New CBB

Just popping in to say that, that seem very volatile when there are fluctuations in available games.

_________________
When scientists in the future speak of our life-time they will say that most of the things, ideas that was possible for us to invent was never invented in our life-time because we hadn't yet invented the words to describe the components.

They weren't completely sedentary. The Tlingit rotated out between "summer" and "winter" villages, where a single community would live in each for half the year. Game suddenly becoming scarce in both areas at once was unlikely, and they had great (for their technology level) methods of storage and preservation of supplies. Furthermore their staple diet wasn't actually hunted game or foraged plants, but instead was stuff that washed up on the beaches (which did not depend on game migrations).

_________________
♀♥Ø

Anyone know of any good resources for historical fashions? Particularly from Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe?

_________________
Ikasmu ati'uki nai uraiur.
Hinai nimuśim naimi nai sasamiur urukani. Śi'ama nai huhumiur na ni'amuśim nai sasamiur.
Pumaki nimuśim śima'a na ami nimuśim ara'a. Hini nihrasum i'aku tumra urukani na nihrasum sanik hraspir.

I believe some societies of Mesolithic Europe were sedentary, mainly on the coast.

_________________
Mekoshan
Alpic

Question: Anybody know of any post-prehistoric cultures that live in caves or the large majority of their existence revolves around caves?



You probably have seen this, but Wikipedia has some info on historical Chinese clothes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese_clothing

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce

Does anyone know of a culture whose creation myth includes some sort of creation from dough, like that of the Maya?

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS

True. That happened at least in Japan.

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair

Was homophobia present in cultures outside the influence of the Abrahamic religions ?

A fair number, yes.
This makes sense, since the original prohibition was against pederast, not homosexuality, meaning somebody introduced or altered the concept later. (Logically, someone must have introduced the concept to begin with, even if it did originate as an anti-gay stance.)

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Which side of town is the rich side, and which side is the poor side?

Is the most desirable real-estate reserved for retail and commerce, or for rich residences, or for industry?

In cities in the Ancient "Near East", archaeologists are used to the bigger houses (those belonging to the richer inhabitants), being on one side (if memory serves, the southwest side) of town, because the prevailing winds usually blew out of the southwest and would carry the smells of the rich neighborhoods to the poor neighborhoods rather than carrying the smells of the poor neighborhoods to the rich neighborhoods.

Does anyone have a reference for the actual direction, in case I got it wrong?
I had it in my notes from college and in my textbook as well; but I can find neither, and haven't been able to find a reference on-line.

I wonder what influnces determine the relationships between direction and location on the one hand, and social status or economics on the other, various cultures now and in history, and even pre-history if anyone knows.

Do the rich live upwind of the poor?
Or do the residences lie upwind of the industry? (Since industries are often smelly.)

Or do the rich live upstream of the poor, or do the residences lie upstream of the industry?
If the city is on a river, then water would be more desirable for drinking, cooking, and washing (dishes and selves and clothes), before someone else has washed in it or used it to wash away sewage.

Or do the rich live uphill of the poor, or do the residences lie uphill of the industry?
If the city is on a slope, liquid waste, and to a lesser extent solid waste, will flow (or just tend to drift) downhill.
Also, maybe odors are usually heavier than air and usually flow or drift downhill as well.

Or do the rich live downhill of the poor, or do the residences lie downhill of the industry?
While it's still hot, smoke tends to rise; it may be more important to avoid smoke when it's hot than after it has cooled off some and started to settle downhill in the valleys.

Or do the rich live nearer the water and the poor further away?
If there mostly isn't running fresh water supplied to the houses, it may be a big slog a few times every day to haul water from its source back to the house.
Maybe the rich get to have less of a slog.
Or maybe the middle class, who can pay more for houses but can't hire or buy servants, get the real-estate near the water; the really really wealthy, who can buy or hire servants to do all the hard work, live upslope of everyone else; and the poor are in between.

Or, possibly, money-making enterprises, especially commercial ones but maybe also industrial ones, get the prime real-estate near the water.

What about which floors in buildings are more desirable?
If there aren't any or many elevators or they aren't cheap or they're avoided to conserve energy, likely most buildings won't be more than three storeys tall, and the most desirable floor will be the ground floor.
That seems to be so in modern London, at least the parts built before elevators were common and cheap. Am I right or wrong? And can anyone provide a reference, and/or a URL?

Do such cultures tend to have mostly retail businesses like shops and taverns and restaurants on the ground floor; a mix of businesses and better residences on the next floor up; and the low-rent apartments, as well as studios and other places for people who need good light all day long, on the top floor?

What about basements?

Which cultures tend to have half-sunk "basements" or "ground floors" (whichever term is appropriate), so there would be "dives" a half-storey downstairs and the walk-up to the floor above would be only half as high?
In such cultures does that contribute to having retail businesses on the half-sunk ground floor and also on the next floor up, and residences on the floor above the ground-floor and the top floor?

What about mezzanines?
In which cultures are "first storeys" typically twice or one-and-a-half times as tall as most other storeys? And why?
Among those cultures, in which are there sometimes mezzanines halfway up the first storey?

What about signage?
If your business is in the basement; or in the half-sunk basement; or on the ground-floor; or on the half-raised floor; or on the second floor; or on the top floor; that all affects how you need to advertise your location.
You can just hang out a shingle if you're half-sunk or on the ground floor.
It might be a bit less effective to do just that if you're on the second floor.
If you're on the top floor, you need a bigger sign, a banner or something spanning as much as the width of the building and a quarter to all of the height of the storey, to be sure your sign was visible from the street.
If you're in the basement and it's all-the-way underground you also have a similar visibility problem; but you don't have the same solutions available.
How are such problems handled in various real-world cultures at various places in the world and various times in history?

Aren't there some cultures that never have such problems? Which ones do and which ones don't?

---

I once read that the Neolithic revolution in the British islands and Northwestern Europe was delayed by about a century because the hunter-gatherer industry was productive enough that the agricultural industry couldn't compete against it successfully -- for a while.
Sorry I have no reference. It was in a magazine, maybe the National Geographic, maybe Scientific American, maybe Discovery or something else.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Most people on Earth believe that monogamy is the natural way of life. Islam accepts it but it's rare even among muslims.
Is it really natural, because of something in human psyche, or is it so common just because the power of the western civilization and its values and some other, monogamous civilisations. American indians used to have polygamy.

I suspect (personally) that given current ideas regarding our evolution (large brain- long pregnancy- even larger brains- infants born earlier in development- longer maturing time- stronger pressure on parental care- requirement for longer-term relationships to cope), monogamy is something almost wired in to our heads, and that polygamy is a culturally inspired thing. However, I've no reason to believe this other than vague intuition.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

I think it's more accurate to say that within the human mind there's monogamy/polygamy pressures: Humans instinctively want to have as many mates as possible and to have exclusive access to these mates. Culture, I think, only determines which pressure ultimately wins out.

_________________
♀♥Ø

I don't think the question makes sense - not, at least, unless you provide a sense. The problem word is 'natural'. What is 'natural' in human societies? You can't mean "what happens in nature", because all human societies happen in nature - clearly monogamy is 'natural' in that sense, since it exists. And you can't mean the "what would happen in nature if humans didn't interfere" sense of the word, since... well, if humans didn't interfere, there wouldn't be any human societies!

So what distinguishes a natural form of society from an unnatural one?


Regarding marriage patterns: polygyny is overwhelmingly the most common marriage pattern in recorded human societies. Overwhelmingly. Apparently, around 75% of societies prefer polygyny, around 20% are strictly monogamous, around 1% prefer polyandry, and the remaining 4% allow a variety of types of marriage, neither preferring nor forbidding polygamy. [There's also group marriage, which varies between 'never happened' and a couple of percent of societies, depending who you ask and how they measure (eg even in societies where it does maybe happen, it's usually limited to aristocrats)]

To some extent this may reflect deep psychological tendencies in the human race. Primates in general seem to avoid monogamy, and often tend toward polygyny; it's not unreasonable to assume that polygyny (and monogamy-avoidance) is hardwired into human instincts [it's worth noting that even many 'monogamous' societies practice either de facto polygyny through the social acceptance of mistresses/concubines, or else serial polygamy; true monogamy is really quite rare in human societies]

On the other hand, economics also clearly plays a role. Polygyny is generally preferred for several reasons:
a) it reduces the percentage of women who end up without husbands - this reduces the numbers of orphans and single-parent children, while increasing the overall birth rate and encouraging population growth
b) at the same time, it reduces the fertility rate for women who do have children; this may be preferred by the women (it liberates them from sexual impositions by their husbands and frees them to do non-reproductive things), and by society (it lowers death rates, since childbirth is very dangerous)
c) it enables powerful families to increase their power by becoming bigger and bigger at the expense of smaller families
d) in land-rich population-poor societies (ie most societies), polygyny allows powerful families to control the most important economic resource - labour. When labour is the limiting factor in production, it makes sense to seek to control as much as possible, and family bonds are the best way of doing this, so these societies favour expansive families. Women are the source of new labourers, so families seek to 'control' as many women as possible
e) polygyny allows women to work more efficiently by reducing the reduplication of labour. This is convenient for women, but also for the economy, since it enables house industries like weaving and pottery to be conducted more efficiently.

So why does monogamy sometimes happen? There are probably two important factors. One is that high population densities or other forms of land shortages drive up the price of land, and, relatively, drive down the price of labour. Controlling labour is less important, and controlling land, and other forms of capital, is more important. Having children costs capital, both to raise them and then in having to let them inherit something. So societies with high land prices and low labour prices will tend to want to reduce birth rates, and in particular to reduce legitimate births - only marrying one woman is a good way to do this, since all other children will be illegitimate and hence have lesser claims on the estate.
The other factor is mobility. In societies where people live in the same places for generations, large, expansive families and family networks are advantages, as they provide allies and contacts; in societies where people move around frequently, they are disadvantages, as they act as anchors tying people to their communities and preventing them from escaping to better locations. So mobility encourages smaller families - and monogamy allows smaller families than polygamy.

So, why do we have monogamy now? Because rising population densities and the mechanisation of industry have devalued labour and increased the value of preventing the dilution of capital, favouring a low-birth-rate, high-level-of-nonreproduction system like monogamy. And because mass urbanisation, the falling costs of transport, and the importance of universities have all encouraged smaller, nimbler households more able to move to pursue opportunities, which makes monogamy more attractive.

Yes and maybe no.

Maybe no in that our current understanding of 'homosexuality' is very modern and not shared by most other cultures - but maybe there have been some?

Yes, in that forms of hatred and discrimination have existed that we would consider homophobic if we had to describe them in our own terms.

Homophobia, strictly speaking I think, refers to hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality - if you don't believe in homosexuals or homosexuality, you can't really hate these things qua those things. You can, however, have negative attitudes toward people we would call homosexual, or activities we would call homosexual.

Some things to bear in mind:
- its unusual to have any conception of homosexual identity as distinct from gender identity. Our 'homosexuals', particularly homosexual men, would in many societies be considered third-gender, or gender-inverted (ie women despite their male genitals). These societies will probably not actively condemn homosexuality, and may well have a specified role for homosexuals in society, although others will see it as a pitiable medical disorder or magical curse. It's worth noting, however, that just because you think there is a place for gay people in society doesn't mean you can't be homophobic - gay people in these societies may be pressured into particular roles, with those roles enforced violently (in the same way that women and men are confined to certain gender roles).
- the other common situation is to have no conception of homosexual identity whatsoever, and instead talk about homosexual activities. This introduces a moral componant to how these things are regarded - actions are things people are responsible for. People are unlikely to have much hatred of gay sex per se - but what is common is to condemn it as a symptom and a cause. The rhetoric around gay sex has often focused on things like 'leading the youth astray', 'humiliating and exploiting the weak', 'being distracted from marital and parental duties', 'debasing oneself and losing pride and self-esteem', 'giving oneself over to useless pleasure and decadence' and so forth.
- 'sex' in the modern definition is also quite a modern concept. Many homosexual activities we now consider sex would not have been considered sexual in the past, or in other cultures: definitions typically start with 'insertion of erect adult male penis into adult vagina and ejaculation by the former', and fan out from there. Does sex require penile penetration, for instance? Does it have to be penetration of the vagina? Does it require a penis? It's very common - probably usual, indeed - for 'sex' to only be related to things people do with penises, thus leaving the whole of lesbian activity outside what is considered sexual. This all means that quite strong 'homophobic' attitudes can coexist with shoulder-shrugging acceptance of things we today would consider homosexual sex.

Interesting, Salmoneus, you have thought about poly/monogamy much more than I. You meantioned so many new terms that it takes time to find their meanings.

I actually read the thred of Linguistic Universals and began to think about polygamy/monogamy ratio. Which is more "normal" and if monogamy is just spread because of the moralcode of the western culture. Muslim culture allowes it, but it's not very common. It's interesting to think if that's due to the power of western culture or if there is some tendency. You seem to prefer even somehow evolutionary view to that. Monogamy is popular because it's practical in nowaday society. Maybe.

I do think Sal makes a pretty good case here, as usual - but then again, I suspect it might also be at least partially because cultural values rarely change overnight. Cultural and/or religious practices often have their roots in practical concerns, yes - but sometimes people keep following a practice out of faith or cultural indoctrination even if it technically stopped making any practical sense about three thousand years ago.

For instance, it would be entirely possible to have more than one spouse in today's society and yet produce less offspring than the average monogamous peasant did a few centuries ago (or indeed, none at all if you don't want to). Yet at least IME, most people still tend to favor stable monogamous relationships. And it's not just religious people, either; I know plenty of completely non-religious people who find the very thought of polyamory weird and probably somewhat disturbing, at best. Monogamy is just so deeply rooted in our culture that it's going to take some time to change.

_________________

Yo! (Well, weird to engage in anyway. I do know a polygamist couple and my girlfriend and I had a fun day hanging out in Glasgow with them, their daughter and the wife's boyfriend.)

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.