https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
(re.Domeshields)

On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
> (re.Domeshields)
>

Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
> > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
> > https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
> > (re.Domeshields)
> >
> Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again.
>
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.

Domeshields were foundational for both. Your cubicle is proof.

On 2021-12-12 22:43, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
>>> (re.Domeshields)
>>>
>> Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again.
>>
>> André
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
>
> Domeshields were foundational for both. Your cubicle is proof.
>

If they were "foundational" then why does neither mention them?

Here's a suggestion for you: why don't you leave your cubicle and do
some experimental archaeology. Experimental archaeology can't, of
course, prove anything, but it can at least provide evidence of the
feasibility/plausibility of your "domeshields".

So, why not construct one of your "domeshields" using the materials
which would have been available at the time and then spend a week or two
carrying it around with you all day and then sleeping under it. See if
you can find the proper dimensions which would make it both large enough
to sleep under and sufficiently portable to carry. Make sure to bring an
infant or a doll with you.

If you have any friends, you might get them to join in on this
experiment as a sort of group project. The experiment should take place
over a suffiently long time that multiple different weather conditions
are encountered.

Since you claim these provided protection, make sure to do this
experiment somewhere where predators like bears or tigers are reasonably
common.

Or, given that the biggest danger faced by humans tends to be other
humans, pick somewhere inhabited by other humans such as North Sentinel
Island or Camden NJ. See how safe you feel under your "domeshield".

If you are feeling particularly brave, you could also test out your
"domeshield"'s ability to function as a coracle. Say, by crossing the
Niagara river.

Please report back to us on your findings and on how great a
"domeshield" would have been for our palaeoancestors.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 22:43, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
> >>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
> >>> (re.Domeshields)
> >>>
> >> Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again..
> >>
> >> André
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >> service.
> >
> > Domeshields were foundational for both. Your cubicle is proof.
> >
> If they were "foundational" then why does neither mention them?
Not their focus.
> Here's a suggestion for you: why don't you leave your cubicle and do
> some experimental archaeology. Experimental archaeology can't, of
> course, prove anything, but it can at least provide evidence of the
> feasibility/plausibility of your "domeshields".
>Done did.
> So, why not construct one of your "domeshields" using the materials
> which would have been available at the time
None here, I used local (very poor) substitutes: sea almond and sea grape leaves, redbud twigs and bark 'rope', cut with a knapped shard of beer bottle glas (no flint here). Problem: leaves too small, stems curled and weak, unlike ngongo leaves (straight woody stem slit like clothespins clip to saplings used by Mbuti to cover their dome huts.
and then spend a week or two
> carrying it around with you all day
No, an hour in transit
and then sleeping under it.
I'm six feet tall, they were 4-5' tall.
See if
> you can find the proper dimensions which would make it both large enough
> to sleep under and sufficiently portable to carry. Make sure to bring an
> infant or a doll with you.
Cf umbrella. My cats escaped rain inside, and when tilted up used it as a sunshade.
> If you have any friends, you might get them to join in on this
> experiment as a sort of group project. The experiment should take place
> over a suffiently long time that multiple different weather conditions
> are encountered.

>
> Since you claim these provided protection, make sure to do this
> experiment somewhere where predators like bears or tigers are reasonably
> common.
Camouflage, with spears.
>
> Or, given that the biggest danger faced by humans tends to be other
> humans, pick somewhere inhabited by other humans such as North Sentinel
> Island or Camden NJ. See how safe you feel under your "domeshield".
Far more than lying naked on the ground.
> If you are feeling particularly brave, you could also test out your
> "domeshield"'s ability to function as a coracle. Say, by crossing the
> Niagara river.
No, across a croc & hippo filled river perhaps. They eat neither twigs nor broadleaves.

> Please report back to us on your findings and on how great a
> "domeshield" would have been for our palaeoancestors.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.

As I've been doing continuously here at sci.lang for years. But your cubicle is a hollow shell which acoustically echoes more than it filters, unlike its paleoancestral waterproof bugproof sunblocking camouflaged thin-walled domeshield.

On 2021-12-14 04:10, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 22:43, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
>>>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
>>>>> (re.Domeshields)
>>>>>
>>>> Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> Domeshields were foundational for both. Your cubicle is proof.
>>>
>> If they were "foundational" then why does neither mention them?
> Not their focus.

So can you provide a link to some article where this *is* the focus?

>> Here's a suggestion for you: why don't you leave your cubicle and do
>> some experimental archaeology. Experimental archaeology can't, of
>> course, prove anything, but it can at least provide evidence of the
>> feasibility/plausibility of your "domeshields".
>> Done did.
>> So, why not construct one of your "domeshields" using the materials
>> which would have been available at the time
> None here, I used local (very poor) substitutes: sea almond and sea grape leaves, redbud twigs and bark 'rope', cut with a knapped shard of beer bottle glas (no flint here). Problem: leaves too small, stems curled and weak, unlike ngongo leaves (straight woody stem slit like clothespins clip to saplings used by Mbuti to cover their dome huts.
> and then spend a week or two
>> carrying it around with you all day
> No, an hour in transit
> and then sleeping under it.

So what happens during the remaining ~15 hours/day? Do they keep it in a
storage locker or something?

> I'm six feet tall, they were 4-5' tall.

And your source for this factoid is...? And why would that be relevant?

> See if
>> you can find the proper dimensions which would make it both large enough
>> to sleep under and sufficiently portable to carry. Make sure to bring an
>> infant or a doll with you.
> Cf umbrella. My cats escaped rain inside, and when tilted up used it as a sunshade.

And do you ever see your cat carrying an umbrella around?

>> If you have any friends, you might get them to join in on this
>> experiment as a sort of group project. The experiment should take place
>> over a suffiently long time that multiple different weather conditions
>> are encountered.
>
>>
>> Since you claim these provided protection, make sure to do this
>> experiment somewhere where predators like bears or tigers are reasonably
>> common.
> Camouflage, with spears.
>>
>> Or, given that the biggest danger faced by humans tends to be other
>> humans, pick somewhere inhabited by other humans such as North Sentinel
>> Island or Camden NJ. See how safe you feel under your "domeshield".
> Far more than lying naked on the ground.
>> If you are feeling particularly brave, you could also test out your
>> "domeshield"'s ability to function as a coracle. Say, by crossing the
>> Niagara river.
> No, across a croc & hippo filled river perhaps. They eat neither twigs nor broadleaves.

And have you actually attempted this? Maybe a trip down the White Nile?

>
>> Please report back to us on your findings and on how great a
>> "domeshield" would have been for our palaeoancestors.
>> André
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
>
> As I've been doing continuously here at sci.lang for years. But your cubicle is a hollow shell which acoustically echoes more than it filters, unlike its paleoancestral waterproof bugproof sunblocking camouflaged thin-walled domeshield.

Waterproof, bugproof, sunblocking, and completely evidence-free. You
always forget that last bit.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:35:56 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-12-14 04:10, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-12 22:43, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
> >>>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
> >>>>> (re.Domeshields)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again.
> >>>>
> >>>> André
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >>>> service.
> >>>
> >>> Domeshields were foundational for both. Your cubicle is proof.
> >>>
> >> If they were "foundational" then why does neither mention them?
> > Not their focus.
> So can you provide a link to some article where this *is* the focus?
Re. Paleo-etymology threads.
> >> Here's a suggestion for you: why don't you leave your cubicle and do
> >> some experimental archaeology. Experimental archaeology can't, of
> >> course, prove anything, but it can at least provide evidence of the
> >> feasibility/plausibility of your "domeshields".
> >> Done did.
> >> So, why not construct one of your "domeshields" using the materials
> >> which would have been available at the time
> > None here, I used local (very poor) substitutes: sea almond and sea grape leaves, redbud twigs and bark 'rope', cut with a knapped shard of beer bottle glas (no flint here). Problem: leaves too small, stems curled and weak, unlike ngongo leaves (straight woody stem slit like clothespins clip to saplings used by Mbuti to cover their dome huts.
> > and then spend a week or two
> >> carrying it around with you all day
> > No, an hour in transit
> > > and then sleeping under it.
> So what happens during the remaining ~15 hours/day? Do they keep it in a
> storage locker or something?
It was a storage locker, crib, cage, etc.
> > I'm six feet tall, they were 4-5' tall.
> And your source for this factoid is...?
Homo habilis etc.
And why would that be relevant?
Why wouldn't it be relevant?
> > See if
> >> you can find the proper dimensions which would make it both large enough
> >> to sleep under and sufficiently portable to carry. Make sure to bring an
> >> infant or a doll with you.
> > Cf umbrella. My cats escaped rain inside, and when tilted up used it as a sunshade.
> And do you ever see your cat carrying an umbrella around?
They used mine. I'm generous. And extraordinarily patient with fools.
> >> If you have any friends, you might get them to join in on this
> >> experiment as a sort of group project. The experiment should take place
> >> over a suffiently long time that multiple different weather conditions
> >> are encountered.
> >
> >>
> >> Since you claim these provided protection, make sure to do this
> >> experiment somewhere where predators like bears or tigers are reasonably
> >> common.
> > Camouflage, with spears.
> >>
> >> Or, given that the biggest danger faced by humans tends to be other
> >> humans, pick somewhere inhabited by other humans such as North Sentinel
> >> Island or Camden NJ. See how safe you feel under your "domeshield".
> > Far more than lying naked on the ground.
> >> If you are feeling particularly brave, you could also test out your
> >> "domeshield"'s ability to function as a coracle. Say, by crossing the
> >> Niagara river.
> > No, across a croc & hippo filled river perhaps. They eat neither twigs nor broadleaves.
> And have you actually attempted this? Maybe a trip down the White Nile?
Coracles were a result of long time domeshield usage, just as dome huts were. Archaic Homo had only domeshields.
If you want to fund my venture to the White Nile, I'll post the video.
> >> Please report back to us on your findings and on how great a
> >> "domeshield" would have been for our palaeoancestors.
> >> André
> >>
> >> --
> >> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> >> service.
> >
> > As I've been doing continuously here at sci.lang for years. But your cubicle is a hollow shell which acoustically echoes more than it filters, unlike its paleoancestral waterproof bugproof sunblocking camouflaged thin-walled domeshield.
> Waterproof, bugproof, sunblocking, and completely evidence-free. You
> always forget that last bit.
> André
>
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.

Evidence-free? You need to provide an alternative scenario, then you can make claims about evidence. So far you're just a whiner full of hot air.

On 2021-12-14 17:32, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:35:56 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>> On 2021-12-14 04:10, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:08:01 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-12 22:43, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-12-12 17:08, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-origin-words/202112/the-origins-language
>>>>>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-sleeping-habits-of-homo-sapiens
>>>>>>> (re.Domeshields)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither of those articles make any mention of "domeshields". Try again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>>>> service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Domeshields were foundational for both. Your cubicle is proof.
>>>>>
>>>> If they were "foundational" then why does neither mention them?
>>> Not their focus.
>> So can you provide a link to some article where this *is* the focus?
> Re. Paleo-etymology threads.

Usenet posts are not articles.

And I don't think you really understand what 'foundational' means.
Something is 'foundational' if it was the basis for further research. So
which research on the above topics actually claims to be based on your
'domeshields'?

>>>> Here's a suggestion for you: why don't you leave your cubicle and do
>>>> some experimental archaeology. Experimental archaeology can't, of
>>>> course, prove anything, but it can at least provide evidence of the
>>>> feasibility/plausibility of your "domeshields".
>>>> Done did.
>>>> So, why not construct one of your "domeshields" using the materials
>>>> which would have been available at the time
>>> None here, I used local (very poor) substitutes: sea almond and sea grape leaves, redbud twigs and bark 'rope', cut with a knapped shard of beer bottle glas (no flint here). Problem: leaves too small, stems curled and weak, unlike ngongo leaves (straight woody stem slit like clothespins clip to saplings used by Mbuti to cover their dome huts.
>>> and then spend a week or two
>>>> carrying it around with you all day
>>> No, an hour in transit
>>>> and then sleeping under it.
>> So what happens during the remaining ~15 hours/day? Do they keep it in a
>> storage locker or something?
> It was a storage locker, crib, cage, etc.
>>> I'm six feet tall, they were 4-5' tall.
>> And your source for this factoid is...?
> Homo habilis etc.

And how many "domeshields" have been found in Oldowan sites?

> And why would that be relevant?
> Why wouldn't it be relevant?

You really should think this through. The size something needs to be to
accommodate a person and the perceived bulkiness of an object are both
equally functions of the size of a person.

The smallest accommodation one can construct for a person is probably a
coffin, which are typically around 7' long. And that's only because dead
people don't move around a lot. A modern human is not going to find it
very convenient to carry around a modern-sized coffin anymore than an H.
habilis is going to find it convenient to carry around an H.
habilis-sized coffin.

But what you're proposing is a "domeshield" which would essentially need
to be minimally the diameter of a coffin. That's going to be even less
convenient to carry around. Especially when you're apparently doing this
one-handed since you've got an infant in the other hand.

>>> See if
>>>> you can find the proper dimensions which would make it both large enough
>>>> to sleep under and sufficiently portable to carry. Make sure to bring an
>>>> infant or a doll with you.
>>> Cf umbrella. My cats escaped rain inside, and when tilted up used it as a sunshade.
>> And do you ever see your cat carrying an umbrella around?
> They used mine. I'm generous. And extraordinarily patient with fools.

Which entirely misses the point. A human-sized umbrella might be large
enough for a cat to sleep under but is far too large for a cat to carry.

>>>> If you have any friends, you might get them to join in on this
>>>> experiment as a sort of group project. The experiment should take place
>>>> over a suffiently long time that multiple different weather conditions
>>>> are encountered.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you claim these provided protection, make sure to do this
>>>> experiment somewhere where predators like bears or tigers are reasonably
>>>> common.
>>> Camouflage, with spears.
>>>>
>>>> Or, given that the biggest danger faced by humans tends to be other
>>>> humans, pick somewhere inhabited by other humans such as North Sentinel
>>>> Island or Camden NJ. See how safe you feel under your "domeshield".
>>> Far more than lying naked on the ground.
>>>> If you are feeling particularly brave, you could also test out your
>>>> "domeshield"'s ability to function as a coracle. Say, by crossing the
>>>> Niagara river.
>>> No, across a croc & hippo filled river perhaps. They eat neither twigs nor broadleaves.
>> And have you actually attempted this? Maybe a trip down the White Nile?
> Coracles were a result of long time domeshield usage, just as dome huts were. Archaic Homo had only domeshields.
> If you want to fund my venture to the White Nile, I'll post the video.
>>>> Please report back to us on your findings and on how great a
>>>> "domeshield" would have been for our palaeoancestors.
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> As I've been doing continuously here at sci.lang for years. But your cubicle is a hollow shell which acoustically echoes more than it filters, unlike its paleoancestral waterproof bugproof sunblocking camouflaged thin-walled domeshield.
>> Waterproof, bugproof, sunblocking, and completely evidence-free. You
>> always forget that last bit.
>> André
>>
>>
>> --
>> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
>> service.
>
> Evidence-free? You need to provide an alternative scenario, then you can make claims about evidence. So far you're just a whiner full of hot air.

That's not how science works. When you make a proposal it is entirely
incumbent on you to provide the evidence for your proposal; not on
others to provide an alternative. A "theory" (using the term rather
loosely) offered without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:33:50 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:

> You really should think this through. The size something needs to be to
> accommodate a person and the perceived bulkiness of an object are both
> equally functions of the size of a person.
>
> The smallest accommodation one can construct for a person is probably a
> coffin, which are typically around 7' long. And that's only because dead
> people don't move around a lot. A modern human is not going to find it
> very convenient to carry around a modern-sized coffin anymore than an H.
> habilis is going to find it convenient to carry around an H.
> habilis-sized coffin.

You forget that people bend in two relevant places (hips, knees), and some
cultures interred their deceased in pottery jars.

> But what you're proposing is a "domeshield" which would essentially need
> to be minimally the diameter of a coffin. That's going to be even less
> convenient to carry around. Especially when you're apparently doing this
> one-handed since you've got an infant in the other hand.

The coffin dimension is fully relevant to that consideration, of course. But
I've been imagining them as not particularly "dome"-like, but more kayak-
shaped.

On 2021-12-15 08:34, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:33:50 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
>
>> You really should think this through. The size something needs to be to
>> accommodate a person and the perceived bulkiness of an object are both
>> equally functions of the size of a person.
>>
>> The smallest accommodation one can construct for a person is probably a
>> coffin, which are typically around 7' long. And that's only because dead
>> people don't move around a lot. A modern human is not going to find it
>> very convenient to carry around a modern-sized coffin anymore than an H.
>> habilis is going to find it convenient to carry around an H.
>> habilis-sized coffin.
>
> You forget that people bend in two relevant places (hips, knees), and some
> cultures interred their deceased in pottery jars.

Yes, I ignored that possibility on the grounds that that it didn't seem
a viable option for living people. Dead people don't complain about
being in uncomfortable positions nearly as much as living ones. Or at
least they're much less vocal about it.

>> But what you're proposing is a "domeshield" which would essentially need
>> to be minimally the diameter of a coffin. That's going to be even less
>> convenient to carry around. Especially when you're apparently doing this
>> one-handed since you've got an infant in the other hand.
>
> The coffin dimension is fully relevant to that consideration, of course. But
> I've been imagining them as not particularly "dome"-like, but more kayak-
> shaped.

Even a kayak-shaped "domeshield" would be rather unwieldy for a single
person to carry around with them.

IIRC, Daud has likened his "domeshields" to a nguni-style shield on a
few occasions, but it would have to be a damned large nguni shield to
actually sleep under. Not the sort of thing one would want to lug about.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:20:43 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> On 2021-12-15 08:34, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:33:50 AM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> >
> >> You really should think this through. The size something needs to be to
> >> accommodate a person and the perceived bulkiness of an object are both
> >> equally functions of the size of a person.
> >>
> >> The smallest accommodation one can construct for a person is probably a
> >> coffin, which are typically around 7' long. And that's only because dead
> >> people don't move around a lot. A modern human is not going to find it
> >> very convenient to carry around a modern-sized coffin anymore than an H.
> >> habilis is going to find it convenient to carry around an H.
> >> habilis-sized coffin.
> >
> > You forget that people bend in two relevant places (hips, knees), and some
> > cultures interred their deceased in pottery jars.
> Yes, I ignored that possibility on the grounds that that it didn't seem
> a viable option for living people. Dead people don't complain about
> being in uncomfortable positions nearly as much as living ones. Or at
> least they're much less vocal about it.
> >> But what you're proposing is a "domeshield" which would essentially need
> >> to be minimally the diameter of a coffin. That's going to be even less
> >> convenient to carry around. Especially when you're apparently doing this
> >> one-handed since you've got an infant in the other hand.
> >
> > The coffin dimension is fully relevant to that consideration, of course.. But
> > I've been imagining them as not particularly "dome"-like, but more kayak-
> > shaped.
> Even a kayak-shaped "domeshield" would be rather unwieldy for a single
> person to carry around with them.
>
> IIRC, Daud has likened his "domeshields" to a nguni-style shield on a
> few occasions, but it would have to be a damned large nguni shield to
> actually sleep under. Not the sort of thing one would want to lug about.
> André
>
> --
> To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
> service.

https://images.app.goo.gl/MrT2LQnpRRtt58aQ9
Sun shade, fan; behind are dome huts, all descend from domeshields.