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
|