From: Rick McCallister
Message: 51650
Date: 2008-01-20
> I have been interested in archaeology all of mycybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> 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:
>
>=== message truncated ===
> 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.
>
>
>