On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:31:07 -0500, William <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:25:01 -0400, Robert Kesterson  
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:34:25 -0500, Keith Thomas <[log in to unmask]>  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, no remedy for this cold, but I should point out
>>> that in the Palaeolithic, colds were not a problem.
>>
>> How can we know this?
>
> During my winters in the Canadian high Arctic, it was well known that  
> you could only get a cold if someone had come in from the filthy  
> southland. Usually Edmonton, AB.
> IIRC this applied for all infectious diseases.
> Living was quite dense.

I don't doubt that.  My kids seldom had colds before they started  
attending school.  (Note: not "never", but "seldom".)  But it doesn't  
really say anything about whether or not colds were a problem in  
paleolithic times.  Sure, they might not have spread as quickly, but once  
one member of a group (family, pack, tribe, or whatever) became infected  
with something, it would have spread among that group.  I have no doubt  
that infections spread more quickly in a dense population, but it does not  
follow that dense population *causes* the infection.

And even if it did, it still wouldn't show whether or not colds were a  
problem for paleolitic man.  My point was that we have no idea whether or  
not paleo man had a cold once in a lifetime or six times a year.  It's not  
like having a cold would show up in your bones a million years later.

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]