On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:01:28 -0400, Don Wiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Amadeus Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>I note that your law discards eating cows.
>>A human can't eat a big animal without the technology of a
>>knife of some sort. How should you break it's skin.
>... A writeup on some archaeologists that showed that a dead
>elephant can be carved up using the simple tools that were available 1.5 -
>1.9 million years ago.
>
>Don.
Yes I've seen it. Stone tools _are_ technology, though very ancient.
But where would you want to draw your line?
Wood-Tools? Stone-Tools? Fire?
It was all about a definition.

For example if an ancient society
 would develop
the technology to maintain and
harvest fruit tree woods (almonds,chestnut, for example),
then this is farming technology.
Nevertheless I personally would consider it perfectely paleo,
or food what we are adapted to.
A better kind of paleo than cooking something, IMO.

If then the farming goes as far as modifying the plant's genes
or treating the soil with poisons.
That would be the sinfall for me.  Or somewhere in between.

The mesolithic predecessors of "Lienarband" are not considered "farmers"
but they had for 1500 years woods of pure hazel in middle Europe...
First grain neolithics used Emmer and Lentils (and much more)
in a similar attempt, very successful.

Pure absence of technology may not be the key point what is
best "paleolithic".
A definition for today could be:

 Live on foods that are left in their original natural state,
 and lef
t unprocessed as far as ever possible.
 Select only what your senses report as appetizing when unprocessed,
 in terms of freshnes, quality and variety.

Detail: Only genom variations by selection allowed.

How do you like this attempt?

regards
Amadeus