In the meantime, @douglas99, could we have a source for 'most adults died in their mid 40's, if they weren't violently killed before, in war or accident' please?
Only humans are clever enough to grown grain... And stupid enough to eat it!!??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/241864.stm
They all have similar figures, so they're either all right, or all wrong.
If you have a different opinion, we'll be interested if you'd like to share?
These count as historical sources???? TV websites?? Sarah Woodbury on Welsh royals??
Wikipedia at least has citations, if only to television programmes, but that says for medieval period 'At age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years (total age 64). How does that count as 'mid 40s'???'.[
What do you mean 'contradictory historical evidence'?? You have presented no evidence to begin with. One of the sources that you quote says something completely different to what you said, as I have just quoted, and you have ignored it. You are mixing up life expectancy at birth and life expectancy after 21 -- I suggest you quietly admit it and we can move on.Like I said, I await, and indeed welcome your contradictory historical evidence, to prove all others wrong.
Please provide it, and you can indeed prove all other sources incorrect.
What do you mean 'contradictory historical evidence'?? You have presented no evidence to begin with. One of the sources that you quote says something completely different to what you said, as I have just quoted, and you have ignored it. You are mixing up life expectancy at birth and life expectancy after 21 -- I suggest you quietly admit it and we can move on.
It is amazing though that since 1918 when vitamins in veg was measured to nowadays that the vitamins have reduced dramatically. There was a programme on about it recently. I was staggered. So if this is the case, what are humans doing to the whole goodness of natural foods? Whether low carb or not? I'm so glad I grow so much of my own.
Last week I saw a field of effectively mud being sprayed with the most luminous green spray I have ever seen.. Definately not natural!!
Thankyou, @douglas99, you have made my point for me. You don't understand evidence, you don't understand logic, you can't argue. This is about historical demography, about which you know and understand precisely nothing, but the same failings in evidence and logic underlie what you say about diabetes, which is why people don't take you seriously. And which is why I'm not going to waste my time on this any longer.I don't believe your mis quote is strictly allowable. As I said, 'English aristocracy' which you seem to be keen on ignoring, probably doesn't reflect the entire population.
I await your proof.
If you have nothing, there is little point discussing it much further with you.
@modesty007
I would be interested to see the links for that, and what period it states humans started eating grains, and what evidence they're giving for that conclusion.
It was with the advent of farming, circa 10,000 years ago.
The evidence is skeletal and dental, from archaeological digs.
Average height declined, musculature altered, teeth showed more decay, and the jawbone narrowed, if I remember correctly.
There was also increased skeletal degeneration due to age (arthritis, and similar).
I'll have a look for refs.
Ah, here we are:
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
Apologies for using Wikipedia. I wouldn't usually, but the articles do give a great over view, and (except for the Neolithic article above, they are well referenced)
For better detail on the Neolithic diet, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
in particular, this paragraph
'It has long been taken for granted that the introduction of agriculture had been an unequivocal progress. This is now questioned in view of findings by archaeologists and paleopathologists showing that nutritional standards of Neolithic populations were generally inferior to that of hunter-gatherers, and that their life expectancy may well have been shorter too, in part due to diseases and harder work - hunter-gatherers must have covered their food needs with about 20 hours' work a week, while agriculture required much more and was at least as uncertain. The hunter-gatherers' diet was more varied and balanced than what agriculture later allowed. Average height went down from 5'10" (178 cm) for men and 5'6" (168 cm) for women to 5'5" (165 cm) and 5'1" (155 cm), respectively, and it took until the twentieth century for average human height to come back to the pre-Neolithic Revolution levels.[56] Agriculturalists had more anaemias and vitamin deficiencies, more spinal deformations and more dental pathologies.[29]
As always, academics debate these things to death.
I have always thought that this is why I have a deep and abiding dislike of full time work.
20 hours though? I could manage that easily.
Neanderthal man ate grains
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12071424
We've always eaten then them.
Social reasons of the neolithic age meant farming could enable populations to grow crops in a stable area, such as a village rather than forage for them.
(and wiki is fine for me, I'm not precious so long as the information is factual, the internet's a big enough place anyway)
Yup, Neanderthal man ate grains.
But they were not a staple, and they were not cultivated in the quantities and manner that is considered to be farming. They certainly did not impact on lifespan, health and skeletal structure in a way that is measurable in the archaeological record.
And the problem with accepting vague, inadequately referenced opinions as 'fact' is that facts need to be evidenced.
If we can't list sources, evidence and respected conclusions, then we are dealing in opinion, hearsay and blather.
Which have nothing to do with fact.
No, I'm still fine with you using wiki.
Even though most of your post was actually your opinion on Neanderthal man, rather than actual facts about his diet.
So, no proof, no valid argument, no admission you entirely mis-read the wiki article, didn't realise it referred to one specific privileged group, and just won't admit you jumped in feet first, and were completely wrong?
Fair enough.
Rhetoric without proof or reason.
Hmm.
It is not one-upmanship. I am making a very simple point which I would have thought was obvious.What is this one-upmanship actually proving?
If you want to keep trying to outdo each other then why not use the PM system?
Yup, Neanderthal man probably ate grains.
But they were not a staple, and they were not cultivated in the quantities and manner that is considered to be farming. They certainly did not impact on lifespan, health and skeletal structure in a way that is measurable in the archaeological record.
And Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago.
Neolithic man (genetically identical to modern humans) lived (and farmed) from 10,000 to approx 3,000years ago. They were the first true farmers, using grains as staples.
And the problem with accepting vague, inadequately referenced opinions as 'fact' is that facts need to be evidenced.
If we can't list sources, evidence and respected conclusions, then we are dealing in opinion, hearsay and blather.
Which have nothing to do with fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?