Let me begin by saying that I am thirlled by today's posts from Sarah
Mason and Dean Esmay. Such discussions are the very reasons I wanted to
participate in this list.

On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:33:55 -0400   Dean Esmay wrote:

> What I think some archaeologists may be missing is that they'll probably
> never have a complete picture and will always have debate over many
> specific points.  They may also miss that the results of their hunt in this
> area has serious ramifications for those far beyond their field. The
> question of what humans evolved to eat is an important one which may have
> tremendous impact on medicine and nutrition.

This is, in my opinion, an extremely important point worth exploring just
a little further.
In:
Armelagos G, Van Gerven D, Martin D, and Huss-Ashmore R, "Effects of
Nutritional Change  on the Skeletal Biology of Northeast African
(Sudanese Nubian) Populations" _From Hunters to Farmers_ Clark J, &
Brandt S. eds. U of California Press, 1984

They indicate that concommitant with the advent of agriculture, associated
skeletal remains  revealed significant skeletal changes including:
cranial morphology; porotic hyperostosis; bone growth patterns;
microdefects in dentition; and premature osteoporosis in juvenile and
young women.

These conditions could be attributed, for the most part, to a dietary
crisis which preceeded the cultivation of cereals, rather than the result
of such cultivation. There is, however, an exception to this
generalization. Porotic hyperostosis is well established as the result of
iron deficiency anemia. It happens that the proximal duodenum is both the
site of earliest damage to the intestinal microvilli, in gluten
reactions,  and the site of most iron absorption.

Without such archaeological evidence, medical assessment could not occur.

> >First, since much of the data used in constructing
> >arguments about a 'healthy' diet derives from studies of recent h-gs and
> >traditional agriculturalists, why is it felt necessary to go through the
> >extra step of extrapolating such diets back to the Palaeolithic to
> >demonstrate that they might be good for us too?

That is not quite how I see this as working. The arguments used to deny
the pathogenic nature of cereals  point to the long, healthy heritage of
their cultivation and consumption. A fair response to such an argument is
to offer evidence to the contrary.

> > Which leads onto my second
> >point, which is that the desire to produce a model of Palaeolithic diet
> >which supports recommendations for a modern healthy diet is in many ways
> >putting the cart before the horse, in that arguments about the 'paleodiet'
> >may be being influenced by opinions about what constitutes a 'healthy'
> >diet; and, most importantly (from my point of view anyway), may be
> >preventing an objective approach to the true nature of Palaeolithic diets.

But if we can have a sense of human dietary habits during the bulk of the
evolution of our predecessors, we may be able to counter some of the
malignacy and autoimmunity which is torturing and killing much of the
Western world. Modern medicine does much to aid us in our battle against
bacteria and injury, but they are quite ineffective when it comes to
civilizatory diseases.

> The discomfort of the archaeologist in these discussions is both
> understandable and serious, but also may be missing an important point.  If
> archaeology can provide useful insights to people in other fields, then
> that is a tremendous contribution.  To be more melodramatic, if
> archaeological data can provide inspiration and insight into theories in
> medicine which eventually lead to improving the quality of life for
> millions of people, even saving lives, that's impressive indeed.  It's
> probably not why you got into archaeology, in fact that was probably the
> furthest thing from your mind at the time, but it represents (to me) one of
> the most exciting ways in which one field can cross-pollinate with another
> to bring about wonderful results.

And there is some possibility of aiding in archaeological discovery. For
instance, declines of certain populations might be explained in light of
evidence that suggests that cereal grains may be a factor in lukemia and
lymphoma. Increased consumption of cereals might lead to increases in
consequent deaths. I would think that could be a powerful bit of
information in the hands of an archaeologist trying to unravel a mystery
involving lost civilizations.