4 ms·

The actual title is "Prehistoric Farmers’ Teeth Show Humans Were Drinking Animal Milk 6,000 Years Ago"; the subtitle is "A new study suggests Neolithic Britons

The actual title is "Prehistoric Farmers’ Teeth Show Humans Were Drinking Animal Milk 6,000 Years Ago"; the subtitle is "A new study suggests Neolithic Britons processed raw milk to reduce its lactose content". My reading of this article is that there is proof for processing of milk, but (of course) no evidence why it was processed. The guess put forward is that it's (only) due to lactose content. But that is far from the only reason to process milk: Cheese is both more portable and less perishable than fresh milk.

zihotki 7y ago
I also got the same feeling, there is no way to preserve milk for long if you don't process it. And preserving food was much more important question those days, I suppose
jaclaz 7y ago
I would add also possible non-strictly-logical or non-immediate reasons. Let's say that the Britons at the time were following this or that religion that prohibited the consumption of raw milk to adults (something that may have been in itself originated possibly centuries before by some "common sense" that could be both connected to lactose intolerance or to better preservation of resources).
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Why would religion prohibit consumption of raw milk?
  - de_watcher 7y ago
    That's the standard excuse when archeologists find something they can't explain.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    Why would religion prohibit consumption of pork, or cooking meat in milk?
    - vintermann 7y ago
      Pork? Probably because they noticed pig herders/handlers got various diseases. Maybe not more than other animal handlers in the big picture, but they wouldn't exactly have done statistical trials on it. As I understand it, boiling a calf in its mother's milk may have been a ritual act of cruelty at one point, to draw the attention of various gods and spirits. Being a cruel bastard has certainly paid off at times, so it's not so strange some concluded that the gods like that sort of thing.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/forbidden-food https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/for... : Christopher Hitchens ..characteristically did not hold back in his book ‘God is not Great.’ [..]In God is not Great, Hitchens notes uneasy similarities between humans and pigs: Porcine DNA and human DNA are very similar, so much so that porcine heart valves can be transplanted into humans; pigs are noticeably smarter than other farm animals; and pig skin looks almost human, so much so that the smell and look of suckling pig and roasting human infants is, according to those who have had the misfortune of smelling and seeing both, disconcertingly similar. And make no mistake about it—many ancient Israelites had that misfortune. Hitchens thought this was the basis for the Jewish taboo against eating pork. Hitchens’ understanding makes complete sense—especially if you extend the argument even further. All meat consumption by Israelites originally required the animal be sacrificed to God. The choice parts were burned to soothe God—a necessary precaution in a world where natural disasters, disease, rampant infant mortality, death of an alarming number of women in childbirth, and famine had no other explanation than an angry or distracted god—or given to the priests to eat, and the remnants were eaten by the Israelite offering the sacrifice and those joining with him for that meal. Generations later, long after the taboo against eating pork had already been in place, non-sacrificial meat was allowed to be consumed. That means if pigs were kosher, Israelite worshippers would have smelled something eerily similar to the smell that emanated from pagan places of worship—if, as the Hebrew Bible claims, human child sacrifice was indeed practiced by the Israelites’ neighbors—and the Israelite priests would also have been seen consuming meat that bore a disturbing resemblance to those horrific pagan sacrifices. Would Israelites, who were then mostly illiterate, think that the Torah allowed human sacrifice? Would pig sacrifice cause Israelites to sacrifice their infants the way Torah claimed Israel’s neighbors did? Or could it be that the similarities alone were thought to be displeasing to God, regardless of how Israelites would or would not react to them? When understood in this context, and when we take into account the alarming frequency with which the Hebrew Bible says our ancient ancestors reverted to pagan worship, the taboo against eating pork takes on new meaning.[..] The whole piece is fascinating.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
It was processed because we didn’t have the ability to process lactose after weaning. Milk consumption would have become prevalent when we settled to become pastoralists rather than when we were nomads. The most fascinating thing to me though is why some of us continued to be lactose persistence and passed on that gene down to descendants. It seems like being lactose persistent became a genetic advantage when we became migrants and cows became a portable calorie and protein vending machine that could travel with us. Hunter gatherers had home bases. Pastoralists settled. Migrants moved to settle. Also: https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/lactose-intolerance-cheese-evolution/ https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/lactose-intolerance-cheese... [..]Ancient DNA analysis on human skeletons from prehistoric Europe places the earliest appearance of the lactase gene (LCT)—which keeps adults producing lactase—at 2500 B.C. But there is plenty of evidence from the Neolithic period (around 6000–2500 B.C. in Europe) that milk was being consumed. This is not totally surprising though, as the Neolithic marks the start of farming in most regions of Europe—and the first time humans lived closely alongside animals. And although they were unable to digest milk, we know that Neolithic populations were processing milk into substances they could consume.[..]
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  > It was processed because we didn’t have the ability to process lactose after weaning. I understand that this is the assertion made by the article. I'm saying that the article presents this as the only possible explanation, which it isn't.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    I hear you. There is also ghee. Suitable for the lactose intolerant as well as a preserving method. Many Indians are lactose tolerant/persistent.. clearly a genetic mutation. But why preserve dairy when you can move the herd with you when you migrate? Dairy only comes after a cow has birthed. Before artificial insemination, this would have been a tedious task for migrants or nomads. So yes, I hear your point. I am just wondering if the mutation(lactose persistence) had an evolutionary advantage and helped us move around the globe. And the preservation was a side effect.

zihotki 7y ago

I also got the same feeling, there is no way to preserve milk for long if you don't process it. And preserving food was much more important question those days, I suppose

jaclaz 7y ago

I would add also possible non-strictly-logical or non-immediate reasons. Let's say that the Britons at the time were following this or that religion that prohibited the consumption of raw milk to adults (something that may have been in itself originated possibly centuries before by some "common sense" that could be both connected to lactose intolerance or to better preservation of resources).

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Why would religion prohibit consumption of raw milk?
- de_watcher 7y ago
  That's the standard excuse when archeologists find something they can't explain.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  Why would religion prohibit consumption of pork, or cooking meat in milk?
  - vintermann 7y ago
    Pork? Probably because they noticed pig herders/handlers got various diseases. Maybe not more than other animal handlers in the big picture, but they wouldn't exactly have done statistical trials on it. As I understand it, boiling a calf in its mother's milk may have been a ritual act of cruelty at one point, to draw the attention of various gods and spirits. Being a cruel bastard has certainly paid off at times, so it's not so strange some concluded that the gods like that sort of thing.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/forbidden-food https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/87719/for... : Christopher Hitchens ..characteristically did not hold back in his book ‘God is not Great.’ [..]In God is not Great, Hitchens notes uneasy similarities between humans and pigs: Porcine DNA and human DNA are very similar, so much so that porcine heart valves can be transplanted into humans; pigs are noticeably smarter than other farm animals; and pig skin looks almost human, so much so that the smell and look of suckling pig and roasting human infants is, according to those who have had the misfortune of smelling and seeing both, disconcertingly similar. And make no mistake about it—many ancient Israelites had that misfortune. Hitchens thought this was the basis for the Jewish taboo against eating pork. Hitchens’ understanding makes complete sense—especially if you extend the argument even further. All meat consumption by Israelites originally required the animal be sacrificed to God. The choice parts were burned to soothe God—a necessary precaution in a world where natural disasters, disease, rampant infant mortality, death of an alarming number of women in childbirth, and famine had no other explanation than an angry or distracted god—or given to the priests to eat, and the remnants were eaten by the Israelite offering the sacrifice and those joining with him for that meal. Generations later, long after the taboo against eating pork had already been in place, non-sacrificial meat was allowed to be consumed. That means if pigs were kosher, Israelite worshippers would have smelled something eerily similar to the smell that emanated from pagan places of worship—if, as the Hebrew Bible claims, human child sacrifice was indeed practiced by the Israelites’ neighbors—and the Israelite priests would also have been seen consuming meat that bore a disturbing resemblance to those horrific pagan sacrifices. Would Israelites, who were then mostly illiterate, think that the Torah allowed human sacrifice? Would pig sacrifice cause Israelites to sacrifice their infants the way Torah claimed Israel’s neighbors did? Or could it be that the similarities alone were thought to be displeasing to God, regardless of how Israelites would or would not react to them? When understood in this context, and when we take into account the alarming frequency with which the Hebrew Bible says our ancient ancestors reverted to pagan worship, the taboo against eating pork takes on new meaning.[..] The whole piece is fascinating.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

It was processed because we didn’t have the ability to process lactose after weaning. Milk consumption would have become prevalent when we settled to become pastoralists rather than when we were nomads. The most fascinating thing to me though is why some of us continued to be lactose persistence and passed on that gene down to descendants. It seems like being lactose persistent became a genetic advantage when we became migrants and cows became a portable calorie and protein vending machine that could travel with us. Hunter gatherers had home bases. Pastoralists settled. Migrants moved to settle. Also: https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/lactose-intolerance-cheese-evolution/ https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/lactose-intolerance-cheese... [..]Ancient DNA analysis on human skeletons from prehistoric Europe places the earliest appearance of the lactase gene (LCT)—which keeps adults producing lactase—at 2500 B.C. But there is plenty of evidence from the Neolithic period (around 6000–2500 B.C. in Europe) that milk was being consumed. This is not totally surprising though, as the Neolithic marks the start of farming in most regions of Europe—and the first time humans lived closely alongside animals. And although they were unable to digest milk, we know that Neolithic populations were processing milk into substances they could consume.[..]

tom_mellior 7y ago
> It was processed because we didn’t have the ability to process lactose after weaning. I understand that this is the assertion made by the article. I'm saying that the article presents this as the only possible explanation, which it isn't.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  I hear you. There is also ghee. Suitable for the lactose intolerant as well as a preserving method. Many Indians are lactose tolerant/persistent.. clearly a genetic mutation. But why preserve dairy when you can move the herd with you when you migrate? Dairy only comes after a cow has birthed. Before artificial insemination, this would have been a tedious task for migrants or nomads. So yes, I hear your point. I am just wondering if the mutation(lactose persistence) had an evolutionary advantage and helped us move around the globe. And the preservation was a side effect.