From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 12:42:53 MDT
Damien Sullivan wrote:
>> If you are referring to the
>> farming of animals then I also think it did not in itself lead to any
>> significant increase in disease or mortality, at least not from
>> infectious disease.
>
> Yes, farming animals.
Yes, you may be right about this. I thought after sending that last post to
you, "Hmm, maybe he had a point there."
>> As for the increase in sedentary living in the Neolithic, yes I
>> agree: I
>
> By sedentary I meant "poor sanitation", made even worse with the
> animals.
I think both these points you make above are valid, but keep in mind that as
hunters, and as scavengers of the killed prey of other predators, we must
have already been pretty well-exposed to animal diseases prior to the
Neolithic. Also, perhaps more importantly, the advent of agriculture and
animal husbandry roughly coincided with the advent of geographically fixed
societies and specialization. I think it would be incorrect to say that
everyone was so heavily exposed to animal excrement and animal germs. We
needed a Carpenter to make homes and farm tools, and then later a Smith to
make even more tools, and a Miller to make flour from the farm products, a
Baker to make foods from the flour made by the Miller, etc. I'm sure anyone
named Carpenter, Smith, Miller, or Baker will concur. :)
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 12:48:56 MDT