Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> 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."

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?

> Without a weapon humans would be miserable hunters.
> Without a digging stick humans wouldn't exploit certain tubers.

So?  Without sickles, or better yet, combines, humans would be miserable
grain harvesters!  Without some tools to winnow the grain, humans would be
even more miserable grain eaters.  Without nut crackers (even if only
rocks), humans would be miserable nut eaters.   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.

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

I did not!  We can't eat them (mature grass seeds) raw in any quantity
without digestive distress.

> 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.

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.    "Could have been"
is not evidence, it is speculation.

Do you think that Australopithecines and Homo Erectus were sprouting grains?
What is the evidence for this?
>
> 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.

So are you saying that Australopithecines and even earlier hominids were
keeping stocks of grass seeds all year round?  And that Homo Erectus kept
stocks of grass seeds with him as he moved north to icey Europe?  That he
was in search of a better cornfield, not a new hunting range?  That he made
hand axes for ???? crushing grass seeds?  That he clothed himself in cotton?

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)?

Because the grass seeds give you a pain in the gut, and even if not,  leave
you hungry within the hour (Chinese restaurant style)!  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.)

Even today, people go hunting for game even though they have TONS of food
available at the grocery store.  I suppose even you go out of your way to
get some foods that are hard to find but which you value more highly than
more readily available stuff.
>
>
> 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).
>
> 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.

"Tend" to hunt?  THEY HUNT!!!!  As for eating grass seeds in paleo
times---which end of paleo times are you refering to?   2 million years ago?
or 1 million years ago? or ?  The "vegetarian hypothesis" is the idea that
man evolved as a vegetarian, and that meat-eating played no essential role
in human evolution at any point in time.
>
> Hunting is often unsuccessfull for many days.

When?  During what epoch?  Hunting what?  (Turtles?  Lizards? Insects?
Fish?....etc.)  Where?  Your statement is far too general.

> 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?  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?
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.

 As for the loner argument--humans like wolves were social hunters, for
evolving humans successful hunting required cooperation and sharing.   Even
lions cooperate in hunting (the male stands upwind, sending the prey bolting
into the pride downwind).  When it comes to feeding, do the vegetarian
animals cooperate and share?  Not generally, in fact, each one feeds himself
and no one else.

> 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.

As I recall, you eat cheese--that is animal.   It is not true that only
Inuit are able to eat all animal based diet.  The Masai also consider
vegetables unfit for human consumption, and eat only milk and meat.
Ethiopian camel herdsmen eat a camel milk diet.   Stefansson ate only meat
and its fat for a year and his health improved because of it.

don