But first he must learn that you have the power to handle him, and that handling will not lead to any harm. He must come to trust you entirely. This is important to the health and well being of a dog. You must be able to take care of her medical needs without a struggle. I learned this the hard way when caring for my dog with Renal failure. Ganuff February 8, 4: You cannot have a meaningful relationship with a dog when they are always "put in their place" or when they are forced to always be submissive to you and often every other human.
It's a disgusting attitude to have. If you do something "mean" such as try and take away a dog's bone from his possession, or rudely wake him up and push him off the couch, he has every right to show anger at you and even snap at you. Those are terrible things to do to a dog, you wouldn't do them to a human without getting into an argument with them over it and yet people think they can get away with doing those things because they're to a dog.
Similarly, you wouldn't just let a stranger come up and molest you, so why should people in the street have that ability? And then when you try to defend yourself against their advances, your own owner comes in and punishes you? Ironically it's the ugly HUMAN desire to be number one and show their superiority that is all that is showing here. The dog just wants a bit of respect sometimes, not to be messed around. The alpha male gets the girls in the wild that's true, but they are all part of the pack and all buddies on the very same team sticking up for each other etc..
It's really a cruel joke on dogs to take this willfull superiority complex out on them. If you can't treat a dog as your complete equal you don't deserve to own a dog at all. True, you don't want a big and very dangerous breed the ability to become snappy, however if you can't manage it without punishing them into submission from a young age then don't own those breeds at all. SuperInfinity August 11, 1: I want to start off by saying what an awesome article this is. Now, I want to talk about Cesers way. If you think he does not use any harsh methods, please re-watch his episode with Shadow, the Wolfdog.
He HUNG the dog off of the ground and caused asphyxiation. He scruffs dogs and shakes them He fights dogs into "Calm Submission" even if the dog is protecting themselves Biting him and finally gives up. He teaches Learned Helplessness. He does not teach Calm Submissive State. The Alpha Role is very destructive to the dog as a rush of stress hormones fill the dog and they do what is called Shut Down.
Do this enough times, the dog learns it's not OK to be afraid. Remember Shadow as mention earlier? He has been taken back from the Sanctuary the owner adopted him from and has since been euthanized. There are so many people who were a part of the show that is starting to talk out. SO many dogs from the show have had behavioral issues afterwards, or have gotten worse to the point where they were euthanized because of the methods Cesar uses. He does nothing but suppress behaviors. He doesn't even TRY to solve what is actually happening. He floods dogs Putting them in a situation for so long, they stop reacting, another form of Learned Helplessness.
Positive Reinforcement is not Purely Positive. We do use discipline. We focus on the good, and redirect from the bad. As for the couch comment, you can condition your dog to love his mat by putting a bone there, and he can only have it there. You can treat him there and he gets nothing on the couch. A VERY simple redirection that works within seconds literally. Yelling, Stares, Standing in a position that typically makes your dog cower, swatting, is all abusive mentally and physically as it's forcing your dog to do what you want instead of what the dog wants.
However, with that being said, you can get the dog to enjoy what you want and award him with the things he wants to do as a reward if it's unsafe then obviously not You do NOT have to use Dominant Methods to get what you want. Ariel H July 20, 6: Cesar's techniques have totally been misconstrued here If people claim that his techniques are so far off, I'd have to see proof that it's being done better. If there's a more perfect dog trainer out there who has never once made a mistake, I'd love to hear about them. I just finished my registration just so i can write my comment.
The article is someones point of view and weather i agree or not its not the issue but i keep reading all the comments about dominance and submission and the horror stories to go along with the comments and i have no idea where people get violence or even punishment from being dominant with your dog.
Its obvious that you are not familiar with the training or simply misunderstood the point. The idea is to provide your dog with stability and security of a "pack leader" or role model or protector that simply teaches the dog rules and boundaries. No punishment just corrections. On a personal note i have used this type of training on a hyper dog who ran the household for 6 years and my parents labeled him the devil. After two month of training he walks without the leash in heal position with no command couldn't even take him out on a leash before he greats guests politely, without jumping and you don't have to squeeze through the door to get the package delivered, he doesn't just dash from the front door.
All it took is proper walking and lots of it yes with some corrections in the beginning but after a while verbal "shh" is enough and lots of behavior modification for me not really the dog. As soon as i provided consistent exercise, rules and discipline and acted as a leader for my dog he gladly followed. And yes thank you Cesar for sharing your wisdom! The Bond that me and my dog had developed during training is unbelievable. He is my perfect companion, friend and yes my little baby. No abuse no punishment!
Its easy to use corrections and get carried away but if you really listen to Milan you will see that he talks more about changing yourself and the change in your dog will follow, i cant remember him telling people to beet the submission out of their dogs, or fight for it. Must have missed that episode. But i do use positive training with lots of treats and praises to teach my dog tricks. However in my mind those are just fun and for his psychological development.
I have been traing dogs professionally since the late 's and have always debunked the alpha dog, dominance theory. I first got a BA in experimaental psychology. I have always used reward training. You just caught up to me. Cesar Millan is so good at reading body language that recently he got nailed by Holly a resource guarder. His comment I never saw that coming. Watching the video most competent trainers saw it coming ages before the dog nailed him.
If his ability to read body language is so good why did he not see it coming? TrueBlue May 5, Hi, I work with rescued dogs and pet sit. I also practice Reiki Spiritual Energy used for healing. So I use my gut intuition to find the answers to many things with research as well. I knew in my heart that I should not dominate my dogs although I hear it over and over.
One is a foster dog. Thanks for this article confirming it. I do have a question about pinch or choke collars I am totally against. I told on FB to a trainer that I am against this. Her response was I train service and police dogs. I am not a professional trainer. What are your thoughts on this? Is it ever OK to use these methods on certain kinds of training?
Unknown March 5, 9: RuffCustomers, You mean like when a mother tells a child to hush and puts her hand over their mouth? I think I was treated in just the manner you mention, though it was apparently so traumatic that I can't even remember it To add to the sarcasm I could also mention that when I was a kid my mom once put a leash on me no joke after one of her friend's told her she thought it was a good idea.
However, I still remember that and how horrible it was. So the moral of this story must be that I have no problem with praising an animal for doing something right - and despite the complete mischaracterization in this article, neither do the Monks of New Skete. However, I do have a problem with people - in general - who believe that no form of physical correction is ever merited.
That is simply wrong at so many levels. If you think a leash pop or a shake on the scruff is terrible then I would suggest that you are either dealing with the most well behaved dogs on earth, or you are willing to tolerate behavior that is neurotic and unbecoming both of inter-dog relationships and human-dog relationships.
You admit that, "There are many forms of punishment which do not require 'a small leash correction or scruff shake' to get the point across," which acknowledges that the need to punish does arise. Yet you defend someone who says "Figure out how to prevent him from being reinforced for the behaviors you don't want, and reinforce him liberally for the ones you do The latter implies nothing but positive reinforcement; the former implies some form of positive and negative reinforcement.
Preventing a reinforcement that you don't want is not a punishment any more than ignoring the fact that your child just hit another child would constitute punishment. What I don't understand is why people believe there's a difference between commands like "sit", "stay", and "come" and ones such as "no. Dogs understand and learn from both types just like humans do. Frankly, I did not enjoy my spankings or time outs as a kid, but they sure were effective at teaching me. Dogs definitely aren't humans for example, I hope you don't make a parallel between my never wearing a leash again and your dog never wearing a leash again as that would be very unsafe , but dogs sure do understand many of the same concepts that we do.
So sorry, but I think this training philosophy is more an extension of the misguided ideas about child rearing coming out of psychology departments than it is about actually teaching animals to be responsible members of your family - which for me is the ultimate goal. I just wrote to Dr. He states that he "knows very little about dogs or dog training, and I have published nothing about dogs. MelissaBerryman January 9, I've read all the comments and noticed that an important evidence-based result of punishment was not mentioned. It has all of the addictive qualities of the most notorious narcotics The fact that these sensations are of a transient nature, make the use of punishment all the more addictive and more frequent.
It is the "poster child" for unintended consequences--it encourages those observing it to imitate the punisher. Think of all the children who have been physically punished, or in the worse case abused, who grow up to be abusers, adults who deal with their frustrations through force and bullying. Would you really want oyur chuild to watch you physically abuse an animal? Count on them imitating you and applying it not only to pets, but also to smaller weaker children.
Danielle T December 22, 7: This is an excellent article.
The mysterious Voynich manuscript has finally been decoded [UPDATED] | Ars Technica
For those of you who don't understand what punishment means and how bad and ineffective in the long term it is, get the book by Murray Sidman, PhD called "Coercion And Its Fallout". It is not a dog book, it is a behavior book. But behavior is behavior is behavior. It doesn't matter much whether the punishment is from the extreme of abuse to the other end called coercion, what we need to understand is how behavior works, not to mention between 2 different species who don't speak a common language.
This article is not just right on with a "pleasant" message, but it contains the most up-to-date information we have from behaviorists and dog trainers and veterinarians on how BEST to train and work with your dog.
Tamara D December 21, 5: This is as bad as not spanking your children. There is a difference between correction and abuse. That's why there are so many bad dogs because of bad owners who refuse to correct there dog. Cesar does not use punishment. Why was he included as using punishment. His methods make the most common sense and has helped more people with problems. I live with neighbors who don't correct their dogs behavior and it drives me crazy. From being kept awake at night to being jumped on and mouthed all over. Gidget December 14, 3: I forwarded this article to a relative who has had dogs, mostly Labs, for decades.
The first Comment section had a great review where they point out the difference and emphasized the "timing" of the correction that sometimes may simply be a well timed stern look or stare. Since this article attempts to debunk the alpha dog theory without going into detail about how using only positive reinforcement it left me completely confused. Everyone who loves their dog would live to use patience and only positive reinforcement. However, and using the example of owning a dog who lives to climb up on the couch, I don't know how you could replace the comfort of the couch by gently asking your dog to hop off and sit on his doggie mat.
The doggie mat is not a better replacement as the author suggests. You should never beat your dog, but this article has not convinced me that you could be successful in training a strong willed dog, or a child for that matter, with only positive reinforcement. Even a glutton like a Lab will lose interest in food if given enough treats as a reward. I would certainly like to evaluate the success of a dog behaviorist that uses only love and communication with a dog like my Lab. Grace S December 13, 3: Why are Americans so extreme. I believe each dog responds differently to different methods.
I did nothing cruel to her and didn't have to have treats on hand for everything she did, it was enthusiastic praise for a good behavior, and a stern verbal correction for undesireable behaviors. Why not take the good from both methods, there is evidence that they both work. I had to be a bit firmer with my adult rescue, who was extremely dominant and bold and she also became a wonderful dog. However, I now have a "scaredy dog", who I know needs an "all positive" approach to training and that's what I'm doing with her.
I think Cesar Milan is wonderful at what he does. It's people that cannot read a dogs body language that gets them in trouble. By all means, drowning a dog or shaking it by its jowels are not acceptable. Cesar does not use physically harsh signals. He's just trying to help the owner out that has let a behavior get out of control. Cesar is an exception to the rule.
MOST people cannot correct a dog at the proper time or in the proper way. Most people would benefit from positive training, it works for some few like Cesar who are really good at reading body language and can time their corrections right. The definition of 'alpha" is questionable - "to use force and intimidation to overpower your dog into submission. The definition of alpha is: My understanding of being alpha with your dog is you are leading the way and looking out for your dog's best interests so they can follow.
KCushing December 3, 9: Thank you Pat for this great post. I am also a positive professional dog trainer. I have a little story to share with your audience as far as the whole dominance myth and how it can literalyl come back to bite us. As I was talking to them about this dog and their son they told me that they were huge Cesar Milan fans and the whole Alpha roll calm submissive behavior crap.
They told their son that every time the dog did not respond to his commands he was to Alpha roll this poor dog on her back. While I was there he had done this at least ten times. I gave them my card in the hopes that they would call me and get thehelp this dog and young kid needed as well as the whole family. I was really concerned for the safety of thei kid because this had been done to this dog since she was a puppy and she was now over a year old and a very poewrful 60lb dog.
A couple of weeks went by and i ran into some others at the park that knew the family. I asked how they were doing. I have to say I was not surprised by what they told me but was very sad and just wanted to scream tot he world "thank you Cesar Milan for destroying another dog and family. I was told that the dog had finally had enough and literally bit half the kids face off and he was in the hospital with major injuries to his face and neck. Ofcourse they put the dog down for this.
I am asking others that have posted comments that say using violence against dogs is the way to go i hope you think of this story when you use violence against your dog. This could have easily been prevented with compassionate positive training but this was not the case with this family and with many others out there that subscribe to the Dominace based theory that dogs have to be what we want them to be. Training dogs should be about choice for both humans and dogs. No one is saying you should ignore growling, not even in this article.
But if a member of your household says "I don't like that" do you smack that person and say "Never say that again! What we tend to do is help that household member find the skills to deal with it if they have to, or make sure the situation doesn't come up. And I've seen plenty of parents raise their children without smacks, "taps" or spankings, and the children learn limits, respect, discipline, and good behavior - mine own included. To the people who think that spanking is appropriate to raise kids, and that correction is the way to raise dogs, allow me to share a couple of stories.
First, I was stepmom to two great boys. It's inappropriate, however, to spank other people's kids. The thing that you are missing is that it isn't physical punishment, per se, that is important in changing behavior. The reason many people resort to spanking kids, or to chastising dogs physically, is that they never learned how to correctly manipulate consequences that were more benign, yet effective. The very FIRST time your kid tantrums in the grocery store, did you leave the cart and walk out, insuring that they would NOT get the candy bar, or be able to do whatever they were upset about?
If not, the child learned that there was no significant consequence, and would be more likely to try a tantrum again to get what it wanted. The FIRST time your dog pulled on the leash, did you stand like a tree and not move, or did you, the way most humans do, allow your arm to leave your side even a little bit? If you did, the dog learned that pulling will get it closer to the thing it was headed for. The shift back toward punishment training is appalling and unnecessary. Back for a second to my dog. I have had her since she was 9 weeks old.
She has never been choked, pinched, shocked, or even heard the word "No! She has never failed to come when called, will always "leave it" when asked, and proves to me every day that Cesar, the Monks, Brad Pattison, Fred Hassen, and all the others who say that you need those gimmicks tsst noises, pinning, scruffing, shock collars, prong collars, etc.
Right on Pat Miller - you are the voice of reason!! I still can't believe how many people believe in this dominance crap. It will be a great day when this information becomes common knowledge. I've seen plenty of parents smack their children's hands or give them a small tap on the cheek if they misbehave mine included. As the child grows that punishment gradually shifts to spankings and finally, when the child reaches a certain age it disappears. But suggesting that those early punishments weren't part of who the child became and how they learned to respect others at an early age is ridiculous.
Punishment is an integral part of raising a child. With a child, talking to them is often the preferred medium, but that is only after they learn to talk and can understand. With a dog, small and for anybody that says otherwise that IS what we're talking about physical corrections are a useful tool when first teaching the rules of the behavior which you expect. Additionally, suggesting a dog is incapable of being deliberately disobedient is as ridiculous as claiming that they are incapable of being deliberately obedient.
Spenser, in his narrative, says that Egfrid, king of the Northumbrians, and Edgar, king of Britain, had authority over Ireland, as may be read in the thirty-third page of his history: For Gildas, an ancient British author says, that the monuments, and consequently the history of the Britons, were destroyed by the Romans and by the Saxons.
Samuel Daniel, in the first part of his chronicle, agrees with this author on the same matter, and Rider, in the Latin dictionary he wrote, where he treats of this word Britannia; moreover he says, that it is not from Brutus Britain is called Britannia, and, if it were, that it should be Brutia or Brutica it should be called; and it were likely, if it had been from Brutus it was named, that Julius Caesar , Cornelius Tacitus , Diodorus Siculus, or Bede, or some other ancient author would have stated whence is this word Britannia; and since they knew not whence is the name of their own country, it was no wonder they should be in ignorance of many of the ancient concerns of Britain, and, therefore, it is not strange that Spenser likewise should be ignorant of them.
It is a marvellous thing Spenser took in hand to trace up p. Stanihurst asserts that Meath was the allotted portion of Slainghe, son of Deala, son of Loch; howbeit, that is not true for him. For, according to the Book of Invasion, there was of Meath, in Slainghes time, but one district of land only, which lies hard by Usna, and so till the time of Tuathal the Welcome: It is no marvel that Stanihurst should be without knowledge of this matter, since he had never seen the records of Ireland, from which he might have known her previous condition; and I fancy he did not make any great inquiry after them, since he is so ignorant about Irish affairs that he asserts Rosmactriuin to be in Munster, and that Meath is a province, or 'fifth' , in opposition even to Cambrensis, who does not reckon Meath as a province, and contrary to the Book of Invasion of Ireland.
As Stanihurst divides Ireland, he makes up one half from the race of the foreigners apart, and the other half of Ireland outside that jointly between Gall and Gael; and, moreover, he says that the least colonist among the race of the foreigners would not deem it fitting to form a matrimonial alliance with the noblest Gael in Ireland; thus, he says, in his chronicle: From the worthlessness of the testimony Stanihurst gives concerning the Irish, I consider that he should be rejected as a witness, because it was purposely at the instigation of a party who were hostile to the Irish that he wrote contemptuously of them; and, I think, that hatred of the Irish must have been the first dug he drew after his first going into England to study, and that it lay as a weight on his stomach till, having returned to Ireland, he ejected it by his writing.
I deem it no small token of the aversion he had for the Irish, that he finds fault with the colonists of the English province for that they did not banish the Gaelic from the country at the time when they routed the people who were dwelling in the land before them. He also says, however excellent the Gaelic language may be, that whoever smacks thereof would likewise savour of the ill manners of the folk whose language it is.
What is to be understood from this, but that Stanihurst had so great an hatred for the Irish, that he deemed it an evil that it was a Christian-like conquest the Gaill p. He finds fault also with those who play the harp in Ireland, and says, that they have no music in them. It is likely that he was not a judge of any sort of music, and especially of Irish music, he being unacquainted with the rules which appertain to it.
I think Stanihurst has not understood that it is thus Ireland was being a kingdom apart by herself like a little world, and that the nobles and the learned who were there long ago arranged to have p.
History researcher says that it's a mostly plagiarized guide to women's health.
Understand, reader, that Stanihurst was under three deficiencies for writing the history of Ireland, on account of which it is not fit to regard him as an historian. In the first p. Hanmer states in his chronicle that it was Bartholinus who was leader of the Gaels at their coming into Ireland, and it is to Partholon he calls Bartholinus here. However, according to the ancient record of Ireland, there were more than seven hundred years between the coming of Partholon and the p.
He says, likewise, that it is not Patrick, the apostle of Ireland he by whom the Catholic faith was first propagated in the country , who discovered the cave of Patricks purgatory in the island of purgatory, but another Patrick, an abbot, p. He says also, in the twenty-fifth page, that the person whom authors call Gillamar, king of Ireland, was son to the king of Thomond; howbeit, we deem the confutation we have already given this thing sufficient. I think that it is mockingly Hanmer inserts the battle of Ventry, deceitfully ridiculing the antiquaries, so that he might give the reader to understand that there is no validity in the history of Ireland, but like the battle of Ventry.
However, it is clear that the 'shanachies' do not, and did not, regard the battle of Ventry as a true history, but that they are assured that it is a poetical romance, which was invented as a pastime. The same answer I give to every other story he recounts concerning the Fianna. It is untrue, likewise, for him to say that the archbishop of Canterbury had jurisdiction over the clergy of Ireland from the time of Augustine the monk.
For it is certain that the archbishop of Canterbury had no jurisdiction over the clergy of Ireland until the time of William the Conqueror, and even then he had not jurisdiction, except over the clergy of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, and Limerick; and it is those clergy themselves who placed themselves under the control of the archbishop of Canterbury, through affection of kinship with, the people of Normandy, they being themselves of the remnant of the Danes usually called Normans, and also through dislike of the Irish;, and I do not think there was authority over those same clerics , but during the time of three archbishops who were in Canterbury, namely, Radulph, Lanfranc, and Anselm.
Therefore it is false for him to say that the archbishop of Canterbury had jurisdiction p. It is also false what he says that Murchadh Mac Cochlain was king of Ireland in the year of the Lord one thousand one hundred and sixty-six, for it is certain that it was Ruaidhri Ua Conchubhair who was at that time assuming the headship of Ireland, and that that time was four years before the Norman invasion. It is wherefore Hanmer thought to make a Briton of Comhghall, because that it was Comhghall founded the abbey of Beannchar in the Aird of Ulster, which was the mother of the abbeys of all Europe, and that he founded another abbey in England beside west Chester, which is called Bangor: Hanmer says that Fursa, Faolan, and Ultan were bastard children of a king of Leinster; although truly they were children of Aodh Beannan, king of Munster, according to the account of the saints of Ireland.
So also for many other of p. John Barckly, writing on Ireland, says these words: Whoever should determine to make a minute search for ill customs, or an investigation into the faults of inferior people, it would be easy to fill a book with them; for there is no country in the world without a rabble.
Let us consider the rough folk of Scotland, the rabble-rout of Great Britain, and the plebians of Flanders, the insignificant fellows of France p. Camden says that it is usual in Ireland for the priests with their children and concubines to dwell in the churches, and to be drinking and feasting in them: My answer to him here is, that the time the clergy of Ireland began that bad system was after the eighth Henry had changed his faith, and, even at that time and thenceforward, there did not practise that bad habit but such of them as followed their own lusts, and denied the lawful superiors who were set over them.
Camden himself concurs with this reply, where he says, speaking of Ireland: Camden says that the marriage bond is not strictly observed in Ireland, outside of the great towns: Howbeit, I say not that there be not some of them lustful, as there be in every country, those who are not obedient to their ecclesiastical superiors: For, if there were one or p.
Campion says, in the sixth chapter of the first book of his narrative, that the Irish are so credulous, in a manner, that they will regard as truth whatever their superior may say, however incredible, and he propounds a dull fabulous tale in support of this. That is to say, that there was a greedy prelate in Ireland who was capable of imposing on his people anything he might say, and, being straitened for money, and in hope that he might obtain assistance from them, he made known to them that, within a few years, Patrick and Peter had been contending with each other concerning an Irish 'galloglass' whom Patrick wanted to have admitted into the kingdom of Heaven, and that Peter became angry, and with that he struck Patrick on the head with the key of Heaven, so that he broke his pate, and Campion says that the prelate obtained a subsidy by this story.
My answer to him here is, that he is like a player who would be recounting jeering stories on a platform rather than an historian. Here is the testimony which Mr. Good, an English priest who was directing a school in Limerick, gives concerning the Irish in the year of the Lord fifteen hundred and sixty-six: Spenser says that it was from the Irish the Saxons first p. John Davies finds fault with the legal system of the country, because, as he thinks, there are three evil customs in it.
The first custom of these is that the tanist takes precedence of the son of the lord of the soil. The second custom is the division which was made on, the land between brethren, which the Galls call gavalkind , where a subdivision of the land is made between the kinsmen. The third custom is to take eric for the slaying of man. My answer in this matter is, that there is not a country in the world in which a change is not made in statutes and customs, according as the condition of the, country alters.
For, those customs were not sanctioned in the law of the land until the Irish had entered upon war and conflict between every two of their territories, so that they were usually slaying, harrying, and plundering each other: In the first place, they understood that the tanistry was suitable in order that there should be an efficient captain safeguarding the people of every district in Ireland, by defending their spoils and their goods for them.
For, if it p. Camden says it is a system among the Irish for their nobles to have lawgivers, physicians, antiquaries, poets, and musicians, and for endowments to be bestowed on them, and also their persons, lands, and property to enjoy immunity. Here is what he says, speaking of them: From these words of Camden it is clear that the order is good which the Irish had laid down for preserving these arts in Ireland from time to time.
For they assigned professional lands to each tribe of them, in order that they might have sustenance for themselves for the cultivation of the arts, that poverty should not turn them away; and, moreover, it is the most proficient individual of one tribe or the other who would obtain the professorship of the prince of the land which he held; and it used to result from that that every one, of them would make his best efforts to be well versed in his own art in hope of obtaining the professorship in preference, to the rest of his tribe: It was all the more possible to preserve these arts, as the nobility of Ireland had appointed that the land, the persons and the property of the ollavs should enjoy security and protection; for when the native Irish and the foreigners would be contending with each other, they should not cause trouble or annoyance to the professors, or to the pupils who were with them for instruction, hindering them from cultivating the arts.
It is read in Julius Caesar, in the sixth book of his history , that the 'druids' who came from the west of Europe to direct schools in France enjoyed a similar immunity, and I think that it was from Ireland they brought that custom with them. The refutation of these new foreign writers need not be pursued by us any further, although there are many things they insert in their histories which it would be possible to confute; because, as to the most part of what they write disparagingly of Ireland, they have no authority for writing it but repeating the tales of false witnesses who were hostile to Ireland, and ignorant of her history: Truly I think that he took no interest in investigating the antiquity of Ireland, but that the reason why he set about writing of Ireland is to give false testimony concerning her people during his own time, and their ancestors before them: Wherefore, I have hope that whatsoever impartial reader shall read every refutation which I make on Cambrensis, and on these new foreigners who follow his track, will trust the refutation I make on their lies rather than the story-telling they all do, for I am old, and a number of these were young; I have seen and I understand the chief historical books, and they did not see them, and if they had seen them, they would not have understood them.
It is not for hatred nor for love of any set of people beyond another, nor at the instigation of anyone, nor with the expectation of obtaining profit from it, that I set forth to write the history of Ireland, but because I deemed it was not fitting that a country so honourable as Ireland, and races so noble as those who have inhabited it, should go into oblivion without mention or narration being left of them: Whoever thinks it much I say for them, it is not to be considered that I should deliver judgment through favour,giving them much praise beyond what they have deserved, being myself of the old Galls as regards my origin.
If, indeed it be that the soil is commended by every historian who writes on Ireland, the race is dispraised by every new foreign historian who writes about it, and it is by that I was incited to write this history concerning the Irish, owing to the extent of the pity I felt at the manifest injustice which is done to them by those writers. If only indeed they had given their proper estimate to the Irish, I know not why p.
Understand, nevertheless, O reader, that I have made a change in the computation of the years which are stated to have been in the reign of a few of the pagan kings of Ireland apart from how it is set down in the Roll of Kings, and in the poems which have been composed on them; and the reason I have for that is, that I find them not agreeing with the enumeration of the epochs from Adam to the birth of Christ, according to any reputable foreign author.
And if any one be surprised at the discrepancy which exists among some of the authors of our ancient record as to the calculation of time from Adam to the birth of Christ, it is no cause for wonder, seeing that there are few of the standard authors of all Europe who agree together in the computation of the same time. Let us take as witness of this, the disagreement which these chief authors following make with each other: Here is the reckoning of the twelve men and three score on the four first ages of the world, together with the calculation which the wise learned men who have followed them in the direct track have given on the epochs from the creation of the world to the birth of Christ, dividing them into five parts, i.
And since these chief authorities agree not with each other in the computation of the time which is from Adam to the birth of Christ, it is no wonder that there should be discrepancy among some of the antiquaries of Ireland about the same calculation. However, I have not found among them a computation I rather think to be accurate than the numbering which some of them make four thousand, fifty and two years, for the time from Adam to the birth of Christ; and it is what I desire is to follow the standard author who comes nearest to this reckoning in the synchronism of the p.
If anyone should charge it upon me as a strange thing wherefore I give many verses as evidence for the history out of the old record, my answer to him is that my reason for that is, that the authors of the ancient record framed the entire historical compilation in poems, in order that thereby the less change should be made in the record; and also, that in this manner, it might the more be committed to memory by the students who were attending them: Therefore I have often said, in opposing the authors who have been refuted by us, that the ancient record was against them, because I considered that the record which was common and had been frequently revised, had more of authority, as we have said, than any one solitary author of those who are in the history.
Some people profess astonishment how it should be possible to trace to Adam the origin of any man. My answer to that is, that it was easy for the Gaels to keep p. Here is a vindication or defensive introduction to the groundwork of knowledge on Ireland, in which is a compendium of the history of Ireland briefly: The history is divided into two books: I think that there is not a reader, impartial and open to conviction, whom it concerns to make a scrutiny into the antiquity of Ireland, but such as will be pleased with what we have said in this introduction: Wherefore, I take leave of him, and let him excuse me, if it happen to me to go out of the way in anything I may say in this book, for if there be anything blameworthy in it, it is not from malice it is there, but from want of knowledge.
The first name which was given to Ireland was Inis na bhfiodhbhadh , that is to say Island of the woods; and the person who called that name to it was a warrior of the people of Nin, son of Bel, who came from him to spy out Ireland, and on his coming thither he found it to be all one forest-wood, except Magh-n-ealta alone. Three times, indeed, Ireland was one continuous wood, according to this old saying, which is in the ancient record: The fourth name was Eire , and it is said that wherefore that name is called to it, according to a certain author, is from this word Aeria, which was an old name for the island which is now called Creta or Candia ; and why that author thinks that is because the posterity of the Gaedheal glas dwelt in that island some space of time after Sru, son of Easru, son of Gaedheal, had been driven out of Egypt: The sixth name was Banbha, from a queen of the Tuatha p.
However, it has not roared from the time of Conchubhar forward, for the false images of the world were silenced when Christ was born. Here is a verse of quotation proving that it is from this stone Ireland is called Inis Fail, as Cionaoth the poet said: However, it is said that it is from a river that is in Spain which is called Iberus the name Hibernia is given to it. The eleventh name was Iuernia, according to Ptolemy, or Iuerna, according to Solinus, or Ierna according to Claudian, or Vernia according to Eustatius.
I think there is no meaning in the difference which is between these authors concerning this word Hibernia, but that they did not understand whence came the word itself; and, accordingly, that each one of them separately gave a guess from himself at it, so that from that came this variation on the word. The thirteenth name was Irlanda; and I think that the reason why that name was given to it is, because that p. The fourteenth name was Ogygia, according to Plutarch: The first division, it is Partholon who divided it into four parts among his four sons, whose names were Er, Orba, Fearon, and Feargna.
He gave the p. The second division, that is, the division of the children of Neimheadh. Three leaders of the children of Neimheadh divided Ireland among them into three parts: Simeon takes from the Boyne to Bealach Chonglais near to Cork. The third division here, i. The five sons of Deala, son of Loch, divided Ireland into five parts among them, and it is those are called the five provinces, and it is that is the division which is the most permanent that was ever made in Ireland, as we shall shortly hereafter relate.
Cambrensis agrees with this division in the book he wrote of an account of Ireland, where he says: However, this is not the division which was made between them, as we shall prove hereafter; but it is thus they divided Ireland: The fifth division, that is, the division of Cearmna and Sobhairce. Notwithstanding, however, that I have set down in order these seven divisions which were made of Ireland, according to the sequence of the invasions and of the epochs, I shall return to the usual division which is on Ireland from the time of the Firbolg apart, for it is it is the most permanently established, namely, five provinces to be made of it, as we have said.
The mysterious Voynich manuscript has finally been decoded [UPDATED]
And it is where the common centre of these five provinces was, at a pillar-stone which is in Uisneach, until that Tuathal Teachtmhar came, into the sovereignty, and that he took away a portion of each province as mensal land for every high-king who should be in Ireland: I shall now make the subdivision of Meath and of the provinces also; and I shall give the beginning of this division to Meath until its lands are described, because it is the mensal land of the king of Ireland, according to the Gael, and that it used to be free, without obligation, without control, without tax from any one in Ireland, except from the king of Ireland alone.
Four score and four hundred and six thousand 'seisreachs' of land in all Meath, according to this computation. It is why it is called Meath, because that it is from the neck of each province Tuathal Teachtmhar cut it. Or it is why Meath is called to it from Midhe, son of Brath, son of Deaghfhath chief druid of the children of Neimheadh; and it is by him was kindled the first fire in Ireland, after the coming of the children of Neimheadh; and hard by Uisneach he kindled it.
The children of Neimheadh bestowed on him the 'tuath' of land which was there, and from that druid it is called Midhe. And there was not, about that time, of land in Meath, but the one tuath aforesaid, until Tuathal Teachtmhar put a 'meidhe' or neck of every province with it, as we have said. Of the boundary of Meath with the provinces here, as Tuathal Teachtmhar ordained; i. He gave the western half to one of them, and the eastern half to the other man, so that that division adhered to it from that out: The province of Connacht from Limerick to Drobhaois: Six score acres in the 'seisreach': It is why it is called Connacht: Conn brought a great snow round about the province through art magic, so that from it was named Connacht, i.
Or it is why it is called Connacht, i. Conn-iochta, namely, the children of Conn, for iocht and 'clann' are equivalent: Eochaidh Feidhleach divides the province of Connacht in three parts among three. He gave to Fidheach, son of Fiach, of the men of the Craobh, from Fidhic to p. The province of Ulster from Drobhaois to Innbhear Cholptha, five and thirty 'triochas'; or six and thirty that are in it. Nine score and nine hundred 'bally-betaghs' in it. Three score nine hundred and twelve thousand 'seisreachs' of land in all this province.
Or it is wherefore they are called Ulaidh, from Ollamh Fodhla, son of Fiachaidh Fionnscothach, as this verse certifies: Ten ['ballys'] seven score and nine hundred 'bally-betaghs' that are in it. Six hundred and twelve thousand 'seisreachs' of land that are in east Munster. Thirty-five 'triochas' in it: Twelve thousand six hundred 'seisreachs' of land that are in west Munster.
And he left the chieftaincy of the two provinces with his own posterity from that out: It is the four royal seats aforesaid which were the chief mansions of residence for the kings of these two provinces till the time of Corc, son of Lughaidh, being in the sovereignty of Munster. For it is during his time Cashel became known first; and Siothdhruim was the name for the place which to-day is called the Rock of Cashel. The swineherd of the king of Muskerry of the gold,?
Duirdre his name and it is not wrong; And Ciolarn through the plain of rue? It is they who got knowledge of the place at first in Druim Fiodhbhuidhe. Druim Fiodhbhuidhe without fault with you, most dear to Corc of Cashel. The race of Oilioll Olom having acquired the two provinces of Munster, they divide them into five parts, which are called the five Munsters.
The fourth part South Munster, its length is from Sliabh Caoin to the sea southwards. According to Breasal Ua Treasaigh, when Munster was divided into its five parts, there were five tribes in each part, and five companies in a tribe, and five hundred effective men in the company. And if the strength of all Ireland at that time be estimated, the opinion is unsound of the people who thought that the Roman with a legion or with two legions would be able to bring Ireland under power of spear and sword to himself, [and] the Irish always being valiant men.
It is why these two provinces of Munster are called Mumha [i. For there are thirty-five 'triochas' in each province of these two provinces of Munster, and not that much in any other province in Ireland. For, allowing that thirty-six are reckoned in the province of Ulster, there were but thirty-three in it till the time of the provincial kings. Understand, O reader, that the acre of the measure of the Gael is greater, twice or thrice, than the acre of the division of the Gall now.
It is the situation which is on Ireland; Spain to the south-west side of it, France to the south-east side of it, Great Britain to the east side of it, Scotland to the north-east side, and the ocean to the north-west side and to the west side of it.
And in the form of an egg it is shaped, and its foot to Scotland, north-eastwards, its head to Spain, south-westwards; and, according to Maginus, writing on Ptolemy, it is four degrees and a half of the solar zone, which is called the Zodiac, that are in its breadth; and the same man says that it is sixteen hours and three-quarters that are in length in the longest day in the year in the side of Ireland which is farthest towards the south, and eighteen hours in the longest day at the northern side. Understand, O reader, that it is not through forgetfulness that I do not mention here the counties, nor the cities, nor the great towns of Ireland; but that Camden and these new chronicles give their description down clearly, and that this is not the place for inserting them, but at the beginning of the invasion the foreigners, by whom they were arranged.
In the beginning Adam was created, the sixth day of the age of the world: And, according to the Hebrews, it is the length from the creation of Adam to the deluge, one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years; it is therefore the ancient author recited this verse: Here is how another antiquary agrees with the same calculation: Yet another ancient author agrees with the same computation: Here is the age of every man from whom Noah sprang in the direct line: Here is the assurance of the ancient writer on the age of every patriarch of them, as is read in the poem which has for beginning: The life of Seth, that is known to me, Twelve years and nine hundreds; Five years nine hundred, it has been heard, Until death took away Enos; Ten years nine hundred, without reproach, The age of the son of Enos, Cainan: Nine hundred but five, with renown, The life of Malaleel of mighty deed; Two years, sixty, and nine hundred, To Jared before going to death; p.
When, indeed, God saw the race of Seth transgressing his own covenant, where he had commanded them not to make intermixture or alliance with the race of the wicked Cain, and that they had not observed that injunction, he sent a deluge to drown all the people, except Noah and his wife, whose name was Coba, and his three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth, and their three wives, Olla, Oliva, and Olivana: After the subsiding of the deluge, Noah divides the three parts of the world among his three sons, as the antiquary says: Twenty-seven sons had Sem, including Arphaxad, Asshur, and Persius; and it is from his seed came the Hebrews.
Thirty sons had Cham, and of those were Cus and Canaan. Many of the people of Asia, and the people of all Europe have descended from Japheth. The people of Scythia are of the posterity of Magog, son of Japheth, and especially the tribes who occupied Ireland after the deluge, before the sons of Mileadh, as we shall show in relating the invasions of Ireland after the deluge. Nevertheless, we shall set down here at first, concerning the invasions of Ireland before the deluge, according to some antiquaries, before we shall treat of the real occupation of it which was made after the deluge.
Some say that it is three daughters of the wicked Cain who inhabited it at first, so to certify that I have set down here a verse out of the poem which commences I found in the Saltair of Cashel: The book of Dromsneachta says that Banbha was the name of the first maiden who occupied Ireland before the deluge, and that Ireland is called Banbha from her. Thrice fifty women came there, and three men: Ladhra was the name of one of them, and it is from him Ard Ladhrann is named.
Two score years they were in the island, till a plague fell on them, so that they all died in one week. Ireland after that, was desert, empty, without anyone alive in it, for two hundred years till after that came the deluge. Some others say that it is three fishermen who were driven by a storm of wind from Spain unwillingly; and as the island pleased them that they returned for their wives to Spain; and having come back to Ireland again, the deluge was showered upon them at Tuaigh Innbhir, so that they were drowned: Capa, Laighne, and Luasad, their names.
It is about them the verse was sung: It is said, however, that it is Ceasair, daughter of Bioth, son of Noe, who came there before the deluge, so the verse was made about it: If one should wish, indeed, to obtain knowledge what brought her to Ireland: Fionntain asks the same, and Noe says he should not get it. Whereupon Bioth, Fionntain and the maiden Ceasair go to consult. A ship was fitted, accordingly, by them, and they went to sea. Those who went into it were three men, namely, Bioth, Fionntain, and Ladhra: And that was forty days before the deluge, as is said: Another poet agrees with the same thing, where he says in this verse: Ceasair, and her ships lading, came to land there; namely, fifty women and three men, i.
Bioth and Fionntain, and Ladhra, as we have said. It was that Ladhra, as we have said, who was the first dead person of Ireland, according to the folk who say that no people at all occupied Ireland before the deluge, but Ceasair and those who came with her. And from him is named Ard Ladhrann. From Ceasair is named Carn Ceasrach in Connacht. They proceed thence to Bun Suaimhne, i. Cumar na dtri-n-uisge, where is the junction of Suir and Nore and Barrow.
There they share their fifty women in three parts among them. Fionntain took Ceasair with him, and seventeen women along with her. Bioth took Barrann with him, and seventeen other women in her company: Balbha and her sixteen women return to Ceasair again. Ceasair sends tidings to Bioth. Bioth comes to acquaint Fionntain, so that they shared those sixteen women equally between them. Bioth brought his own share of them with him to Sliabh Beatha in the north of Ireland, and it was p.
Know, O reader, that it is not as genuine history I set down this occupation, nor any occupation of which we have treated up to this; but because I have found them written in old books. And, moreover, I do not understand how the antiquaries obtained tidings of the people whom they assert to have come into Ireland before the deluge, except it be the aerial demons gave them to them, who were their fairy lovers during the time of their being pagans; or unless it be on flags of stones they found them graven after the subsiding of the deluge, if the story be true: Whence it is understood that it is not the common opinion of all the antiquaries, any of these to have lived after the deluge: And it is not true for Hanmer in his chronicle, where he says that the Gaels hold in great esteem the stories of Fionntain, whom he himself calls Roanus, where they say that he was hidden from the deluge, and that he lived after it more than two thousand years till he met with Patrick, and that he received baptism from him, and that he made known to him much of antiquity, and that he died at the end of a year after the coming of Patrick into Ireland, and that he was buried beside Loch Ribh in Urmhumha, where there is a church named or dedicated in his name, and, moreover, that he is named among the saints of Ireland.
Nevertheless, it is clear that an antiquary never said, and also that he never left written this thing Dr. For there are three persons being mentioned here in the guise of one man, p. However, it was not long the stay he made in it. He brought with him the full of his fist of its grass, He goes back to tell the news: That is the clear complete possession, Shortest in duration which occupied Ireland. From middle Greece, i. It is the way which he took was through the Torrian Sea to Sicily, and with the right hand towards Spain till he reached Ireland.
Two months and a half he was on the sea till he took harbour in Innbhear Sceine, in the western part of Munster, the fourteenth day in the month May.
Intune is widely available, rarely used
It is of it this verse was recited [as the poet says]: In just a few weeks, the number of times per day I thought about sex decreased tremendously. After a few weeks of a raw diet, he said, the intake of toxins had fallen to the point where ejaculation was no longer necessary. In a similar way some raw-foodists regard menstruation as a mechanism for removing toxins and therefore regard its cessation as a sign of the health of their diets. Perhaps it is unnecessary to note that medical science finds no support for the idea that toxins are removed by seminal emissions or menstruation.
Reduced reproductive function means that in our evolutionary past, raw-foodism would have been much less successful than the habit of eating cooked food. A rate of infertility greater than 50 percent, such as was found in the Giessen Raw Food study, would be devastating in a natural population of foragers. And since the Giessen study was of urban people enjoying a life of middle-class ease, such dramatic effects on reproduction are mild compared to what would have happened if these German raw-foodists had been searching for food in the wild.
Most raw-foodists prepare their food elaborately in ways that increase their energy value. Techniques include mild heating, blending, grinding, and sprouting. Any system of reducing the size of food particles, such as grinding and crushing, leads to predictable increases in energy gain. The German raw-foodists also had the advantage of eating oils produced commercially by industrial processing.
Koebnick's team found that about 30 percent of the subjects' calories came fi-om these lipids, a valuable energy source that would not have been available to hunter-gatherers. Yet even with all these helpful conditions, at least half the German women eating raw foods obtained so little energy fi-om their diet, they were physiologically unable to have babies. The Giessen subjects had further advantages. There is no indication that they engaged in much exercise, unlike women in foraging populations. Anthropologist Elizabeth Marshall Thomas describes bushman women in Africa's Kalahari Desert returning to camp at the end of their ordinary long day thoroughly exhausted, because for much of the day they have been squatting and digging and walking, and hefting large loads of food, wood, and children.
Even in populations that cook, these natural activity levels are high enough to interfere with reproductive fimction. If we imagine the lives of our German raw-foodists made more difficult by a daily regime of foraging for food in the wild, their rate of energy expenditure would surely be substantially increased. As a result, many more than 50 percent of the women would be incapable of pregnancy. Then add that the subjects of the Giessen Raw Food study obtained their diets from supermarkets.
Their foods were the typical products of modem farming — fruits, seeds, and vegetables all selected to be as delicious as possible. Agricultural inprovements have rendered fruits in a supermarket, such as apples, bananas, and strawberries, far higher in quality than their wild ancestors. In our laboratory at Harvard, nutritional biochemist NancyLou Conklin-Brittain finds that carrots contain as much sugar as the average wild fruit eaten by a chimpanzee in Kibale National Park in Uganda. But even carrots are better quality than a typical wild tropical fruit, because they have less fiber and fewer toxic compounds.
If the German raw-foodists had been eating wild foods, their energy balance and reproductive performance would have been much lower than found by Koebnick's team. Supermarkets offer a year-round supply of the choicest foods, so the German raw-foodists had no seasonal shortages.
Foragers, by contrast, cannot escape the tough times when sweet finits, honey, or game meat become no more than occasional luxuries rather than daily pleasures. Even subsistence foods can then be hard to find. In deserts like the Kalahari the result can be difficult indeed, but periodic shortages of energy like this are routine in all living hunter-gatherers, just as they are in rain- forest chinpanzees. Judging from studies of bones and teeth, which show in their fine structure the marks of nutritional stress, energy shortages were also universal in archaeological populations. Until the development of agriculture, it was the human fate to suffer regular periods of hunger — typically, it seems, for several weeks a year — even though they ate their food cooked.
Raw-foodism seems to be an increasingly popular habit, but if raw diets are so challenging, why do people like them? Raw-foodists are very enthusiastic about the health benefits, as described in books with such titles as Self Healing Power! They report a sense of well-being, better physical fimctioning, less bodily pain, more vitality, and inproved emotional and social performance.
There are claims of reductions in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia symptoms, less dental erosion, and inproved antioxidant intake. Mostly such assertions have not been scientifically tested, but researchers have found inproved serum cholesterol and triglyceride values. Raw-foodists offer philosophical reasons too. It always will be. Cooked food is poison. To scientists the idea that food enzymes contribute to digestion or cellular fimction in our bodies is nonsense because these molecules are themselves digested in our stomachs and small intestines.
The "living enzyme" idea also ignores that even if food enzymes survived our digestive systems, their own specific metabolic fimctions are too specialized to allow them to do anything usefijl in our bodies. But while the idea of a "life force" in "living foods" is not accepted by physiologists, it persuades many raw-foodists to persist in their diet.
By permitting some use of low heat, Howell's philosophy also enables the "raw" food to be somewhat more palatable, easier to prepare, and more digestible than a truly unheated food would be. Other raw-foodists are guided by moral principles. In the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley argued that meat eating was an appalling habit responsible for many of society's ills and was obviously unnatural, given that humans lack claws, have blunt teeth, and dislike raw meat.
Since he concluded that the invention of cooking was responsible for meat eating, and hence for such problems as "tyranny, superstition, commerce, and inequality," he decided that humans were better off without cooking. Instinctotherapists, a minority group among raw-foodists, believe that because we are closely related to apes we should model our eating behavior on theirs. They were lean and healthy.
They were clear about their preference, which was to eat all their food not merely raw but without any preparation at all. They politely declined a salad because its ingredients had been chopped and mixed. The natural way, they explained, is to do what chinpanzees do. Just as those apes find only one kind of fiuit when eating in a given tree, so we should eat only one kind of food in any meal. To illustrate their habit, Devivo, Spors, and a fi-iend had brought a basket containing a selection of organic foods. They sniffed at several fi"uits, one at a time, to allow their bodies to decide what would suit them best "by instinct," they said.
One chose apples; another chose a pineapple. Each ate only his or her first choice. The third decided on a protein-rich food. He had brought fi-ozen buffalo steaks and pieces of buffalo femur. Today was a marrow day. The femur chunks were the size of golf balls. Inside each was a cold pink mush that looked like strawberry ice cream He cleaned out several pieces of bone with a teaspoon.
However strange it may be to think that we should eat to conserve living enzymes, or to reduce violence, or in the manner of apes, such concepts are helpful to raw-foodists because they bolster a strong commitment to principle. Eating raw intrudes into social life, demands a lot of time in the kitchen, and requires a strong will to resist the thought of cooked food. There are other health risks too. Recent studies indicate that low bone mass in the backs and hips of raw-foodists was caused by their raw diet. Raw diets are also associated with low levels of vitamin B12, low levels of HDL cholesterol the "good" cholesterol , and elevated levels of homocysteine a suspected risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
In theory the precarious energy budgets e? Maybe modem raw-foodists are so far removed from nutritional wisdom that they are just not choosing the right combination of foods. What about reliance on raw food in nonindustrialized cultures? This has often been reported. Four thousand years ago Sumerians in the Third Dynasty of Ur said that the bedouin of the western desert ate their food raw.
As late as , pygmies in Uganda's Ruwenzori Mountains were reported in a national Ugandan newspaper to be living off raw food. Writers from Plutarch to colonial sailors of the nineteenth century made similar claims, but all have proved illusory, often colored by a racist tinge.
In anthropologist Edward Tylor examined all such accounts and found no evidence of any being real. He concluded that cooking was practiced by every known human society. Similarly, all around the world are societies that tell of their ancestors having lived without fire. When anthropologist James Frazer examined reports of prehistoric firelessness, he found them equally full of fantasy, such as fire being brought by a cockatoo or being tamed after it was discovered in a woman's genitals.
The control of fire and the practice of cooking are human universals. Still, in theory, societies could exist where cooked food is only a small part of the diet. The quirky nutritionist Howell thought so. In the s he stated as part of his theory of the benefits of raw foods that the fraditional Inuit or Eskimo diet was dominated by raw foods.
His claim about the Inuit eating most of their food raw has been an inportant main-stay of the raw-foodist movement ever since. But again it has proved exaggerated. The most detailed studies of un- Westernized Inuit diets were by Mlhjalmur Stefansson during a series of expeditions to the Copper Inuit beginning in Their diet was virtually plant- free, dominated by seal and caribou meat, supplemented by large salmonlike fish and occasional whale meat.
- Imaging in Treatment Planning for Sinonasal Diseases (Medical Radiology)?
- What is Microsoft’s Intune – and how well does the UEM tool really work? - Computerworld.
- How UEM (and Intune) fits into the EMM market!
Stefansson found that cooking was the nightly norm Every wife was e? In winter a husband came home at a predictably early time and would find the smell of boiling seal meat and steaming broth as soon as he entered the igloo. The long days of summer made the time of a husband's return home less predictable, so wives often went to bed before he came back.
Her husband will probably beat her, or stamp her in the snow, and may even end by throwing her household goods after her and bidding her begone forever from his house. In summer women made small twig fires, whereas in winter they cooked over burning seal oil or blubber in stone pots. After the snow had melted to water, the process of boiling meat took a fiirther hour. Despite the difficulties, the meat was well cooked.
The slow cooking and shortage of fiiel meant it was hard for men to cook when they were out on the hunt, so during the day they would sometimes eat fresh fish raw, either the flesh or in the case of large fish, just the intestines. Hunters also made caches of excess fish, which they could recover later for a cold meal. However, even though these foods were uncooked they were affected by being stored: Most people liked the sfrong taste.
Jenness saw "a man take a bone from rotten caribou-meat cached more than a year before, crack it open and eat the marrow with evident relish although it swarmed with maggots. Blubber was often preferred raw. It was soft and could be spread easily over meat like butter. Other meats eaten raw were also soft, such as seal livers and kidneys and caribou livers.
Occasionally there was evidence of more exotic tastes. Stefansson's hosts were horrified to hear of a distant group, the Puiplirmiut, who supposedly collected frozen deer droppings off the snow and ate them like berries. They said that was a truly repulsive habit, and anyway it was a waste of a good dropping. Those pellets were a fine food, they said, when boiled and used to thicken blood soup.
The only vegetable food that was regularly eaten raw was the lichen eaten by caribou, which the Copper Inuit ate when the lichen was partially digested. In summer they would take it directly from the rumen and eat it while cutting up the carcass. As the cold closed in during the fall, they were more likely to allow the full stomach to freeze intact with the lichens inside.
They would then cut it into slices for a frozen treat. The Inuit probably ate more raw animal products than other societies, but like every culture the main meal of the day was taken in the evening, and it was cooked. In a scene captured by anthropologist Jiro Tanaka, the! Kung of the Kalahari illustrate the typical pattern for hunter- gatherers of a light breakfast and snacks during the day, followed by an evening meal.
The hunters return to camp in the semidarkness, and each family eats supper around the fire after darkness has fallen. Only in the evening does the whole family gather to eat a solid meal, and indeed people consume the greater part of their daily food then. The only exception is after a big kill, when a large quantity of meat has been brought back to camp: In , anthropologist Jennifer Isaacs described which foods Australian aborigines ate raw or cooked.
Although foragers sometimes lit fires in the bush to cook quick meals such as mud crabs a particular favorite , the majority of animal items were brought back to canp to be cooked. A few items, such as a species of mangrove worm, were always eaten raw, and these were not brought back to camp. Isaacs reported three types of food that were eaten sometimes raw and sometimes cooked — turtle eggs, oysters, and witchetty grubs — and in each case they were eaten raw by people foraging far from canp but were cooked if eaten in camp. Most fruits are preferred raw and are eaten in the bush, whereas roots, seeds, and nuts are brought back to camp to be cooked.
Everywhere we look, home cooking is the norm For most foods, eating raw appears to be a poor alternative demanded by circumstance. What happens to people who are forced to eat raw diets in wild habitats, such as lost explorers, castaways, or isolated adventurers simply trying to survive despite losing their ability to cook? This category of people offers a third test of how well humans can utilize raw food.
You might think that when humans are forced to eat raw, they would grumble at the loss of flavor but nevertheless be fine. However, I have not been able to find any reports of people living long term on raw wild food. The longest case that I found of survival on raw animal foods lasted only a few weeks. In a British sailor, Dougal Robertson, and his family lost their boat to killer whales in the Pacific and were confined to a dinghy for thirty-eight days. They began with a few cookies, oranges, and glucose candies. By the seventh day they were forced to eat what they could catch on a line.
They spent their last thirty-one days at sea mostly eating raw turtle meat, turtle eggs, and fish. There were occasional treats, such as chewing the liver and heart of a shark, but their staple was a "soup" of dried turtle in a mix of rainwater, meat juice, and eggs. They caught more food than they could eat, and they survived in good cheer.
Indeed, their diet suited them so well that by the end of their ordeal, Robertson reported that their physical condition was actually better than when they had begun their journey. Sores that had been present when their boat was sunk had healed, and their bodies were functioning effectively. The only problem was that nine-year-old Neil, despite being given extra portions of bone marrow, was disturbingly thin. And all were hungry. They "enjoyed the flavour of the raw food as only starving people can. By the twenty-fourth day, Robertson recorded, "our daydreams had switched from ice cream and fruit to hot stews, porridge, steak and kidney puddings, hotpots and casseroles.
The dishes steamed fragrantly in our imaginations and as we described their smallest details to each other we almost tasted the succulent gravies as we chewed our meager rations. Their resourcefrilness enabled them to emerge from a terrifying situation in fine condition. They may have been hungry and thinner, but they were apparently not starving to the point of danger. Their experience shows that with abundant food, people can survive well on a raw animal-based diet for at least a month.
But people sometimes survive with no food at all for a month, provided they have water. The lack of any evidence for longer-term survival on raw wild food suggests that even in extremis, people need their food cooked. The case that comes closest to long-term survival on raw wild food is that of Helena Valero.
What is Microsoft’s Intune – and how well does the UEM tool really work?
This exceptional woman was a Brazilian of European descent who reportedly survived in a remote forest for some seven months in the s. She knew the jungle well because at about age twelve she had been kidnapped by Yanomamo Indians. She became a member of their tribe but her e? One day, after her life was threatened, she escaped her captors. She took a firebrand wrapped in leaves so she could cook, but after a few days a heavy rain drenched it.
Unwilling to return to Yanomamo life, she wandered alone, fireless and increasingly hungry, until she found an abandoned banana plantation. Valero was lucky because villagers had planted the trees in a dense grove. There, she said, she survived by eating raw bananas. She counted the seven months by the passage of the moon.
Valero did not record her condition at the end of her exile, but she was eventually found by Yanomamo. She returned to the comforts of village life, married twice, had four children, and eventually feared for her children's lives and escaped again at about age thirty-five.
She never found happiness in Brazilian society. Valero 's tale could not be verified, but if anyone were to survive on raw food in the wild, it makes sense that they would have the fortune to have an abundant supply of a high-calorie domesticated fruit. Bananas are often touted as nature's most perfect food.
In more ordinary circumstances starvation is a rapid threat when eating raw in the wild. Anthropologist Allan Holmberg was at a remote mission station in Bolivia in the s when a group of seven Siriono hunter-gatherers arrived from the forest. They were so hungry and emaciated that, as one of them told Holmberg, if they had not arrived when they did they might have died. This group had been part of a band that had thrived in the rain forest until they were taken to a government school.
They had been so resentfijl of their forced removal that they had escaped with the aim of returning to their ancestral homeland. After that the little group was reduced to a raw diet of wild plants until they were rescued after three weeks. They walked less than five miles per day and even though they knew the forest intimately and found raw plants to eat, they still could not obtain sufficient energy from their diets. Two of the men had bows and there was lots of game, so they might have done better but for a taboo on raw meat, which they claimed not to eat under any conditions.
But even hunter-gatherers often live well with little meat for weeks on end, as long as they cook. In Robert Burke and William Wills led an ill-fated expedition from southern to northern Australia. When they ran out of food they asked the local Yandruwandha aborigines for help. The Yandruwandha were living on the abundant nardoo plant. They pounded nardoo seeds into a bitter flour, washed it, and then cooked it. The explorers liked the flour but apparentiy omitted the washing and cooking.
The result was disaster. However, they had a companion who survived and joined the Yandruwandha, ate lots of cooked nardoo flour, and was in excellent condition when he was rescued ten weeks later. The cases I have listed are exceptional because it is rare for people to even attenpt to survive on raw food in the wild. When Thor Heyerdahl took a primitive raft across the Pacific to test his theories about prehistoric migrations, he had a primus stove with him and one of his crew was a cook.
When an airplane crashed in the Chilean Andes in and stranded twenty-seven people for seventy-one days, the survivors resorted to cannibalism and cooked the meat. When the whale ship Essex went down in the Pacific and its sailors cannibalized one another in small lifeboats, they cooked on stone- bottomed fires. Several Japanese soldiers lived alone in the jungle after World War H. One of them, Shoichi Yokio, stayed in Guam until , surviving on fiuits, snails, eels, and rats. But he did not eat them raw. Life in his underground cave depended on his smoke-blackened pots, just as it did for all such holdouts.
Perhaps the most famous real-life castaway was Alexander Selkirk, the model for Robinson Crusoe. In , after quarrelling with the captain of his ship and rashly demanding to be put ashore, Selkirk began more than four years alone on the island of Mas a Tierra, kilometers miles west of Chile in the Pacific Ocean.
He had his Bible, a musket with a pound of powder, some mathematical instruments, a hatchet, a knife, and a few carpenter's tools. He ended up very wild, dancing with his tamed goats and cats and barely recognizable as human. But when his gunpowder was nearly spent, "he got fire by rubbing two sticks of Piemento Wood together upon his knee.
Raw-foodists, it is clear, do not fare well. They thrive only in rich modem environments where they depend on eating exceptionally high-quality foods. Animals do not have the same constraints: The suspicion pronpted by the shortcomings of the Evo Diet is correct, and the inplication is clear: We are not like other animals. In most circumstances, need cooked food. CHAPTER 2 The Cook's Body "Domestication of fire probably reacted on man's physical development as well as on his culture, for it would have reduced some selective pressures and increased others.
As cooked food replaced a diet consisting entirely of raw meat and fresh vegetable matter, the whole pattern of mastication, digestion, and nutrition was altered. What can account for the change? Why, given all the obvious advantages of being able to extract large amounts of energy from raw food, have humans lost this ancient ability? In theory an evolutionary mishap might be responsible for this failure of our biology: But a failure of evolutionary adaptation is an unlikely explanation for something as widespread and labor-intensive as cooking.
Natural selection mostly generates exquisitely successfiil designs, particularly for features that are as inportant and in such regular use as our intestinal systems. We can expect to find a conpensatory benefit that has been made possible by our inability to utilize raw food effectively.
Evolutionary trade-offs are common. Conpared to chinpanzees, we climb badly but we walk well. Our awkwardness in trees is due partly to our having long legs and flat feet, but those same legs and feet enable us to walk more efficiently than other apes. In a similar way, our limited effectiveness at digesting raw food is due to our having relatively small digestive systems conpared to those of our cousin apes.
But the reduced size of our digestive systems, it seems, enables us to process cooked food with exceptional proficiency. We can think of cooked food offering two kinds of advantage, depending on whether species have adapted to a cooked diet. Spontaneous benefits are experienced by almost any species, regardless of its evolutionary history, because cooked food is easier to digest than raw food. Domestic animals such as calves, lambs, and piglets grow faster when their food is cooked, and cows produce more fat in their milk and more milk per day when eating cooked rather than raw seeds.
A similar effect appears in fish farms. Salmon grow better on a diet of cooked rather than raw fishmeal. No wonder farmers like to give cooked mash or swill to their livestock. Cooked food promotes efficient growth. The spontaneous benefits of cooked food explain why domesticated pets easily become fat: Owners of obese pets who recognize this connection and see cooked food as a health threat sometimes choose to feed raw food to their beloved ones to help them lose weight.
Biologically Appropriate Raw Food, or BARF, is a special diet advertised as being beneficial for dogs for the same reason that raw-foodists advocate raw diets for humans: And if you think about it, not one animal on earth is adapted by evolution to eat a cooked food diet. This means the BARF diet is exactly what we should be feeding our pets. Even insects appear to get the spontaneous benefits of cooked food. Researchers rearing agricultural pests in large numbers to find out how to control them give each insect species its own particular recipe of cooked food.
Larvae of the diamondback moth thrive on a toasted mix of wheat germ, casein, bean meal, and cabbage flour. Black vine weevils do best on thoroughly boiled and blended lima beans. Whether domestic or wild, mammal or insect, useful or pest, animals adapted to raw diets tend to fare better on cooked food. In humans, because we have adapted to cooked food, its spontaneous advantages are conplemented by evolutionary benefits. The evolutionary benefits stem fi-om the fact that digestion is a costly process that can account for a high proportion of an individual's energy budget — often as much as locomotion does.
After our ancestors started eating cooked food every day, natural selection favored those with small guts, because they were able to digest their food well, but at a lower cost than before. The result was increased energetic efficiency. Evolutionary benefits of adapting to cooked food are evident from comparing human digestive systems with those of chimpanzees and other apes. The main differences all involve humans having relatively small features. We have small mouths, weak jaws, small teeth, small stomachs, small colons, and small guts overall.
In the past, the unusual size of these body parts has mostly been attributed to the evolutionary effects of our eating meat, but the design of the human digestive system is better explained as an adaptation to eating cooked food than it is to eating raw meat. Mick Jagger's biggest yawn is nothing conpared to a chinpanzee's. Given that the mouth is the entry to the gut, humans have an astonishingly tiny opening for such a large species. All great apes have a prominent snout and a wide grin: If a playfiil chinpanzee ever kisses you, you will never forget this point.
To find a primate with as relatively small an aperture as that of humans, you have to go to a diminutive species, such as a squirrel monkey, weighing less than 1. In addition to having a small gape, our mouths have a relatively small volume — about the same size as chinpanzee mouths, even though we weigh some 50 percent more than they do. Zoologists often try to capture the essence of our species with such phrases as the naked, bipedal, or big-brained ape. They could equally well call us the small-mouthed ape. The difference in mouth size is even more obvious when we take the lips into account.
The amount of food a chinpanzee can hold in its mouth far exceeds what humans can do because, in addition to their wide gape and big mouths, chinpanzees have enormous and very muscular lips. When eating juicy foods like fruits or meat, chinpanzees use their lips to hold a large wad of food in the outer part of their mouths and squeeze it hard against their teeth, which they may do repeatedly for many minutes before swallowing. The strong lips are probably an adaptation for eating fruits, because fruit bats have similarly large and muscular lips that they use in the same way to squeeze fruit wads against their teeth.
Humans have relatively tiny lips, appropriate for a small amount of food in the mouth at one time. Our second digestive specialization is having weaker jaws. You can feel for yourself that our chewing muscles, the temporalis and masseter, are small. In nonhuman apes these muscles often reach all the way from the jaw to the top of the skull, where they sometimes attach to a ridge of bone called the sagittal crest, whose only fimction is to accommodate the jaw muscles.
In humans, by contrast, our jaw muscles normally reach barely halfway up the side of our heads. If you clench and unclench your teeth and feel the side of your head, you have a good chance of being able to prove to yourself that you are not a gorilla: We also have diminutive muscle fibers in our jaws, one-eighth the size of those in macaques. The cause of our weak jaws is a human-specific mutation in a gene responsible for producing the muscle protein myosin. Sometime around two and a half million years ago this gene, called MYH16, is thought to have spread throughout our ancestors and left our lineage with muscles that have subsequently been uniquely weak.
Our small, weak jaw muscles are not adapted for chewing tough raw food, but they work well for soft, cooked food. Human chewing teeth, or molars, also are small — the smallest of any primate species in relation to body size. Again, the predictable physical changes in food that are associated with cooking account readily for our weak chewing and small teeth. Even without genetic evolution, animals reared experimentally on soft diets develop smaller jaws and teeth. The reduction in tooth size produces a well-adapted system physical anthropologist Peter Lucas has calculated that the size of a tooth needed to make a crack in a cooked potato is 56 percent to 82 percent smaller than needed for a raw potato.
Continuing farther into the body, our stomachs again are comparatively small. In humans the surface area of the stomach is less than one-third the size expected for a typical mammal of our body weight, and smaller than in 97 percent of other primates. The high caloric density of cooked food suggests that our stomachs can afford to be small. Great apes eat perhaps twice as much by weight per day as we do because their foods are packed with indigestible fiber around 30 percent by weight, compared to 5 percent to 10 percent or less in human diets. Thanks to the high caloric density of cooked food, we have modest needs that are adequately served by our small stomachs.
Below the stomach, the human small intestine is only a little smaller than expected from the size of our bodies, reflecting that this organ is the main site of digestion and absorption, and humans have the same basal metabolic rate as other primates in relation to body weight. But the large intestine, or colon, is less than 60 percent of the mass that would be expected for a primate of our body weight.
The colon is where our intestinal flora ferment plant fiber, producing fatty acids that are absorbed into the body and used for energy. That the colon is relatively small in humans means we cannot retain as much fiber as the great apes can and therefore cannot utilize plant fiber as effectively for food.
But that matters little. The high caloric density of cooked food means that normally we do not need the large fermenting potential that apes rely on. Finally, the volume of the entire human gut, conprising stomach, small intestine, and large intestine, is also relatively small, less than in any other primate measured so far.
The weight of our guts is estimated at about 60 percent of what is e? Our small mouths, teeth, and guts fit well with the softness, high caloric density, low fiber content, and high digestibility of cooked food. The reduction increases efficiency and saves us from wasting unnecessary metabolic costs on features whose only purpose would be to allow us to digest large amounts of high- fiber food. Mouths and teeth do not need to be large to chew soft, high-density food, and a reduction in the size of jaw muscles may help us produce the low forces appropriate to eating a cooked diet.
The smaller scale may reduce tooth damage and subsequent disease. In the case of intestines, physical anthropologists Leslie Aiello and Peter Wheeler reported that compared to that of great apes, the reduction in human gut size saves humans at least 10 percent of daily energy expenditure: The suite of changes in the human digestive system makes sense. Could the tight fit between the design of our digestive systems and the nature of cooked food be deceptive?
But actually spectacles have been designed to fit on noses, rather than the other way around. Following Pangloss 's reasoning, in theory cooked food might similarly be well suited for a human gut that had been adapted for another kind of diet. Meat is the obvious possibility. The "Man-the-Hunter" hypothesis assumes our ancestors were originally plant eaters, with the last species to eat relatively little meat being the australopithecine that gave rise to habilines more than two million years ago.
Much of the austral opithecines' plant food would have had the low caloric density and high fiber concentration seen in great-ape diets. We should therefore expect those ancient apes to have had large digestive systems, as chimpanzees and gorillas do today. In support of this idea, fossils show that australopithecines had broad hips and a rib cage that was flared outward toward the waist. Both features indicate the presence of capacious guts, held by the rib cage and supported by the pelvis. According to the meat-eating scenario, as increased amounts of meat were eaten by habilines and their descendants, modifications must have evolved in the mouth and digestive system Physical anthropologist Peter Ungar reported in that the molars chewing teeth of very early humans were somewhat sharper than those of their australopithecine ancestors.
They might therefore have been adapted to eating tough foods, including raw meat. Carnivores such as dogs, and probably wolves and hyenas, also tend to have small guts compared to those of great apes, including small colons that are efficient for the high caloric density and low fiber density of a meat diet. But despite these hints of humans being designed for meat eating, our mouths, teeth, and jaws are clearly not well adapted to eating meat unless it has been cooked.
Raw wild meat from game animals is tough, which is partly why cooking is so inportant. Advocates of the meat-eating hypothesis have themselves noted that humans differ from carnivores by our having small mouths, weak jaws, and small teeth that cannot easily shear flesh. The way food moves through our bodies conpounds the problem.
In carnivores, meat spends a long time in the stomach, allowing intense muscular contractions of the stomach walls to reduce raw meat to small particles that can be digested rapidly. Dogs tend to keep food in the stomach for two to four hours, and cats for five to six hours, before passing the food quickly through the small intestine.
By contrast, humans resemble other primates in keeping food in our stomachs for a short time, generally one to two hours, and then passing it slowly through the small intestine.
Related [SOLVED] Dog Breeding For Beginners Guide [Newly Revised Book]
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved