[removed]

The article says the shell is used to protect eggs, and also can help with buoyancy

Yeah I was pregnant or breast feeding (so no periods) for more than 5 years, so that comment is real

Well, that’s appropriate.

No love, that’s a fart.

[removed]

More recent than “early modern” in the case of Eastern Europe. I somewhere read a criticism of the communist block command economies that used the lack manufacturing devoted to feminine hygiene products (evident by the cloths lines festooned with drying blood-stained rags) as an example of production not being directed towards goods wanted by the population. Of course, the fact that production was controlled entirely by men must have been relevant.

[removed]

if you're pregnant all the time, that's 9 months of the year you aren't bleeding. Many women didn't have a break between pregnancies, and many don't menstruate during nursing, especially if underfed. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that women went years without a period but many pregnancies.

No they were bleeding but they were also terrible underfed and unhealthy. They probably were lucky to even have a decent period

Yep free bleeding. For example in hungarian folk clothing women wore MULTIPLE underskirt and no panty. Free bleeding

Worth noting that even with pregnancy/breastfeeding, women will have had lochia, a heavy bleed lasting at least six weeks after birth. I never knew about that until I was pregnant so like to share a little knowledge! I would imagine it would have been harder to free bleed with that as it is really quite heavy.

Scientism is one of those terms, often twisted to mean something more easily attacked. While I certainly do not believe that science is the only way to truth, what I meant here when I said "scientism", is that just because omeone is a 'scientist', and brands their work as 'science', it does not mean that their oppinions are any more valid, and certainly not to be taken as automatic facts, if they cannot argue for them.

Sceintism is very much a thing.

Sadly most of the documentation of her work was lost at sea.

Thanks for that info; I learned the term "nuit de cristal" in French, basically the same thing.

Conversely, why did these countries become divided, but China and Taiwan did not?

Why did the US and most of the world institute a One China policy? Given that the west/east had no qualms about recognizing 2 German governments (East and West), and 2 Korean governments (South and North), what was the thinking/philosophy of recognizing only 1 Chinese government? Couldn’t they have just recognized both the Nationalists and the Maoists either once the Nationalists fled to Formosa/Taiwan, or in the early 70s when they switched over to the communists couldn’t they have just also added the communists instead of having them replace the nationalists?

folded cloth held in place by a strip of cloth, a narrow fabric pouch filled with moss. also especially in winter, many many layers were worn, so for poor women especially, i'd assume free-bleeding was the way.

Also, yeah. a large proportion of women were pregnant/nursing for a lot of their lives, so years could pass without menstruating.

Excerpt:

>The argonaut octopus, of the family Argonautidae, belongs to a group of pale pink-spotted octopuses. Unlike the heroes that sailed the Argo, these octopuses are known for traversing the open ocean by way of a delicate, curved, creamy white vessel—an external casing, often referred to as a “shell,” that gave them their common nickname, the “paper nautilus.”

>These creatures baffled naturalists and philosophers for two millennia, even fooling Aristotle, who believed that they used their large pair of webbed dorsal arms as “a sail” to catch the briny breeze and floated across the ocean’s surface like paper boats.

>“It uses [the thin webs], when a breeze is blowing, for a sail, and lets down some of its feelers alongside as rudder-oars,” Aristotle wrote of the paper nautilus.

>These myths carried weight for centuries, even among naturalists in the 19th century.

> 

>It wasn’t until the early 1830s when self-taught French naturalist, Jeanne Villepreux-Power began researching the Argonauta argo, or the greater argonaut, that we learned the true origins of their “shells.”

>In the 1800s, most scientists believed that the shell was made by another animal—that argonauts lived in them the same way that a hermit crab will go find a snail shell or a mollusk shell to live in, Finn says. Once the octopus grew too large for the shell, it would abandon the shelter and either search, steal, or kill the original inhabitant for a larger shell.

>But, Jeanne Villepreux-Power sided with the opposite side of the debate: The argonauts were the builders of their cases.

Lauren J. Young, June 20, 2018

I think it was okay to use nothing but worth noting that throughout most of history, and for the majority of their adult/fertile lives, women were either a) pregnant, or b) too malnourished to have periods. So it wasn't really the same thing as now when most women menstruate for 30-40+ years.

Apparently even a non-expert, just with the knowledge of the elder and younger futhark and their approximate time of use could debunk this.

[deleted]

Graham has been a laughing stock for decades now, not a single academic considers him to be even noteworthy. He had an audience of conspiracy theorists, and now, unfortunately, conspiracy theorists are more organized and you can make more money off of them so he's having a bit of a career resurgence. It also helps that his son runs a department at Netflix, which also explains why he's been giving a show despite possessing nothing that qualifies him to be an expert on any such topic that he's presenting. I wouldn't even trust Hancock if he told you were the nearest petrol station was. The man has nothing of value to add to academia.

>What were used if rags weren’t available?

That would be a very unusual situation. Linen was used, as it was easy to bleach it clean, and there was often a pad of moss or flax used for absorbency.

Well there's a complete lack of evidence for his claims, the fact he thinks it's Atlantis or an Atlantis analogue, which we know to be a fictional creation, the fact he's never done any actual archaeology, and the fact that we have lots of evidence of civilisations around the same time as his supposed ancient advanced civilisation, but they just lived side by side, and one left loads of evidence, and the one he supposes existed didn't leave any evidence at all.

Archeologists are constantly digging, making new finds, and publishing their results. You can find them on the internet. They're not hiding anything because their jobs count on them finding and publishing. No archeologist is hiding evidence of ancient advanced civilisations because they don't 'believe' in it, whereas Hancock believes it must be true, so they must be hiding evidence and of course the only reason he is criticised is because he's right and they don't want to be proved wrong.

Zero understanding of science and history.