Learning Primitive Skills
by Jason GodeskySo, at this point, I think we’ve visited and revisited the philosophical and academic grounds for primitivism enough that most of you who remain are wondering, “now what?” Learning primitive skills is a matter of gaining self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is the key to all freedom. You can never be free so long as you are dependent on someone else, and whatever it is you do depend on is what your fate is staked to. If you are dependent on civilization, then the end of that civilization is your own doom, as well. If you depend on the natural world, then you will only die off with the end of all other multicellular life on the planet. Self-sufficiency–primitive skills–is always the key to freedom, but in a time of collapse such as ours, it’s also the key to survival.
Of course, many of us see this as a daunting task. How can we ever acquire such skills in time? I’ve argued that this isn’t something to be overly worried about, but that suggestion has met a good deal of opposition, so allow me to expand on that position.
First, a disclaimer. I have lived in the city of Pittsburgh since 1987, and before then, Virginian suburbia. I’ve never lived in the woods. I’ve gone camping–I know the basics of recognizing basic sounds of the forest, how to keep a fire going, etc.–but I’m no wilderness expert. I consider myself very, very green; I consider myself just “starting out” when it comes to primitive skills. But I’ve talked to many people who are much more advanced than me, and I’ve noticed some curious patterns arising. They’ve set my own expectations, and I think that it’s something worth sharing with others who are starting down the same road we’re starting on.
This is our plan. About an hour or so east of Pittsburgh is Raccoon Creek State Park, a significant regional watershed. The Friends of Raccoon Creek pay for a whole series of classes and workshops in primitive skills. Last year, we attended the wild edibles course. We learned a few plants, but more importantly, we learned how to use field guides to learn new plants. The number of plants I know has increased significantly, but we left even that first weekend with much more than we arrived with. Soon, we’ll be joining them to learn how to make maple syrup right out of the tree–and we’re hoping by October to have graduated the “Advanced Primitive Skills” course. I’m under no illusions about what that means, but any standard that can call my primitive skills “advanced” must be at least up to Boy Scout level. That in itself amazes me as a very swift progression.
Of course, just as important as learning primitive skills is practicing them. So, this year will see us nearly every weekend in one of the nearby woods. We’ll be learning to fish, and learning to hunt. The state’s free hunting and trapping education course, and the bow-hunting course, will be invaluable for that.
Once we’ve gotten that far, it will be time to take a look at a serious primitive skills school, and spending a year in the woods non-stop, learning how to survival primitively.
Now, I’m under no illusions about the sustainability of hunting rifles or Peterson’s Field Guide, but I think that’s a problem that many run nto when they begin trying to learn primitive skills. They approach it as an all-or-nothing proposition. Since learning it all at once is so daunting, they become overwhelmed and may never succeed in learning anything. First, we learned how to identify plants using Peterson’s. With that, we’ve learned and memorized more plants. Until winter descended, we made regular hikes through the city parks to acquaint ourselves with more plants. Our repository is growing. No, our field guides won’t last forever–but they’ll last many years, and during that time, we’ll be relying on these plants, learning them at different stages of their growth, and memorizing them. By the time our field guides crumble into dust, we won’t need them anymore.
Hunting with a rifle won’t last forever, but there are parts of hunting that are universal, and hard enough to learn on their own. Tracking, gutting, bleeding, all these things must be learned. Hunting with a rifle gives you the opportunity to focus just on that. Once that’s learned, you can try an industrial bow instead. Once you have that down, it will be time to make your own bow. Each step along the way is much easier to learn than to simply go into the woods expecting to make your own bow and bring down a deer with it.
There’s the first lesson I’ve learned: don’t try to learn everything at once.
There is also the difference between ability and mastery. Primitive skills are, in general, easy to learn, and difficult to master. We learned how to identify wild edibles in a weekend, but we’ll probably spend the rest of our lives learning new plants, and new ways to use them. The basics of survival are very simple: just a few thousand calories per day (which you could probably get just from an anthill, if need be), potable water, and some way to protect yourself from exposure. These are simple tasks. You can learn them in a weekend, and survive. But surviving is not thriving–that is the difference between ability and mastery.
That said, survival buys you more time to develop your mastery. Every day you survive is another day of practice, another day of honing your skills, and practice is at least as important as learning. I’ve met many now who knew a wide range of primitive skills. Some of them characterized it as very easy. They tended to share my attitude about continual practice, and the difference between surviving and thriving. I’ve met others who said it was very hard. They’ve also tended to be more those who wanted to learn everything at once, or expected a high standard of living from the very start, or, very often, simply did not have much time to devote to practicing their skills. They attended a class here, a weekend there, but that was it. These skills must be practiced as often as possible–ideally, as the basics of your everyday life.
There are many ways that this can be made a difficult project, but it doesn’t have to be. I do not expect any significant trouble for the Tribe of Anthropik, and we’re on schedule to be full-fledged, self-sufficient foragers by 2010. In the end, whatever we might personally have taken to quickly–computers, art, etc.–primitive skills are precisely what humans evolved to learn. Even if we’re past our learning prime, this is the life humans have evolved for. In my own, admittedly limited, experience, learning primitive skills has had less the feeling of mastering some difficult, arcane task, and more the feeling of finally coming home.
Well said, Jason.
Towards the end of this summer, I’ve begun to invest more and more interest into primitive skills. Though I spend considerably more time working on them these days than any other point in my life, what is more noticable to me is my heightened DESIRE to work on them.
Though I’ve tried a lot of differnt skills, I will claim no mastery of any. Perhaps *some* proficiency, but really, who am I kidding? I think I’m trying to follow the harder path.
This stems from me attempting to go all-out in the skill. But, any skill is like a puzzle, and fitting the side and corner pieces together first is, after reading this, the obvious thing to do. Thank you for that insight.
I don’t think I’ve been considering using a tool made through civ’s infastructure as ‘cheating’, though I don’t know why else I’ve been reluctant to use them.
I’ve made two bows out of saplings now, and the second is better than the first. Ive made a bunch of arrows, and a quiver to keep them in. I’m doing better accuracy-wise. I haven’t killed anything yet, but I haven’t tried. Perhaps it’s a fear of failure, perhaps I feel that I’m not ‘ready’. I don’t know. However, my need to do so is mounting.
I swore a blood oath with the Sunrise Ocean as my witness to eat no meat until I’ve killed some myself, so that I can look into the animal’s eyes as it dies, and try to understand the sacrifice that an organism gives, to become the flesh of another.
In light of the argument for the Paleo diet, there is all the more reason to do this thing. Why not buy an aluminum bow that would many times more accurate and powerful than my own? Why not scrape some roadkill off the street? Why not go to the local farm and steal a chicken? These things I could do today. One one hand, yes, I understand that a steel tipped arrow with plastic feathers is just as natural as a wood tipped one with turkey feathers. They both came from the same universe, after all. On the other hand, the bite of steel is cold and dead. Does a reed shaft, let loose by bleeding fingers, bird feathers flying once again, cast through the air by the power of its brother oak, kill with more ‘understanding’?
…
Molecules interacting with other molecules. I guess it’s all the same. (?)
…
Trying to learn these skills from an all-or-nothing mindset has certainly been very, very frustrating. It is hard to be a noob at all trades, and master of none. But perhaps sucess will be all the more sweet?
Thank you for the insight, Jason, and for being so very, very influential in the foundation of my life’s most recent chapter.
Comment by Anonymous — 25 January 2006 @ 5:43 PM
In this little life, self sufficiency can come easy or hard. I have found Jason to be correct in that it is a matter of expectation. If you expect to learn and master these skills quickly, you will certainly fail. But, like any other skill, if you work at it and practice often, it will become more and more effortless over time. And by the time one would need these skills for real survival, if you have practiced, you will live.
On the hunting with rifles tip, if you remember these two things you can rifle hunt well into the next century. 75% saltpeter, 15% charcoal(preferably willow), and 10% sulfur. That is the optimum formula for black powder. Second, any rifle that is well maintained can be used indefinitely.
and i didn’t even mention reloading your brass or making muzzle loaders from scratch. might even be worth buying one too.
great article Jason, keep it up!!!
Comment by Rory — 25 January 2006 @ 5:49 PM
“and i didn’t even mention reloading your brass or making muzzle loaders from scratch. might even be worth buying one too.”
I don’t know how easy it is to find pure sulfur. I guess you could find a bat cave or a good bird roost for the saltpeter. If you do though, you’d better make sure you get a flintlock, most muzzleloaders require caps, and I really doubt any of us is going to be able to make those. Flintlocks are such a pain in the rear that I think a homemade longbow would be easier, and more accurate if you know how to use it. The EROEI for finding all the necessary components for black powder, along with recasting the shot, combined with the difficulty of loading (no second shot) and inaccuracy just doesn’t seem worth it. Especially if you plan to be nomadic.
Comment by limukala — 25 January 2006 @ 8:06 PM
When you make your break and finally head for the woods, never to see another town again, I’m curious about your base-camp plans.
Are you and your tribe going to buy some land in a way out part of the back woods, a place that is not easily accessible, and build and operate out of a permanent base camp? And defend your camp, should that become a necessity?
Or do you plan on building and operating out of a temporary base camp built on public land? And if a situation develops where you no longer feel secure, you simply walk off and leave it, and build another one some miles away?
If you are thinking in terms of a temporary base camp, are you thinking of doing it on state or federal land? I would think that state land would be best, or, if federal, then national forests would be best. I think either of those two would have little or no Ranger activity, especially in the back country. Just wanted to get some thoughts on this. On any public land, though, you might accidentally walk into some drug operation’s illegal cash crop. That could prove interesting, not to mention dangerous.
Some years ago, I talked with a guy who spent a lot of time in Alaska (also a long time ago) and he told me that Alaska takes a dim view on people setting up house on government land (not sure whether he was talking about state or federal). If they received and verified reports that there was anything that looked like a permanent dwelling on their land, they would actually come back and destroy it by bombing it with 55 gallon drums filled with water. I’ve always wondered if there were any truth to that, or if it was just BS. Not that I’m planning on going to Alaska.
Comment by George — 25 January 2006 @ 8:22 PM
You can stay in a national forest for as long as you want. But you have to move every two weeks. They don’t want anyone living as a permanent resident.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 25 January 2006 @ 9:11 PM
Right, I was aware of that.
However, in the context of a society undergoing collapse, I am not talking about going through the permit routine and operating out of designated campgrounds. I am talking about going in under the radar, setting up shop somewhere deep in the backcountry, off the beaten track, and for as long as you desire, or until you are forced to move for some reason or other.
I understand that this is done regularly on government land, with the exception that those who currently do it are not planning on staying forever. Well, most don’t plan on staying forever.
Do you remember the caveman from Arizona? He lived in a cave just outside Flagstaff. I believe it was in a national forest. He lived undetected for about 11 years. He hiked into Flagstaff to do odd jobs and made just enough money to survive. A few years ago, some hiker stumbled into the cave and could tell someone was living there and alerted the authorities. The caveman is now banned for life from ever entering that particular national forest again. Now, if he hadn’t had a “permanent” base camp, he might still be there, undetected.
If a person decides to go the hunter/gatherer/forager route and operate out of a temporary base camp, the only way to make that work is to slip in under the radar.
I was just wondering if this is what Jason’s tribe has in mind, or are they planning on buying land for a permanent base camp.
Comment by George — 25 January 2006 @ 9:53 PM
Using a firearm for hunting may be practical while civilization rules, but during the collapse the sound of it will certainly attract the scavengers. So gaining the ability to kill silently is of most importance.
Also, the greatest asset of all is patience. My favorite hunting technique is to s-l-o-w-l-y scout along looking for signs of where the animal feeds and beds. Then find a comfortable spot to hide, waiting in ambush hoping for the critter to come within range for a kill shot. This technique is quiet and does not expend much energy.
To learn this kind of patience, start by parking your ass in some hiding spot in the woods and not move (much) for a time (you won’t believe all the movement, specially in the fall when the critters are fatting up). Keep a routine of this, maybe every few days, and lengthen your stays as you go. Soon you will have aquired a great hunting skill.
Next is the ability to make the kill.:-)
Comment by Rick Larson — 25 January 2006 @ 10:58 PM
I’m honored. Thank you, anonymous. Knowing that I’m helping make a difference gives me the motivation to continue this project even when it gets rough around here.
AWESOME!
I’m thinking a few small pieces of property adjacent to a national forest. Camping laws in national forests are sufficiently lenient that we could make a break for it just on that if we really had to, but a few regular campsites we cycle between seasonally just seems to make more sense than trying to tip-toe around the laws on that front. Granted, “obeying the law” is a short-term concern, but still something better seen to than not. Makes life easier if you don’t need to fear the ranger. Besides, seasonal campsites allow us to make some improvements, like an underground vault for books at each site, and maybe set up something like the Celts used. Pitch our tipis over a hole we’ve dug and filled with cereal grains, and then covered with flooring. As the cereal grains decompose, they release heat, and keep us nice and warm through the winter.
Usually, it’s to grow drugs or escape INS. Which is why they take such a dim view of people living on national lands. I figure it’s better to avoid all that. Buying a few small patches of land at the edges of a national forest, and doing our living there, and our hunting and fishing in the forest, that makes us campers at best, and only when moving from one seasonal camp to the next.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you can follow the rules and hunt and gather your living out of a national forest. The base camp is the thing you need to buy, and that’s relatively easy. Buying your whole range isn’t really viable, though, and that’s where the national forest comes in.
Animal scavengers? It seems most animal scavengers would be scared away by the sound, rather than attracted by it.
Or do you mean human scavengers? We’ve discussed in detail elsewhere why that’s a problem I’m not particularly concerned with.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 10:48 AM
Depends on where you are. In BC, Canada, I understand that over the years grizzlies have learned to associate the sound of a rifle shot with an easy meal. When they hear the shot, bears in that area heads towards the shot, not away from it, in hopes of taking the kill away from the hunters. Hunters have to keep a constant lookout after they make the kill.
Comment by George — 26 January 2006 @ 11:29 AM
I once went to a pow wow during deer season and learned how to use the whole animal. that was really interesting, and something worth checking into.
Comment by TonyZ — 26 January 2006 @ 12:15 PM
Interesting. That sounds like some pretty fast adaptation. Bears, specifically? Any other kinds of animal? That may make it less of an issue out here. Western PA has a huge hunter population. I think I heard 25% of the NRA’s national membership lives within 300 miles of Pittsburgh. We used to have off from school for the first day of deer season. I know people who actually hunt for food–and they’re not primitivists.
But none of them ever mentioned bears scavenging their kills. But out west, bears are more carnivorous. This way, they’re more herbivorous. We’re lucky: on this side, the only time we really need to worry about bears is when we get too close to the cubs.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 1:03 PM
Animals learn, too. Just not as much or as quickly as most people do.
Comment by William Carrington — 26 January 2006 @ 1:27 PM
Oh, I know. I’m not surprised at the adaptation, just at how quick it is.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 1:38 PM
I was on a backpacking trip once, and one of the road accessible camps had garbage cans for waste disposal. A passing park ranger warned us that the raccoons in the area were “10th generation raccoons,” and that we should tie-lock the dumpsters with nylon rope, as the coons had learned all the tricks. We laughed it off and dumped our garbage, only to wake up the next morning to find it strewn accross half the camp. The god-damn raccoons had opened up the extremely complex locking mechanism that we had had no small level of difficulty opening.
The scary part was that the bins required dual locks to be opened on two sides at once, no problem for humans (with our long arms), but impossible for an individual raccoon. This meant that the raccoons were working in tandem and orchestrating their movements, possibly with language or some form of psychic communication. It was on that day I first began to wear a tin foil hat.
Raccoons will be the death of us all. You might as well stay in the cities and die with civilization! You can never out-compete those cute, furry little bandit-masked critters.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 26 January 2006 @ 1:52 PM
People have been hunting with guns in North America for over 2 centuries. That’s more than 10 generations of bears. I’m surprised that other scanvengers haven’t picked it up.
Comment by William Carrington — 26 January 2006 @ 1:56 PM
The thing is, guns sound very much like thunder, and thunder’s been around a lot longer. Distinguishing those two–to say nothing of the fact that guns today sound awfully different from the stuff we were using 200 years ago–can’t be easy.
But, Chuck’s right. I, for one, welcome our new raccoon overlords.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 1:59 PM
Chuck, I didn’t see your comment before I wrote mine. That’s exactly what I am talking about. Animals learn quickly, and teach their young most of the skills they know, just like people.
And before you accuse me of anthropomorphization, it isn’t that animals act peoplish, but that people act animalish.
Comment by William Carrington — 26 January 2006 @ 2:01 PM
we’ve definitely got bears making a comeback around here–my dad has seen more than one, on more than one trip, both this season and the last two (he hunts on private farmland in Bedford County.)
coyotes are also on the rise in these parts.
but the number of human hunters around here does bring up a question–as money gets tighter and food gets harder to come by, is it possible that regular hunters will deplete the game populations in some areas, like Western PA? not everyone who hunts in my dad’s group eats everything they bring down, but most of them eat at least some of it, and so they’d certainly eat more of it, if they had to.
Comment by Librarian — 26 January 2006 @ 2:09 PM
Reading about primitive skills is definitely different than “learning” when it comes to procedural memory skills, such as many of the survivalist/primitive skills. Although engaging in regular practice is probably not practical for most at this point, although some hard decisions may have to be made in the next couple years in terms of remaining a ‘cog’ in the current untenable system.
I’ve been in the information gathering stage for the last few years. I’ve done a fair amount of camping, but those skills are of limited value for longterm survival.
I still believe that foraging and hunting will have to be a limited method for food gathering if/when society breaks down as the energy of modern civilization dries up. Farming and some simple animals such as chickens, rabbitts may be the better way to go.
It’s very difficult to work full-time and truly become proficient in many of these areas. Thus, it should be the goal to practice frugality and work toward a part-time job. Growing your own food is a great way to save on the grocery bill, as your income decreases!?
Also some food storage for the tough times important especially for PA people etc. with the limited growing season. I think as things get tougher financially hunting will increase, since a deer provides a goodly amount of meat for a family.
“The future belongs to those who prepare for it.” Emerson
Comment by Bubba — 26 January 2006 @ 2:09 PM
Until the 18th century, even in a “civilized” place like France, man was by no means the sole master of the land. It was a common occurence for packs of wolves to terrorize french villages, and as late as 1800 there are reports of wolf packs invading Paris, killing and eating significant numbers of people. We shouldn’t forget that, minus the armor of civilization, we will not only face competition in foraging from the likes of raccoons, we will also be both predator and prey… and I expect that the wolf in particular will make quite a comeback.
Comment by Jeff Vail — 26 January 2006 @ 2:47 PM
I heard it was a myth that wolves attack people.
I would be afraid of bears and moutain lions though. I think the West or Alaska would be much more preferable as a place to live. There’s a lot less concentration of people.
Comment by planetwarming — 26 January 2006 @ 3:05 PM
In response to planet warming,
Concentration of people probably will only be an issue in the short-term if civilization collapses in a major way. Longterm viability of the land for biointensive farming, water availibility, diversity of food crops for nutrition will all come into play. Many of the more isolated parts of the US don’t have these things in plenty. Plus you have the wolves and bears to deal with down the road, eh?
Comment by Bubba — 26 January 2006 @ 3:20 PM
I think that wolf attacks are very rare. There was a fatal wolf-attack by healthy wolves this year, but it seems to be a VERY rare event:
Article
There have also been fatal attacks by mountain lions, hyenas, jackals, etc. Not very common, certainly. But then, we don’t really know how they would behave if circumstances were greatly changed, as post-collapse. From what I’ve read it seems that wolf attacks were actually quite endemic in Europe until a couple hundred years ago–although it’s difficult to tell how much of this was propaganda to prevent wolves from preying on livestock. In the immediate future, packs of feral dogs may actually represent a much greater threat–especially in cities.
Comment by Jeff Vail — 26 January 2006 @ 3:25 PM
“Quickly” means a different thing on an evolutionary scale. “Culture” is the sum of everything you learn, and while humans are not at all the only animals with culture, we most certainly do take it to unprecedented lengths. It is a difference of degree, not kind, but it is a definite difference of degree, nonetheless. Humans learn far more quickly than any other animal, and our closest competitors are other great apes, crows and dolphins. I don’t think there’s been any observed bear culture as yet.
That won’t be possible. If everyone tries to forage, we’re screwed, But, very few people will ever try, that’s why the rest of us will be able to forage ourselves a life of plenty. But agriculture will ensure your ruin. It’s just not possible anymore.
Wolves tend to stay away from humans. We haven’t been around them for very long, and they haven’t really adapted to eating us just yet.
But a hungry wolf is still hungry.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 3:25 PM
Bears usually lead a solitary life, so any bear culture would look very different than human culture. Bears also stay with their mother for about 6 months, and live nearby for a few years. It seems reasonable to me that some significant knowledge communication happens in that time, if only by observation of what works.
Comment by William Carrington — 26 January 2006 @ 4:06 PM
In response to Jason’s —that won’t be possible–
I agree that very few people will forage, very few people will be willing to get off the unsustainable path. Most people wait for life to hit them in the face, and then try to recover–if possible. Stephen Covey’s 1st habit for effective people is BE PROACTIVE, this mindset is fundamental to problems humanity faces this century. The scenarios you have discussed over your 30 theses present an extremely strong argument that recovery won’t be possible.
But, I’m still not convinced that small pockets of people can’t with good top soil, composting know-how, can’t produce some food for themselves–even if its the skinny person’s diet, not the typical USA obesity foods.
Foraging in many areas of this country will not be very productive initially. Aren’t the survivalists right to some degree that if society collapses, raider groups and desperate folks will likely fight for survival resources? The great die off scenario isn’t likely to be a quiet event is it?
Comment by Bubba — 26 January 2006 @ 4:24 PM
Quiet–no. Not for most. Most will turn to farming. Some small pockets might still have enough soil that some people who really know what they’re doing might be able to survive through back-breaking labor.
But, there’s raiders to consider. Raiders raid farmers. Prior to farms, raiders didn’t even exist, because there was nothing worth raiding. Even in conflicts involving hunter-gatherers, no one’s ever bothered raiding them. They don’t have any stored food, as a rule, so what’s the point? You raid farms, not try to hunt down where the forager band might be.
Foraging in many areas of the country might not be paradise initially, but it will never likely be as dead as the Kalahari or the Arctic–areas where farming is impossible, but foraging is easy.
In other words, wherever you are, foraging is the easiest, most secure way of life you can find. Anything else is harder and riskier–in any ecology.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 4:31 PM
“As the cereal grains decompose, they release heat, and keep us nice and warm through the winter”
Wow, did they eat the fermented grain too? If not, it seems it would be better to fill the hole with some other sort of inedible compost.
“In the immediate future, packs of feral dogs may actually represent a much greater threat–especially in cities”
I agree, coy dogs are much scarier than wolves because they generally have no fear of humans and can be extremely vicious (there have even been cute little poodles in packs of dogs that have killed elderly ladies).
There are definitely plenty of historical instances of wolf attacks throughout Eurasia, if not so much in the Americas. There was one wolf pack in India in the 1800’s that killed over a dozen people in a few villages, but the pack stopped attacking when a hunter killed the alpha wolf.
From what I’ve read mountain lions are probably the most likely of the predators on this continent to hunt and eat a human (most bear attacks are more defensive). Still, the predators around here are cute and cuddly compared to what’s crawling around your typical African savannah, or meeting a tiger in the woods. Shoot, I’d even take them to all the poisonous spiders and reptiles in the Australian outback. We don’t even have crocodiles.
“Prior to farms, raiders didn’t even exist, because there was nothing worth raiding”
I thought many American indians (even strict foragers) had a good tradition of raiding neighbors for adoptees. Sure, you don’t have any food they can take, but maybe they just want your daughter.
“the Kalahari or the Arctic–areas where farming is impossible, but foraging is easy”
Well, I guess if you consider paddling out in a one-man skin kayak to do battle with a narwhal or walrus (in water so cold you don’t have a prayer of survival if it tips) easy, then you won’t have any problems. I doubt many Inuit would describe it as easy though, at least not the strictly traditional methods. That’s why they use rifles when they go hunting now. In the words of Jens Danielsen (north Greenland Inuit, still living more traditionally that the vast majority of Inuit, no snowmobiles, etc) “Not long ago we hunted walruses from kayaks, but they killed too many of us”
I know they aren’t your typical forager group, but come on, it ain’t easy up there.
Comment by limukala — 26 January 2006 @ 5:04 PM
I’m not sure, but they ate grain. Though, really, grain’s probably better for that than eating–we’ve already seen what happens when you eat that stuff….
Any occurence, however rare, will have plenty of instances over a sufficiently long time period.
Exactly. I’m so thankful to be setting up shop in North America–no super-predators, and nothing that grew up with humans, evolutionarily. We’ve discussed a custom for the Tribe of Anthropik–if a predator attacks one of us, we need to hunt it down and kill it, and its young (or pack, for things like wolves). That should help slow the evolutionary progress of animals picking us up as a regular food source.
Plains Indians, I believe, who were entirely the product of European contact. The trauma of shattered tribes from invasion and smallpox sent the refugees into the Great Plains, where they formed a new culture around the horses and guns that found their way to them from Europe. Foragers, yes, but hardly what I’d call regular behavior. And I think they only raided farmers for adoptees, even then.
True. The Inuit no doubt have it harder than any other foragers. “Easy” better describes the !Kung in the Kalahari. But, among the Inuit who were settled down, there are still some elders who were old enough to remember the old ways, and have been settled long enough to see what it has brought them. They’re unanimous that it’s the worst thing that ever happened to their people, and they were much better off before. Their children dismiss them much as we dismiss our elders who talk about “the good old days.” So, I think however harsh it was, it may still be an improvement over what came before.
But the Kalahari is more likely for us than the Arctic, and I’ll be surprised if we wind up with either one. My point remains, that if foragers can survive and even thrive in those environments, then we probably can stop worrying about whether or not foraging will be possible. The most desolate ecology that can support cultivation is many times healthier than the most desolate ecology that can support foraging. Fear of the health of the ecologies that will survive is one of the strongest arguments in favor of foraging over cultivation, not vice versa.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 5:20 PM
“Fear of the health of the ecologies that will survive is one of the strongest arguments in favor of foraging over cultivation, not vice versa.”
True, but I still don’t plan to put all my eggs into one basket. I plan to set up a nice, self sustaining forest garden, but have enough primitive living skills that I would still be in great shape if it dies or I get chased off.
Comment by limukala — 26 January 2006 @ 5:47 PM
Jason, et. al.,
I grew up in North Central Pennsylvania (North of Clearfield/I-80, South of New York, West of Tioga County, East of Oil City/Franklin) and a lot of the comments touch on familiar topics for me.
All of the whitetail deer in Pennsylvania were killed in the late 19th/early 20th century. The current deer population is a descendant of deer imported from Michigan.
Northern PA is also home to one of two elk herds east of the Mississippi. They were imported from, I think, Wyoming.
In the last few years, neighbors and friends in the area have also been seeing other animals in the area, such as mountain lions, wolves, badgers, and wolverines, that had previously been killed/trapped out of the area.
For many people in the area, hunting supplies most of the year’s meat. It isn’t as much a primitivist activity as it is family tradition and way to get food.
If you have any questions about the area or hunting or the woods, I would be happy to answer.
I would also recommend reading the book, 50 Years a Hunter and Trapper, if you can find it. It is about hunting in Northern Pennsylvania in the early 20th Century.
Comment by PAnative — 26 January 2006 @ 5:53 PM
limukala: Amen to that. The Tribe of Anthropik will likely be doing the same. I think we all are. It’s just trading ideas about what balance we’re comfortable with at this point, I think.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 6:00 PM
Wow, fellow Pennsylvanian, that’s awesome! I know where Clearfield is, that’s actually not far from my family’s cabin (near Cook Forest), so it’s the wilderness that I’m most familiar with.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 6:03 PM
Each person who decides to transition from city life to a life of foraging in the wilderness will approach the challenges faced by such a transition in their own way. If you start out learning to hunt using a gun, that is not a deal breaker, as long as you know how to make and use a bow when the gun takes a powder (sorry).
Virtually everything that needs to be considered is at least obvious. The gun versus the bow? Private land versus public land? Permanent base camp versus temporary base camp? And so on. If the potential obstacles you face during the interim learning period are right in front of your face, then they can be dealt with, either rightly or wrongly. You’ll find out which when you make your move and head for the woods.
But what about the obstacles that aren’t so obvious? And can’t really be seen at all. If you don’t have a plan to deal with those, your new foraging way of life may already be in jeopardy, without you evening knowing it and before you even get started.
Two not-so-obvious challenges to the foraging way of life come to mind. I’m sure there are many others.
1. Lyme Disease (LD)
Everywhere there are woods and grass, there are ticks. Everywhere there are ticks, there are tick-borne diseases. They say that the Lyme tick has to feed for 36-48 hours before it can transmit LD, but I can tell you from personal experience, that is not the case.
I took a short walk in the Northeast Arkansas woods (less than thirty minutes) while visiting the area some years ago. My father and brother were with me. When we got back to the motel, we all found that our socks were covered with small ticks, no bigger than a pin’s head, and some of them had already attached themselves to our skin. All the ticks were removed within six hours of the walk in the woods. Within a week after returning home, I developed the bull’s eye rash consistent with LD. We all ended up on antibiotics for a few weeks, and that was that. No more LD.
Northeast Arkansas isn’t even supposed to be a high risk area for LD, and that was the only walk in the woods I had taken for more than ten years. So what were the odds I would get LD? Miniscule, I’m sure. But it happened. However, the area where Jason’s tribe is going to is a high risk area for LD. What are the odds there? Given they are going to be there forever, not minuscule.
LD can only be treated with meds and, left untreated, it will slowly destroy your ability to fully enjoy your life, and could actually incapacitate you in time.
Are you going to stockpile antibiotics? And hike into town to replenish your supplies after the expiry date? Or hike into town for treatment? Or just take your chances and deal with it if you get it?
2. Giardia
The cysts from this tiny parasitic critter has been found in water all over the North American wilderness and is spread by fecal contamination. So much so that it is highly inadvisable to drink water from rivers, streams, creeks, ponds, lakes, etc. unless it has first been treated to kill or filter out Giardia. As I understand it, the more game in an area, the more likely natural water sources will be contaminated. Backpackers use gravity filters, hand pumps with filters, or tablets to treat their water.
If you are exposed to Giardia and get Giardiasis, the main symptom is diarrhea. That dehydrates you, and to rehydrate, you will have to drink more of the same water that infected you in the first place.
Giardiasis can only be treated with meds, but, unlike LD, it is often difficult to get rid of once you get it. Even after treatment, some people still experience flare ups months, and even years, after exposure. Left untreated, your friendly parasite colony will continue to multiply. Problems associated with this will slowly destroy your ability to fully enjoy life, and could actually incapacitate you in time.
Are you going to stockpile pumps, filters, tablets? And hike into town to replenish your supplies when they break, clog, or run out? Or hike into town for treatment? Or just take your chances and deal with it if you get it?
Before anyone says it, I know that venturing into the wilderness carries with it a certain degree of risk. However, we are typically willing to take that risk because we know we will only be visiting the wilderness for a short period of time. If anything happens to us while we are there, we’ll simply seek out a doctor when we get back and let her/him fix us up with a quick prescription.
I’m not saying that these unseen risks should prevent a person from deciding to make such a transition to a permanent way of life in the wilderness, but such a decision should also involve a reassessment and reacceptance of those risks. Unfortunately, it ain’t your great-great-great grandpappy’s wilderness anymore.
BTW, boiling water for a few minutes is the low-tech way of killing Giardia, so a heavy gauge, stainless steel pot may very well turn out to be the most important “modern” item you can bring with you into the wilderness.
Sometimes it’s the tiny, overlooked things that can do you in.
Comment by George — 26 January 2006 @ 6:56 PM
Hey –
Just a quick comment, George. Antibiotics are available in the wild, if you know your plant lore. For example, Purple Coneflowers, echinacea, have antibiotic properties. this is the sort of research we need to do relative to out local regions in order to determine the availability of different plants.
there are also a variety of natural ‘bug-away’ plants that you can use to avoid getting infested in the first place.
And Steel pots are not neccessary for boiling water — just convenient
But still, good points all around.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 26 January 2006 @ 7:57 PM
Thanks, Janene.
I hadn’t seen anyone posting concerns about microbial critters, and wrote from a perspective of someone who knows nothing about medicinal plants.
Are the antibiotic properties of some of these plants actually powerful enough to cure you from something like Lyme Disease?
And are the bug-away properties of some plants actually strong enough to keep ticks off you? Or just flying insects?
And I hadn’t even thought about being able to boil water without a metal container. A hot rock would certainly do the trick.
If I couldn’t figure that out, can’t you just see me trying to trap small game!
Comment by George — 26 January 2006 @ 9:11 PM
Another thing to consider is that it is possible to “hypercharge” your immune system in such a way that bacterial infection is virtually impossible. I know a lot of people will automatically scoff at such an idea and never give it second thought. For those of you who are curious though, I recommend the book Pathnotes of an American Ninja Master, which, despite the name, is actually basically a handbook of simple, yet powerful and effective techniques for awakening kundalini.
There, I just lost half of the few people who might have still been interested. Let me just add that this is a powerful energy source known to many primitive cultures. I believe the !Kung call it !num. Not quite the same as chi, it is actually the fiery energy of Gaia using your body as a vessel.
A person with awakened kundalini would have many other benefits in a foraging scenario, such has heightened sensitivity and awareness, vastly improved health overall (people with awakened kundalini tend to only breath 3-4 times a minute, for instance), and vastly improved strength and energy.
For the very literal and materialistic minded people out there this will sound like nonsense, but for those open to development on more than one level of existence, it’s worth checking into.
Comment by limukala — 26 January 2006 @ 9:37 PM
Oh, and Dr. Glenn Morris (The author of pathnotes) says that while bacterial infection seems impossible, and the immune system overall is ramped up, viral infections still manage to sneak in sometimes, though the body tends to deal with them a little faster.
Comment by limukala — 26 January 2006 @ 9:38 PM
ooo you know it’s posts like Georges that make me think that primitivism is a hobby at worst, and a skill set at best, not a lifestyle.
Although as a summer camp counselor for many years, something unexplained happened to me. I was bitten by a mystery insect and was laid up in the hospital for three days, three days I dont’ remember. I woke up and I saw family memberes I hadn’t seen since I was a little dude. they were that scared for my life. and there is still great mystery surrounding my life around that moment.
I have to say my life experiences direct me towards village life. My genes are considerably weakened by thousands of years of the semi-isolations of celtic and nordic and european civilization, and I dont’ think I could survive the nomadic lifestyle. I have gotten hardy just through exposure, but I also was cured of my pollen and mold allergies(irony?) through injections. I guess my feelings on the matter is that it is all fun and games until one of my babies die.
Of course, as interested as I am in my friends opinions and ideas, I dont’ come here like most of you with the same concepts of crash.
I think crashology and it’s accompanying mythology may be an incredibly important tool. the subjects it studies and creates are useful knowledges to for humanity to integrate.
But as someone whose been raised to have the skills of the Great Forgetting, I feel my flexibilty in these matters is somewhat antagonistic. I’m preparing for society and the bulk of humans to move on as the energy-efficient, worldly integrated community it is headed towards.
I understand the antiseptic properties of jewelweed, I get what the depth of each track on a trail means, i understand determinism and free will, I know why democracy is a dictatorship, now I’m learning how to get an tax credit for installing tankless on-demand water heaters. my information has always flowed up from ancient to the cutting edge, and my streams are taking me forward into a even more complex, technological tomorrow.
Geez, i didn’t mean to write a manifesto here, or even piss people off. Not trying to change anyone’s minds or discourage anyone’s learning, because if it’s remedial education you need, then goddamnit go out and get it.
——
But what then. Is there a plan to survive WITHOUT a crash?
TonyZ
——-
p.s. It would probably make sense to have your own pack to protect you, n’est pas? My girl Claire(lab herself) had lab and pit mix puppies once (13 of them, btw) and I wish to god I could’ve get kept all those little fuckers. My friends have most of the puppies and I think only a few of them would have been all the protection I or my village needed. ACtually, a lot of those friends are going to be in the village, so there is a good chance they will be coming along… hmmm… that makes me happy:)
Comment by TonyZ — 26 January 2006 @ 9:41 PM
Jason, you have a hell-of-a-large vocabulary (and intellect), but to be successful hunting will require experience and skill. I suggest you buy a hunting license then go find out if you have what it takes. One bit of advice: try to find a place nobody is hunting.
Also, it is very difficult to believe that all those who now hunt will not be beating the bushes for the same eats that you will pursue. And if your not excellent at avoiding these people, you may be doing hard labor for them.
And one other death dealing aspect of large eatable critters:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan06/387848.asp
Comment by Rick Larson — 26 January 2006 @ 10:43 PM
I don’t think it even has to be “large” critters, because I believe I read that CWD has also been found in the brains of squirrels in parts of Appalachia.
And there are numerous rules you are supposed to follow when handling and processing deer.
Can you imagine having to follow those rules while living as a hunter/gatherer?
There is so much more to contend with in todays wilderness than there was a couple of hundred years ago.
Comment by George — 26 January 2006 @ 11:11 PM
George,
No way of life is perfect–not even forager life. They all have their little annoyances. We haven’t talked about Lyme disease or any of the other microbial concerns because they’re pragmatic concerns–and we’ve just recently finished the theory section.
But Lyme disease and giardia in particular have both been on my radar for some time (though, the Tribe of Anthropik’s range is not considered particularly high-risk, either–we’re on the other side of the Appalachians). For Lyme disease, I’ve been learning several of the medicinal plants to treat bacterial infections, and we’re pretty good with prevention in the first place. Lemon balm is really great for repelling all kinds of insects. A few leaves will make you smell like lemon, and keep bugs away for a good half a day–and that’s with heavy perspiration. Giardia is even easier. I’m actually learning how to make a pot out of leather (all the way from dead animal to functioning pot), and yes, the best way to boil it is to take a red-hot rock and just drop it in.
There’s also a whole wide range of other nuisances to deal with that you didn’t mention, but we’ve been concerning ourselves with. They’ll find their way onto these pages in months to come, as we get deeper into a discussion of praxis. But in general, none of these are show-stoppers. I can’t think of a one of them that pose more annoyance, or more danger, than your average daily commute to work.
Yes, sometimes it’s the tiny, overlooked things that do you in. In our own case, these are not overlooked at all.
Tony,
What, I’ve surpassed the Great Tony for knowing how to handle such things? I’m surprised you’d let such a minor annoyance lull you into calling primitive living “a hobby at best.” How ever did we manage to survive those long two million years before big, strong civilization came and swept us off our feet, hmmm?
And what about our plan to survive if the sun doesn’t come up tomorrow? About as likely, and for all the same basic laws of physics. This isn’t a matter of speculative, probabilistic chance–this is a determinative process that has already begun.
Our plans are meant to survive an indefinite “interrim” period, but one way or another, there will be a crash. The question is whether it will take the whole species with it–and given the toughness of our species, and the fragility of civilization, I find that highly unlikely. But if I’m wrong, it’s not really going to matter, is it?
limukala,
Conflating kundalini, n/um and chi seems like a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? I suppose you could throw in mana, too, but by now the tent’s so wide it probably includes bananas and airplanes, hmmm?
Rick,
I’ve assiduously avoided all knowledge that might be construed as “useful” up until now.
That’s changing, but for reasons I’ve described in depth elsewhere, I’m not expecting a lot of competition–for all the same reasons that all previous iterations saw little competition.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 January 2006 @ 12:07 AM
Actually, I said kundalini and chi are not the same thing. Chi would we equivalent to prana in the Hindi dialect. Mana has such broad definitions, especially cross-culturally, that it can be used to describe almost any kind of subtle energy, along with more mundane things such as status and prestige.
I guess !num isn’t really the same as kundalini, since they are located in different areas. What they share is their fiery nature. The Tibetans, however, to have a term for !num, tummo. It is the same energy they use to dry wet sheets with their bodies on frigid Tibetan nights.
To simplify, Kundalini is upward flowing, fiery, earth-based, feminine energy (the red mother essence in tibetan iconography), whereas I think of chi as cool energy that is often more downward flowing. Some people might just call these fire and water chi though, so it’s all just semantics really. The point is that there is a vast reservoir of fiery, feminine energy that we can tap into with less effort than you might think.
The main difference (in my admittedly very limited understanding) between using chi and using kundalini energy is that chi can be directed through intent. You can “use” chi. Kundalini, on the other hand, is its own master. It “uses” you, and if you try to direct or control it, it will bite you in the ass–hard. On the other hand, it posesses an intelligence far greater than your own, so if you let it flow, and do what it wants, the results are far more appropriate and powerful than anything you could have intentionally planned.
Comment by limukala — 27 January 2006 @ 1:16 AM
All of these concepts have their own, unique features. N/um and kundalini aren’t quite the same, either.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 January 2006 @ 9:22 AM
I actually said:
Yeah, jeez, I dunno what to say. I was just raised to know a lot of the primitive stuff. How can this be effectively expressed without sounding condescending, and how can I fruitfully share this? My personality is mostly in the way, I know. Sorry about that.
My Scout, OA, and Firecrafter education stopped short of intermediate metalurgy, or somewhere around the Bronze Age.
Something in me bubbles when people start talking about cannibalism and killer raccoons roving desolate cities as a foregone conclusion.
Besides, I though it was the squirrels that were going to take over? Maybe it’s a regional thing….
Comment by TonyZ — 27 January 2006 @ 11:13 AM
I know your background, Tony, that’s why I was so surprised that you’d throw up your hands over such a little thing. I figured you must know at least as many ways to purify water and protect from ticks as I do.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 January 2006 @ 11:21 AM
“N/um and kundalini aren’t quite the same, either”
I know, that’s why I said this:
“I guess !num isn’t really the same as kundalini”
They also have similarities that bear further research. !num is very similar to tummo though. They are both fiery energies that begin in the belly and rise through the body. That is beside my point anyway. My point is that an individual with awakened kundalini would have many distinct advantages in a foraging situation (or any situation really). My other point is that awakening kundalini is much easier and safer than most people believe, you just need to know the proper techniques and safeguards. Kundalini awakening IS the same as the Greater Kan and Li of Taoist yoga. I’ll take Dr. Morris’s word over yours, since he is recognized by the Chinese National Institute of Chi Kung for having experienced the Greater Kan and Li (which was his kundalini awakening). He had a full blown kundalini awakening as a result of qigong practices, before he even knew what kundalini was. Differences between the two are superficial and the result of cultural lenses. I have a feeling many types of subtle energy are thus related but percieved differently according to the culture they are observed in. This would make sense considering the inherently malleable and subjective nature of many types of subtle energy.
This is not to say, however, that all subtle energies are the same, there are as many types of subtle energy as there are physical energy. I have a feeling though that, like physical energy, they are all on some level united.
Comment by limukala — 27 January 2006 @ 12:28 PM
Assuming any of these are real. As it is, we only know that they exist as beliefs, and the beliefs are much more different than you, or Dr. Morris, makes them out to be. I’ve heard lots of quacks with references akin to those you cite for Dr. Morris, so that doesn’t persuade me in the least.
I say this as someone who has danced n/um, and even healed people with it. I practice shamanism. I think it’s a belief system that will be crucial for forager bands to hold, and I think it will be the difference between sustainable survival and elimination.
That said, I can’t prove a single word of it. Yes, kundalini and n/um and chi and mana all strike me as similar idea, but I don’t know if they’re the same idea, much less whether or not any (or all) of them have the slightest foundation in reality. How do I know my own experiences as a n/om k”ausi are real, or simply the result of shared expectations? As far as its value to me and my band, it matters very little.
But, I still think that learning to notch a bow is a much more important skill than mastering my n/um, regardless. I think this will be an important project to undertake, once my physical needs are met, but I also think that we need to learn the mundane variety of primitive skills before we try to go mapping the spirit world. To say nothing of the fact that it would no doubt be an easier undertaking, once your day-to-day life is more attuned to the rest of the universe.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 January 2006 @ 1:07 PM
Note: I’m for the Bow, but primitive skills alone will not suffice to sustain the human psyche through extreme stressors (wars, starvation, die off scenarios fall into this category, eh?). That’s why experiential learning and practicing is so important–to actually navigate psychologically with the ‘real’ world its positives and negatives.
Philosopher, Paul Ricoeur stated, “As cultural beings we do not live in accordance with the sterile parameters of Newtonian physics or Cosmological time. Instead, we perpetually reinscribe lived experiences semantically through the comforting balm of narrative. Narrative is a form of rationalization, an artificial projection of meaning, which provides an element of coherence to disjunctive experiences which make up life.”
Day-to-day life in the modern world has certainly proven its capacity to damage human beings (mentally perhaps even more so than physically). Psychosomatic disorders are the primary causation of most physiological disorders in the US. Md’s in 2005 reported that 80% of Md visits are the result of lifestyle/psychological issues vs. disease/pathology. The stress of a highly complex/heirarchal civilization appears to be more chronic than that experienced typically in nature. But its hard to say since Nature can deal out the type of stress that can shorten our life path, with just as much certainty as our technological masochistic culture.
Ultimately existential pursuits, and the balm of narrative not only helps frame our worldview but our reality. Perhaps there is a common thread to why many here “see” what much of the world either doesn’t or refuses to?
Comment by Bubba — 27 January 2006 @ 1:35 PM
Oh okay Jason I understand you know.
Hmmm. I was prompted to think the other sie of things for a bit, but my hands are nor thrown up into the air.
As I shared before, I do have a few anectdotes where modern medicine either in reality or only in perception prolonged my life.
I do have many more anectdotes where modern trappings almost ended my life. Oh, like the time I was 4 and decided to play with a bottle of HCL. I’ve still got some gross scarring on my legs if you’re intereted…
Isn’t it so hard to say everything at once?
I think I do have this to share. I won’t adopt nomadic practices unless that’s the best option.
I think TBM (tribal business model) is my best option right now. Hunting and gathering calories can be figured into even the most complex lifestyles. I often eat deer at Sarah’s parents, for example.
I would have better served this thread to counter hunter-gatherer objections, because I really value these skills, rather than get all tangental on your asses.
Me in a nutshell:
living arrangements based on current environments (nomadic as a last resort), hunting and gathering best ROI Calorie input-output.
Activating these energies limukala refers to can be done with simple meditation.
The alightment and quieting of the mind to allow other functions beyond eating and reproducing can be called anything based on your culture, or the culture you study, but it’