>To state the paradox differently: The less grain paleolithic
>hunter-gatherers ate, the more inexplicable is the rather abrupt
>switch to grain domestication and cultivation; the more grain
>paleolithic hunter-gatherers ate, the less reason there is to
>insist that the paleolithic diet was grain-free.

>Todd Moody

The fact that grain is largely inedible without the domestication of fire
can't be ignored. Prior to man's domestication of fire (i.e., during the
overwhelming majority of his evolutionary history), it seems clear that man
couldn't have eaten grain, certainly not in quantities large enough to make
it a regular part of his natural diet. Our ignorance concerning humans'
shift to agriculture doesn't give reason to think otherwise. Eating grain
without being able to cook it renders the grain virtually useless as a
source of human nutrition. The evidence suggests that cooking has not played
a role in our evolutionary history until very recently.

Troy G.