Re: diseases and immunity
Philip Deitiker (email@example.com)
Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:53:58 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>I think that you miss the emphasis on *the second period of the _stone
>age_*... Many peoples throughout history show evidence of chipped stone
>tools -- just what would you call a musket flint, if not *chipped
>stone* tool? Hence, American colonists were paleoliths?
And don't forget a diamond is also a chipped stone, but I think what
one is talking about is the maximum extent of impliment technology.
For example, it takes alot of know how to be able to build a furnaces
for the high temperature reduction of metals. One could argue whether
a culture is using such smelting to build jewelry of nails and
plowshares. Or to cut the issue another way, and this is one I've
brought up before, can one use the quality of stone tools made as a
method for assign the technical sophistication, considering that each
cultures differential use of stone, wood bone (and in the case of
mesoamericans glass and copper). IOW the imphasis in technology could
have been on the developement of equally versatile wooden and stone
artifacts. But the fact is that wood and bone have a short half life
Or lets look at this another way can you define that the
'amerinds' of the north america had significantly more technology in
500 YA than the 'paleoindains' had in 11,500 YA when they crossed. If
you say yes I think a nice argument will persue.
>Paleolithic was a particular designation of time/material culture,
>prior to the Neolithic... a designation which is not not used in New
>World anthropology, although the term *PaleoIndian* is.
Which is not used paleolith or neolith.
Would you like a ref to a paper wherby both _stone age_, paleolithic
and paleoindian are used? And finally, whether or not this is correct
usage, what bering does it have on the topic of discussion?