Interesting, especially since the linguistic/cultural ancestors of the Greeks, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were pastorals who highly valued milk and milk-products. There are traces of this everywhere, from the 'dual meanings' of a number of words in Indo-European for "cows" and "wealth", e.g. German Vieh "cattle, livestock" which is cognate with English fee as well as Latin pecunia "money" alongside of Latin pecus "cattle" and the sacredness of cows in India.
> So one special genetic characteristic of Proto-Indo-Europeans is their capacity to digest milk
A significant number of PIE were and a significant number of PIE descendants today are lactose intolerant. It is primarily northern europeans who consume milk and are the least lactose intolerant. Most PIE descendants consumes milk-products like cheese, yogurt, butter, etc.
Also, none PIE cultures ( mongols, turks, arabs, siberians, etc ) are primarily lactose intolerant but they consume milk-based products.
I think I read that processing milk into yogurt, cheese, butter, etc removes lactose or makes it easier for the lactose intolerant to consume. But don't quote me on that.
> I think I read that processing milk into yogurt, cheese, butter, etc removes lactose or makes it easier for the lactose intolerant to consume. But don't quote me on that.
I've read that too I think it breaks down the lactose sugar molecule which is why lactose intolerant people can eat Greek yogurt (not just any yogurt) and cheese.
It's kind of odd we call people lactose intolerant when probably only 5% of the world is able to digest lactose. The majority of the world cannot digest lactose but that's normal not a disease.
I don't think 95% are lactose intolerant globally. Also, being lactose intolerant from birth is a disorder, and it's extremely rare.
The Wikipedia article on the subject mentions that the number of people who are lactose intolerant as adults is unknown, but goes on to say "One estimate puts the average at 65% of the global population.[8] Rates of lactose intolerance vary between regions, from less than 10% in Northern Europe to as high as 95% in parts of Asia and Africa.[3]"
It goes on to say that evidence suggests that lactase persistence has evolved multiple times independently, so it's not just a one time European mutation.
The lactose persistence gene variant found in Europeans is a one time mutation. It has evolved independently in Africa a few times too, but these variants are not found in ethnic Europeans.
Far less than 35% of the worlds population is lactose tolerant as an adult. I will take a look at the review linked on wiki and try to see how robust this number is.
Edit. Ok trekking back through the literature the estimate is based on old measures of the lactase persistence phenotype which is not very reliable, not on genetic data. It is likely to be wrong just on demographic growth alone in the last 40 years. My guess is around 15% of the worlds population is actually able to digest lactose in adulthood.
I think he/she meant instead of giving the normal (the 95% of the population) a label, it would make more sense to give the special case (the 5% of the population) a label.
LI here, it's true, Greek yogurt is fine for me but regular 2% fat yogurt isn't. Most hard cheeses like Gouda and Irish Cheddar are fine for us too but others like Mozzarella aren't.
Generally not as fresh milk, but cultured. Fresh milk tends not to last very long in hot climates without refrigeration, while forms like yogurt last much better.
There are lots of dairy products in Indian food, so, yes there's plenty of cultured ones like yoghourt & paneer ("cheese"), but significant numbers of Indians drink fresh milk (actually fresh milk - as in milked that day). When the Indian cricketer M.S. Dhoni was younger and was just coming into the lime light, there was an interview with him where the interviewer asked him his 'secret' and he said it he was drinking a glass of milk every day (or two glasses or something).
One can find I think here[1] quite good analysis of Roman inferiority complex towards Celts and other milk-drinking people of the North. Simply speaking dreaded Roman legions consisted of very short men and they weren't able to look down at 'unusually' tall Celts and others.
The ability to enjoy dairy had some advantages too.
It could be a need to prove their sofistication. Just as our culture distances itself from grunt work even if it’s a crucial part sustaining our everyday life.
Most likely. The ancient Greeks seem to have been incredibly xenophobic and negatively disposed towards other peoples. The word barbarian itself is from Greek and it essentially meant "person whose speech sounds like 'bar-bar', i.e. gibberish-speaker, i.e. non-Greek speaker". (Almost a mirror reflection of the English saying 'It's all Greek to me'.)
I always laugh that the (modern, correct) word for Germany in Polish is "Niemiec" which basically means "people who don't talk."
Like some Polish guys ran into some Germans, and the Germans just started speaking some gibberish non-slavic language. Polish guys were like "I really doubt this is a language. They must not be able to talk at all."
I also read that a lot of native American tribe names came about when early European explorers asked one tribe, "What is the name of the tribe that lives over there?". The local tribe would respond, "We call them the other people" So the Europeans would translate the tribe's vocalization of "Other People" into the name for that tribe.
Comanche (from a Ute word meaning "they fight with us.")
Apache (from a Zuni word for "enemy.")
"The term Maliseet is the exonym by which the Mi'kmaq people referred to this group when speaking to early Europeans. Maliseet was a Mi'kmaq word meaning "broken talkers", "lazy speakers" or "he speaks badly," or differently by which the Mi'kmaq contrasted the other tribe's language to their own.[3] The Wolastoqiyik and Mi'kmaq languages are closely related but distinctly different. The Europeans met the Mi'kmaq before the Wolastoqiyik, and adopted their term of Malesse'jik (transliterated as Malécite in French) for the people, not understanding that it was not their true name. The later English colonists anglicized this term as Maliseet, in another transliteration of sound."
> The ancient Greeks seem to have been incredibly xenophobic and negatively disposed towards other peoples.
Such a blanket claim cannot stand, especially considering that the “ancient Greeks” were not a single population but scattered into a number of political entities and with different economies. There were insular Greeks and there were culturally tolerant Greeks. As examples of the latter, Herodotus repeatedly depicts Egypt as the font of all civilization and knowledge. The Greek colonies in Anatolia readily mixed with local populations and adopted much from the Persian Empire.
Ironically I’m reading Herodotus right now, and just reached his description of the Scythians and how they drink milk.
“Now the Scythians blind all their slaves, because of the milk2 they drink; and this is how they get it: taking tubes of bone very much like flutes, they insert these into the genitalia of the mares and blow into them, some blowing while others milk. According to them, their reason for doing this is that blowing makes the mare's veins swell and her udder drop. [2] When done milking, they pour the milk into deep wooden buckets, and make their slaves stand around the buckets and shake the milk; they draw off what stands on the surface and value this most; what lies at the bottom is less valued.”
Obviously Herodotus repeats lots of tall tales so no idea if that one is true, but I can understand the disdain fir milk drinkers if so.
>> The ancient Greeks seem to have been incredibly xenophobic and negatively disposed towards other peoples.
I don't know that they were any more xenophobic than is inherent in all peoples. While Barbarian is a Greek word, it's also important to note that in the Greek context it didn't have the Roman implications of lack of civilization: it simply meant a non-Greek speaking people.
During the Bronze Age, the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were highly imitative (and pale imitations at that) of the hydraulic civilizations that had taken hold in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Near East. These immediate predecessors of the Greeks were much poorer than, much less powerful than, and geographically at the periphery of what was then the heart of civilization. As a consequence, there's a certain sense of material inferiority in Ancient Greek culture from the beginning.
In much of Greek literature, the East is portrayed as being much wealthier and more powerful, with greater societal sophistication and stratification. In contrast, the Greeks view themselves as poorer, but scrappier, less sophisticated and urbane, but more egalitarian and self-determined, physically weaker, but morally stronger. The Greeks certainly viewed themselves as a "better" people overall, but that didn't prevent them from feeling a sort of awe towards their more ancient neighbors, particularly Egypt and Persia.
Likewise, the Greeks absolutely could feel empathy for the other civilizations they came in conflict with: Aeschylus's The Persians presented the glorious Athenian defensive naval victory at Salamis from the perspective of the death and suffering it inflicted on the Persian people. Aeschylus's The Persians was submitted for tragic competition less than 10 years after the events it depicted, events that would have led to the destruction of Greek civilization and the enslavement of its people had the battle gone the other way. It won first prize.
Finally, the Greeks, if Herodotus's Histories is any indication, had a deep curiosity in the cultures of other peoples. Herodotus wasn't afraid of making judgements about other cultures, but he wasn't afraid of learning from them or advocating some of their customs either. More than anything, Herodotus felt that there were things that Greeks could learn by traveling among and talking with non-Greeks. Herodotus was surely an outlier as compared to the typical Greek farmer, but the fact that Herodotus's work was instantly acclaimed and kept alive to the present tells you that it had a significant Ancient Greek audience, and wasn't just appreciated in posterity.
> While Barbarian is a Greek word, it's also important to note that in the Greek context it didn't have the Roman implications of lack of civilization: it simply meant a non-Greek speaking people.
That doesn't seem to be true, given the 'etymology' of the word. The Roman sense of 'barbarian' was simply 'not Roman or Greek' while the Greek one was 'not Greek'.
In the context of the recent rise of awareness for animal rights, environmental problems of dairy production and last but not least the discussion about health effects of Milk, I am not sure if the last sentence holds true :-)
"But one argument that seems to have been finally set to rest is that milk and butter are no longer just for barbarians."
I was about to say something similar. Obviously the language is a little strong for the consumers of these products. But if we take an honest look at the tremendous amount of unnecessary cruelty endemic to the dairy industry, I think barbaric is one of the kinder words that springs to mind.
> But if we take an honest look at the tremendous amount of unnecessary cruelty endemic to the dairy industry, I think barbaric is one of the kinder words that springs to mind.
As someone that grew up on a dairy ranch/farm, barbaric isn't something that springs to mind.
Was yours a fully industrialized factory farm? Family farms are a very different thing, and unfortunately they're a tiny minority in the industry at the moment.
Family farm. I'd still consider it to be a part of the dairy industry however, we sold milk just like anyone else. There were a few bigger operations around, but they weren't much different.
I'm glad your local farms weren't like that, but there are mountains of evidence that the big factory farms that provide the vast majority of our animal products are barbaric. I'm not a vegetarian, so I can hardly judge anyone, but you really should look into the facts of modern factory farming and see for yourself.
I get the impression it is believed that regulation can't really help anymore?
My general impression is that there is currently a quiet revolution happening in at least part of the industry because Temple Grandin wrote up a list of general standards for slaughter houses, like "cows should not be falling down," without specifying how to achieve those standards and then McDonald's adopted her standards. Since McDonald's is a major purchaser of beef, this is apparently having widespread impact, from what I gather.
It's only one piece of the puzzle, but it provides a potential model for progress based on something other than regulation.
It is somewhat perplexing that such a rule had to be written down. Just, wow. I'm assuming many of the other rules are of comparable quality?
Glad to hear things are at least projected to improve. If you have recommended links for where to track progress, I'd be game. I worry that many rules in basically invisible sectors need regulation for basic adherence. Self adherence typically sounds suspiciously naive. That said, I think trying to shine that light is more promising than just widening the net for where corruption could be with equally naive regulations. That is, I do prefer this over jumping straight to regulations.
In turkish cuisine, butter and olive oil are both used, depending on the dish. I always found that fascinating because it goes against the stereotype of a olive-oil-based mediteranean diet.
As a person from southern germany, I always use clarified butter for frying meat (unless I explicitly follow a recipe that calls for oil). Whenever I am in parts of the world for some time that don't feature it as a product in the dairy section of the supermarket, I go to an indian store and buy some ghee.
I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of populations always also used butter if they had dairy. It may not always be the prestigious choice, but I suspect no one let it go to waste.
also the turks / selcuks being a pastoral people when migrating to anatolia. Although seldom in the 21st century, there are still some people in anatolia leading half-nomadic lives (at least that is what I was told on my last vacation in Antalya).
This article notably leaves out India - where since ancient times the cow and milk & butter have been venerated. Milk, Curds were considered an integral part of the ancient Indian person's diet.
Being from Croatia but living in Sweden I've always been fascinated by lactose intolerance.
Numbers say that it's much more prevalent where my family comes from compared to here up north. Swedes can often drink regular milk well into their adulthood while many of my peers from former yugoslavia stop drinking it in their 20s or 30s.
I recently found one study[1] claiming it has nothing to do with being a "swede" but rather that lactose tolerant peoples have migrated to northern europe. Why they've chosen to migrate there is beyond me though.
I can understand their argument though, that cows milk has not existed long enough in northern europe to have affected the population. But that doesn't mean the population wasn't already tolerant before cows came along.
Edit: Reason this article made me think of lactose intolerance is because romans were disgusted specifically by northern tribes, perhaps the northern climate does something for lactose tolerance.
I know other cultures like Bulgarians are also mentioned.
> I can understand their argument though, that cows milk has not existed long enough in northern europe to have affected the population. But that doesn't mean the population wasn't already tolerant before cows came along.
FYI, human evolution has been ongoing in recent history and the gene that bestows lactose tolerance on most Northern Europeans is one of the fastest spreading adaptations that scientists who study ancient genomes have found. IIRC, that gene first showed up about 4,000 years ago.
As to why lactose tolerance is more prevalent the farther north you go, I think the generally accepted reason is that harsher winters required more dependence on pastoral animals, since they are a good way to store calories. If you can get a regular supply of calories out of them without killing them, even better.
Ancient Geeks knew about and drank milk. It's literally mentioned in Homer's The Odyssey, where Odysseus takes milk on one of his quests. Cheese is also mentioned, multiple times.
I can definitely imagine the stereotype being caused by a combination of climate differences and lactose intolerance with ethnic prejudice. That is:
—“I hear they take a lot of milk, butter, and cheese, every day!”
—“Every day?! But those things spoil so fast, they must be eating rotten milk all the time—and it’s so bad for the digestion, they must always have flatulence and diarrhea. Ugh, those barbarians are so gross.”
The Romans often commented on the inferiority of other cultures, and they took excessive milk drinking as evidence of barbarism.
Hah! I remember another empire that was like that only about 50 years ago. Now it falls way down the list on countless measures of quality ... and yet still thinks it's tops.
At least the barbarians weren't imbibing lead each day.
So one special genetic characteristic of Proto-Indo-Europeans is their capacity to digest milk (cp. https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01667476/file/GarnierSagartSagot_mi... )