In
this day and age, this time and place, this current cultural climate,
food has become a contemplated and
complicated subject. Some people have
been conditioned to a diet that is most detrimental. And, some have
no idea how to properly nourish themselves. People are dying from
preventable diseases that are directly related to their less than
desirable diets. In some parts of the world people are dying from
malnourishment. In other over-privileged societies there are many
competing authors touting their newest, latest, trendiest diets and
trying to tell others how they should nourish themselves. There is
the “low-carb diet”, the “raw-vegan diet”, the “paleolithic
diet” and so on and so forth. It all really begs the question what
should one eat for optimal functioning, well-being and health?
And that naturally leads to the question what
did our ancestors eat to have the greatest possible health,
well-being and reproductive success (if we would like to consider
that an indicator of success) or avoid sickness and disease (as can
be evidenced by examining skeletal remains)?
Whenever
the diet of early Homo is discussed in introductory level
anthropology text books there is always focus and emphasis placed on
whether or not early man was a hunter or a scavenger. That is the
topic that currently always stands out in the discussion about early
diet. This discussion of man scavenging for meat, the theories, the
evidence of various cut marks on bones and the like is so thread bare
that it is pretty much unnecessary to even bother with a quote. Just
imagine that any one of the many passages in text books discussing
this topic was quoted, and that will suffice. One can even pretend
something was mentioned that insinuates a link between meat
consumption to a larger brain size if it is desired.
But,
while this discussion of how man got a hold of his meat (and bone
marrow) is of much fascination to some scholars, it really places
unfounded importance on the question. Early man obviously ate some
scavenged meat, sure. And they did also hunt small game, yes. But
that was only a fraction of what they ate and really is not all that
interesting. We eat an abundance of meat in industrialized modern
societies, and this over-consumption of meat is now linked to many
avoidable maladies. There is a much more interesting question to
ponder. What else was man eating?
For
one thing, besides hunted or scavenged game animals, man was often
eating fish. This is evidenced by the plethora of archeological
evidence. “Archeologists have found fishhooks that date from the
Old Stone Age, perhaps as much as fifty thousand years ago. The early
specimens were carved from bone or the curved edges of shells into a
roughly hook-like form. Perhaps people carved wooden ones even
earlier, but these would not have been preserved… The historical
details remain obscure, but barbed metal fishhooks were in use about
twenty thousand years ago.” (Williams:12) Coupled with the now
manifold apparent health benefits linked to the regular consumption
fish oil, it would make sense that early man might have flourished on
a diet that included fish.
There
are other ways to deduce what prehistoric man might have been
munching on. Modern paleoanthropologists now have the opportunity of
utilizing sophisticated techniques such as “by distinguishing
remains of wild plants and animals… in prehistoric garbage dumps.”
(Diamond) and other exciting prospects such as “…feces of
long-dead Indians who lived in dry caves in Nevada remain
sufficiently well preserved to be examined...” (Diamond) Such
techniques are constantly adding to our understanding of the diet of
early man.
Diamond’s
article “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race”
discusses the dietary changes and resulting maladies from which man
suffered as a result of switching to agriculture 10,000 years ago.
The article provides some insight into the diet of early man.
Diamond discusses various aspects of culture, health and diet, but
one of the most fascinating facts is the variety
of fare that was enjoyed by hunter-gatherers of modern day society
and the hunter-gathers of prehistoric times. They are not and were
not eating the exact same meal day in day out. They forage for a
variety of nourishing substances, be they animal or vegetable,
encompassing dozens and dozens
of different foods. This does prevent the hunter-gather from
over-exhausting any one particular resource. But also of much
importance is the fact that this provides the hunter-gather with such
a rich array of nutrients, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, tons of
fiber and everything they need to live in an optimal state of health.
While
farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and
potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of
surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better
balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily
food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140
calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the
recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost
inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die
of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and
their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s. (Diamond)
This
fact alone could provide some food for thought to many a person
pondering proper nutrition while living in our modern, industrialized
habitat. I do not think I know very many people who eat “75 or so”
different
plants (be they wild, domesticated, frozen, fresh or canned) on any
regular basis if even ever in their lifetime. What would be the
result if more people took to gardening their own food and foraging
for wild food, decommodifying food, and began to eat a greater
abundance and variety of fruits and vegetables and wild foods in
general?
Another
means of ascertaining early man’s diet is by examining the
skeleton. “The old adage ‘you are what you eat’ is certainly
true for the skeleton.” (Bruwelheide & Owsley) Archeologists
can ascertain some much about what a person ate by examining their
bones. The article “The Iceman Reconsidered” discusses these
processes in a bit of detail explaining that Analyzing archeological
remains of bone and hair for their abundances of stable isotopes of
carbon and nitrogen (carbon 13 and nitrogen 15) can provide
information about a person’s diet. Nitrogen 15 can reveal the
extent to which the individual relied on animal or plant protein.
Carbon 13 can indicate the type of plant food the person ate and
whether seafood or terrestrial carbon was an important part of the
diet” (Dickson, etc.)
The
means of ascertaining the diets of prehistoric people that were
described in this article were been used to assess the diet of Otzi,
a well preserved Neolithic man from about 5,000 years ago. Through
such scientific analysis these anthropologists were able to ascertain
that Otzi 's diet consisted of about 30 percent meat and 70 percent
vegetation which very much resembles the ratios that are enjoyed by
modern day hunter-gathers. This particular individual did not however
consume very much seafood which makes sense since this individual was
not found near the any body of water that would have been a source of
seafood. (Dickson, etc)
And
that brings me back to prehistoric garbage dumps and fossilized
feces. At this point in time so much of that matter has been
analyzed to the point where it has been determined that many
different populations of early man have eaten all sorts of different
food staples depending on where they were situated and what was
readily available. According to the article “What Actually was the
Stone Age Diet?” by J. A. J. Gowlett MA, PHD, FSA there is no one
set Paleolithic or stone age diet. Of course, it makes perfect sense
that diet would vary with region just as plant life and animal
populations vary from one region to another. However, there are a few
generalizations that can be made as they apply to many of the early
populations that have been studied. Most of the populations in
tropical climates eat a higher percentage of vegetable matter
(including some leafy vegetables, fruits and nuts) than meat. Fruit
plays a major role in prehistoric diet. And also quite popular among
earlier populations as well as modern day hunter-gathers are roots or
tubers. Meat has been more of a staple in some regions such as Europe
and the arctic. There is evidence that European Homo ate a meat
heavy diet for around the last 40,000 years.
One
thing that our ancestors did not consume prior to 10,000 years ago
was any of this mass produced, high-carbohydrate, starchy food stuff
that is central in the standard American diet. Both Diamond and
Gowlett acknowledge this point. Our prehistoric ancestors did not eat
bread nor Lucky Charms. Another thing that they were not consuming
much, if any, of was dairy products.
What an applied
anthropologist would deduce from this material is that they might
want to diversify their diet to include a wider variety of fruits,
vegetables, nuts and legumes than they currently do. They might
consider the health and environmental benefits of consuming less meat
and limiting their intake of beef and other wasteful and destructive
food sources to at least less than 30% of their diet if not
eliminating meat entirely. Dairy could be eliminated or at least
limited to small amounts of naturally produced dairy devoid of
synthetic hormones and antibiotics. Mass produced grains, especially
those high on the glycemic index should be avoided entirely.
If the entire
population were made aware of this information and encouraged to grow
more of their own food to increase the nutritional content of the
food they consumed and to reduce the amount of the pollution that is
a direct result of the commidification of food, I am sure the
over-all results would be delicious.
Works
Cited and Drawn From
Bruwelheide, Kari &
Owsley, Douglas. Written in Bone: Reading the Remains of the 17th
Century
Diamond, Jared. The
Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race
Dickson, James H.,
Oeggl, Klaus., Handley, Linda l. The Iceman Reconsidered
Gowlett. J. A.
J..What Actually was the Stone Age Diet?
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/GowlettCJNE_13_03_02.pdf
Williams, George C.
The Pony Fish's Glow And Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature
No comments:
Post a Comment