard to get people to even consider other theories. However, numerous (releatively recent) finds on the East Coast of the US and in Chile have been reliably dated to the period when the ice corridor and Bering landpridge were impassible.

I think it is still likely that large numbers did come over the Bering Landbridge, but it's now fairly clear they were he "Second Americans" and not the "first."



Aside from the roughly five thousand year gap beween the last known horse fossil and your time frame, The North American Horse wasn't big enough to be usefully domesticated. The wild canids were bigger than the horses.

Personally, I'd quit reading any book that proposed a revnant herd of domesticated horses in pre-columbian America.

~~~

Wa'l, shucks wierd harold, do I detect a little 'prove amicus wrong' there? No matter, I think you are correct as I ran across something somewhere that mentioned the diminutive size of the North American animal.

By the time you get to book three I will have you hooked on my characters anyway and you can perhaps overlook the small fiction.

I have also drawn a blank on replacing chickens, indigenous to somewhere in Asia, I think, with something like a Grouse or similar small bird that could be domesticated for meat and eggs. Any suggestions along those lines?

There were, I think, indigenous Musk Oxen somewhere in the North, although not necessarily to ride, they might be domesticated as draft animals. There were also Camels in North America, they say, but I think the time frame precedes mine.

That 'leap forward' that would have been provided by the discovery of horses was instrumental in the plotting of events, guess to remain accurate to reality I might have to find another way...maybe one swam from Arabia and got here that way.

Maybe a Chicken from Asia floated over on a raft...sighs...why make things so damned difficult for me?

geez


regards...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

For Wierd Harold who made me think and go back to the books,(so to speak)

north american pre columbian equines


http://www.ecology.info/horses-2.htm

Pleistocene Horses of North America

"...The Pleistocene epoch occurred 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago. It is often called the "Ice Age" because several different glaciations occurred during its time, each separated by warmer "interglacial periods." The last glaciation ended about 10,000 years ago and is known as the Wisconsinian Glaciation.

By the beginning of the Pleistocene, there was only one genus of horses, Equus, still remaining in North America. Although horse generic diversity was low, horses were still very abundant animals and continued to numerically dominate ungulate communities in North America (Guthrie 2003).

Fossil deposits from the mid- and late-Pleistocene of North America usually contain remains of two horses: a caballine horse and a stilt-legged equine. Both forms belonged to the genus Equus, but were from genetically distinct lineages (Weinstock et al. 2005)...."

~~~

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/pleistocene_horses/


http://www.ecology.info/horses-2.htm

(This is excerpted from near the end of page two of the article)


North America's Place in Horse History

"...As we have seen, North America was the birthplace of the horse family and the theater in which almost all its evolution took place. During the 56 million years of horse evolution, a few horse taxa dispersed from North America to other continents, and these emigrations resulted in small radiations.

However, virtually all horse genera, including Equus, evolved in North America and no other continent ever produced such a great diversity of horses as North America did which, during the peak of horse evolution in the Miocene, comprised at least a dozen contemporaneous genera that numerically dominated ungulate communities (MacFadden 1992, 2005)..."

~~~

Horses were indeed small, the size of cats and dogs...about 50 million years ago, Weird Harold, they evolved up to our era, changing and increasing in size.

Some of this I read years ago in preparation for writing; pleased that you reminded me to look again.

If you have the time and the the interest, you might read through the links and see if you agree that it was entirely possible that my 'people' ten thousand years ago, could indeed have discovered relatively modern equines.

"I shall endeavor to perservere..."

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

For Wierd Harold who made me think and go back to the books,(so to speak)

north american pre columbian equines


http://www.ecology.info/horses-2.htm

Pleistocene Horses of North America

"...The Pleistocene epoch occurred 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago. It is often called the "Ice Age" because several different glaciations occurred during its time, each separated by warmer "interglacial periods." The last glaciation ended about 10,000 years ago and is known as the Wisconsinian Glaciation.

By the beginning of the Pleistocene, there was only one genus of horses, Equus, still remaining in North America. Although horse generic diversity was low, horses were still very abundant animals and continued to numerically dominate ungulate communities in North America (Guthrie 2003).

Fossil deposits from the mid- and late-Pleistocene of North America usually contain remains of two horses: a caballine horse and a stilt-legged equine. Both forms belonged to the genus Equus, but were from genetically distinct lineages (Weinstock et al. 2005)...."

~~~

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/pleistocene_horses/


http://www.ecology.info/horses-2.htm

(This is excerpted from near the end of page two of the article)


North America's Place in Horse History

"...As we have seen, North America was the birthplace of the horse family and the theater in which almost all its evolution took place. During the 56 million years of horse evolution, a few horse taxa dispersed from North America to other continents, and these emigrations resulted in small radiations.

However, virtually all horse genera, including Equus, evolved in North America and no other continent ever produced such a great diversity of horses as North America did which, during the peak of horse evolution in the Miocene, comprised at least a dozen contemporaneous genera that numerically dominated ungulate communities (MacFadden 1992, 2005)..."

~~~

Horses were indeed small, the size of cats and dogs...about 50 million years ago, Weird Harold, they evolved up to our era, changing and increasing in size.

Some of this I read years ago in preparation for writing; pleased that you reminded me to look again.

If you have the time and the the interest, you might read through the links and see if you agree that it was entirely possible that my 'people' ten thousand years ago, could indeed have discovered relatively modern equines.

"I shall endeavor to perservere..."

Amicus

I'm not trying to be nasty, honestly, but since you throw out everything I know as not fitting with your mindset, what difference do a few facts make? Why try to be factual in one area if not in the other?

 

[amicus]

I'm not trying to be nasty, honestly, but since you throw out everything I know as not fitting with your mindset, what difference do a few facts make? Why try to be factual in one area if not in the other?

~~~

I regret that you interpret my statements as you do. And I do get just a glimmer of what you mean.

However, the Paleontological history of equines, while still subject to some interpretation is not comparable to the sociological history of Native Americans and their culture.

As I attempted to say before, I am not writing history, but fiction. I do indeed have a 'mindset' as to how I see the past and how I understand human nature.

It is surely different than yours but I have no intention or motive to criticize or question how you perceive Native American History, that is of your choosing and for your own motive and I am convinced you are sincere and see it as truth.

My story is an adventure and romance story, set in a long ago era, with what I hope appear to be 'real' people living a real life within the context they find themselves.

I chose the area because I grew up here and I am familiar with the terrain and the climate and the topography. I have tried to learn as much about the indigenous population as I can through research of historical data, not anecdotal relevance with modern day Native Americans.

Neither you nor I 'know' how it was ten thousand years ago. I may indeed, be totally wrong about everything.

I doubt if you have read or will read any of my writings; I believe Chief Two is still posted on Literotica and Chief one is published and I removed it from the site some time ago. But if you do by chance read, I suggest you treat it not as 'Native American', but just a story about ancient peoples in a world totally different from ours.

I am rather fond of the characters I have created. I have known them for years and they are with me each day as I try to imagine what their lives were like ten thousand years ago on the very ground upon which I walk each day.

Sorry to be on your sore side.

Amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

If you have the time and the the interest, you might read through the links and see if you agree that it was entirely possible that my 'people' ten thousand years ago, could indeed have discovered relatively modern equines.

My objection was based primarily on museum exhibits of pleistocene horse fossils -- I will concede that the time frames are much closer than I thought, possibly overlapping, but the "too small to be usefully domesticated" objection still applies.

"Relatively modern equines" does not necessarily translate into "big enough to ride" -- and paleo-indians didn't need anoher kind of pack animal, especially one their existing pack animals would see as food.

From: http://www.ecology.info/horses-2.htm
In Alaska, stilt-legged horses became extinct about 31,000 years ago, while caballine horses became extinct about 12,500 years ago (Guthrie 2003). Interestingly, Alaskan caballines showed a precipitous decline in body size before extinction, and vanished 1,300 years before woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) became extinct in the same area (Guthrie 2003).

If any horses did survive to co-exist with your characters, what I've seen in museums and the example of the Alaskan Cabellines suggest to me that they would be about the size of a modern Shetland.




As to your chicken cunundrum, think about domesticating some ducks instead.

 

[cloudy]

and paleo-indians didn't need anoher kind of pack animal, especially one their existing pack animals would see as food.

Maybe he'll believe you since you said it.

*sigh*