Re: Sard

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 51650
Date: 2008-01-20

There are plenty of theorists out there that claim
that women where gatherers while men were hunters due
to mobility issues, since women had to nurse infants.
And that gathering involved a circuit and that due to
this circuit semi-agricultural patches developed where
edible plants were found, etc. Grain cultivation may
have developed this way. But check out what the
professionals have to say.

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> I have been interested in archaeology all of my
> life; and I am certain no credible evidence exists
> for believing that women invented agriculture.
>
> If Heichelheim thinks this is so, he is a master of
> self-delusion.
>
> Patrick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen<mailto:tgpedersen@...>
> To:
>
cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:15 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Sard
>
>
> > > Read the article again. Wheat gluten
> >
> > No, *you* read it again. Gluten is gluten, there
> is no such thing
> > as "wheat gluten".
> >
> > 'wheat gluten' means 'gluten found in white'.
> You mean 'wheat'?
>
> > > makes a few people sick;
> > A few people?? Quote:
> > "
> > How many possess these specific genetic risk at
> a 'carrier' state?
> > Certainly more than 5% of the actual population.
> In conclusion we
> > have a wide population of 'gluten-reactants' in
> Europe (EC): at
> > least 1 million cases of total intolerance to
> gluten - an
> > estimated similar amount of 'gluten sensitive'
> people - 10-15
> > times more 'carriers' of the risk of becoming
> gluten intolerant.
> > "
> > Imagine what the numbers were before fatal
> gluten became staple
> > diet.
> >
> > I saw no justification for 5%.
>
> Then you should read the references he provides.
>
> > > these same people could have eaten millet,
> sorghum, rye, rice (a
> > > grass, too) without a problem.
> >
> > Except for rye.
> > But they didn't. So why is that relevant?
>
> > The people who were very slightly gluten averse
> could have eaten
> > rye without great problems.
>
> We are talking someone who had serious problems
> with it and who didn't
> know the cause of their suffering. They exist even
> today.
>
> > Have you forgotten your argument?
> No.
> > It was, in a nutshell, that gluten aversity
> shows that humans were
> > not early grain eaters.
>
> That's right. Why do you bring that up?
>
>
> > > > Our evolutionary success is tied to the fact
> that men will eat
> > > > anything that does not eat them first.
> > >
> > > No they won't. The Chinese eat plenty of stuff
> we don't and
> > > never did.
> > >
> > > Gosh, I thought the Chinese qualified as
> 'men'. How foolish of
> > > me!
> >
> > The Chinese do not qualify as 'all men', which
> you implied, since
> > there are people who are not Chinese.
> >
> > Why not react to what I write rather than to
> what you think I
> > imply?
> >
> That's actually what you wrote. There's no other
> way to interpret it.
> I assumed it was a mistake.
>
> > Who could be idiotic enough to suggest that
> Chinese are "all
> > men'?????????
>
> Besides you I don't know any, but I'm confident
> they exist.
>
>
> > > > Man, the hunter, the keen observer of animal
> behavior, would
> > > > have certainly noticed rut, and the
> regularly timed appearance
> > > > of animal births after it.
> > >
> > > It didn't matter to them.
> > >
>
> > > You want to get a crowd of little children
> together? Stage a
> > > male and female dog going at it.
> > >
> > > Of course it mattered. Sex has always had a
> great fascination
> > > for our lubricious ancestors.
> >
> > Sex was not connected to forces that made the
> world go round.
> >
>
> > Utterly unbelievable.
>
> Value judgement.
>
> > > I, personally, have no doubt that seeds and
> roots were collected
> > > to be eaten long before the idea of
> agriculture developed.
> > >
> > > I don't think your lack of doubt counts as an
> argument.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you think this is my judgment alone, I
> suggest you check the
> > > literature a little more closely.
> >
> > Here's some literature for you (quote from
> Greco's article):
> > "
> > Archeological findings suggest that this
> revolution was not
> > initiated by the man hunter and warrior, but by
> the intelligent
> > observations made by the woman. The woman
> carried the daily burden
> > of collecting seeds, herbs, roots and tubers.
> Most probably she
> > used a stick to excavate roots and tubers:
> during this activity
> > she observed the fall of grain seeds on the
> ground and their
> > penetration into the soil with rain. She may
> have been surprised
> > to find new plants in the places which she
> herself dug with a
> > stick, and made the final connection between
> fallen seeds and new
> > 'cultivated' plants.
> >
> > She was, for thousands years, the sole leader of
> the farming
> > practices and provided a more and more
> consistent integration to
> > the scanty products of the man hunter (6).
> >
> > [(6)] Heichelheim F. An Ancient Economic
> History. A.W. Sijthoff
> > edt., Leiden, 1970.
> >
>
> > This is so much hot air. There is _no_
> archaeological proof that
> > agriculture was initiated by women. If there is,
> you tell me what it
> > is instead of quoting someone politically
> correct.
>
> I think I will tell you instead to read
> Heichelheim's book.
>
> > Actually, ploughing requires the strength of
> men. Unless you call
> > penny-ante gardening agriculture, the very
> nature of the activity
> > rules out women originating it.
>
> I do, actually, inspired by Greco's article.
> Gardening with a digging
> stick is agriculture. Agriculture didn't start
> with the plough.
>
>
>
=== message truncated ===



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ