I believe they normally say that we would drop to the looting and killing stage within 72 hours.
Prehistory and how it relates to Bushcraft.
- Thread starter THOaken
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I believe they normally say that we would drop to the looting and killing stage within 72 hours.
In fact I think it would be a lot quicker than that; it just underlines how fragile our supposed sophisticated modern society really is.
Given the longer post-apocalyptic timescale though, we would probably revert to hunter-looters. A farming economy needs some kind of stable population.
That is absolutely incorrect. Just last year we were without electricity or any sort of power for over two weeks. No one looted, killed, or did anything else. I think people underestimate the power of social bonds. Stable populations quickly get established even after severe disasters. Civilization is a bell that we can not unring. Even in the most extreme examples of social collapse (think the fall of the Roman empire), people did not revert to hunter gatherers. New societies and communities were quickly established to fill the power vacuum. They were not as prosperous, or as well organized, but society persevered.
There is a world of difference between a two week outage and a permanent failure of the infrastructure over an entire country.
The collapse of the Roman Empire was not an overnight event; the craft skills and knowledge we all practice were commonplace back then so reverting to hunter gathering was never going to happen because the populations were skilled enough. To illustrate my point about the weak being ripe for exploitation, the Germanic tribes only came over to Britain once the Romans had gone. In a modern post-apocalypse scenario this would happen on a micro level in no time.
I am also talking about a population so utterly reliant on electricity and all the luxuries and lifestyle trappings it affords to suddenly (and I mean SUDDENLY) be without it for good. I know that this is just a thought experiment (hopefully) but my view of mankind is clearly less optimistic than yours.
That's my point. We often romanticize these time periods, but the reality is that people have always existed within communal boundaries, surrounded by power structures, social norms, political pressures, and religious fear. We know very little about those structures and pressures, so it is impossible to say if life during a Mesolithic age would have been desirable in any way, or how it would have been structured. Most likely that varied between different groups and time periods. As far as Native Americans, there is absolutely no basis on which to make such a statement. They all lived communally, in many cases in very large communities. Their laws and social norms varied largely between groups. Even so, I find it hard to imagine that in a warrior culture, someone who chose not to fight would be able to avoid social stigma.
There is no evidence that their immune systems were more robust. We do however have a lot of evidence of much higher mortality rates. Even today, in areas around the world where water is not well treated, it is a major health problem. My point was that we would have a hard time squaring our understanding of biology and the need to treat our water with a set of technology that does not readily allow for that. You will have a hard time convincing anyone who has ever had Giardia or Dysentery, or any stomach parasites to guzzle up untreated water for the rest of their life.
Yeah, which ones? Do you mean comments made by native populations when a ship of 18th century UK sailors docked after six months at sea? I think we are just talking about different degrees of bathing. When I said I like bathing, I meant in a shower, with hot water and soap. I also like doing it every day, not only during communal rituals.
?????????????????????????????? ... WHAT?!?!?!?! ???????????????????????????????
I don't mean to be rude, but ... WHAT?!?!?!?!
Well, I believe you said 72 hours or less. We spent two weeks without any electricity (it went out suddenly because of a hurricane), and there were absolutely no ill effects. We had no gasoline, no electricity, no hot water, etc. Yet nothing went wrong. I think we greatly underestimate the power of social bonds.
The point you make about the Roman empire is a good one. It is just the most extreme example I was able to come up with, and on top of that we are talking about people who were much more familiar with the skills required for hunting and gathering, yet the regression did not occur. I can not think of any instance is all of human history where it has. I also can not even imagine a scenario where suddenly, all of humanity is permanently left without electricity. Unless the laws of physics somehow change, making electrical power impossible, a few weeks after any disaster electricity will be back on.
True, I did specify 72 hours but that was within the context of my permanent infrastructure breakdown.
The social bonds you refer to in your specific example were strong enough to survive because of the valid point you make about knowing the power would come back on at some point. Given the prospect of it never coming back on then I'm sure those bonds would stress and break to some degree.
One example of an isolated community faced with stark choices where the normal rules were broken was the Franklin expedition.
Social bonds can survive whilst there is hope; once hope has gone (or perceived to be) then they will eventually fail.
Great debate.
Well, I fear we have hijacked the thread.
I just have a hard time imagining any realistic, or even not so realistic scenario where all the infrastructure around the world would be totally and permanently destroyed, without any hope of ever being reestablished. Even so, to take the Franklin expedition as an extreme example, where a group of people are permanently lost at the ends of the world, in brutal conditions, social bonds and norms continued to persevere until the whole group died. Other than the fact they cannibalized their dead comrades bodies towards the end, they continued to function as a unit, moving together, coexisting, and even keeping journals.
Well, I fear we have hijacked the thread.
Even so, to take the Franklin expedition as an extreme example, where a group of people are permanently lost at the ends of the world, in brutal conditions, social bonds and norms continued to persevere until the whole group died. Other than the fact they cannibalized their dead comrades bodies towards the end, they continued to function as a unit, moving together, coexisting, and even keeping journals.
Yes it looks like it; apologies to the OP
If I can use a time honoured debating technique here and change my position.......
You're right to refute my worst case global meltdown scenario. I still truly believe though that there would be localised disorder, violence and selfishness when readily available resources become scarce. Our populations are now so massive that the previous complete regression to hunter-looter won't happen; maybe instead it will be more of a feudal/tribal arrangement.
It would sure be a fascinating social experiment to set up; take a modern population, isolate it and then strip it of modern infrastructure and then watch. I know that various TV projects have "attempted" to do this but they were artifical groups deliberately chosen to engineer conflict. I'm talking about a previously settled and harmonius society faced with a change of that magnitude.
Good point about the Franklin group; I was thinking of the cannibalisation as the line that got crossed, but the social aspect of the group did not break down in any other sense.
Well, just my 2 pence worth...when the food runs out, you have no idea how feral people become...In the not too distant past, I was homeless for a while. Food and shelter from the cold and wet were # 1 priority. Dumpster diving to feed my self and others was a necessity...quite easy to revert. That was MY try at a Mesolithic lifestyle, involuntarily! Anyway back on course to THOaken's original post.
Been watching Time Team reruns lately, and THOaken, it has certainly got me into a hunter/gather/Mesolithic mindset. As I mentioned earlier about the Neolithic, and the Bronze age, techniques that were used in the Mesolithic did not suddenly die out once the Neolithic, then Bronze Age arrived. For example flintknapping still existed right through the Bronze Age, but was of a lower quality as a skills set, as Bronze implements were becoming more readily available to the general populous. My understanding is that farming/pastorialism + metal tools were an 'overlay' so to speak on top of a still essentially Mesolithic lifestyle.
So how does this tie into bushcraft? Well, it's fine to use wood, bone, and flint implements in a bushcraft context(and actually fun and challenging too!), but any Mesolithic hunter gatherer worth his salt, if he came across a metal implement or let's say a field of ripe sewn Emmer wheat(or oats in Scotland ) would without a doubt take full advantage of these finds. It's all about exploitation of their environment in an efficient manner. I too have thought how close the Mesolithic resonates with my bushcraft spirit...but as was mentioned earlier, one bad toothache, and I'd be a wimpering Mesolithic baby!
Again my 2 pence worth...
Cheers
(Hoping to meet my hunter gatherer ancestors on the other side)Alex
Been watching Time Team reruns lately, and THOaken, it has certainly got me into a hunter/gather/Mesolithic mindset. As I mentioned earlier about the Neolithic, and the Bronze age, techniques that were used in the Mesolithic did not suddenly die out once the Neolithic, then Bronze Age arrived. For example flintknapping still existed right through the Bronze Age, but was of a lower quality as a skills set, as Bronze implements were becoming more readily available to the general populous. My understanding is that farming/pastorialism + metal tools were an 'overlay' so to speak on top of a still essentially Mesolithic lifestyle.
So how does this tie into bushcraft? Well, it's fine to use wood, bone, and flint implements in a bushcraft context(and actually fun and challenging too!), but any Mesolithic hunter gatherer worth his salt, if he came across a metal implement or let's say a field of ripe sewn Emmer wheat(or oats in Scotland
) would without a doubt take full advantage of these finds. It's all about exploitation of their environment in an efficient manner. I too have thought how close the Mesolithic resonates with my bushcraft spirit...but as was mentioned earlier, one bad toothache, and I'd be a wimpering Mesolithic baby! Again my 2 pence worth...
Cheers
(Hoping to meet my hunter gatherer ancestors on the other side)Alex
Yes it looks like it; apologies to the OP
If I can use a time honoured debating technique here and change my position.......
You're right to refute my worst case global meltdown scenario. I still truly believe though that there would be localised disorder, violence and selfishness when readily available resources become scarce. Our populations are now so massive that the previous complete regression to hunter-looter won't happen; maybe instead it will be more of a feudal/tribal arrangement.
It would sure be a fascinating social experiment to set up; take a modern population, isolate it and then strip it of modern infrastructure and then watch. I know that various TV projects have "attempted" to do this but they were artifical groups deliberately chosen to engineer conflict. I'm talking about a previously settled and harmonius society faced with a change of that magnitude.
Good point about the Franklin group; I was thinking of the cannibalisation as the line that got crossed, but the social aspect of the group did not break down in any other sense.
I don't completely disagree with you. I just find it exceedingly unlikely that all of society will collapse. That doesn't mean that you can not be the unlucky one whose house actually does get broken into. In such cases a .308 bullet center mass should resolve the problem.
There is little evidence of bushcraft in the Iron Age if you have any rg598 please share. In Britain there was little wildwood left and animal remains show an overwhelming quantity of domestic animal bones. In Ireland there is some trace of a bushcraft way of life amongst the Fianna and even troughs in which game might have been cooked using water boiled by means of hot stones.
Have a look at this article which discusses how kidnapped Whites actually preferred the freedom of Indian life.
http://www.shsu.edu/~jll004/colonial_summer09/whiteindians.pdf
Have a look at this article which discusses how kidnapped Whites actually preferred the freedom of Indian life.
http://www.shsu.edu/~jll004/colonial_summer09/whiteindians.pdf
I don't understand your desire to make overly generalized statements like these. There are numerous accounts of the exact opposite, where kidnapped "Whites" went through great struggle to escape their Native American captors. Just read accounts like the Narrative of the Captivity of William Biggs. On top of that, to make conclusions about the desirability of any particular life style based on any individual account is a logical fallacy. You would have as much bases is touting the superiority of the colonial lifestyle by pointing to Sacagawea.
As far as there being no bushcraft practiced during the iron age, that is only if you have some very strange definition of buschraft. Apparently you do not consider starting fires with flint and steel, hide tanning, use of medicinal plants, woodworking, cooking over an open fire, celestial navigation, and trapping to be bushcraft. If to you those things are not bushcraft, then I suppose there was no bushcraft practiced in the iron age from that stand point. As far as hunting, I have no idea where you are getting your sources. Even going much later into the iron age (think colonial times), hunting was essential. Let's leave aside America, where hunting was the backbone of numerous settlements well into the 18th century, but even in the UK hunting was an important part of people's lives. Just read Roman accounts of the local populations, or for that matter the Roman accounts of how much hunting they themselves did. To assert that the Vikings or the Celts did not hunt is contrary to everything we know about them. The amount of animals procured through hunting per person was probably lower than during the Mesolithic, but overall numbers were almost certainly higher. To make a generalized statement like you did is just guaranteeing its inaccuracy.
You miss the point, lighting fires etc in the Iron Age was in a domestic setting not a bushy one. The things you mention were ancillary to that domestic life. If someone lights a gas stove with an pistol grip flint lighter it is using flint and steel but it ain't bushcraft. Recreational hunting is arguably not bushcraft, an error often made on this forum. Of course things like tracking were.
Have you read excavation reports of digs on iron age sites? In general domestic animal bones vastly exceed the quantity of wild ones. But, I am open to correction if you have details of sites where the bones or other remains of deer, for example, were in significant numbers.
Yes, the Romans hunted and there is a Vindolanda letter asking about someone's hunting nets. And, yes there are Roman mosaics of hunting and fishing practices but how much of these was to promote the self-image of the Roman as a bucolic gentleman rather than a merchant or financier?
This is a good introduction to the subject of forest cover in Britain http://www.britishwildlife.com/classic_articles/BW1-61-75 Discovering Ancient Woodlands2.pdf
Just one fact from the above is that tree cover in chalk Downland areas was probably less in the Iron Age and Roman times than now.
Have you read excavation reports of digs on iron age sites? In general domestic animal bones vastly exceed the quantity of wild ones. But, I am open to correction if you have details of sites where the bones or other remains of deer, for example, were in significant numbers.
Yes, the Romans hunted and there is a Vindolanda letter asking about someone's hunting nets. And, yes there are Roman mosaics of hunting and fishing practices but how much of these was to promote the self-image of the Roman as a bucolic gentleman rather than a merchant or financier?
This is a good introduction to the subject of forest cover in Britain http://www.britishwildlife.com/classic_articles/BW1-61-75 Discovering Ancient Woodlands2.pdf
Just one fact from the above is that tree cover in chalk Downland areas was probably less in the Iron Age and Roman times than now.
Paleolithic and Mesolithic for me. The spread of agriculture was a big mistake, one we have compounded ever since.
You guys would probably enjoy looking around this site, there is lots of pretty good artwork here: http://www.iabrno.cz/~skrdla/ANTROPARK/magdal.htm
You guys would probably enjoy looking around this site, there is lots of pretty good artwork here: http://www.iabrno.cz/~skrdla/ANTROPARK/magdal.htm
Similar threads
