Jump to content

Hall of Fame and Time Line

White Fox

Recommended Posts

We have had a few pm's here with questions on the Hall of Fame. Members who were not quite certain whether a particular person they were thinking of might be appropriate. Also, as mentioned, we hope to soon have a time line on site. And we probably need explanation there as well. So, here are some ideas.


The Den Hall of Fame - The Den


The Hall is divided into different areas, and indeed in the future there will I am absolutely certain be more. First off, the Den. In this area you can nominate people who are members of the Den, who had a great deal to do with it's development. People who you think should be remembered for their contributions here since the Den began. FrBrGr is the obvious example here. He has been with us through thick and thin, and should certainly be involved here. But remember, in this area it is for people involved with the Den here only!



Other Areas.

In other areas, FrBrGr just nominated Mr and Mrs B, and Mikhail. They were the beginnings of the fur world on the net, and made the foundations of all of our large sites today. They are the heros of the internet fur world.


In another area you might want to nominate gals like Purple S for their work in developing the sale of furs on the net. Or as has been mentioned a movie star who wears fur in the face of opposition to prove how they feel about it.


***On the other hand you would not nominate a movie star who you saw wearing fur and would like to meet. That is a Favorite and not a Hall of Fame entry. It should not be entered in the Hall.


Favorites vs Hall of Fame.


Remember that this is a Hall of Fame and not a Favorites area. These indeed are not the same. Most Favorites will not be appropriate at all for the Hall, and indeed there may well be people a member has hated for years but knows they should be included in the Hall of Fame.


If you have a name you are thinking of as a nomination, we suggest that you say to yourself... Has this person done something for the Den, or for Fur Business in general? Should he or she be remembered for their contributions to the fur industry or the Den? If the answer is yes, then they belong in the Hall of Fame.


Then, ask yourself, "Is this person involved in a web site that I like to go to, in order to see photos, or chat with people?" If the answer is "Yes", then you might think about the nomination again, to make sure that it is not just a favorite, rather than a Hall of Fame nomination. In some cases it may be appropriate, but in most it will not.


Time Line

As mentioned, we also have a new "Time Line" site that we are just beginning to work on. This is totally different again from the Hall of Fame. Our thoughts at the moment is that this will actually be two time lines.

#1. One will start about the time that the internet began, and will trace the Fur World on the computer through those years up to now.


#2. The second time line will quite possibly begin hundreds of years ago, and follow the development of fur and the fur industry through time right up to today.


Once we have the beginnings organized, you will be able to contribute to it as well. Just as you can on any area in the Library.


I hope that answers some questions here.


White Fox


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I especially like the Time line idea as to my knowledge nobody has ever done that. I believe I am correct in saying that the first archeological evidence of fur was a fur papoose , though fur was clearly in use well before that too. Anyway a chronology from then to current day will be something really special , and put the last 20 years of PETA into perspective....a blip; a warped perversion.


Incidentally I watched the remake of Dawn of the Dead last night and there was a 2 second clip of one of the irls in the mall wrapping herself in a fur. It kind of looked cut to me probabaly for pc reasons. Anyway, I also read a book years ago about a group of soldiers who wre protecting the federal gold reserves after some apoclaypse. Of course eventually they abandon their post as thee was simply no point to gold or money any more. So then I got to thinking apart from food, what other things would be valuable in an apocalyptic world with no National grid light heat etc.

Imagine one day there could be a time where FUR is again the most valuable resource on the planet.....as it clearly once was all those hundreds of millenia ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the time line idea. Being a computer nudnick I can't help much with #1 but old bird that I am, I can help with #2. Keep me in mind,



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice words from Thomas Jefferson there Mr C.


Reminds me of some others from the same period; by Benjamin Franklyn:


"He who accepts sacrifice of a samll liberty for the sake of security; deserves NEITHER Liberty or Security.


There is now a THIRD way in the USA. A way founded on the principles of the forefathers of the Liberty of the USA.


At long last yo do not have to be for the war to have the freedom to bear arms, smoke, or wear fur.


Google Libertarian Party for your local future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am definitely game to assist in the research for the timeline idea. I have very limited knowledge of computer tech, but a fairly good library and persoanl resources to draw on. White Fox, please read!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally we think of modern man as 250 000 old. Howver, we know that early humans of the Paleolithic were using SCRAPERS Two MILLION years ago. The scraper is used for cleaning hides. Therefore it is safe to assume that man or early human like creatures, have been using fur for TWO MILLION years. An appropriate time to start the time scale. Of course they were making tenets of hides, but if they wre that sophicticated they certainly would have wrorn furs/skins too.


Man in this time was not as he is now..

They were a different species:

Homo erectus, homo habilis and homo sapiens.....possibly the ancestor of modern homos sapiens sapiens. All used scrapers so all wore fur.

Neanderthals who were about 400 000 years ago also used scrapers.

Then modern Cro Magnon man , or modern humans, first used complex language around 40 000 years ago. So we were wearing fur well before we could speak in language.




Despite the fact that ealry humans are not dna linked to us (in fact humans entered a genetic bottleneck aboy 70 000 years ago possibly caused by the Lake Toba eruptions which means humans were reduced to 1000 breeding pairs hence the fact that only one Humanity emerged...we should have had lots of other human like creatures around) at some point we did evolve from one of them.

The first homind skull was recently unearthed in Chad and blows arcealogical evidence away. This indicates a human like creature approx SEVEN million years ago (Sahelanthropus tchadensis,)So we are not descended from apes. Rather that apes and us are descended from a common ancestor as far ago as perhaps 8 million years ago.


Waht am I saying? That ancestors and cousins of modern humans were wearing fur; we are NOT the only species to have done so. But it is safe to start this use of fur at at LEAST two million years ago.

The fact that homo erectus moved out of Africa 1.9 to 1 milion years ago suggests that he was using fur (okay he isn't strictly human but close enough) as he needed to adapt to colder temperatures. He arrived in Europe 700 000 years ago; and as he appeared to have followed large carnivores too which suggests he was as reliant on the herds for meat.


PETA have been going about 30 years I think btw so it makes their sense of human nature COMPLETELY absurd. We have been wearing fur since before we could talk.


Of course we can ssume that furs carried prestige. BUT the first solid evidence of that is 28 000 years ago; where an unearthed burial revealed

two children bestowed with elaborate beads, fox teeth, and remnants of fur. These are known as the Paleolithic Royals and indicates that we not only hunted fox but that they carried status. Before this we do not know of any society which had a system that suggests reverence of well...royalty; heierarchy, and probable trade. We can assume it...but this is the earliest actual evidence as far as artefacts go:




So so far:

7 to 5 million years ago early hominid bones found near stones which may or may not have been used as tools for hunting and scraping.

Two million BC Early hominid evidence of definite hide scraping tools for hides/pelts.


1.9 to 1 million years ago homo erectus leaves africa following herds and probably using hides extensively for a variety of purpose such as tents.


300 000 bc Middle paleolthic early humans and Neanderthals using sophisticated hide scapers. Bothe too were mixing colours making jewellery and fashioning fur clothing. This suggests use of symbolism; fur therefore would have been symbolically important. Yes even neanderthals:




70 000 bc human bottleneck. Almost every human species wiped out by a "nuclear winter" caused by volcanic eruptions at Lake Toba in Indonesia. Almost certainly the planet would have been plunged into cold and darkness. The 1000 breeding pairs left and the whole human race owes their existence to these early humans who probably used furs to survive.


45 000 bc Man in Russia (remember this is only 25 000 years after near extinction of man; which gives you a clue to WHICH humans survived and WHY) Using sophisticated needles to fashion fur garments: suggests a departure from just skinning and wearing:



40 000 years ago man making cave drawings especially of fur bearers. Language development for more sophisticated social groups , hunting, and passing on skills. Agriculture and trade specialisations probably indicated first POSSIBLE though not definite use of fur as exchange.



28 000 BC Hierarchical structures of human society suggested by site finds

animal teeth and hides specifically FOX , and found in Russia, suggest Furbearers as being used to denote status; and also a suggestion of fur trade. http://donsmaps.com/sungaea.html


There are other specific things to slot in there but at least that brings us up to modern humans, and shows how fur went from survival to trade to status symbol, and probably because of the bottleneck every human on the planet owes their existence to fur and the humans most adept at using it; fashioning it etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touch of Sable, I have a new job for you. Compile and edit the Encyclopaedia of Prehistoric Life. Your posts are absolutely facinating to

read, particularly on those subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you how important these two cultures are. The Russian ones I mean.


What we are seeing is man living for two million years in seperate evolutionary lines. Some are even not human; such as neanderthal. nevertheless they hunted, used weaponry and scraped hides and furs and had Art and primitive laguage. They followed migratory herds out of Africa and were in Europe 700 000 years ago.


It was until recently thought this is how it carried on and their savagery meant that eventually one species esxterminated all th others, or were more succesful etc. It is alos sage to assume that nomads having contact transefred devastating diseases to one another. However what we now have emerging is a completely different picture.


70 000 years ago almost all these earlly humans were wiped out. This is the most likely cause:




Now as you will read there, the idea of the survivng humans were thought to have again left Afrcia and went on to Australasia 50 000 years ago. It wasn't thought they were in Europe until 40 000 years ago and now we find them in Russia at a far far more sophisticated level than known previously.


Waht does this have to do with fur? Well the Russian use of sophisticated needles 46 000 years ago and evidence of a highly structured society wearing clothing ...I mean clothing; properly made, traded, and wealthy with hierarchcial structure is NOT the picture we have of man in this period. They are not the same society as cave dwellers. By 30 000 years ago these people were the most sophisticated people on the planet; and because of their fur "technology".


What does it mean to us?


It means that some of the humans that survived the bottleneck did so probably because they had advanced methods of making furs/hides into clothing. That means they are not the savages usually depicted tearing around grunting and hunting mammoth. These people are the origin of modern Europeans, and Americans and Asians. The Australian aboriginals are seperate but also from the same surviving botleneck.


All modern humans are the ones most adept at fashioning fur into garments. They need to to survive because of the nuclear winter scenario. All other humans died out. ALL of us now are descended from this bottleneck 1000 breeding pairs.


We owe our existence to sophisticated methods of fashioning hide and fur garments; especially where we expanded into Russia. These humans became the earliest civilisation of sorts 46 000 years ago. In other words, modern man would be extinct without sophisticated fashioning of fur and hide.


Now it may be obvious to some here that that naturally happened at some point. Indeed we here would expect that be the case. However...this is distinct and new evidence of it happening at a far more important and sophisticated level than previously thought; and at one of the coldest places on Earth. It also blows apart and makes laughable the "over hunt" theories of early man: these people were hunting mammoth and polar fox for at least 30 000 years WITHOUT effect; yet it is always assumed that new clovic technology meant the first widespread hunting of mammoth. That is now clearly incorrect.....the extinctions of the wooly mammoth were obviously caused by the climatic change at the end of the ice age 10 year ago. Again what does that mean to us? It means hunting and fur does NOT interfere with animal numbers....indeed, hunters probably revered animals the most and conserved them.


And now, in the last 30 years PETA come and tell us we are no longer savages and should not hunt and use fur as its immoral. And at the same time we have a society which has shunned animals in favour of non renewable resources. We destroy the forests to grow intensive crops get wood and oil etc. at a firghtening level to satisfy global industry induce consumer greed and watsefulness (replacement quickly means sustainable profit).


It is the last 30 years that have seen the most destructive period for animals since the ice age. If we don't need animals, they are not safe.

Two million years of killing animlas for fur and now they face extinction because of the synthetics we use instead. It is PETA who are the perversion from human nature, and they encourage the greatest threat to animals ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot find the evidence I was seeking on th early domestciation of Caribou but I think it may be linked with RRussain finds too. I read somewhre that latest evidence puts this at 30 000 years bc.


The dog, as fare as we know, and often still cited as the first domesticated animal, is only 15000 years bc.


Caribou would have ben the first fur "farmed".


However this wikipeida article, though out of date on this, does make some very interesting points re domestication and suitability for domestication that agins ruins many PETA arguments that are clearly emerging as ridiculously inaccurate fallacy:




Specifaically (and again woth putting in the timeline as we come up to date, is the silver fox example:


Nonetheless, some researchers maintain that selective breeding rather than mutation or natural selection best explains how the process of domestication typically worked. Some of the most well-known evidence in support of selective breeding comes from an experiment by Russian scientist, Dmitri Belyaev, in the 1950s. His team spent many years breeding the Silver Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and selecting only those individuals that showed the least fear of humans. Eventually, Belyaev's team selected only those that showed the most positive response to humans. He ended up with a population of grey-coloured foxes whose behavior and appearance was significantly changed. They no longer showed any fear of humans and often wagged their tails and licked their human caretakers to show affection. More importantly, these foxes had floppy ears, smaller skulls, rolled tails and other traits commonly found in dogs.


Despite the success of this experiment, some scientists believe that selective breeding cannot always achieve domestication. They point out that known attempts to domesticate several kinds of wild animals in this way have failed repeatedly. The zebra is one example. It is possible that the historical process of domestication cannot be fully explained by any one principle acting alone. Some combination of natural selection and selective breeding may have played a role in the domestication of the various species that humans have come into close contact with throughout history.




My take on it is that fox and man have had a very very long interdependant sometimes competitive but more often mutually beneficail relationship....especially seen in the light of that Iron Age find. Also nice to know that silver fox, far from being cruelly treated, enjoy the realtionship they have with their handlers on fur farms. More PETA propaganda junked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No whitefox Lynxette is doing it; just helping as I have worked on some of the archeaological evidence relating to it. Can't go into details for obvious reasons.


I hope everyone will contribute with their own personal "finds" such as maybe the first evidence of Egyptians, Romans, Sumerians etc using fur, to meideval feudal use, to early fur trade by Vikings, then later the French and british in canad with the Native peoples etc or as we come up to date significant use of fur in hollywood movies (such as the mink dress worn in a movie which escapes me right now, Midnight Cowboy and Emanuelle and the Bitch as first sex in furs etc etc)to couture history and memeorable iconic fur collections to the rather go naked models and their decisions to wear fur again etc.


Whatever really. Hopefully Lynxette will contruct a timeline and people contribute things to it yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touch of Sable, I would like to say publically that I would love to have your expertise and assistance on this, as well as others of course. I have just begun to go through my materials, and as usual with history, the early bits are a bit thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly be glad to be of help Lynxette. I am History/Archeology trained and glad to offer some help. As I was aware of these new finds re fur, then I am happy to contribute them with back up evidence; and am at your disposal on any other areas of the time line that may be thin. Indeed this is something everyone can contribute too with suggestions. Tryxie may also have some ideas as she did a lot of research herself on fur with a historical perspective for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful...and thank you very much. Now it is just the matter of starting to get things organised. I am sort of starting to build the shell now, to be continuously filled later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...