4 ms·

> while the smoke would have fumigated the living space. I feel that this is the likely reason. There might have been a common sort of bug or mold or other sl

• grog454 3y ago
  I had the same thought. 60-80 years is probably longer than the average lifespan 5,000 years ago, so a surprising period for a "tradition".
  • Filligree 3y ago
    Average lifespans were pulled sharply downward by early deaths. The elders in any given community would have gotten almost as old as now, there’s just weren’t nearly as many of them.
    • pessimizer 3y ago
      > there’s just weren’t nearly as many of them. Unless the birthrates were higher. If people gave birth to litters of fifty of which all but a few were expected to die, the average lifespan would be in the single digits.
      • runnerup 3y ago
        Women often died during childbirth. In medieval times some estimates put it at 30% of women died during one of their childbirths (but I can’t find rates on a per pregnancy basis and don’t know how many children they were having in average). Estimates are that up to 1-in-50 pregnancies killed the mother in antiquity. I suspect it was exceptional if a woman bore more than 6 children, although obviously some women would have more than ten. I believe the baby boomer generation had large families due to excellent modern medical care post WW2.
        • pessimizer 3y ago
          I definitely wasn't thinking about that, good point. Fewer old women.
  • drums8787 3y ago
    Not sure exactly what you mean but you can have lower average life expectancy and still see lots of people reaching old age (60-80). Longer average contemporary lifespan in the west has a lot to do with infant/child mortality.
• stared 3y ago
  Many cultures have a ritual of cleansing a place with smoke; see smudging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smudging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smudging). It is believed to ward off evil spirits. Is some sense, it is true, as the smoke has antiseptic and repellant properties - especially from plants such as woodworm.
  • xattt 3y ago
    It’s unlikely that smoke has anti-fungal properties, short of treatment with creosote.
    • inhumantsar 3y ago
      People have been preserving food with smoke, likely since before agriculture. More recently phenols in wood smoke have been shown to have antimicrobial and antifungal properties. Eg: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37152755/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37152755/ Stands to reason that any culture which smokes food to preserve it might try fumigating with it
      • xattt 3y ago
        Treatment of food by smoke is done before a pathogen has a chance to proliferate. If a fungus sets into wood, and smoke treatment is done after the fact, the smoke won’t be able to penetrate deep enough to completely eradicate something that’s well established.
        • jvanderbot 3y ago
          I bet burning the wood to ash would do it. After all that's the subject of article
  • yosito 3y ago
    For smudging to have antiseptic properties, I think you'd need a great deal more smoke than you'd get from burning some herbs. The repellent properties are probably a bit easier to achieve. But I think a lot of the effectiveness of smudging comes down to aromatherapy.
• thunkle 3y ago
  Seems to have been part of life as an ancient jew: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+14%3A33-53&version=MSG https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+14%3A...
  • djmips 3y ago
    Very interesting
• euroderf 3y ago
  Interesting. Finland has a practice called "savusauna" (smoke sauna) where you fill the space with smoke and then give it some time before bathing. I wonder if this has antifungal properties or somehow helps preserve structural wood.
  • Ekaros 3y ago
    Or the concept of chimney was not yet properly invented. Also I doubt antifungal properties are needed if temperatures in use can hit 60-80+ C. The spores might survive but even in weekly cycle there is unlikely to be persistent growth that survive.