From the Greek παλαιός, palaios, "old"; and λίθος, lithos, "stone".

I know what a monolith is, so it follows that a paleolith is an old stone.
I defer to someone who knows Greek to opine as to whether paleolithic 
means stony, stone-like, stoned or whatever.
Inquiring minds need to know.


I agree that the term 'Paleo Diet' *should* refer to WOE during the time 
period between 2.5 million years ago up until the introduction of 
agriculture and the end of the  Pleistocene around 10 000 BC. However 
there is some danger of confusion with thepaleolithicdiet.com/ and The 
Paleo Diet  as defined by the ubiquitous troll Loren Cordain.


Padraig seems to have been seduced by Wrongham. Pity.

William


Dedy Rundle wrote:
> An idea...
> 
> Any chance we can agree that when we use the term 'Paleo Diet' here on 
> this list we refer to WOE during the time period between 2.5 million 
> years ago up until the introduction of agriculture and the end of the 
> Pleistocene around 10 000 BC?
> 
> There's a seemingly sensible overview on Wikipedia regarding 
> 'Paleolithic' and relevant to this list in particular, the section about 
> 'Diet and nutrition'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
> 
> 
> Dedy
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Kesterson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 02 July 2009 16:45
> Subject: Re: [PALEOFOOD] Was: Zero Carb, Now Fructose
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:21:27 -0500, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As to the "fruit in winter" issue, remember that modern humans first
>>>> appeared in Africa, in tropical climates.  Winter wasn't the issue 
>>>> it is
>>>> in temperate climates, and there was fruit (and eggs and insects) all
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> No, this isn't right.  The generally accepted view is that during a 
>>> cycle
>>> of global cooling, the tropical forests shrank, and some apes or apelike
>>> hominids living near the fringe of the forest were forced out into the
>>> grasslands, and had to make a living there.  *They*, not the ones who
>>> stayed in the forests, became our ancestors.
>>
>> Interesting.  (I knew we came from the forest, but didn't realize we 
>> were forced out.)  Before being forced out, though, my comment still 
>> seems valid.  (Of course I guess it just depends how far back you want 
>> to go. You could argue most anything if you go back far enough.)
>>
>>> In our world, where fruit and its
>>> metabolic cognates (sugary foods and refined carbs) are constantly
>>> available in overwhelming abundance and at low cost, it doesn't work so
>>> well.
>>
>> By "low cost", I presume you mean in the sense of the energy we must 
>> expend to get it?  If we had to burn 90 calories climbing a tree to 
>> get a 100 calorie apple (or snickers bar or whatever), it might be 
>> different. (I have no idea how many calories it takes to climb a tree, 
>> it's just an example.)
>>
>> -- 
>>   Robert Kesterson
>>   [log in to unmask] 
> 
>