In a message dated 3/27/01 4:51:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< in which Greg Wadley & Angus Martin argue that the shift to cultivation and
 animal domestication was due to the "comfort" derived from the opioid
 peptides from gluten.
  >>
I don't believe a word of this. The only reason that agriculture was
initiated was due to force of circumstance. These people have not studied
existing h-g's. The only reason people start agriculture is when they are
forced to. Humans by nature are nomadic, and prefer to roam far and wide.
Hunting and gathering are much more enjoyable and stimulating than
monoculture. It is only when their territory is restricted by other groups,
or other reasons, that agriculture develops.

This is illustrated by the native tribes of California. The only tribe to
practice any form of agriculture were the Yuma on the Colorado River, where
they cultivated squash and melons, in the annual floods of the river. None of
the other roughly 100 tribes in California practiced any form of agriculture
-- they didn't need or want to. Everything they needed grew readily to hand.
H-g's don't have to work very much -- their needs can be satisfied with only
a few day's labor per week. California Indians were called lazy by the
whiteman, because they seemed to be idle most of the time. This is because
they had accumulated enough food, and could spend the rest of the time
socializing. I think this is something which is not generally recognized -
H-g is a very efficient way of life.

California Indians had a very rich social life, and presumably Paleo h-g's
would have been the same. California natives were enthusiastic gamblers, and
had social gatherings which would last for weeks. Many sporting contests were
held. This is a way of life we have completely lost, to our detriment.

Charles