In his post of 13 Nov, Loren Cordain stated;

        "Humans left Africa for
more northerly latitudes by at least 1 million years ago and probably
quite earlier (4).   We now have strong evidence that hominids lived in
Spain (>40 degrees North latitude) by at least 750,000 years ago, in
England (>50 degrees North latitude) by at least 500,000 years ago and
in Germany (>50 degrees North latitude) by at least 400,000.   There is
astonishing evidence that early man may have lived as far north as (60
degrees North latitude) by 260,00 years ago (5).   As Steve has
surmised, the consumption of plant based foods (edible by primates) is
severly seasonally restricted at higher latitudes, so it seems likely
for these populations that plants would have been rarely consumed
simultaneously with animal foods, and this pattern of eating (plants
separate from animals) has been with humans from the very beginings of
the evolution of our species."


Prof. Cordain has not yet commented on Andrew Millard's post
regarding the Out of Africa II hypothesis and its implications
for our "evolutionary" diet, but if we accept this hypothesis, is
it not the case that the dietary patterns (and other adaptations)
of hominids post Out of Africa I would not be relevant to modern
humans? My (somewhat limited) understanding is that the
Out of Africa II hypothesis is becoming increasingly accepted
among paleontologists, based on both genetic and archaeological
evidence.

Of course, if we rely mainly on an Africa-centered model for the
evolutionary experience that is relevant for modern humans, there
would be no conflict with Prof. Cordain's points regarding eating
patterns with respect to animal/plant food combinations.
However, there would probably be implications in other areas,
such as the proportion of plant/animal foods and the amount of
fat in wild game.

I look forward to views of others on this topic.

Steve Meyers