Staffan Lindeberg writes:

>This, Ward, is from an old unpublished report of mine:
>
>In archaeologically derived Eskimo skeletons, a high incidence of spinal
>compression fractures and thin bone cortices have been noted, possibly most
>pronounced in Northern Eskimos (Inupiaq) [49-50].
>
>49. Merbs CF. Patterns of activity-induced pathology in a Canadian Eskimo
>isolate. PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969.
>50. Thompson DD, Gunness-Hey M. Bone mineral-osteon analysis of
>Yupik-Inupiaq skeletons. Am J Phys Anthropol1981; 55: 1-7.

Thanks for posting this, Staffan. Much obliged. Being as this is from one
of your own reports, would you care to summarize it or give a brief
abstract of it for us here? (Particularly since it seems to contradict the
general thrust of the citations that Dean gave earlier today.)
Specifically, my interest is to what the researchers attribute the spinal
compression fractures and thin bone cortices, assuming there was enough
detailed evidence to draw any tentative conclusions. Also of help would be
a brief explanation of what "spinal compression fractures" and "thin bone
corcies" are, and more to the point--what the usual etiology is (i.e.,
diet, overuse trauma, whatever), as these terms are over my head without a
medical dictionary.

Also, Dean, many thanks for your detailed post, too, in response to my
request. May I suggest if you are getting jaded having to explain things
over and over, then it is time for a FAQ for both this list (Grant's
responsibility, I know) and Paleodiet (your own). This is how most lists
handle the repeated-questions dilemma--often mailing out the FAQ as part of
the automated subscription charter that new subscribers receive. I'd hate
to see us get start getting impatient and offputting newcomers when
explaining things anew for those like Paul who are new to all this and just
want some answers.

As he has shown, you can lurk on the list for a few weeks after joining,
and still not get to know the various points of view. And I think at this
point it is a little much to ask of someone to comb through all the
archives since they will only continue to grow, when a FAQ is the
tried-and-true solution. (I would volunteer to do a FAQ myself, but am
simply too busy and otherwise involved right now rebuilding my business for
one thing, which is one reason I have been posting only sporadically and
lurking for the most part.) You can bet these questions are going to come
up repeatedly over and over in the future without a FAQ. Also, please
understand that even individuals like myself with at least some familiarity
with the literature may not be into the literature nearly so thoroughly as
you are, and will rethink our positions on the issues from time and time,
and want to refresh our memories when going back over forgotten ground.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>

P.S. A good way to get started on a FAQ, I would think, would be to do what
you suggested Paul do: Go through the archives of both this list and the
Paleodiet list and cull the best postings, especially from individuals like
Loren Cordain, Staffan, and I dare say yourself, Dean--the ones packed with
references and succinct info-dense summaries of the evidence--and stitch
together and compile them under different subheadings. Assuming, of course,
reproducing the postings is cleared with those who wrote them, but I doubt
that should be any problem. Also, I would think for a list like this and
the sister Paleodiet list, preserving a good body of references as part and
parcel of the FAQ would be essential for the type folk attracted to lists
like these. And if the FAQ could be jointly maintained to serve for both
lists, it would kill two birds with one stone.