> He couldn't have found Pork (except wild boar).
>
> He couldn't have found chicken for similar reasons
> (mainly fed and fat).
>
> He couldn't have found Beef for the same reasons.
>
> Fish is on the menu only since about 60000 years,
>
> Rabbits, Deers, smaller rodents, birds, insects and
> worms
> are perfect prey.
>
> Many fruit available today he couldn't have found,
>
> Chestnuts, and real nuts (tree seed) are a perfect
> gathering.
> Roots and berries and (not-so-sweet) fruit too.
> Green herbs (some salads, remember arugula and
> several "weeds"),
> very beneficial and important may be underestimated.

Keep in mind, and I've pondered this a lot, that the
selection of foods available to us may differ
dramatically from those of our ancestors. We really
have no way of knowing, especially in the plant
category, what may and may not have evolved (changed
genetically) over the millennia. So, we are stuck with
general approximations; i.e. - this food is "probably
OK", or at least, this food is "probably not bad".

Besides small wildlife (rodents and birds), I would
guess that fish would have changed the least (at least
until this century when we started dumping certain
chemicals in the oceans). Plants, however, are a very
different story. It is so easy to create hybrids, and
plants are so sensitive to their environment, it is
quite possible that most of the plants we take for
granted today have very different nutrient profiles
than their ancestors.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com