BogFun

”[...] Further trouble was caused by the dispatch of the copies to the Frankfurt. I sent three sheets of the book in advance. The other day I took the fourth sheet with me, the moment it was dry from the press. When I reached the ship, two miles from here, I found my copy baptized overnight by Jupiter. I needed three days to dry them...”

From Kepler's letter (1619) to Quitenus Remus,

a physician at the Court in Prague (...cite/transl. is the via  
Carola Baumgardt's book; Johannes Kepler: Life and Letters p.1951).

Menyanthes trifoliata.

...Even though I don't (mostly) believe in coincidences, was perhaps a happy coincidence for to me to drop by when this particular plant was on flowering last summer.  ...It's Bogbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), some from commonest natural marsh-plants. It usually grows on places where's adequate areas from standing waters (ie fx wetland-bogland, or suitable lakeside-edges). 
What a glorious blooming!

Bogbean has quite wide range all the way to the Southern Europes about, and perhaps further to Euraasia too.  (I guess, the English name originates of the looks of the seeds - when they've developed and flower petals have drop off,  them seem resemble beans, somewhat). The leaves grow separate of the flower. And - just to mention - in the past root-growths also were believed usable fx to reducing fevers...Albeit, modern knowledge seems to notice that there's not any proven/shown evidence from that (the plant's usability as remedy). In fact, there was in the pasts lot of similar beliefs from various plant. 

But how lovely a flowering ! I must have been blessed from been around just at the moment when it was of it's nicest bloom. And what lucky coincidence ! ;(G.U.J.) 

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

From diary-pages of the Part-time Vegetarian (Seq. III)

”I remember how, with pride from his originality,an Evangelical preacher, who was attacking monastic ascetism, once said to me, 'Ours is not a Christianity of fasting and privations, but of beefsteaks.'  Christianity, or virtue in general - and beefsteaks!" - Tolstoy; The First Step (Preface to the Russian transl. from the The Ethics of Diet, book by Howard Williams,1883)

”In a way all living things must be contentious. Reproductive capacities are such that any species, reproducing freely, can in short order outrun it's food supply, however plentiful.” - Asimov (Extraterrestrial civilizations, 1980)

Often the best choices are made accidentally. This ”vegetarian” diet-experiment (of mine), lasted from 15.3 until 15.9. I now consider it some of the most advantageous life-style choice I've maintained, lately or recently. 

 

This final part mostly discusses the ethical arguments favoring the vegetarian diet. Naturally it little touches the issues from and about meat production system/animal farming. But, mainly aims consist from thoughts having arised or provoked by this practical experiment (of mine) and also contemplates the various benefits of the vegetarian diet. (Some afterthoughts et similar, but I also try say smtgh on a more general level.)

 ...Along these 'part-vegerian' thoughts here's some examplary plant for pics. Many garden and wild plant are known of their great many uses as healing aids, improving health and on various other purposes throughout human history. Yet, we nowadays surprisingly little find use of them on anything like that. On the other hand there's nowadays variety from imported (so called) super-seeds, -berries, et other stuffs lots advertised and resultatively, often expensive.  - What comes for the plant - wild plants especially, but as well various of the cultivated - one should very well know their properties and looks (at medicinal uses in particular), because renownly some are very poisonic, etc. ...As for some "rule of the thumb", when using any plant one should never take very large amounts, or use some plant for too any extended periods at once. (Also, in short at any slightest uncertainty, always appears preferable consult some medicinalist or other source first.) 
The few exemplary plants here selected are generally known of no harmful side-effects, but noticeable fx some people can be allergic to pollen of flowers, or even for other substances of any particular plant(s). ...Also matters from where the usable plants/herbs are collected, for the ground can contain various toxic, or chemicals, that can end up at the plant. So, know your plants and the places where those picked from. All these - of course - are rather common, easily recognizable species growing/cultivated most anyplace from N.Europes. 
 

 (Pic left) - Mint (Menthe) - There's also wild species of mint, but garden varieties have the stronger aroma (also, there's nowadays hybrids in the natural environment). Commonly used as herb tea due it's good properties (and mentol-oils as soothing aid to coughs, ao) However, the fresh leaves should only be used before the plant blooms. - Also, by chance caterpillars from Rusty Tussock Moth (Antiqua orgyia), can be found from mint leafs...and the other butterfly-species, too.

 

(Pic below) - Calendula appears some of most often recommended garden plants for it's wide variety of uses (Plant originates perhaps from Mid East/Near Asia; Anyway, it was widely cultivated on Europe already on antique.)...The ray florets can be made for some gargling water, but I've few times infused that for tea too; Seems have some effect for preventing colds (When used seldom, not continuosly.) Fresh ray florets are also usable treating skin conditions...and, in the pasts the plant even was believed from magical powers due it's many healthy properties. (As some additional benefit, at garden it also helps repel off pests.)

Garden Marigold (Calendula Officinalis)

Since what presented on recent part at this serie, my few exceptions of the formerly described 'part-vegetarian diet', were only the following: On 15.7, ate half an oven sausage (w. the excuse from avoiding w-o-f), 2.8 ate a couple Frankfurter sausages (of no particular reason), 7.8 ate couple meatballs (Of my own cooking, and just for tastes; Must say them were pretty good), 15.8 ate a one slice of bacon, from no particular reasons, whatsoever.) ...After this half a year-experiment (of mine) I've occasionally eaten meat; Not daily, if fish included probably about every other day (Chicken mostly.) Pieces of cold cuts on bread (ham, liver sausages) perhaps more often. Since that mid-September I've also practically eaten not soya, eggs also somewhat less often.

Of the citates on begins of this, first is via pages from International Vegetarian Society (there's also other authoritative/historical personnels having favored the diets against animal eating, view their pages if wish.) The cited words (by Tolstoy) are from a piece of classic vegetarian texts, it contains the main essence of the vegetarian ethics. The abstainment from eating meat also appears abstainment from the killing; Production of the animal foods, whether or not one cares to think about that, always has involved performance of that mentioned act. (The book from which the cite, is sort of a vegarian 'bible', at least acc. some.) ...The other cite (Asimov) is here only due because it serves for me to enlargen this topic a little. I've often read a parables (from various books) about how some alien visitor, having stopped to observe our planet and human societies, would perhaps mainly recognize characteristic to us our uses of any resources at Earth for our own benefits (includes various animal species). That 'visitor' would then soon find us for an immoral race, also morally inferior, and probably just head for the better planet. (An imaginous comparison, but the question from human population numbers exceeding planets capacity well beyond it's limits, appears some amongst largest problems usually assumed overshadow/grow along with other development during the 21^st century.)

Plantago major

(To the right) - Common Plantain (Plantago major) ...it's leafs are renown as efficient first aid for small wounds. One can also prepare herb tea from those; Usable at flu's (and also coughs, throat infections, etc.) ...The Ribwort Plantain seems actually a more commonly used plant at herbal medicines. But the regular Plantain is far more common and it grows on most every place where there's damped grounds. ...The reason why the indigenous americans even used call Plantain by name the 'Englishman's foot'.

...Along his contemplations, or discussion from the vegetarian ethics, Tolstoy fx makes a visit for slaughterhouses, pays attention to how cruel is the treatment of animals and recommends fasting as the path for any virtous life. To summarize his views (very briefly) what's uniform or typical to all men – fx you and me, means the women as well, of course - is gluttony. Acc. Tolstoy immorality of the meat-eating is tied for our usual habits and attitudes about eating (...he refers at that for the rich classes behaviours of his own times and also relates the question by some part for the inequalities at society. But actually, read the referred text by yourself to have a better understanding.) He also makes a point about how hypocrite all those described behaviours appear in the light of any Christian belief. 
 

...Myself I don't fx consider fasting of any similar importance, even if one wishes think for the development of a moral feeling on humans. Feels to me - probably is more easy think so - that maintaining mostly vegetarian diet can practically take care of the same. However, I fx find quite much truth on his words about those usual hypocricies of the eating and how we often pretend being so virtuous, while in the same enjoying dinners purely because from pleasure of eating (and all that maintained at the cost of animal life). Basically, like Tolstoy, I find (the habitual meat-eating, without necessity) a practice that actually flourishes, more or less, against all the dominating principles of the basic Christian beliefs. 

 

On that sense - seems to me - the modern Christendom is in many ways quite a contradictive religion of it's moral and values; Or, probably better said, from that view-point it's among most ambigious belief-systems I know about (There's many religions that fx limit the uses of animal by some varying regulations, ao...But, with this I don't mean to say that I'd find other religious beliefs – or anything else, by the way - necessary more virtuous when compared for Christianity. Acc. my opinion, there's lot of good in the Christianity. Also, all people must have freedom from decide about their own beliefs and you can't judge any opinion basing to some single aspect like this. There's also quite many values that most credible beliefs share; Like fx abstainment from the use of violence.) However, any saying/arguing that there would be any moral grounds permitting us (the humans), as some higher or morally advanced species taking benefit of the sufferings of other species (ie animals) for to provide us some 'luxurious' dinners, is indeed just some crap of the same. There's a place for relative ethics on many aspects at life, but not on this. Naturally (probably needles say), I don't mean by this (sentence) that there wouldn't be a lots of difference if the animal is slaughtered for foods to feed many, than if the same happens just for benefit of a few. In short, it's actually quite educative little thinking that question concerning our (prevailing) human behaviours, that aspect about gluttony in particular.

(Right below -) The White Dead-Nettles (Lamium Album)
...A lot resembles the Nettles (but it's leaves don't stinge). Dead-Nettles, however, has white flowerings (those not visible in the pic, for the plant wasn't yet flowering). Tea made of flowers is recommended fx on stomach and digestive complaints. (Seems it also said help as some natural sedative and sleep aid too.)

Lamium Album

...Then, on the other hand, must say that physically I'm just not quite so convinced than on basis of these weighty ethical arguments. From this experiment of mine I noticed that one can well get along with a multi-sided diet containing fx eggs and milk and no meat (Not to make any falsifications, I also ate regularly some fish or similar.) Certainly does require somewhat more discipline sustaining w. the vegetable-oriented food - Probably the main reason why that 'First step' (on moral progress) of humanity, so finely imagined by Tolstoy, is yet quite far from realization in practice. As I also liking from keep myself in some condition (relative much jogging, biking, etc), I think it's probably fair to say that if not eating meat at all, acquiring all the necessary nutrients requires likely more carefully balanced diet. (I also noticed that it's perhaps more complicated trying maintain some 'middle-ground' diet. Probably there's also lots variation between different people, or at least somewhat, we are generally quite varying of the physical structure. ) 
This is some relationism, as you might correctly point out, but anyway I also don't consider that any healthy adult would have practical necessity for eating meats more often than perhaps on 1-2 days per week. If doing much physical work perhaps a bit more often. And I even say – contrary to my some former words – that for the older peoples as well it might appear useful to eat meat, sometimes. But I'm also not saying that anyone, if they wish and find that preferable, couldn't do just as well without.

If one then wishes compare human biology/diets for some favored by our close relates, there's actually much interesting aspects. Chimps, the most closely related from primates to us, mostly eat plant and fruit, but some meat too (...likely contains mostly of larvae and termites, but occasionally smaller animals). Gorilla, the largest living primate (-species), and one that has largest body-mass, practically eats just the plant matter (roots and leafs, acc. my understanding). Anatomically nearest human-like species of apes, Orangutan (or better said proportionally; It has average weight almost the same as humans, from males 60-90 kg) maintains a varied diet largely consisting of the fruits...and fx leaf. (Also it's mentioned to eat fx bird eggs, casually. Yet, significantly most part from what it feeds is fruit.). Then, from the species relative close to human lineage, fx Baboons - socially quite human resembling species - are most carnivorous from primates. To the contrary, Gibbons - most flexible climbers from all apes, and, also species quite close to humans - eat only fruit, leaf, flowers. What comes for the smaller existent primates/monkeys, diets probably vary lot, actually them are (probably) even more diverse. On any case, the larger part from the animal species on their 'natural' condition and environment(s) maintain rather strictly ordered diets. Fx,  there's species from monkeys (and other animals) that almost solely feed on trees leaves. And, there's some that eat (mostly) the insects and small invertebrates. Also, of all the (primates) their dietary practices likely aren't too precisely known, fx about the Chimps (social) practice of hunting smaller prey animals it wasn't known before about 1960s (For them weren't observed at their natural environments prior Jane Goodall's studies).

...Humans, quite clearly, are some from the most omnivorous of mammalians (personally I can only think of the squirrel for a good comparison...). Sometimes described been a factor having guaranteed our great success in the pasts. Yet, nothing from the above said (at this paragraph) tells much about the human dietary needs presently, for almost exclusively (we) humans live today on artificially built societies. So, I don't think vegetarism similarly argumentable on the evolutionary basis than it (clearly) is on ethical basis, but as we live on modern civilizations there isn't much real grounds for actual comparisons for our related primates either. Saying that humans (probably) wouldn't have evolved at least some biological dependency towards meat-eating would be incorrect; But, would appear equally false saying that we'd have any biological necessity to that.

...And that's basically most of it, or whatsoever I learned of my experiment. Or what level my 'moral progress' towards a vegarian diet was at this particular time from my life. I don't consider it too likely I'd completely quit eating meats in the future, but wouldn't appear unthinkable to me either; Seems at least proven that for a regular consumer (average paid, living on developed societies) maintaining a healthier and environmentally significant less stressing diet appears not any difficulty. And, there's also a point-of-view that when I go for the shops and grab a packet of minced meats, I usually tend glance at the other varieties of meat available to customers w. more 'carnivorous' diets... And I just can't avoid from now feeling some inherent dislike. 

 (Below) ;  Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) - Rowan-berries make most helthysome accompanient to diet (acc. my finding; fx them contain lot C-vitamin.) As they also are quite acidic the berries have to be precooked for juice, or marmalade (of the latter, see fx from our recipe-posts.) ...Rowan grows, possibly, more sparsely/only at higher altitudes on Mid-Europe, but at Fennoscandia it's very common and there's copses of Rowan often on mixed forests.
 

Sorbus aucuparia (Berries)

But, as I'm only talking from a relative brief period of experience, I'm only saying that people shouldn't too easily pass the ethical argument presented; Tolstoyan view for this. In particular considering how much actual waste - resources, lives, time – contains that 'modern' meat-production system. (...And, of waters - fx, seems that globally most water-consuming agricultural trade-product is - the beef.). So, my suggestion is that absolutism is not the word, but eating better – less of the meats – certainly is. ; [W-G.]

------------

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Undesigned Chapter, pt X / Beans, "Off the record"

”We're just cookin'...”
J.L. Hooker ; The Endless Boogie
(1970)

This sequel (no X) is from the beans. Inspirations and reasons for topic selected are just due because I think the beans for a good part of healthy diet (/ foods.) Although beans originate from the S.Americas, them are nowadays cultivated worldwide. Most produced is the Common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. There are several varieties grown (dry beans/green beans). Seems also that most amounts appear cultivated on countries also with some from the largest populations in the World (China and India; Acc. same list from European countries Italy solely lists for the top ten list from largest production ...of the Common bean).

The beans are rather usual main staples at various diets and foods - lot similarly like some tubers, or the most cultivated cereals (incl. rice, maize, etc.). Beans also contain quite much protein, making them ideal as the accomypanying side-dish w. many foods. Perhaps less generally known, but nevertheless quite important is that beans – similarly like other Fabaceous plants (incl. fx the peas) – have the effect from returning nitrogen to the cultivated soil. As the most plants use nitrogen in their process of growth, makes beans sometimes favored plants in the cycle from crop rotation at agricultures. (At least on some areas and methods of farming, or at the many environments, benefit being that nitrogen-rich fertilizers are needed less.)

Seems to me (also) that the beans also have secured almost as permanent place on the cultural imagination than (fx) the potatoes. There's fx lot phrases on English making uses of the word bean. Here only some picks, that I've come by on various instances, or some funny sayings (...So perhaps it makes this even more funnier if we at first mention that most hilarious Mr Bean, what a great name selection for character...) Also, I first learned the subsequent phrase from that 1990s romantic dingle-dangle (meaning the film Green Card), where there's saying ”We didn't have a bean”. Further then (by glancing Webster's), I also find the saying (to) ”Spill the beans”, which is said mean (generally) quite same as disclosing smtgh (and, resultatively from such action, to ruin somebodys surprise)

It's also mentioned sometimes earlier the beans been supposed among (some, possible) foods/dietary causes for the Gout. That not anymore believed...Or, so the medical science now seems say; I don't nowadays take too granted from whatever the newest claims acc. medical science about such things as healthy diets, foods, etc. (– Yet, I do fx think there's reasons believe many chemicals being potentially harmful for organic life and that them likely can accumulate at the body-system; Also, fx, I believe that using too much of the butter, sugars, salts, or the fast foods, obviously isn't very healthy.) What comes for the gout, and it's causes, my (slight) scepticism is then further encouraged from noticing that herbalists in the past actually are said from have recommended beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) for some of treatments of the diabetes, and gout. (...Albeit not probably due because of any precise knowledge about dietary causes for gout. Modern medical research seems as well have recognized it maybe having some genetic causes also. Main dietary choices said perhaps exposuring for the appearance of gout seem include using much of the seafoods, alcohol and also lack of the C-vitamin. - Gash! Seafood generally are very tasty. But probably also, the importance of that latter mentioned on the diets wasn't too well understood yet on 1700^th centurys. From the alcohol use I don't bother to guess anything...Anyway, apparently seems it shown the beans not from any relation for the emergence of gout.) 
 

...The gout was more usual a disease among the upper classes around 1700^th century (- what the pic above somewhat humoristically represents.) It even was typically called for the 'rich man's disease'. So a comparison, which almost spontaneusly comes to mind, is from Adventures of three musketeers. (Books by Alexandre Dumas [the older 1802-70]. Dumas also wrote several additional sequels about the latter years of the musketeers than that world renown novel by the same.) On some from those latter parts there's description about the life and leisure hobbies of one of the musketeers, Porthos (or, Porthoy if that's better spelling?), living on his castle/manor. Remembering how legendarily enormous is described the appetite of that Porthos, also the usual lifestyles of the rich classes on that era, it's perhaps surprising for any species from the French wild or domestic fowls to have survided until the later centuries. Equally not very surprising that the class society of that era, at least on it's 1700^th century characteristics, didn't last any further centuries.

(...Perhaps more relating to the actual topics on this) ; Many "New world"-crops (also beans along w. fx potato and maize), imported for the European continent, did influence efficiently to the directions of European agricultures ever since from about late 1500s. Often is noted the Europes colonial expansion of the past centuries been nearly as much motivated by the interest for the exotic (tropical) plants, than it was by purposes from acquiring rare minerals (gold, most renownly), or labour cheap (/free of charge, means the slave-market, of course)...even if that interest to the plants by earliest mainly targeted for many valued 'products' that could be manufactured from those (the opium, spices, ao, etc.).

Yet, we nowadays also have many regular food plants like the tomatoes, peppers, squashes, mango, watermelon...(To mention probably only some of the most usual and commonly known.) Pretty easily from this one then also begins get the impression/notices the aspect that many from the imported plants indeed were found superior compared for what was cultivated at the "Old world" prior that (ie before the so called Columbian exchange.) Although wider use and larger cultivation from most of those plants may have advanced only slowly. Often gradually during longer period/some centuries. Acquiring the food plants also sometimes did motivate direct colonial effort, although more rarely than the greed for those some exotic or valued materials/plants. And, to the contrary, amongts the most interesting aspects from this is that it's also shown that the various weeds - usually, if not always accidentally imported - generally might have lot helped the early European colonizers/immigrants at the various parts of the World to 'render' landscape resembling to that of the nature on their places of origin. (To the harms of an original ecology. But actually that's lot more lenghtier a story and it's pretty complicated for capture by a few sentences on this. See fx from the popular books or articles by Charles Mann, or from other sources.)

Even that the beans obviously have always had great importance as the human foods, and were imported for the Europes from quite early of (post that 1492), they probably never were quite similarly valued on the Europe than several other plants (By origin also are plants from somewhat warmer climatic regions). Social historians usually tend stress the importance of potato as a crop that permitted rise of populations to their current levels on Europe (and elsewhere on Northern hemisphere around since from the turn of the 1700s). It is even mentioned as a main plant having brought for the end periodical famines that prior it's wider cultivation cut back population the growth. Conversely, there's famous example about the Irish famine(s) in between 1845-52 (...When at least million peasants died when potato harvests turned out greatly affected by newly emerged pest species, mainly Phytophora infestans. The potatoes, not long before that been established as the peasants main staple, practically sole plant to grow. – So it's often also presented for an example about how one-sided concentration to some singular food crop at the agricultures isn't ever too recommendable practice.)

Pic below ; blooms of Scarler runner bean (P. Coccineus sbp)
...It's also mentioned originate from Mesoamerica. (On Europes) mostly grown due because of the nice flowerings, but some varieties pods are edible too.
 

...These few side-remarks passed, we should perhaps then devote rest from this for the beans. About the earliest cultivation of beans I find at least said the earlier radiocarbon-dating (of the archeological finds) having assumed the beans domestication, along w. the potato and ullucu ao, estimated for as old as smght like 8000 y B.C. (from Andes). However, more recent (and, apparently means at this case corrected) timings show that for somewhat later timing; The earliest cultivation of the Common beans (P.vulgaris sp.) possibly now is timed began around 3000 BC. Further yet - and without looking anything more, or too precisely any other sources from this - I also find it said on Wikip. (Sept 2012) that the Tepary beans (Phaseolus acutifolius) cultivation from earliest may date for as far as since about 5000 BC (from Tehuacan valley). And, fx the (domesticated) Lima beans (P.lunatus) early domestication seem assumed perhaps having taken place separately both at the Andes and on Mesoamerica. ...However, considering how much earlier (and possibly also newer) timings differ, I wouldn't be very surprised if some newer evidence would yet have established the earliest cultivation dates (from the various places) again for (somewhat) earlier by timings.

Feels also that it's probably quite difficult separate, by any certainty, the cultivated varieties of the bean from wild plants, or some 'preceding' varieties. Usually, in case of the domesticated plants, the cultivated species produce larger seeds, but then there's also question about how constant that earliest cultivation might have been. Were the earliest cultivators actual farmers, or were they the merely gatherers growing (also) beans near some from their most usual places of stay? Even if the nowadays molecular researches might claim it possible to quite possible from to (clearly) separate between the wild plants and the earliest (human) cultivated varieties on many cases, the anthropologist and cultural biologists tend argue lot about these matters still.

Some of the moderrn cultivated varieties of beans (fx the Lima bean and the Kidney beans, latter a variety from the Common beans), seem said at least somewhat toxic if them aren't being prepared correctly; - So, like is the case from any beans, usual method to make them edible for the human diets is cooking the beans for a necessary amount of time. Feels like that also would favor the supposition from the beans not (perhaps) for first plants that humans would have taken on to cultivate. Yet, the beans grow in pods that protect their seeds and are quite easy to gather (Likewise from the many other of so called leguminous plants, that contain at least the soya, peas, lentil – and alsomany from clovers, alfalfa possibly...) Makes me think, on the other hand, the beans therefore would appear quite likely choice to domestication for early opportunistic gatherers. ...I might well be mistaken on these contemplations from that, as this only is some guess-work. Many native tribes/modern hunter-gatherers are often described from to possess very detailed knowledge about the characteristics and qualities of any of the plants on their natural environments, so there's of course no reason to suppose humans of the past/the early domesticators from having had any less 'specific' knowledge about their surrounding plants (or anything else by that part).

From the toxicity of (wild/original varieties from the) beans I've not any clear idea, but fx the Nightshades - ie Solanum, the plant(s)-family containing also fx the potatoes and tomatos do contain also rather poisonic species, and yet from them also originate some of the main domesticated food plants at the present times. The regular potatoes are very toxic if grown unproperly/cultivation exposuring the tubers at the sunlight. ...Also, fx as some comparisons from the wild European/Fennoscandian fabaceous plants I recall having read (from someplace) that fx the Spring Pea (Lathyrnus vernus) appear at least somewhat toxic, but the pods of those seem said, at least occasionally, in the past also been used as foods. (Sounds not quite unprobable, they have quite large pods to an European natural growing fabaceous-plant. However, wouldn't consider the plant edible.) 
 

...But, let that represent only some occasional thoughts or speculations about the beans domestication. I've not even aimed for to make any very scrutinized theories to represent on this. Likewise, not any experience about the farming of beans. (In other words; I've not any theories based on any extraordinary or almost supernatural feel about the good qualities of the beans or the likely manner of their becoming parts of human diet/early cultivation history. Yet, I do think clearly the beans of the 'New World', or what we nowadays consider as typical beans for food, appear important food plants. Besides, I think them as tastier for foods than soya.)

The beans are best eaten along some 'main food', fx w. other vegetables (like certain stalks, or potato, ao), meat, rice, whatever. Also seems it shown the beans good from their cholesterol lowering effect, and also, many varieties are said from to regulating blood sugar levels. From the other healthysome qualities beans have (...incl. the fiber them contain). Yet, ,of course it's also quite true that not any singular plant/crop can provide all the necessary parts on the human diets (and, also remembering that example from the potato cultivation history and famines on the 19^th century). 
If compared for the potato (albeit, that's not necessary, of course) beans probably have the benefit from originating of a few separate wild varieties.  Likely makes them somewhat less vulnerable to a various pests/diseases than the regular potatoes. (The potatoes, by origin, contain hundreds separate varieties, but the usually cultivated breeds originate of singular species.) Yet, the beans ain't completely  'pest free' crops either, fx on late summer the leaves often seem lot bitten by pests (whatever nowadays most favored methhods of that prevention). ..For now seems it suitable closing our quite scattered speculations about the beans at this paragraph. (The subsequent sequel on this serie is not yet decided, but the following post shall be from the diets and foods too.) (; W-G.)

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Muleskinner Bookrecommendations # 34 ½ /"The time before time")

 

”In fact recent use of radiocarbon dating in the cave Cougnac

has shown that there may be as much as 10,000 years

between the earliest and the latest prehistoric paintings.

Among the earliest images is one of a megaloceuros (giant deer),

a creature that was apparently extinct in the region

by the time of the later painters. It is quite reassuring

in a way to think that these later peoples

would have been as perplexed by these images as we are today.”

From Secrets of the Stone Age, p137. (Rudgley, 2000)

The Land of the Painted Caves

(p. on 2000s; 661 p.) ; The Earth's Children-series

by Jean Untinen-Auel

...and some suggestions of (possible, accompanying) co-reading(s):

Aczel, Amir D., The Cave and The Cathedral (p 2000s; 242 pages)

Scarre, Chris (ed.), The Human Past. World prehistory and the development of human societies. (Thames & Hudson 2009 ; 784 pages).

[Recommendation(s) / 2012]

I guess, greater part of our selections from recently published fiction literatures/novels, etc., has represented popular fiction. Has it's reason, of course; I'm not very much reading past half the century's ”serious” fiction, and recently I've actually found most enjoyment from this field of fiction (say it then...”easy” fiction. Anyway, I don't also much care to draw any line between those, as you might have noticed).

I also formerly considered that these reviews wouldn't contain other books from prehistoric topics. As I meant w. that only science books et similar, leaves me some means of escape from that definitive sounding statement...and select this book for the additional recommendation of that stuff. Of course, the novel belongs for frustratingly well-known serie, but with my limited familiarity from the 'prehistoric fiction', I've not much alternatives. Most of the 'popular prehistoric' is crap, anyway (acc. my finding,). To the merit of the book, it's also so that prior Untinen-Auel's series, written from since 1980s, there wasn't (much) anything noteworthy of it's kind. Finally, favors the selection also my liking from historical fiction/novels, this ranks well as a 'prehistoric historical novel'.

About the book/serie itself I'm to say not very much. Possibly, if one wishes point out some weakness, book would've been better some 200-300 pages shorter. (I feel) the strongest elements in book/series are the depiction/description of prehistoric people for the emotional, living beings (wasn't so common prior it). On the other hand, selection of a femine character for it's main 'heroines' probably was equally important choice at the time of series early begin. Also, some of the main themes or elements in the books/series is the possible/likely  interactions of the anatomically modern humans - that's probably nowadays the usual term preferred from our Homo sapiens ancestors, believed have developed ca 200000 to 150000 y.a. in the Africa - and the Neanderthals. (Latter, of course, means Homo neanderthalensis-peoples).

The human hands - from The Human Past (book cover)

...Although I've even in the past sometimes seen an additional .sapiens 'stamped' for the first mentioned 'species', ie: H. sapiens ”sapiens” - notice my apostrophes. ...I actually think that occasionally used addit. definition in question only to serve for some ridiculence. In particular, because it so obviuosly seems meant for to separate us, the humans of the present days from any preceding periods peoples or (human-) 'species'...and to emphasize our (imagined) great differences if compared for those distant ancestors. If you ask me – and in lack of any precise knowledge from how to relate the species mentioned, not just biologically, but also culturally (the latter knowledge we are perhaps unlike ever reach) – I think the only valid 'categories' are .sapiens and .neanderthalis. (Further still, one could also question the usability of those terms too, but them are the most generally used. ...whether we'd think the Neanderthals for a separate human lineage; as the co- or subspecies genetically or morphologically defined, doesn't really matter on this). 

 

Anyhow, both 'species' are known have co-existed in parallel close-by through a minimum of some 100000 years. In the prehistoric pasts, the .Neanderthal- and .Sapiens-humans are also known from have lived subsequently, or in turns at parts of the N.Africa (Levant), and for a briefer period on the post-glacial Mid-/S. Europes (at the southward range from the edge of the retreating ice-sheets during that period). Probably both also lived at scattered mobile groups (more or less) adjacent to each other. So, seems at least possible, if not likely assuming, them (more or less) having had cultural contacts and effect for each other. Famously, relative soon after the end of the latest glaciation, the Neanderthal disappeared and during roughly same time the Sapiens seem have dispersed for their former areas at the European continent. (Neanderthals latest known regions of stay from different parts of Europe seem generally timed for - smtgh like – 45000 to 26000 y.a., BC, so noticeably, that covers a huge time-gap. Some newer genetic studies seem also say that the Neanderthals are believed been generally relative few by numbers; The estimated figures based on DNA-researches, I've noticed ranging for between 10000 to 70000 at the most...but I don't take that for too granted, it's an estimate still.) 
 

...Like one should except from a good (pre-)historical fiction, this recommended book (Untinen-Auel) don't offer any simple answers for that embarrassing mystery, or a question about Neanderthal the disappearance...debated ever since the wider acceptance (late 1800s) about existence of the human species having preceded our own ”race” (...here too, pay some attention for apostrophes). I'm neither claiming to have, or favoring, any theory for to explain that...but lots of theories exist. Anyway, also was (at least earlier) a lot discussed about the aspect if Neanderthals might have possessed any symbolic culture (and if they did, whether they mostly just might have adopted it from the 'modern humans'). As I personally believe them to most certainly having developed their own forms of symbolic culture, I leave it for anyone make one's own opinions about that (and read from topic by yourself). The Neanderthal burials containing pollen of various plants are most famous (indicating placing the flowering plants along w. deceased, although explanation is said bit controversial); But, also there's other 'clues' one often sees referred for; the sophisticated tools, burial objects, decorative shells, coloring the body w. ochre, etc... (Also, an informative box on The Human Past – on listed books above - seems state: ”...the emergence and spread of 'modern human behaviour' was more complex than a replacement of Neanderthals by Aurignacians.”)

The prehistoric research also seems divide that late ice-age era for various periods (Based most apparently, on various different stone-age 'technologies' used; lithics, projectiles, etc., but also established on finds of cultural objects, as well as what known about the behavioral traits) - Ie the most important cultural periods are separated for (All these just roughly timelined for this): Aurignac - ca 40000 to 20000 y. in the past; Gravettian, ca 29000-14000, and Magdalenian - generally from so called glacial maximum at 22000 to 19000 BC until the early Holocene. 
 

The early (anatomically modern) human ancestors at the European area/close regions are most widely known by term the Cro-magnons (named on basis of the places of first finds at 1800s, likewise were named the Neanderthalensis too). As the archeological history also sometimes might have focused too much on that – so called ”Cro-magnon myth”, acc. my own terms and opinion - I leave that also for anyone to think by oneself in particular, too (...With the preceding, I mostly refer for that sometimes claimed 'remarkably different symbolic culture of the Cro-magnons, if compared for the Neanderthals, fx. And, from their exceptional capability for the speech – that Neanderthal's didn't possess similar means for spoken language, it was also formerly debated lot about, but now studies (from the anatomy of their vocal tract) seem said indicate that there was no reason why Neanderthals could not have produced complex range of sounds needed for speech. It seems even now confirmed that they possessed similar gene that permits speech on us.) ...But in combined, of course, very little about such distant times is known too well. Seems it also that surprisingly much new information they've been able acquire during the few recent decades (with the aid of newer molecular techs, ao other methods). Most what I can gather from that seems (to me) to favor a view that, very possibly, our direct human ancestors were equally influenced on that interaction and not just 'played' the influensive role.

...After our lenghtysome pre-thoughts, for the prehistoric cave-art (main theme on our book-recommendation), we can only devote a few lines here. Aczel seems in passing notice that in fact there's not any direct evidence from that all (or most) of those renown paintings would've been created by Cro-magnons and not Neanderthals (However, also says the location of most caves, and their closeby camp-sites known, fx, seem link it for the cultures of 'our species' - or more correct term maybe is 'our direct human ancestors'). Seems it also that there's now datings from some of the oldest paintings, suggesting them older than formerly believed/and therefore (possibly) been made by Neanderthal peoples...But probably all that's still quite controversial.

 

More interestingly, is fx that it's believed with some certainty (there's fx found remains of some musical instruments from caves) that those places likely served also for ritual/ religious gatherings during when the paintings were accompanied with other art-forms; music and dance, spoken words fx, likely. ...In that sense Cathedral seems indeed quite suitable term for name of the book about cave-art. The book itself appears most readable introduction to that, although not too comprehensive guide, if very 'enthusiastically' interested for and about. Along w. it I cursorily read some chapters concerning these topics from The Human past - mostly it's, say, some 'middle-of-the-road' knowledge about many topics it covers...And along our other recommended reading(s), the Rudgley-book, referred on begins, is also interesting. It makes some effort for questioning the 'general consensus' from human evolutionary history and to exhibit quite a lot contradicting evidence. (So also occasionally does that The human past-book, but naturally it aims cover/discuss lots other stuff, too.)

The cave-art, been created during a very lenghty period of time, finally came to end at early Holocene (ending along with the hunter-gatherer cultures that produced it.) Similar to many later regionally outlined phenomenoms/cultures there wasn't any clear cultural followings for it (/recognizable successive resembling art-styles). All of that, and the vast distance of time the cave-art covered, adds some part for it's great mystery; Precisely, the question (any viewer) could need ask is perhaps not just what kind worldview those painters had, but how did they know their environment. Did they thought it coherent or complex? Were them merely communicating or transmitting? Etc...)

...Finally to mention; I find this selection nicely fitting as some 'continuation' of our prehistoric recommendations: First was that book from the mammalian early days. Then a book about the primates/species ancestral for the later emerged 'human lineage'. And now this novel from the ”recent” prehistoric pasts, an era when all those major cultural transitions described were taking place (the story is situated at about 30000 y. BC.) If we shall then have any additional recommendation on this 'serie', following our (accidentally emerged) timeline, it should likely be smtgh about emergence of the civilizations. ...No scarcity from possible alternatives, some contenders I could think for are fx the Mesoamerican/pre-Inca Andean cultures, ancient Egypt(/the Nile valley), Indus civilizations...

...And additionally (to mention), any of these 'XXX & half''-recoms could quite well represent actual parts on this serie (I guess I could 'elevate' them all for those as well). I've mostly ranked them this way, just because I'm having time to write only a fewsome paragraphs from each of these... (;W-G.) 

 

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.