----- Original Message -----
From: "Paleogal"
> Two socioeconomic classes emerged
> where before there had been only one (Johnson & Earle 1987:270), thus
> establishing a pattern which has been prevalent since that time."

In the apocryphal words of a daughter of Austria made famous de-capitated
wife of France when the peasants could no longer have their daily dose of
bread, "Let them eat cake."

Yes, power and  politics do historically determine diet for the masses.  I
can't speak about an earlier time period or place, but in the Middle Ages
(and onward to less distant, more recent times) throughout much of Europe
game animals "belonged" to the local/regional sovereign/ruler.  "Meat" was
the food of the rich.  It's no small coincidence, for example, that FISCHER
is the fourth most common surname in the whole of Germany, so widespread was
the occupation from the need to fish in order to feed faces and families.
Fish was an important food during Lent, of course, but it was certainly also
a mainstay protein for the populace in the absence of being able to legally
hunt and consume game.  Lest I appear to be singling out Germany, its rulers
of the various kingdoms were not alone in issuing prohibitive hunting
edicts.  Such laws were in fact widespread in France and England too, and
probably in other countries as well.  (I seem to recall that Russia had
similar game laws.)  Burgeoning populations--even in the face of such mass
devastations as the Black Death/Plague and frequent warfare--had led to
severe overhunting, with game animals and citizens becoming victims of
supply and demand and rulers the victors over both.

St. John De Crèvecour, an ardent admirer of Americans of European roots,
possessed quite an exacting eye for observation, even if he cast his view
more favorably upon the American farmer than the American hunter.  As a
European himself, he was more familiar with the former than the latter way
of life.  In "Letters from an American Farmer," written earlier but
published in 1782, he wrote, "By living in or near the woods, their actions
are regulated by the wildness of the neighborhood....[T]hey soon become
professed hunters; this is the progress; once hunters, farewell to the plow.
The chase renders them ferocious, gloomy, and unsociable....In a little
time, their success in the woods makes them neglect their tillage.  They
trust to the natural fecundity of the earth, and therefore, do little;
carelessness in fencing often exposes what little they sow to destruction;
they are not at home to watch; in order therefore to make up the deficiency,
they go oftener to the woods.  That new mode of life brings along with it a
new set of manners which I cannot easily describe.  These new manners, being
grafted on the old stock, produces a strange sort of lawless profligacy, the
impressions of which are indelible....Europeans...have suddenly passed from
oppression, dread of government, and fear of laws into the unlimited freedom
of the [American] woods.  This sudden change must have a very great effect
on most men....Eating of wild meat, whatever you may think, tends to alter
their temper: though all the proof I can adduce is that I have seen
it....[B]y tilling the earth, all our wants are supplied by it, our time is
divided between labor and rest....As hunters it is divided between the toil
of the chase [and] the idleness of repose."

The arguments put forth in the "Origins of Agriculture"  need little
buttressing in my view.  I get downright stuporous and compliant over a loaf
of bread.  Also very gaseous. <vbg>  I think history steeped in modern
chemistry provides a great feast for public consumption, and thought.

Theola