On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:05:31 -0400, matesz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I cited:
>> Over 60 species of grasses have been harvested for their grains in
>>Africa.
>> Most of these are famine or scarcity foods or are harvested casually and
>> opportunistically. Several species, however, have provided food on a
>> massive scale and have been staples for a number of tribes.
>
>As you said "Most of these are famine or scarcity foods or are harvested
>casually and opportunistically."

Read on: "Several species, however, have provided food on a
 massive scale and have been staples for a number of tribes."

Humans tend to exploit every niche of nutrition, they even settle in extreme
deserts like the arctis or the australian outback.
Many niches were only exploitable by developement of techniques and tools.
Like weapons and digging sticks.
Without a weapon humans would be miserable hunters.
Without a digging stick humans wouldn't exploit certain tubers.

>That large scale exploitation of grains came very late in human
>evolutionary
>time is evident from our inability to digest them raw.  If they were a
>staple in the time of human development prior to our recent mastery of
>fire,
>we would be able to digest them raw.

We are able to eat them raw, you contradict yourself in the next sentences.

Fire eases the digestibility of grass seeds, this helped them to become a
staple.
Fire eases the digestibility of meat, this helped it to become a staple.

>If memory serves me right, evidence for mastery of fire--marked by remains
>of hearths--came only in the past 50, 000 years, but evidence for hunting
>by hominids and humans extends back well over 2 million years.

If I may help from what I read: mastery of fire is evident for humans since
about 200,000 years for stone hearths, more unsure for 500,000 years.
Roasting grains in fire with sand (like Tibetans do today) or tubers in the
fire doesn't require a hearth and could have been without traces since
millions of years. Like possibly even from Lucy's time, as Wrangham's theory
claims.
Evidence for hunting far back is only evidence for cut marks on animal
bones. Could be hunted or scavenged. No indication of amounts.

>Soaking requires water and a pot.  Water is scarce on a savannah, and pots
>are recent inventions.  Perhaps baskets could have been used, leaving no
>trace.

Soaking requires water. Whereever humans live, water is nearby. Soaking
requires little. Soaking can be done on a leave, on a small pit in a stone,
on a flat peace of wood. Where's the problem?

>  But why would any one wait three days for food from sprouted grass
>seeds, when you could go out, kill an animal, and have a much larger, more
>satisfying feast today?

If you have stocks of grass seeds - and stories tell that it was easy to
gain stocks of wild grass seeds- you will never wait. You'll have ready food
every day every hour. Why would one want to go out, endangered to be killed
or injured by animals and have large carcass for food, which much of it may
be unedible due to lack of fat (protein toxicity)?

>The ultimate test may be human excrement.  According to Ardrey, studies of
>human coprolites dating back before 50, 000 years have shown no plant
>matter
>in the excrement.

Challenge, Don. Cite the coprolite study which tells that humans didn't eat
plant matter.

>The main problem with the vegetarian hypothesis is that it simply tries to
>ignore the undeniable fact that humans are hunters.  This is not a
>hypothesis, it is a fact:  humans hunt.

There was no doubt that humans tend to hunt. That humans ate grass seeds in
paleo times is not a vegetarian hypothesis. Not vegetarian and not
hypothesis.

>The fact is, humans are superb hunters, and hunting brings good food fast,
>you don't even have to cook it, let alone wait three days for it to sprout.

Hunting brings a carcass in the case the hunt was successfull.
Hunting is often unsuccessfull for many days. Animals are not keen on beeing
slaughtered.
If they are dumb enough to be killed in numbers then they tend to die out or
leave, like occured from time to time in the past.
If not, they will be hard to get.
Even if you got all animals you whished, you need a gigantic area for a
some humans to live. Provided that optimal hunting tools and strategies be
available (like only found after 40,000 bc).
Are humans made to be alone in a small group?

>So for what reason would humans eat grains?
How about superiority?
I'm not a particular grain eater, I eat only certain grains, not every day.
But I prefer them at any time over any part from a carcass.

I don't deny humans hunted. I just see plants as more important for our
genus. I think you'd better not miss them. Missing animals in the food is no
problem- not for me, not for some others. Missing plants in the food-
only Inuit seem to be able.

regards,

Amadeus