-
>
>If we think of the origin of agriculture as a kind of cultural
>evolution, in which a low-frequency practice becomes a
>high-frequency practice, the pieces fit together.  If people
>weren't used to eating grains at least some of the time, it makes
>no sense that they would go to the trouble of planting them.  Why
>would they plant crops that they didn't eat, or that made them
>sick?

did any scientists ever consider the possibility that wild grains have been
favorised in the wild 1st  (thru burning or other form of  selection
pressure) ,  then domesticated  2 nd ( sowed and selection of seeds ) for
the purpose of attracting wild games around villages ( to avoid having to
run after). May be the primitive target of domestication was the animals,
but like the following suggest ,may be not only .
The native people of the west coast of Canada were favorising and owning
patches of wild berries (salmon berries or thimble berrie) and favorising
the wild camas (lily family) keeping them weeded out from death camas (a
very poisonous relative very similar in appearance when not in flower)
the deers appreciate a lot wild berry bushes too and eat camas foliage.
>
>What makes sense to me is the idea that they noticed the fact
>that when wild wheat was ready to be gathered, they obtained a
>good amount of food, and the grains could be kept for a period.
>Therefore, if one just planted more, one would get even more
>food, etc.  If grains were a food that no one wanted to eat
>unless they were starving then I just can't see anyone saying,
>"Let's break our backs planting this crap so that we can eat even
>more of it."

sowing require little effort (don't require tilling or weeding)
>
>Anyway, the interesting thing to me is that this perspective
>places grains and fruits and nuts into a similar paleodiet
>category: foods that were available for only short periods during
>the year.
 similar short term avalability can be said for migrating animals or eggs ,
greens etc...
seems to me that almost every food has its time of consomationthru the year.

jean-claude

 On the foreign protein theory, that was enough time
>for us to adapt to the fruits and nuts, so it seems that it
>should have been enough time for the grains too.  On the other
>hand, if foreign proteins are not such an important factor then
>the link between grains and the diseases of civilization is based
>on factors such as carbohydrate load and EFA imbalance and
>protein shortage as meat consumption dropped.  I am coming to the
>view that these were in fact the important factors and the
>foreign proteins are of minor significance.  This is not to deny
>that there are protein-specific disease syndromes, such as celiac
>disease, but such intolerances are not limited to nonpaleo foods
>anyway.
>
>Todd Moody
>[log in to unmask]