William wrote:


>On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:06:15 -0500, <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
>
>> I found the following excerpt in "The Nature of Paleolithic Art" by R. 
 
>> Dale Guthrie.  It follows a discussion of paleo life expectancy, that  
>> only 4% of people lived past age 40.
>>
>
>This mistake keeps showing up.
>
>Palelodiet is based partly on the observation that the bones of 
paleoman  
>were perfectly formed, and show NO signs of disease, and very rarely 
any  
>injury.

I think you've exaggerated the point, but I believe the idea is 
correct.  For a long time the age of a bone (i.e., the age of its owner 
at death) was inferred from the condition of the bone, particularly its 
density.  The assumption was that as we age our bones become less 
dense, more brittle, etc.---since that is in fact what happens to *us*. 
 So a highly dense bone in good condition was inferred to have belonged 
to a young man or woman.  Since few bones of paleo people were found 
that weren't in excellent condition, it was inferred that they died 
young.  It's not circular reasoning, but it does rest on the 
unwarranted assumption that paleo bones aged in a manner similar to the 
ways ours do.

But there was a study, using some *other* way of measuring the age of 
the bone-owner at death, that indicated that paleo people lived long 
lives (comparable to ours anyway), but without much bone deterioration. 
 That study was mentioned on this list a number of times over the 
years, and I wish I could find it again, but I've been unable to do so. 
 I think it was Ray Audette who first cited it on here, but it was 
quite a while back.

Since this canard does keep coming back, it would be good to be able to 
look at this research again.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]