Is this true? I always thought they simply didn’t have plumbing.
Bathing was fairly popular in Europe up to the time of the Black Plague (although hard work, because of lack of said plumbing), then after the plague hit, a lot of people turned away from it, because of fears that bathing encouraged its spread. It stayed unpopular until about the 1700s, when it started coming back in popularity.
Actually, from what i’ve read fire wasnt used to increase acorn productivity (which seams to peak every few years or so…i’ve seen it on local Coast Live Oaks, some years there are many acorns, some years there are few). However, some pines (such as the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) depend upon the heat of the fire to open the cones to release their seeds).
What the fire ecology was about was encouraging new growth of grasses, and clearing dense brush so game could be hunted easier (local Ohlone tribes used what is now the former army base of Ft. Ord for hunting, and this chapparal would be burned). The burning also encouraged new growth of the chapparal which would be more palatable for deer, thus attracting more.
The chapparal is also adapted to fire. Many plants either sprout readily from the stumps or the roots, or they have what is called a “lignotuber” (an undergrown swelling, or burl at the root crown). Many wildflowers are also adapted to wildfires. Some need either heat, or the chemicals in ash, or even smoke to initiate germination.
Spoke: Regarding Tedster’s cited figure of 200,000 - You’re probably both correct ( well actually I’m dubious of the 90-110 million figure for the whole Western hemisphere - I think that’s a very high estimate, even if we accept a nice, healthy 30 million for Meso-America ). I think the figure Tedster may have confused with the total for North America, is in fact for the total for the Great Plains at the opening of the 18th century. I’ve seen that number cited several times in that regard.
Tedster: See above. It should be noted that:
1.) The movement of tribes into the Plains of North America in any numbers was a very recent phenomena.
2.) The population density on the Plains was always very low, relative to regions like the Eastern and Western seaboards.
3.) That figure of 200,000 is very much a post-contact number in some respects. Though later direct contact provoked epidemics that greatly reduced numbers even further in that region, the fact is that European diseases that spread by a human-to-human contact had already scoured the Americas well before Europeans began to seriously move out into the NA Plains. Just as an example of how disease could precede direct contact, I give you last legitimate Inca who was killed by a smallpox epidemic that had crossed the isthmus of Panama and spread into the Inca Empire before the Spanish had even discovered it. There’s no telling just how badly NA was impacted before folks started censusing Amerindian populations there, but certainly there is circumstantial evidence that they took a pounding.
- Tamerlane
Yes, my mistake.
From Mystic Warriors of the Plains, Thomas E. Mails
Garden City, New York. Doubleday & Co. 1972
“At their population peak, around A.D. 1800, all of the Plains tribes together numbered no more than 200,000 people,…”
It would seem to indicate that estimates of 80 or 90 millions quite a bit on the high side, though.
It seems to me that there are things just as important as whether or not native Americans were/are more “in touch with nature,” a determination which relies on so many subjective judgements about what exactly that means.
Most interesting is the way native Americans have been categorised and pigeonholed over the centuries. Changes in the way that Indians have been viewed tend to say as much about the dominant European cultures that came to America as they do about the native Americans themselves.
For example, European writers like Samuel Purchas (who never actually came to America, by the way, but relied on accounts from those who did), discussing the colony in seventeenth century Virginia, tended to view native Americans through the lens of their relationship to the land, and did so in ways that reflected changing land use in England at the time. Many colonial accounts point to the Indians’ ability to raise substantial crops by tilling the soil in an intensive manner, their reliance on sedentary agriculture, notions of surplus and fallow ground, and concepts of ownership. Such practices, however, were sufficiently removed from what were becoming standard English concepts of what constituted true rights to the land. It was acknowledged that Indians worked, but not that they laboured. That is, their work was completed in sufficiently short time to allow for periods of idleness, and idleness was seen as a vice in the working classes of English society (although not amongst the aristocracy - in fact, quite the opposite). Also, Indian farming had no need for ‘modern’ developments such as manure or deep ploughing. Their land was not enclosed by fences, thus reducing their legal claim on it, and their whole system was extremely portable due to the small amounts of equipment and lack of ties to one particular place. Another factor which separated the Indians from the Europeans was their lack of domesticated animals; they preferred instead to attract deer etc. with fallow ground, and take the animals as they needed them. These differences demonstrated a flexibility which was contrary to English notions of control and order, because the lack of investment and the flexibility of the Indian system meant it was extremely portable, and raised the spectre of the lower classes roaming the land as vagrants – a development which the recently instituted English Poor Laws had been designed to combat.
Another aspect of the Indian experience which frustrated English notions of correct behaviour was the division of labour between the sexes. Women did much of the field and domestic work, offending English ideas of the role of the gentle sex. The men, in contrast, engaged in an activity which, in England was generally restricted to the gentry as a means of recreation – hunting. In England, those who hunted and were not of the aristocracy were poachers, and thus criminals. The idea of hunting as a necessary means to obtain food was foreign to the English. The whole structure of Indian society, with its disdain for capital accumulation and personal gain at the expense of others, presented a challenge to the forms and structures put in place by the ruling classes in England to maintain their control.
Samuel Purchas’s work makes constant references to the lack of “settled possession,” the right of trade, the need for the land to support as many people as possible, the “unmanned wild Countrey, which they range rather than inhabit,” and the “contrasting rights to territory of Christians and Heathens,” with the latter (the Indians, of course) having “only a natural right” to the land while the Europeans were seen as “free tenants to our Lord” who “abideth ever” in the land. While it is rather easy to say, with the benefit of hindsight and the help of other historians, that such contentions were simply contradictions of known facts, Purchas’s rationalisations also reflect the broader trends of the society in which he lived. As a member of a group that identified closely with the English upper classes, he would have been most amenable to aristocratic notions of domination and control, and may just have extended his feelings about English society and the position of England within the world onto the colonial situation.
Observers of native Americans have coloured their accounts with such preconceptions ever since. This is not to say that everything written has been untrue or prejudiced, only that what we see in other people can often tell us just as much about ourselves.
My info for this stuff comes from:
Axtell, James. The European and the Indian: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America, Oxford University Press, New York (N.Y.), 1981.
-----. The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America, Oxford University Press, New York (N.Y.), 1985.
-----. After Columbus: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America, Oxford University Press, New York (N.Y.), 1988.
Boon, James A. Other Tribes, Other Scribes: Symbolic Anthropology in the Comparative Study of Cultures, Histories, Religions, and Texts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
Jennings, Francis. The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill (N.C.), 1975.
Kupperman, Karen O. Settling with the Indians: The Meeting of English and Indian Cultures in America, 1580-1640, J.M. Dent and Sons, London, 1980.
Porter, H.C. The Inconstant Savage: England and the North American Indian 1500-1660, Duckworth, London, 1979.
Purchas, Samuel, Virginia’s Verger, London, 1625, published in Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchas His Pilgrimes, Contayning a History of the World in Sea Voyages and Lande Travells by Englishmen and others, Hakluyt Society, London, 20 vols, I-X, 1905; XI-XIX, 1906; XX, 1907.
Sheehan, Bernard W. Savagism and Civility: Indians and Englishmen in Colonial Virginia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
Bathing may have come back in popularity in England, but in France it is still a thing of the distant past. When I moved to Paris two years ago and had to search for an apartment, many of those I was shown by my rental agency DID NOT HAVE SHOWERS. Some of them had a shower in the building, and others did not even have that.
Many French people are actually proud of such filthiness and local newspapers often quote statistics showing how infrequently French people bathe. (The only statistic I remember off-hand is that only 2 out of 5 French people brush their teeth daily and 1 out 5 French people never brush their teeth.) A good source for such information is the French newspaper Le Figaro.
Interestingly, the few French people I have met whom I consider clean (i.e. they shower, use deodorant, etc.) are clean to the point of an obsession. My theory is that growing up in filth traumatised them and they developed this over-zealous attitude to cleanliness as an attempt to ward off the evil odours around them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**Simply put, no. American Indians were responsible for the extinction of many native species. There’s no way to reconcile this with theie supposed regard for nature and the environment.
The Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Interpretive Center pays homage to this practice performed by the Blackfoot Confederacy Nations (Siksika, Kainai, Pikuni). Following the migrations of buffalo, these ceremonial areas would be used and the meats and other parts of the buffalo would be dried, and prepared for storage in various locations on the plains, as well as with the groups themselves, and parts used in ceremonies and shelter. Of course, there were many, many, many, many more buffalo at that time, so it’s not as if they were driven to extinction because of herding activity (try chasing buffalo over the plains if you doubt it, not all buffalo would have jumped over the cliff, and it was always dangerous to do). Commercial killers and tourists killing buffalo from the trains (or on horseback) for 24 hours everyday for years pretty much accomplished the near extinction of the millions of buffalo that existed well into the nineteenth century – with pictures of the carcasses piled up to boot. (See: http://www.wnet.org/nature/buffalo/nation.html)
The site, which was completed with research from many respected Elders of the Blackfoot Confederacy, has a website that offers some information:
http://www.head-smashed-in.com/home.html
tj
-SNIP-
Yeah, of course…and canadians live in igloos…
The only kind of appartments which sometimes don’t have showers in Paris are the under-the-roof 15 square meters (130 square feet)“chambres de bonne” often rented to broke students. I used to live in one of them. And would you know? One can wash oneself daily without a shower…I never saw any kind of other appartment in Paris without a shower, and believe me, I visited tons of them…
Yeah, of course…and all german people are proud to be nazis…
I read all kind of statistics of this kind “proving” that english people use less soap than every body else, italians take less showers than everybody else, etc…Actually all articles in french papers are focused on the lack of personal hygiene (and on the more elegant way to wear a beret and a baguette)
Yeah…of course…and all englishmen have bad teeth, too…
Usually known for its financial and political columns. But if you say so…
ah! you’ve finally a point, here…Not everybody use deodorant, in France. But considering that someone who don’t wear deodorant isn’t clean is not at all an universal standart, you know?
Yeah, of course…and all americans are obssessed by guns because growing up surrounded by hostile indians, they have develloped an over-zealous attitude to safety…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**
AFAIK, yes. Plumbing wasn’t really the issue. During the major part of the middle ages, public baths existed in all towns (somewhat like the hammams in muslim countries) and were very popular. But they were progressively closed during the later middle age, on the pressure of the church, which was afraid of the promiscuity (and actually, a lot of these public baths were also brothels).
I believe that the worries about the danger of bathing for health, pointed out by another poster, became prevalent only after bathing ceased to be the norm. But he could be right about the black death, I don’t know…
The King Louis XIV, who reigned for 70 years or so, is said to have taken only one bath in his life, prescribed (and attended) by his physicians, with all sorts of precautions taken in order to avoid the involved dangers for his health.
I remember also having read a letter wrote by some female member of the nobility, roughly at the same epoch, who after a long journey, complained that she had receveid so much dust during the travel that she had to clean her face with a kind of washcloth.
I am well aware that one can wash oneself daily without a shower. However, even in France, showers are considered a modern convenience and eventually, I am sure, there will be showers in all apartments. Paris and London, two cities which I know well, were at about the same level of general hygiene in the seventies (there were always some clean people, but the majority did not wash daily), but now Paris is lagging behind London in this respect. Which I feel is a great pity because the plumbing in France is much better than the notorious English plumbing still in use all over London (separate faucets for hot and cold water? What’s up with that?). While I am sure that Paris will eventually catch up to London, as the trend is in that direction, this will only happen if the concept of better personal hygiene appeals to people. And I have met several French people who believe that the streets are too dirty and the masses too smelly. And I commend these people for their willingness to accept change.
I did not say that all French people are proud of such filthiness. Not all French people are filthy, and those who aren’t certainly aren’t proud of those who are!
Actually, not many Parisians wear berets any more… quite sad really… although French people are still extremely proud of the baguette and they do write articles about those bakeries which still uphold the traditional art of its making and those which do not do it justice. And by the way, the statistics show that French people use less soap than English people. You can argue that statistics are all lies, if you like…
Once again, I did not say that all Frenchmen do not brush their teeth. Frankly, I have not noticed bad breath or other signs of lack of tooth-brushing in Paris. The statistics above (which were published both in Le Figaro and in the Eurostar magazine a couple of months ago) were explained to me by certain French colleagues as being skewed by the rural population. The figures for Paris would probably be very different.
Have you ever even read Le Figaro?? I can search for actual cites, if you want…
I am well aware of the different standards of hygiene. For example, where I come from, deodorant is not commonly used either. However, dog excrement is considered extremely dirty and is never seen on streets. Here, the streets, metro stations and public stairs are plastered with it. I did point out that showering and wearing deodorant are only my standards of cleanliness. But I have found many French people who agree with me, which gives me certain optimism for the future. I believe that in about twenty years, the streets of Paris will be as clean as those of London. The dog excrement problem is Parisians’ third biggest gripe about their city, and I hope it will one day be a thing of the past.
I claim that a small minority of French people are obsessed with cleanliness, you claim that “all americans are obssessed by guns”. That’s a nice retort, isn’t it?
I have often discussed gun-related violence in America with American people. They never once told me, “Yeah and where you come from everyone is a drug smuggler”. (They might have good reason to be defensive, since the rest of the world likes nothing better than to criticise them.) On the contrary, they recognise the problem, although they disagree with the means to solving it. Some believe that gun control laws need to be tightened, others believe that this will only harm the honest citizens who abide by those rules. Some believe that the prevalence of guns is not a problem, the problem lies in the changing society.
You cannot improve yourself if you refuse to see areas for improvement, and justify this blindness by pointing out other people’s weaknesses.
Hey! My Native American thread has been hijacked by the Battle of the Smelly Frenchmen!
My comments on “other people’s weaknesses” was actually irony directed at you…
I am well aware of your feeble attempt to use the “third degree”, clairobscur.
And sorry curwin I promise I shall say no more 
← unbrushed French teeth
i think the question and some answers have to do with a phenomenon called “white guilt”
Paul Martin’s work has been heavily criticized because he cannot account for
extinctions that took place in Eurasia, Africa and Australia at the same time as
those in the Americas. I would suggest that any time that anyone hears that the
Indians were responsible for the Pleistocene extinctions in the Americas, that
people just smile real nice and ask if they were also responsible for the
extinction of mammoths, cave bears etc in Europe. Martin’s whole argument is
based on his taking a few facts that he likes and putting them into a persuasive
form, he ignores anything that doesn’t fit, which is pretty much the sum total
of reality.
Well of course they were more in touch, they had less technology.
'if only i could shave off this silly moustache i might be able to get a girl '-Neitzsche
I think treating each group of Natives as a whole is unfair in this discussion, as there were several nations, with their own level of civilization and population size. To say all Natives were this way or that way is oversimplifying the case.
But as for whether the Aboriginal population were more in tune with their environment than the Europeans, I’d have to say yes, in the fact that they over thousands of years through trial and error were able to figure the best ways to provide for themselves.
A prime example was their crop rotation, and variety appraoch while the early European settles tended to plant single staple and burn out the land.
As for Conservation one only has to look at the marked increase in deforestation and species extinction after the European settlement to see that while they may not have been the conservation saints they had a better record than the Europeans.
I think treating each group of Natives as a whole is unfair in this discussion, as there were several nations, with their own level of civilization and population size. To say all Natives were this way or that way is oversimplifying the case.
But if we are going to lump them together here goes
As for whether the Aboriginal population were more in tune with their environment than the Europeans, I’d have to say mostly, in the fact that they over thousands of years through trial and error were able to figure the best ways to provide for themselves.
A prime example was their crop rotation, and variety approach to agriculture while the early European settlers tended to plant single staple over long periods and burn out the land.
As for Conservation one only has to look at the marked increase in deforestation and species extinction after the European settlement to see that while they may not have been the conservation saints they had a better record than the Europeans.
'Scuse? Where on earth did you come up with that? I admit I did not read the entire thing - it appears to be nearly book-length - so maybe I missed it. But…
The purpose of the paper seems to be to refute the Clovis theory regarding the original human migration into South America. As such, it is primarily concerned with the movement patterns of early human inhabitants of South America, with intent to disprove the Clovis theory. The discussions of hunting are all in relation to the distribution of various types of stone tools as evidence of movement patterns. I see nowhere that any mention whatsoever is made of animals “being hunted to extinction”.
For example, on the specific page you linked, the only time horses are mentioned is in reference to a particular type of weapon point; it says “it seems most reasonable to conclude that this distinctive form was developed in southern Patagonia as part of a local adaptation to hunting horses, and subsequently diffused northward after the horses became extinct.” Please note that this does NOT say 'the aboriginals killed & et ‘em all’. In fact, no mention of hunting horses to extinction could I find anywhere in the article.
Later, it also talks about the possibilities that these various peoples hunted mammoth (i.e., it is possible but no conclusive evidence has been found so far except in one case, if I read correctly). Examples: “a few pieces of flaked chert were recovered among abundant bones of extinct animals, including mastodons and ground sloths. As the chert occurs only downstream from the El Bosque site, the context suggests that people were scavenging the bones of dead animals”; “Mastodon bones may have been collected as useful objects, although possibly people killed mired animals.”; "in the region around the Moche Valley, mastodons evidently were killed by hunters with distinctive large tanged Paiján points, "; etc.
In fact, at many points, the authors seem to be taking for granted the idea that climate change, not human hunting, was responsible for changes in fauna: “The model that people already well-established in their ecosystems developed special techniques for hunting land mammals that lived in grassland refugia as the forests were encroaching at the end of the Pleistocene means that early sites should be found that lack bifacial projectile points.”; "Bifacial flaking disappeared in Panama about 7,000 B. P. because by then dense forests were everywhere and herbivores could no longer run in herds. However, in Guatemala, southern Mexico, and probably in Costa Rica, projectile points continued to be used in open areas of the highlands where some game survived.
"; “Even as the forests encroached during the early Holocene, people kept prairies open by periodic burning, so bifacial points continued to be used throughout prehistoric times for hunting deer, elk, and bison. On the Great Plains, a huge grassland area that remained open and allowed unrestricted movement of herds of bison until it was fenced in historic times, hunters continued to dispatch bison driven over cliffs and into pounds with projectile points that changed in style through time, as they did in neighbouring areas off the Plains.”
A couple of statements that contradict the idea of human-caused extinction: “He concluded that the majority of human remains had been deposited long after the extinct ground sloths, mastodons, and other animals, except at one site where he found fossilized human bones in apparent association with extinct mammal bones.”; “Evidently, these hunters successfully managed the vicuña herds to maintain their population, but began to herd the animals only about 4,000 years ago.”
In fact, here’s a lovely quote that summarizes both the context (i.e., purpose of the article) and the fact that the authors were not saying what you have claimed: “Despite claims to the contrary (e.g., Lynch l990), Taima-Taima has yielded definite artifacts in a well-dated, deeply stratified geological context which remained saturated with seeping water that moved sand and concentrated twigs into pockets, but was not strong enough to move or mix bones or stone artifacts. Reported in great detail, the data constitute the only solid evidence for a megamammal kill site anywhere in South America. Of course, if one accepts the model that North American big game hunters were the earliest South Americans, the evidence from Taima-Taima or any other site earlier than Clovis cannot be correct, and all such sites must be explained away, as Lynch (l990) has systematically attempted to do.”
[All bolding in above quotations is mine.]
(Then there’s my favorite line, just cuz I think it’s funny [maybe translation error, but I hear native English speakers say similar things every day, so maybe not]: “Bones were not preserved at this site, so we do not know whether these people were hunting extinct animals.”. Dang, if I could figure out how to hunt extinct animals, I’d be a multi-billionaire! :p)
I’ve got no particular equine to flog in this - there are valid points in both hypotheses and each has problems as well. I think that Australia would probably be a better evidence of human-caused extinctions, but whatever. I tend to think that, as with so many things, there isn’t ONE cause, and so both ideas are good.
But it really irks me to no end when someone blatantly misrepresents their source material.
Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
Carry on!
Except, the Europeans also practiced crop rotation and leaving land fallow. If you’re looking at European monoculture in America, as far as I know, that only happened in the southeast of the US, the Carribean, and the Andes, with the reliance on cash crops (sugar, coffee, tobacco, cotton), and that happened, not because of differences between Native and European attitudes towards land and nature, but because, for the most part, Europe was more centralized with a bigger, more developed economy. If I’m a European settler, I can get rich off planting tobacco, because I can sell it and ship it to a place where there’s a large demand, it’s a foreign good that the purchasers can’t get at home, and there’s enough infastructure for me to ship it to the place people want to by it. If I’m a native American farmer in the places tobacco is grown, the incentive for me to produce a lot of tobacco is smaller, because if I’m going to trade it, most of the trade will be with people who could, if they wanted, grow tobacco themselves, and so there’s less scarcity in the market. I don’t have as many contacts with groups that want tobacco and don’t have it. This is one of the reasons that, after the European settlement of Georgia and the Carolinas, a number of Cherokee, who hadn’t before, began plantation farming of cotton and tobacco. They gained access to a market that before hadn’t been available, and so it became more profitable for people to grow the crops.