On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:42:53 -0400, matesz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Are you trying to say that what has been done in relatively modern Africa,
>by modern man, in this warm interglacial period, with its long summers, was
>what was done during the ice ages past, with their short summers, even in
>Europe, and even by Homo Erectus, and earlier human ancestors?
Generylly yes, but not in cold Europe. Where summers were herb time and
winters animal time.
However it looks like the main timeframe of our evolution (from many mio
years up to recently-40k years ago) occures mainly in a arid , worm,
savannah-like climate in africa (N.B not any hominid evolution, *our*
evolution).
Even in cold periods the african landscapes turned more arid with less trees
- this is a ideal scenario for the proliferation of tubers and grasses.
As grasses turn such a big part of incomeing sun energy into its seed they
are a rich and reliable food resource.
From the time australopitecines / erectines gained the knowhow how to gather
and eat them, I think we can be shure of heavy exploitation of such grains -
in area where they occur naturally plentifully.
> The human is a tool user, it
>is his nature to make and use tools. And his use of tools, including
>weapons (at least to defend himself) has made him human.
Yes , this is what I intended to say.This is why our food resources opened
up widely, compared to more specialized animals. This is why our anatomy is
not point for point comparable to animals (betrays digestibility of grains
and hunting wo natural equipment of claws).
> We can't eat them (mature grass seeds) raw in any quantity
>without digestive distress.
As long as they are not soaked. Wild grasses have to be gathered unripe
anyway, because the fall to the ground when ripe.
I do see the problem that with limited processing there's a limited amount
one can eat.
>Don't know what you mean by a hearth, but to me it only means a place of
>controlled fire leaving traces because of repeated use.
To surround a fire with stones (hearth) seems to be necessary for (open
fire) meat processing, while roasting tubers (and grains like Tibetans) can
be done in just an open fire without stones. The latter doesn't leave traces
in the archeological record.
Details about such fireplaces you can find in the excellent work of
Dr.Wrangham (and others).
It used to be available on the net for free, but I didn't find the article
for free anymore.
To see it, you can go to the nyt archive ( http://www.nytimes.com )
and look at date Jan 16, 2001 for the word tuber (not free).
The excellent article at
http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_vegetables.htm
points to the full Wrangham(plus others..) work at:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA/journal/issues/v40n5/995001/995001.html
also not free.
>Do you think that Australopithecines and Homo Erectus were sprouting
>grains?
>What is the evidence for this?
Have you seen the cave painting at http://www.geocities.com/paleolix/
(top right)? This is a cave picture of grain gathering people in the sahara.
It's easy to eat grains in absence of fire if you understand to sprout them.
At some time hominids understood how to do it.
This is a big advantage, it opens a really big food resource.
Australopithecines or homo erectus who could make stone tools will have
understood that much easier technology, don't you think so?
>So are you saying that Australopithecines and even earlier hominids were
>keeping stocks of grass seeds all year round?
Stocks and deposits yes, but not year round (this happened later, at least
in mesolithicum).
> And that Homo Erectus kept
>stocks of grass seeds with him as he moved north to icey Europe?
No.
> That he
>was in search of a better cornfield, not a new hunting range?
Those who moved to the north were explioting the niche of the northern fatty
game, i think. Fat is the only way to increase game meat in the diet above
some percent.
> That he made
>hand axes for ???? crushing grass seeds?
Nice tool for everything.. peeling fruit and tubers... carve wood pieces..
cutting leather.. crushing nuts...
To hunt with a hand axe - I had one in my hand.. to small - not dangerous.
The hand axe throwing for hunting... I don't buy this theory.
Hunting weapons from this time were sticks, sharp long sticks.
>Because the grass seeds give you a pain in the gut, and even if not, leave
>you hungry within the hour (Chinese restaurant style)!
Don't compare some grams of white rice to a cup of sprouted barley.
The latter really has power. When I started initially a vegan feasting
episode, I feared that too, to be hungry within an hour.
I was astonished not to be hungry (due to enough tubers mushrooms and fat i
suppose).
Whereas Ray Audette tells us a rabbit "leaves you hungry for the next one
after one hour". The power is in fat, not in meat.
> I imagine my
>ancestors would go for meat to satisfy themselves, because even if they did
>eat grains, grains are not capable of satisfying all of human nutritional
>needs. (Whereas, in fact, raw meat can satisfy all human nutritional
>needs.)
Likewise I was astonished that in only 600g grains (that's what Roman
legions got) there are *all* human nutritional needs, including 150% RDA
protein. Except only vitamin A and C. These require to add fruit or wild
vegetables, in modern times (up to 1800) sauerkraut :-) and carrots .
For A, occasionally liver would be good.
Meat: I always thought 2-4 lbs of meat have it all too (then all vitamins
except C and E are ok). Possible for a paleohunter.
After knowing about protein toxicity, things changed.
You need 1 lbs meat plus 1 lbs fat per day plus 500kcal carbs.
Adding 500kcal carbs take a little tuber or a biiiig peace meat.
Try to list an example with wild game. 500kcal from protein, <35% calories
from fat. Possible I think, but not easily satisfying all nutritional needs.
Possible maybe only if in ketosis.
>> Challenge, Don. Cite the coprolite study which tells that humans didn't
>>eat plant matter.
>
>In the bibliography of Ardrey's book (The Hunting Hypothesis), he cites
>Bryant, V.M., Jr., and Williams-Dean, G "The Coprolites of Man" Scientific
>American (January 1975).
Thanks. I'll take a look if not to expensive or not out of print(it's old).
I'm pretty shure I doesn't tell "humans didn't eat plant matter".
It's impossible. Coprolithes from Inuit-like people will show such
compositions. That doesn't mean !Kung don't eat nuts, does it?
>The "vegetarian hypothesis" is the idea that
>man evolved as a vegetarian,
I don't think so for the years after 2 moi years back.
I do think so for the 30 mio years before.
>... and that meat-eating played no essential role
>in human evolution at any point in time.
I don't see necessaryly a "essential role" for meat in _our_anchestry_ up to
40kya back. If we evolved according to "out of africa". Essential role for
neanderthals and some erectine traits yes, but tey possibly or probably died
off.
>So? 1 million years ago there weren't many of us around. Back then, who
>was calculating how to eat to feed the max number of humans per square Km?
You can read it in many publications about gatherhunting nutrition.
Or deduct yourself a similar number. From natural big game animal density
per area (4-5 per ha) and the blood loss this can stand.
>Plus, how do you know that hunting tools and strategies were not "optimal"
>1 million years ago? Likely tools and strategies evolved over time
>according to need.
There seems to be a quantum jump about 40kyears ago.
Fishhooks, arrows, and needles for airproof fur clothes, better stone tools
are part of it.
Amadeus S.
|
