In a message dated 7/22/02 11:58:38 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< But I do agree that paleo people probably ate some grains
whenever and wherever they found them, just as people
continue to eat all kinds of things today that cause
indigestion if overconsumed. Small amounts of grains, eaten
seasonally or occasionally wouldn't have caused disease in
most people.  >>

I'm new here and don't know whether or not you've discussed Wadley and 
Martin's "The Origins of Agriculture ... - they postulate that early man was 
attracted to cereal grains and to some extent dairy because of the opioid 
substances (exorphins) that they contain. May explain why they were/are so 
persistent.  Tried to send the whole article to make it easier, but came back 
saying it exceeded 300 lines -- but will give link and intro only. <A 
HREF="http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/">
http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/</A> then go to Food. 

The origins of agriculture –
a biological perspective and a new hypothesis
by Greg Wadley & Angus Martin
Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne
Published in Australian Biologist 6: 96 – 105, June 1993
Introduction
What might head a list of the defining characteristics of the human species? 
While our view of ourselves could hardly avoid highlighting our 
accomplishments in engineering, art, medicine, space travel and the like, in 
a more dispassionate assessment agriculture would probably displace all other 
contenders for top billing. Most of the other achievements of humankind have 
followed from this one. Almost without exception, all people on earth today 
are sustained by agriculture. With a minute number of exceptions, no other 
species is a farmer. Essentially all of the arable land in the world is under 
cultivation. Yet agriculture began just a few thousand years ago, long after 
the appearance of anatomically modern humans.
Given the rate and the scope of this revolution in human biology, it is quite 
extraordinary that there is no generally accepted model accounting for the 
origin of agriculture. Indeed, an increasing array of arguments over recent 
years has suggested that agriculture, far from being a natural and upward 
step, in fact led commonly to a lower quality of life. Hunter-gatherers 
typically do less work for the same amount of food, are healthier, and are 
less prone to famine than primitive farmers (Lee & DeVore 1968, Cohen 1977, 
1989). A biological assessment of what has been called the puzzle of 
agriculture might phrase it in simple ethological terms: why was this 
behaviour (agriculture) reinforced (and hence selected for) if it was not 
offering adaptive rewards surpassing those accruing to hunter-gathering or 
foraging economies?
This paradox is responsible for a profusion of models of the origin of 
agriculture. 'Few topics in prehistory', noted Hayden (1990) 'have engendered 
as much discussion and resulted in so few satisfying answers as the attempt 
to explain why hunter/gatherers began to cultivate plants and raise animals. 
Climatic change, population pressure, sedentism, resource concentration from 
desertification, girls' hormones, land ownership, geniuses, rituals, 
scheduling conflicts, random genetic kicks, natural selection, broad spectrum 
adaptation and multicausal retreats from explanation have all been proffered 
to explain domestication. All have major flaws ... the data do not accord 
well with any one of these models. '
Recent discoveries of potentially psychoactive substances in certain 
agricultural products - cereals and milk - suggest an additional perspective 
on the adoption of agriculture and the behavioural changes ('civilisation') 
that followed it. In this paper we review the evidence for the drug-like 
properties of these foods, and then show how they can help to solve the 
biological puzzle just described .
 
Namaste, Liz