A cookbook that nourishes the body and the soul. Explore ancient traditions and learn how they can improve your life. This cookbook...
Fun with headlines: Did paleolithic people eat grains?
Great, a new pop-sci treatment of an anthropology paper that your Aunt Maude will forward to you with the implication that you should eat her whole wheat pancakes next time you visit. The article portrays this as some kind of ground-breaking research that totally changes our view of the paleolithic.
So what's the deal with this study? Now that I'm wormed my way into academia again somehow, I read the paper. They found something that looks like a mortar and pestle with some evidence of starch residues.
The title says flour, but that's not the good old white flour your Aunt Maude is thinking of. Of the nine species mentioned, one is a seed, the rest are roots and rhizomes. That ground starch has been used by humans since the upper paleolithic is not really news. Famous anthropologist Richard Wrangham who wrote Catching Fire has been writing about the role of cooked starch in the Upper Paleolithic for quite some time. In the Upper Paleolithic it might have spurred population increases that eventually led to early settlements like Gobekli Tepe. There has been selection for genes like AMY1 which allow for better starch digestion.
I think isotope studies are a little more accurate than a few as the paper admits "poor preserved" plant remains. And the evidence is that the protein in the paleolithic diet was mostly animal protein.
Find the whole wheat...
I've had cattail and it's not bad, though a pain in the ass to gather and process. If you want something similar chestnuts are another starchy paleo-ish food, which by coincidence I ate today. So if it makes you feel more accurate have some yams or chestnuts alongside of your steak. But steak is king.
- Melissa's blog
- Login to post comments
Post to Twitter



Comments
I looked up the
I looked up the following...and I'm guessing medicine is at least probable.
Botrychium ternatum = "grape fern" - hard to find herbal references, but Culpepper (1600's) mentions a related plant, Botrychium lunaria, or "moonwort", which he said was reputed to attract metal, capable of pulling the shoes off horses, and opening metal locks.
Arctium lappa = "burdock" - used by modern herbalists as a liver tonic.
Alchemilla vulgaris = "lady's mantle" - used by modern herbalists as a female tonic.
Lactuca tuberosa - a type of "wild lettuce" - a related species, Lactuca virosa, is used by modern herbalists to treat irritable coughs or bronchitis.
Bromus secalinus - "rye brome" - an annual grass which resembles rye, currently regarded as a noxious weed of cereal crops. Seeds sometimes used as famine food. The seeds of the related Bromus Tectorum, or "cheat grass" have been used in poultices to relieve chest pain.
Anthriscus caucalis - "burr-chervil" - in the carrot family and related to the better known "chervil," Anthriscus cerefolium, said to be a good digestive tonic. Also related to Anthriscus sylvestris, or "cow parsley," reputed to be a tonic for general weakness (after much pre-soaking).
Cyperus badius - a sedge in the family that includes the papyrus used in ancient Egypt. The tubers of several relatives have been used in human food and medicine.
Polygonum hydropiper - "knotweed" or "smartweed" - used extensively in both Western and Eastern herbal traditions.
Sparganium erectum - "bur-reed" - somewhat used in western herbal traditions, but relatives are used in Eastern herbal traditions as well.
Typha angustifolia and latifolia - cattails/bulrushes. Tubers used as a food, but also known in many places for their utility in bleeding disorders.
So what are the chances these
So what are the chances these processed plant remains were being used for purposes other than nutrition? Just off the top of my head I can think of two reasons that would make the extra effort worth the while...medicine or beer.
Paleo humans ate what was
Paleo humans ate what was available. They also had a hierarchy of food preferences. Meat was at the top of the list because of it's nutritional density. The dramatic growth in size of the human brain coincided with the increased importance of meat in the diet. The rest of the diet complimented or replaced meat, depending on it's availability. You see, it went like this;
Humans were nomadic. They moved to another place after one area became hunted out. In the new place they at first eat a lot of meat. That is why they came there, because the hunting was better.
Eventually the hunting is less successful and requires longer treks away from camp.The easy food is gone so the people eat more foods that require more work to gather and process into an edible form. They are not so nutritionally rich and are less important to the diet when meat is available. Various grass seeds fit this profile in a grassland setting. Grains were what you ate when meat wasn't around. Humans can't digest raw grass seed heads so they were processed into an edible form (flour) which could be stored for long periods of time and could also travel well. So when their diets became all grains it meant it was time to move on to better hunting grounds.
I kid you not, reporters from
I kid you not, reporters from DailyMail in the UK are claiming that the scientists behind the study are saying Paleo man used these "GRAINS" and made them into flour and made crude cracker type pancakes!
WTF!?
Someone needs to fire those reporters! Sounds like they are rehashing an exaggerated version from Reuters LOL.
Misleadingly named "Stone Age Man Ate Bread"
See it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1321844/Stone-Age-man-ate...
What I noticed in the story
What I noticed in the story is that the evidence comes from 30,000 years ago, as if this is some how drastically different (in terms of biological adaptation) from the commonly accepted 10,000 years of agricultural living. Humans (or proto-humans) were eating meat 2 million years ago.
Can you post a link to the
Can you post a link to the study? My Google-fu is failing me.
psst.
psst.
This is exactly what you'd
This is exactly what you'd expect a hunter-gatherer to be eating when he's, you know, gathering.
There's a Reuter's article going around that's very anti-Paleo:
"The findings may also upset fans of the Paleolithic diet, which follows earlier research that assumes early humans ate a meat-centered diet."
The article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101018/india_nm/india522760
This kind of stuff always
This kind of stuff always cracks me up. Paleo man probably ate about anything he came across. You can bet your ass he ate those carbs when he found them. That's what people trying to survive do. That doesn't make paleo man a regular sandwich eater or a wheat farmer ;)
Right on. True paleo back in
Right on. True paleo back in the day was to eat whatever you could get your hands on that didn't kill you immediately. Not the same as the definition we use now. Really, that's our biggest problem. We're wired to eat whatever we can get. We're wired for sweets, since fruits are full of vitamins but rare and seasonal. This makes a lot of evolutionary sense. Modern society foils it. Same for fats where we're tricked into some really nasty stuff like hydrogenated vegetable oils.
i have some experience to
i have some experience to draw on with this. the other day i had to get my mortar and pestle out. i was making taco seasoning and didn't have onion powder. i had dried onion flakes. about an hour later using my primitive tool i had the 4 Tbs i needed. i can't imagine that 30,000 years ago they were making a whole lotta bread by hand picking, drying, and hand grinding grass seeds. was it something occasionally done if other sources weren't available? maybe. was it a large part of their diet? i so hell no.
but peanuts aren't paleo
but peanuts aren't paleo fearsclave
Didn't somebody find some
Didn't somebody find some stone tools with 84,000 year old sorghum residue on them a few months back? 30,000 years is peanuts (heck, so is 84,000).