Re: diseases and immunity

Mary Beth Williams (
28 Jun 1996 18:29:29 GMT

In <4r15be$> (Philip
Deitiker) writes:
> Beth Williams) wrote:
>>>>[Cutting to get to something that sticks out rather oddly.]
>>Incorrect. *lith* is from the Greek for *stone* (lithos). Hence,
>>paleolithic refers to *ancient stone (tools)*, not ancient writing.
>> I was criticized for the
>>>use of the term 'paleolithic' which I believe is correct since no
>>>modern scriptic written langauge was present. I will go on using
>>>definition until someone either produces a written form for Eastern
>>>woodlanders or tells me that paleolithic as I've defined it wrong.
>>So I guess you'll stop now, no?
>That's why it sticks out oddly <grinning>.
>Actually, thanks for the clarification, I had been going by a
>definition in an abridged dictionary, which I had never bothered to
>crosscheck, you get what you pay for.....but as for stopping the
>argument, I still don't think the clarification supports your point of
>view either.
>Lets see how you like this definition...
>Paleolithic (c. 1865)..... of or relating to the second period of
>the stone age characterized by rough or chipped stone impliments
>(Sorry, but NIH and other gov't funds don't provide for new
>So are you saying they didn't use chipped stone impliments?
>Or is this definition also wrong? Not that it really matters because
>its clear that these cultures had neither entered the metal ages yet.

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? The
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.

MB Williams
Dept. of Anthro., UMass-Amherst