On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:31, Rundle wrote:

<snip>

>OTOH... to 'steal' milk from an animal and thus deprive its off-spring from
>being nourished surely requires dominion of a very dedicated nature...
>regardless of who 'sanctioned' it.
>
>Dedy

Good point - must admit I hadn't thought of it this way.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:10, Tad Glines wrote:

>Goats are small enough that three people could easily milk it with
>domesticating it: One to hold the front, one to hold the back and
>one to milk it. This would require no tech of any kind, not even
>that sharp stick. One reasonably strong (and hungry) person
>could probably milk it without aid from anyone else.
...

>I think it's reasonable to believe that humans where consuming
>goat milk prior to domestication but that cows milk wasn't regularly
>consumed until after domestication.
>
>-Tad

Perhaps the goats I have worked with are much bigger than those 40,000 years ago.  However,
consider the natural environment of goats (not a large overlap with the natural environment of
humans) and the fact that goats of today have had some of their wiliness, intelligence and survival
instincts bred out of them. Perhaps two people could hold down a lactating goat and a third could
suck at the teats, but it would give little 'energy return on energy invested' and whether the goat
would 'let down' the milk under such stress is doubtful. Better to kill and eat the entire goat and
its kid.  Yes, it's likely that some humans in some circumstances ate milk; what is unlikely is that
enough humans ate enough milk for it to have been able to lead to an evolutionary adaptation
prior to the introduction of regular domestication.

Inevitably, most people on this list do not have the experience of keeping livestock, (non-gun)
hunting (g'day, Tom!), living off wild plants, living off the fruit and vegeatables they have grown
for themselves.  They have to rely on their speculation, what they have seen on television or in
zoos, read about or what they have heard from other people.  Believe me, doing it yourself opens
up whole new horizons, new difficulties, different perspectives (especially those related to time,
synchronicity - or the lack thereof -  and the vagaries of climate).

Keith