From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 23:59:51 MDT
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> Hmm. I wonder if Neolithic declines in health might come less from
> the diet change and more from (a) amount of food (i.e. not enough, if
> they weren't that good at it and thugs were stealing a lot) and (b)
> diseases from being crowded and sedentary and then living with
> animals.
Concerning (a): if you're measuring food in calories, then it looks pretty
apparent to me that early Neolithic peoples consumed on average at least as
much if not more calories than late Paleolithic peoples. I say this because
the evidence is that early Neolithic peoples were more prone to diseases
like diabetes, which suggests at least excessive calories from
carbohydrates.
Concerning (b): I'm not sure what you mean by "living with animals." Are you
referring to the domestication of cats and dogs? I don't think the
domestication of cats and dogs led to any significant increase in disease or
mortality. Probably just the opposite. 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.
As for the increase in sedentary living in the Neolithic, yes I agree: I
think that's a given. But I hasten to add that this is only my own opinion.
I know some reputable paleodiet theorists who believe paleolithic males were
more sedentary than modern males, though they generally don't think the same
was true for paleolithic females. They believe late paleolithic males
basically just sat on their asses much of the time, telling jokes and
stories to one another, and that they needed only to hunt occasionally to
provide their women and children with animal foods. I disagree with them,
but admittedly there are some studies of modern HG cultures that seem to
give their arguments some credence.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 00:08:44 MDT