I have just been reading
Clan of the Cave Bear (by Jean Aurel) and some of the following books in the series about Ayla, a human child adopted by Neanderthals.
Clan of the Cave Bear was pretty decent, the rest are massive overly descriptive books, and I have to say I have probably skimmed most of them. Good things about them: (if you are interested) JA really has done her research. Meticulously. I mean I remember lots of this stuff from my degree and even went to get some textbooks out to scan over and see if she was on the mark. Do you know there really was a Neanderthal skull of an older man with a smashed in eye found buried in a cave in Israel? It sounded a lot like Creb the male of Ayla's hearth in the story. I also really liked how she uses the knowledge we have on human physiology and that available from Neanderthal skulls to create the whole idea of their use of sign language in the book (a speculation, but good one nevertheless) rather than the vocal communication of humans. It is absolutely correct that they had a higher larynx and so would have had very limited vocal sounds (yet still they were thought to have a rich culture and further implications for communication that did not rely on speech).
But did I want to read masses of descriptions (pages and pages long) of the glacial period and how the landscape particulars interacted with animal life? I didn't really. It's good that the beasts of the Ice Age plains are historically true (if that's your *thing* I guess it's nice to see accuracy) I am thinking that the research in it's self would have spurred on aspects of the story and created roles, like the obvious huge knowledge of flint and flint knapping and the physiology and migration of various animals lent credence to their use in major bits of the book. But I did find myself flicking past the descriptions of fauna and flora and even the Mills and Boon 'bedding down' bits, so monotonous were they and so prevalent! *Yawn* In the first book, not so, it was interesting enough, and novel, but the following books just get longer and longer
and longer! Maybe JA wanted to really prove to us that she'd truly done her research, I am sure she could probably write articles for journals on her speculations from material she gathered, maybe she could lecture in universities to would-be paleontologists... I like the characters mostly and their development and so tended to fast forward to those bits. But again both main characters, by the third book, were getting kind of one dimensional. So perfect! So good! Everyone falls in love with them, they have such amazing skills with herbs, animals, weapons, charm, good looks.... *yawn* .
But anyway. One of the things I really enjoyed from these books was that it re-fueled my own passion in food! And herbs. One time, maybe seven years ago I was looking into how I could possibly take another degree, in Herbal Medicine. I never did (mainly because the course I fancied was in Scotland and we moved to Wales, that kind of made up my mind for me). But I still read ferociously on nutrition and herbs, regardless.
Whilst cross checking some facts in JA's books (I know, I know, what a geek) and just randomly reading further bits out of a re-kindled interest lots of extra foodie bits slotted into place. Not neatly, by any means, but interestingly.
I reached again for the book
Primal Body - Primal Mind (Nora T. Gedgaudas). We *do* have ice age physiologies. Reading about this story set 35,000 years ago reminded me in a vivid, imaginative way. There is no escaping it. Modern human physiology was shaped through an ice age. We would not have survived the cold (even in milder months of the year) for thousands of glacial years without the use of fur from other animals. So we learned to hunt. We would not have survived winters without eating animal fats and meat. There were no ice age vegans. I love looking at evolution, how it shaped us and then looking at how we adapted to change. (Thinking this is probably why humans survived and Neanderthals did not, we could adapt to change.) It takes a looong time for adaptation, not culturally or behaviorally (although maybe that too to some extent), but biologically. We still have ice age physiologies. 35,000 years ago isn't very long ago. We are still the same humans (genetically) as we were then.
As a species, we are essentially identical with respect to genetic expression, regardless of blood type, to those humans living more than forty thousand years ago. Our physiologies are fundamentally Paleolithic, which refers to the human evolutionary time period spanning from roughly 2.6 million to 10,000 years ago - before the dawn of agriculture. We are the result of an optimal design, shaped and moulded by nature over a hundred thousand or so generations. In other words, we are all - biologically and genetically and physiologically, without exception - hunter gatherers, And for much of our hominid evolution we have been mostly hunters.
~ N. Gedgaudas
Optimal human diet is not a thing we need to guess or measure or weigh out or have blood tests or tools to help us along (helpful sometimes maybe). Despite individual biochemistry the premise of this book (
Primal Body, Primal Mind) states that we are all fundamentally physiologically similar and optimal diet is based on this principle: We all share a sophisticated endocrine system subject to certain inter-hormonal relationships, we all have a blood pH between 7.35 and 7.45 and we all have similar basic nutrition requirements. Dietary optimisation has never been so exciting, precisely because we have this amazing perspective on our own history. This is a massive advantage in our modern world of extensive food choice, being able to look back at human evolutionary history and see exactly what we ate in order to function optimally. Genetic adaptation takes so long, I think I read something akin to 100,000 years, that we can be sure that we haven't changed) I think it's so fascinating that we were
exactly the same then as we are now. We feel so cemented in our modern lifestyle, kind of like we have been here forever and will be, just like this. It's hard to visualise massive scale change, or to contemplate exactly how we got from there to here. Surely we have moved on in better ways? Surely our diets have improved since the dawn of agriculture?
Agriculture, tops, didn't start until 10,000 years ago (that's a lenient estimation, most probably wide scale, even later). Resulting from increases in human populations, less available wild game (resulting in from both over hunting and the massive die off of mega-fauna following the ice age). Agriculture became necessity but along with it came the beginnings of 'modern' disease (as seen in the bones, skulls and teeth from excavation sites. The state of teeth both in terms of decay and the formation of the jaw are a fabulously accurate reflection of a humans state of health - Weston Price in
Nutrition and Physical Degeneration writes extensively about this).
Optimal human diet is not a 'caveman diet' as such, it's simply a way of eating that fits the nutritional requirements that humans have evolved to expect.
I like that J. Aurel in her books has really seen this and not romanticised when it comes to food.
So what did we eat and what do our bodies still expect:
~Animal fats and protein (including fish) and organ meats (some raw, some cooked, some dried)
~Eggs, raw, cooked from a huge array of bird/animal (not just the domesticated fowl we are used to)
~cooked plant materials, especially in the current era of raw food-ism, it's important to note that the toxicity of most plant material would have been tempered and thus cooked to modify the presence of harmful compounds (including legumes).
~ Occasional raw fruit (mainly berries), green leafy veg, some nuts and seeds and wild grains (in total these may constitute less than 1-2% of diet)
It's though that that which makes us distinctly human; cunning, cooperation, altruism, sharing, advanced creativity, the power of foresight, recalling past events in terms of the present, capacity to evaluate, imagination, solutions.... qualities not found in other primates, all were likely developed with our dependence on hunting and interestingly this is reflected in the dominant form of fatty acid in the brain (omega3) compared to the dominant form in other primates (omega6).
Of all the macro nutrients (protein, fats and carbs) the only one of which there is no actual human requirement is carbohydrates. Our bodies can manufacture glucose as needed from a combination of fats and proteins in the diet. Glucose is thought to be needed critically, only for fueling red blood cells, most tissue seems to prefer energy production from the by-products of fat (ketones, the very things we are told are
bad) This is always overlooked in the medical world despite abundant evidence that many modern diseases result from an excess of sugar.
I was looking through some epilepsy info recently and noted that in many cases a ketogenic diet (this ice age diet) is recommended to reduce seizures. No idea how successful it is, but if it's an optimal human diet it's got to go some way in helping, esp. if the diet prior to that was Standard Modern fare (i.e. junk).
The whole point of this ramble was basically just to say that I enjoyed the little linking back to diet and the reminder to myself that I have let too many carbs back into my diet (honey and sesame seed halva may be very tasty but it's probably best saved for a yearly rather than weekly treat...mmmm...). So easy to let ones diet slide when life is busy and full and nutrition isn't at the forefront of your mind. The abundance of 'junky' foods everywhere rather than nourishing ones just further creates a widening gap between what I want to eat at any given (hungry) time and what's actually available for consumption.
Will I bother to read the other Ayla books? Um, probably, but only because I am a sucker to see how a story turns out. Even if I have to yawn over the boring sex scenes no doubt I'll manage to read them :) And do so whilst eating some mashed ox-brains and sauteed spinach or something...
Just kidding. About the brains. Even the thought makes me squeamish. I reckon I'll just stick to mackerel and wimp out of the hardcore organ stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edited to add:
Just thinking today that the basis of this diet is based on the two majors - animals and plants. Two things (overpopulation aside) that are *local* and part of each persons every day life and community and habitat. Eating the ice age way can solve the modern dilemma of where or how to recycle the tetra-pak from the carton of rice milk because it's use is eliminated! No longer would a person have this dilemma, or burden, or guilt over gigantic carbon footprint. The idea seems to eat enough fatty acids to sustain and fill hunger, minimal but enough proteins to repair and rebuild and plant foods to add some bulk and various vitamins.
I am so in love with this way of eating. Of course in reality I use coconut oil shipped from the other side of the world, I feel I can't live a totally local way (right now - I am aiming in some ways to be gradual), but this and other transgressions that I can't think of right now but of which there must be more, are surely minimised by the lack of packaging and air miles involved in eating this way?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
