On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:17:03 +0900, Tom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Just by chance, today I am reading Tacitus, the Roman author
>who wrote "The Germania", a sort of travel guide for Romans
>on Germany. This was written around AD 100. He describes the
>German diet as "wild fruits, game, and curdled milk". He
>says the Germans farmed grain, barley, but used it to make beer.
Tacitus is the favourite reference for ancient Germany.
There is one small part where he describes a way of life similar to
a paleo lifestyle. The fribe was call Fennen. Obviously the Finns are
described (from north Finnland of today).
For Tacitus in the year 100 anything north if the Limes were just Germans.
My home country (Bavaria) was taken by the Romans in the year 15.
It was inhabitated by Celts. Generally all Celts were similar looking to
Germans (also big and blond) but with a different language, culture and
religion.
However it is known which areas are agricultural areas.
From Linearband (5-4000BC) Glockenbecker, Bronze, Hallstatt to Celts/Germans
all societies were grain und legume based.
Since thousands of years before Tacitus. From Poland to France and Spain -
and of course south. The continent's north coast (Denmark, North Germany)
was a little later, but only some 1000 to 1500 years.
Tacitus describes what's unusual for meditarrean people, it's milk, game,
wild fruit.
>It is true the Romans and other mediterranian peoples ate
>lots of grain, but we also know they were runty, ill people.
I don't think we could say this. What is your reason to think so?
Today I've read a report on a roman grave. It was a man who was 1,90 m tall
(probably from celtic descent, not an italic).
He had slightly abrased teeth - that's because he was eating self-grinded
grain as the staple (like "frozen fritz" 3500 years before).
He had "even" two teeth with signs of karies. Only two, but even that's
considered unusual for roman people. They had perfect teeth eating 90%
grains. Otherwise no signs of any disease were reported.
I see no reason why Romans should be called generally unhealthy, except
maybe the danger of a German or Thrakish Frame (spear) between the rips.
>Tacitus tells us the
>Germans of his day were renowned for their size, vitality
>and health.
That's true like it's true for Celts, Vikings, Danes, Normanns...
All very much grain based people.
How aw Inuit and Nunamiut looking?
N.B.: All these people had a small game source in their diet.
Mostly fish. Fresh herrings or a kind of fish source for the romans.
>> I don't know where ever a pre-agricultural people had to fight
>>"civilized"
>> people. Except australian and particularly tasmanian aboriginees.
>
>??? Read some more history!
What do you have in mind?
Native americans were mostly agricultural.
>Sure sure, but the result for the individual who had to eat
>this was poor health. This is clearly documented in the
>archeaological record.
What do you have in mind, again?
It's been told that first neolithic people were "smaller in size, with
thinner bones" than their mesolithic anchestors and relatives.
That's not unhealthy. It's less necessary to grow that big if you're
not fighting bears and mammoths. And it's a genetic influence from people
immigrating from the south.
As you have more graves for the first time, you also find signs of disease
those people had (as far as bones were affected).
Mesolithic and paleolithic diseased just perished early, mostly without
traces.
It looks like a matter of mere statistics.
>Few of us on this list are struggling to avoid
>starvation by eating whatever trash we can find some way to
>make "edible".
Right. Find out what's the best.
What would be better to have, the body of an Inuit? Or Koisan? Or AA?
Or of Vercingetorix the Celt? Or the Gladiator?
Only the first didn't eat seeds as food.
For the last, seed food was considered superior.
At the moment for me it looks so that the main advantage to achieve is to
get as much items fresh and unprocessed as possible.
Cheers
Amadeus
|
