PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paleo Phil <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:25:52 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
Here's an interesting report with a counterview:

Was there a Neolithic mortality crisis?
From: Journal of Population Research  |  Date: 11/1/2003  |  Author:
Caldwell, Bruce K. 
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-111014981.html

-----------------

I came across this recent research report with a hypothesis and conclusions
that run counter to what 
Cordain, Audette, Weston Price, Stefansson, Lee, Sahlins, et al argued and
what most of us here believe. It argues that human mortality may not have
increased with the inception of the Neolithic era, as is commonly believed,
and that deaths from wars, murder (including infanticide), starvation, the
stresses of nomadic travel, and illnesses such as staphylococcal and
streptococcal infection, gangrene and tetanus were what balanced the
population, rather than mainly naturally low birth rates, or low birth rates
combined with infections, as has been argued in the rosier views of the
Paleolithic era. Unlike most opposition arguments I have seen put forward,
this one does not rely solely on popular assumptions or outdated science
about the harshness of Paleolithic life and examines the evidence put
forward by several of the proponents of the "Stone Age affluent society"
hypothesis. 

It is the strongest counterargument I have seen yet by far, and it makes a
decent case that some of the rosiest views of the Paleolithic era (such as
that of Marshall Sahlins) may be overly positive, but I don't find the
hypothesis that there was no increase in mortality (and resulting decrease
in average lifespan) to be convincing. While I was disappointed to learn
recently that the decrease in lifespan with the dawn of the Neolithic was
rather small (something that Cordain and Audette failed to mention), it does
seem significant, especially when combined with the data on increased
chronic health problems in the Neolithic, though the evidence is admittedly
sparse, and lower rates of chronic health problems among hunter-gatherers.
Also, if Caldwell's counterview is true about humans who were living in the
wild, then it seems to me that we should find similar tendencies among other
primates. While Goodall did find warring among chimpanzees, I doubt that it
is on a scale sufficient to offset high birth rates, and it is my
understanding that the birth rates of chimps are naturally much lower than
those of agricultural humans.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2