Grandma's loom

Grandma Buell: Dorothea Bristol Buell, born 1898. I forget which year she passed, but it was the early 70's, if memory serves. Dad and I were with Grandpa, in the hospital, when she passed. 

Out of all the parents and grandparents, she was the most emotionally available and nurturing. She was the warmest of them all, and my favorite. She made rhubarb pie and watermelon pickles that were unmatched, by anybody. At least, in my opinion! As far as I was concerned, nobody else was even in the same class. 

 When she passed, she left stuff to various people. Her looms were well distributed. Mom (Marguerite) got one. While Mom had done some work with Grandma, the loom sat idle in the basement. That basement got flooded a couple of times over the years, but the loom survived. When Mom knew she was going to have to sell her house, she asked all of us family who wanted dibs on stuff in the basement. She gave me first dibs on the loom, because Mom knew how I felt about Grandma. And that I wanted to use that loom. 

But wants are not necessarily reality. Life has many realities, and some are more urgent than others. Despite my best intentions - the loom has also been unused while in my possession. It is time to find it a home that will use her. 

 This is a four-treadle loom. Family history has it that this was constructed on commission, to a local craftsman, by Grandpa, for Grandma, during the steel rationing of WW2. So, of course, as little steel as possible was to be used. The construction materials and design support this story. The wood used in the large parts, based on the grain, is pine (which would have been readily available). Some parts appear to me to be other woods. Example, the breast bar might be birch, but I am no expert. 

The joinery supports the no-steel part. Mortise and tenon joins are used at several points, and dowel fastenings are also used. The treadle axle/hinge point is an exception. It also needs some work to repair it. The treadle pin is held in place by being inserted through holes drilled in iron pipes. Larger pipe sections are securely fastened to the loom frame. Smaller sections of pipe, with holes drilled through them perpendicular to the pipe (for the treadle pin), are inserted into the larger pipe. One of these smaller pipe sections is missing, but appears to me to be a relatively simple repair. Obviously, she needs some loving attention, but I don't see any reason why she couldn't be a working machine again, as she was meant to be.

Right side

Front

Back

Back breast bar, showing mortise and tenon join with dowel fastener

Front breast bar, showing 2 dowel pins

Treadle, showing missing piece problem

A Bonus! An Inkle loom, for weaving belts and straps. Missing some dowels (?), but that would be easily addressed.

 We live in, unfortunately, interesting times. 

From Robert Reich: 

Roughly 70 percent of Americans now rate the economy as bad (with nearly half of Americans and political independents blaming Biden for inflation, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll). The negativity is also making it difficult for Biden to get his agenda enacted before the holidays.

Yet apart from inflation, the U.S. economy hasn’t performed this well in years. It’s created more than 6 million jobs since Biden took office, a rate higher than any in history. New claims for unemployment insurance dropped to 184,000 last week, the lowest level in more than 52 years. Economic growth is surging far faster than most analysts predicted before this year. And a record 13 million Americans quit their jobs between August and October, a signaling unprecedented confidence in their ability to get better ones.   

Even as Americans rate the overall economy poorly, they rate their personal finances as good. In an Associated Press poll, 64 percent describe their personal finances as good while only 35 percent describe the national economy as good. Why the split view? Probably because most people don’t separate their assessment of the “economy” from their view of the state of America as a whole, which — given that 60 percent of Republican voters continue to believe the 2020 election was stolen, Americans continue to be stressed about Covid (average blood pressure has risen), and fatal drug overdoses have soared — is sour. (A report last week from the surgeon general found that depression, anxiety, impulsive behavior and attempted suicides had all risen among children and adolescents.)

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/week-ahead-bidens-last-stand

About truth

Lots of folks are calling each other dishonest, and untruthful these days. And I feel compelled to offer a bit of wisdom I have learned in my years on earth. As regards to arguments about "truth", one must pay attention to:
https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Because, you see, quite frequently, people are NOT being truthful - but they ARE trying to be persuasive. You want to try and persuade somebody? Twist the picture a little. Make it look like something that person wants to see, right?

The Evolution of Dogs - the final chapter (for now)

Having read and reviewed Kolner-Matznick's "Dawn of the Dog", I think that about covers the modern books on the topic. We started with the Coppingers, then Derr. Followed by Pierotti and Fogg, and closed with Kolner-Matznick.


I still think the Coppingers' ideas were transformative, although there is some updating needed. Of the four, Pierotti and Fogg offered us an apparently well researched, but intellectually dishonest piece, and the least valuable of the contributions. Derr was reasonably well researched, but his emotional tirades revealed a strong bias. Kolner-Matznick is biased, but admits it, and it does not affect her work.

I've come to the conclusion that the Coppingers were both right, and wrong. Their conclusion that dogs self-domesticated is still so blindingly simple that any Occam's razor comparison to any idea that man intentionally domesticated dog leaves the human-driven evolution in tiny bits and pieces on the cutting room floor.

However, the other half of their idea? That dogs did this in response to the creation, by man, of a new food niche? And that dogs took advantage of this niche? That idea creates problems. However, I find it to be a third unassailable fact, to add to Kolner-Matznick's two, that modern dogs came to us via that niche. Still, there is ample evidence that something also preceded that niche development.

The Coppingers food niche theory has a strong foundation, as one of the irrefutable facts we KNOW, as offered by Kolner-Matznick, is that the archeological records only shows the existence of dog remains from about the same time as the appearance of permanent human communities. But Derr points to other archeological findings which seem to indicate earlier association of men and wolves, or perhaps proto-dogs. Pierotti and Fogg refer to some of the same research. Kolner-Matznick probably does too, but she includes more works, and more recent works.

There are some who quibble the details of the archeological evidence here.  One thought is that the appearance of recognizable dogs may have slightly preceded permanent communities. Another is that the archeological record is often scarce and only offers peepholes into a universe of possibilities. So there may have been earlier dogs - but we just don't know. I'm not persuaded by the slight time difference (of a couple of thousand years, but it's relative!). The archeological records of the earliest permanent communities is not complete, either. Recent findings have an apparently permanent community established some 25,000 B.P. (rather than the 10-12 currently in common use). Another thought is that those earliest known dogs appear too quickly - there would have needed to be sufficient time for dog to evolve from its ancestor. I also don't find this persuasive - the edge of that envelope - like other edges in nature - is full of overlap and grey area. There are very few purely delineated boundaries. We will return to this shortly, discussing the boundaries between wolves and dogs.

The Coppingers food niche theory also points to the massive change in size, between the wolves and/or proto-dog wolf-dogs in the archeological records, and the dogs who seem to appear at the dawn of agriculture. They speculate that this change could be an example of the domestication effect - where domesticated animals lose size - compared to their wild cousins. And, they speculate that some of the morphological changes - physical differences between dog and wolf - are due to neotony - as a natural by-product of domestication.

Kolner-Matznick, however, points out a range of evidence to support dogs having evolved these morphological changes prior to dogs' close association with early permanent villages. And it seems to me that the evidence, at this point, leans in her favor. As she points out, some of the morphological differences are not what one would expect from the domestication effect. Her work with skull shapes plays a big part here.

Derr, and Pierotti and Fogg, both, in slightly different ways, propose that dogs, as wolves, associated with man prior to agriculture. And they present evidence of that if we wish to be persuaded. The Pierotti and Fogg arguments are intellectually dishonest, but their essential premise still has validity. That premise is that man and wolf could have had a cooperative, commensal, relationship prior to agriculture. A primary argument against this is that man and wolf were competing predators. And, as such, cooperation would have been unlikely. Personally, I don't have a problem thinking that some sort of cooperation existed prior to the dawn of agriculture. And Kolner-Matznick gives us a third option, that dogs existed prior to the archeological record of them. And her arguments are honest and persuasive. The corollary of this is that those early proto-dogs DID cooperate with humans, at least somewhat.

There is one other point I would like to discuss. Many researchers theorizing on this topic like to point out that cooperation between two competing predators is unlikely. Pierotti and Fogg's primary thesis is an attempt to refute that idea. However, there is a general assumption here, and that is that human hunter/gatherers would have no waste. This is based on observation of extant hunter/gatherers and recent historical accounts of same. But if we go back 100 to 200,000 years, mankind was still hunting megafauna, and doing mass kills by running prey off cliffs. Based on observation of current societies killing what remains of such large game, elephants, it is unlikely that there would NOT be an opportunity for another predator to scavenge the leftovers.

Now, there is a large time gap in between 100,000 years before present, and 10-25,000 years B.P. And maybe, in that whole time gap, human hunter/gatherers were super efficient, and more like the "waste not / want not" habits of observed hunter/gatherers. But it seems entirely possible, even likely, to me that there may have been human behavior that was less efficient. Which would mean that, at least in some places, there were leftovers for a food niche, prior to the advent of farming. And this is somewhat along the lines of what both Derr and Pierotti and Fogg propose, although I think Derr was, at the time of his book, still more inclined to think of the evolution of dogs as a human intervention. 

One of the underpinnings of pretty much everyone's scientific thinking, prior to Kolner-Matznick, was that dogs descended from grey wolves (Holarctic wolves, canis lupus). And the DNA shared between them is the basis for this, at least in recent years. It is that DNA sharing that generated a call to rename the scientific name for dogs, from canis familiaris, to canis lupus familiaris. In other words, dogs as a subspecies of the Holarctic wolf. However, since that call, (and since Kolner-Matznick's book) new ancient wolf DNA evidence has been found. And, it indicates that the Holarctic wolf and dogs share a mother somewhere way back when, but they are sister species, not ancestor and descendant. That evidence supports Kolner-Matznick's theorizing. So I'm sticking with canis familiaris.

There are other reasons I've been inclined to think that dogs are a separate species. Among those is the "gaze". Dogs look into people's eyes - wolves don't do that. And, dogs read human body language. Wolves don't do that.  And, while there is undeniable evidence that wolves and dogs continue to interbreed in some geographic areas, it is also undeniable that "the wolf and dog gene pools have maintained their general integrity over thousands of years of coexistence" (Kolner-Matznick, p 27).

This is where Kolner-Matznick's theory contributes. Objections to the thought that the modern grey wolf would have been allowed near human encampments are valid. Wolves are not tame, even when socialized. They are still wild, and potentially violent. However, if the wolf was not a wolf, but a sister species who evolved differently, then just maybe, eh? And that is what Kolner-Matznick gives us: a wolf who is not inclined to run in packs, who hunts singly, who is more omnivorous, who is more willing to scavenge, and who associates with other individuals on something like a friendship basis, rather than a pack heirarchy. When you put that wolf alongside humans who also hunted AND scavenged (as many researchers now believe), all of a sudden a potentially mutually beneficial, commensal relationship comes into focus in the realm of possibility.  Today you hunt, tomorrow I hunt. A wild and crazy idea, to be sure, but somehow it all happened and got us to where we are today.

The Coppingers postulated that if mankind somehow disappeared from earth, that dogs would shortly thereafter die out. This remains true. It might take a few years, but millions and millions of dogs would die. And there would only be a very few, a tiny percentage, that might survive multi-generationally. Wolves would continue. Dingos, by the way, would also continue, as they are the only dogs who are self-sufficient predators.

There you have it. Dogs are dogs. And wolves are wolves. And, while the twain do meet on occasion, they remain what they are. Everyone agrees, at least to some degree, that dogs played, at the very least, a large contributing part in their own domestication. Personally, I'm inclined to think, given what history we do have of dogs, that mankind played the minor role in the process. But that - the modern history of dogs - or the history of dogs since the dawn of agriculture - is the next episode.

The evolution of dogs - Kolner-Matznick's "Dawn of the Dog"

This is a definite "add" recommendation for library bookshelves, either home or public. Written by a non-academic, it is not a "fun" book, but rather, valuable for what it adds to the conversation on the evolution of dogs. The author may not have made a living in academia, nor obtained letters to put behind her name, but she is a scholar and scientist regardless. The book has two sections - it's really two books in one. The first section covers the author's findings and thinking on canine evolution. The second is a series of descriptive essays on various aboriginal wild dog landraces.

I'd like to get two quibbles out of the way first. The author doesn't tell you what her point is until page 121 - nearly the end of the first section! I much prefer to hear the point up front, in the manner of a scientific paper, and then explore the arguments behind the reasoning. So, if you like, skip to page 121-122, and then return to the beginning.

The 2nd quibble starts with a statement in her preface: any theory about the origin of dogs "including the concept I prefer, the Natural Species Hypothesis, is speculation based on inductive reasoning ('educated guesses')". The author then proceeds to characterize theories other than hers as "once upon a time" or "just so" stories, which I found a bit disingenuous. Especially so, as one such theory, that of dogs evolving as humans began to live in villages - is also a theory of the natural evolution of a species.

However, Koler-Matznick has bigger fish to fry, and does a good job of doing so. She spends a lot of time on explaining some of the science behind what she presents, but she does so in a useful fashion. While her book is very current (it contains references to studies as recent as a 2015 publication), it has since been passed by new discoveries and findings. In particular, I'm thinking of the discovery of some 30,000 year old wolf DNA. Which finding, however, supports some of Koler-Matznick's theorizing.

On the very first page, in her preface, Koler-Matznick also gives us this nugget:
"Here are the scientifically-proven facts about the origin of the dog to date:
1. The dog and gray wolf are very closely related.
2. The oldest recognized dog fossils are dated to about 14,000 years ago."
Which is right in the time frame of when man began agriculture, and permanent villages. The Coppingers relied on this fact when they theorized that dogs may have evolved to utilize man's leftovers.

Koler-Matznick, however, is convinced that dog was dog prior to that process. From page 122:
"The dog was never canis lupus. It was a naturally evolved species before it attached itself to humans." And, therein lies a hefty nugget. The recent discovery of ancient wolf DNA supports this idea - in that it indicates that dogs did not descend from grey wolves - but rather grey wolves and dogs are sister species, both descended from a now extinct ancestor. Koler-Matznick has to work hard to present evidence and arguments that dogs did not evolve FROM wolves. Today the genetic records are making that job much easier.

Also though, that thought reveals how Koler-Matznick differs from Coppinger. Coppinger theorized that dogs became dogs because agriculture and permanent dwellings created a new niche. Koler-Matznick theorizes that dog was already nearly dog before then.

In order to back up that point, Koler-Matznick goes into genetics, skull shape, and wild dog behavior. She does a deep dive into the genetics, but it's useful stuff. The skull shape work is original. She relates various characteristics to the use typified by a characteristic - for instance, how dog's tooth shape differs from wolves, and how this likely indicates dogs evolved to take prey in a different fashion. And she examines evidence from the fossil record. Her final key component is the behavior of aboriginal wild dogs - like dingos, and the arctic sled dogs.

Kolner-Matznick has put together a very extensively researched, and well thought out volume. 

All in all, the author offers us a very useful addition to the conversation. Highly recommended. 

Book review: Our Debt to the Dog, Bryan Cummins

Bryan Cummins huge contribution to the current abundance of books about dogs, their history,  and origins deserves a reserved spot on every reference shelf - public or private. He gives us an immense book that could easily have been 3 or 4 books, or more. He gives us a compendium review of the existing literature, most notably, to my mind, from historic mentions, but right up to the Coppingers and Derr. This book is comprehensive, rational, and exceptionally well done.

Some may find his writing a bit dry. Cummins doesn't give us an emotional take on the topic. I found his writing interesting, but so densely packed with information that I preferred to digest it in bits. It will certainly go on my bookshelves to be referred to again and again. And I will be making plenty of notes in the margins!

Cummins covers the many roles dogs have played in human society. We see them as hunting companions, herding and guarding workers, draft animals, their role in various religions, and on to dogs as fighting machines, both in blood sports, and at war.

On the topic of herding dogs and their history, the subject I was most interested in, Cummins provides a supremely comprehensive review of historical sources who have written about dogs used with livestock, either as guardians or herders.

Cummins is not perfect. He did miss at least one source that I know of - Iris Combe on herding dogs of the UK. And he pictures two breeds, the German Shepherd Dog, and the Rough Collie, as being typical of a certain type of herding dog, when they are both manufactured breeds that have only existed in modern time. (This is absolutely true for the GSD, but could be quibbled about with the Rough Collie. However, it is recognized that the rough collie has, for well over 100 years, been bred for appearance, not function.) Such minor points will also be found in other areas - but these are truly minor points of little significance.

Cummins brings us more good material on the history and cultural anthropology of dogs, in one book, than any other I have seen. And, he does it thoroughly and thoughtfully. The annual convention of the "Dog Writers of America" (2013 or 2014) honored the book with an award of excellence. And well deserved!

Ruffwear booties - a quick review

Ruffwear booties are not cheap. And here is my quick review: FAIL.

I bought a pair because the store thought they were a good product. I needed something to protect Klinger's feet while he healed from an injury. They rubbed his ankles raw, and came off, usually when he was running (the MOST inconvenient time).

So, I added socks. That was worse. And, I put them away, in a drawer somewhere. Along come Amy and Andy. Andy tears a pad, and needs booties. So I give them another try. This was even worse - I could NOT get them to stay on Andy.

Then Amy had some icing issues in the snow, and I tried them on her. Same thing. They rub when they stay on, and then they come off when they shouldn't.

I don't have the faintest idea how to improve this design, but I know what I will try next. Next time, I will try buckskin booties that TIE at the top - like a moccasin.

Like these: https://www.dogmocs.com/

Ruffwear? Fail.