My name is Ryan and you are listening to The
Vegan Report. For decades, we've held a clear
and widely accepted picture of what prehistoric
humans were like. Central to that narrative is
the belief that they followed a so -called Paleo
diet, a diet consisting of whole foods heavily
focused on animal proteins while avoiding grains
and legumes. However, a groundbreaking study
published this very year challenges that claim,
according to this research, our ancestors' diets
were predominantly plant -based, including grains
and legumes. This revelation suggests that early
humans might have been more accurately described
as gatherer -hunters rather than hunter -gatherers.
How? How did such a misconception about prehistoric
humans arise? And what does this new discovery
tell us about our identity as a species? To answer
those questions, I am joined by Dr. Hadar Ahidouf,
the lead researcher behind this study. Dr. Ahid
Roof is based at the Laboratory for Ancient Food
Processing Technologies at Haifa University's
Zinman Institute of Archaeology. So Hadar, your
paper is titled, Starch -Rich Plant Foods, 780
,000 Years Ago, Evidence from Aeculian Percussive
Stone Tools. Now, I thought about my knowledge
of history. And I think I can pretty much go
back to 3000 years before Christ. And that's
the extent of my historical knowledge. So for
me, 780 ,000 years means absolutely nothing.
I have no conceptual historical context framework
to understand that number. So I guess my first
question for you is, can you give me some context
about what was, you know, being human like 700
,000 years ago? And what was life like? What
was, you know, the what did the earth look like?
Yeah, so Actually, it's a really big question.
I can tell that our ancestors, there were few
ancestors through the prehistory of life until
we know that we are the homo sapiens ourselves.
There are a few types of hominins, if you would
like to call it like this, but also before them,
there were the kind of types that were more similar
to other species that we know. So if I'll just
mention them for you in the podcast, there were
Australopithecus, and there are also different
kinds of Australophorensis, for example, and
the source of them, we can talk about Africa
as kind of the source of human, if you would
like to call it like this. For example, Lucy,
she's the most famous one. She dated for 3 .2
million years ago, and she was the host of Pitechus
of Forensics. And she's one of the oldest species
of human that we can call them like this. And
when we are talking here about 780 ,000 years
ago, we can talk about hominins. So hominins
are the ancestors that went out from Africa and
spread all over the world. And the hominins,
if you would ask which type of person that went
out from Africa, I can tell you that it's...
homo erectus, although there are few opinions
for here and there, but it's kind of the mainstream
think that the homo erectus is the type of human
that went out of Africa. And if we're talking
about the surrounding, so the surrounding was
Like we can imagine from movies. So it was kind
of savannahs and Forests with high and big trees
and big mamas and also small animals But all
was really wild and big and massive and dramatic
When we are traveling today, you know in the
cities or even in villages It's so so so different.
So if you go back to 3 ,000 years from now, as
you mentioned, we can say that the surrounding
was quite similar. Not, of course, not with the
towers and the big cities as we know them, but
communities of people that live together. And
all of this kind of lead us to what we are now
today, just in big, just in large, the technology
and what's came on us. on it and if we want to
connect it to some kind of period that we can
divide it to the old world and then to the new
world we probably must point out on the agricultural
revolution that happened around 10k before present
around it of course it's depend who you're asking,
but at the end of the Upper Paleolithic and when
the Neolithic period started. And the agricultural
revolution actually brought us to what we know
today about villages, about settlements, about
sit in one place and become to be a farmer instead
of hunter -gatherers. So actually what is earlier
than 10K from present that we can talk about
is the hunter -gatherers that we know them. And
these hunter -gatherers went around, searched
for foods, searched for any kind of resources
that they can use, and they traveled. There are
even research that talks about over 20 kilometers
per day. around to search food and return to
the camp. So most of the sites that they were
lived in are either caves or open sites under
the sky. And they collect, whether it's animals,
whether it's plants, what is my research brought
to the new field to see and look for. So also
plants. And they brought them to the side and
also other resources like unorganic resources
like plants and all kinds of other tools. For
example, if they will process skins and create
ropes and those kind of stuff. So they needed
to collect them around in the surrounding and
bring them to the camp and then use them. Yeah,
I think this is it. If I can summarize all of
the things into a small section here in the podcast,
but of course it's a huge data that must be more
increased. Yes, definitely. I mean, it's a long
stretch of time. Let me go back to what you said
about the hominids, because I think it's one
of the most fascinating chapter of the existence
of humanity. So basically, there were other human
species around. And I guess my question is, are
we the product of you know, reproduction between
those human species? Or are we something completely
separate from them? How much can we relate to
those other human species? It's a really interesting
question. Again, it's huge, huge data in the
research that, you know, there are even groups
in the research that talks about different ways
but what came from the latest researches in the
recent research talks about that there were some
combinations between the species, the human species,
and actually it was not as much as dichotomic
as much as it has been thought before. So there
are some kind of, you know, combinations between
as much as they can be seen in the DNA research.
For example, if we are talking about the Neanderthals
and the Homo sapiens, you know, way after the
hominids that we talked about in GBY and Geshov
-Notiakov, so you can see that there are also
evidence of Neanderthals also in our DNA, in
the DNA of the Homo sapiens. It's small percentages,
of course, and Homo sapiens now became the controller
of the whole species and occupied all the globes
and also before the agricultural revolution if
I mention it also. But definitely we carry on
us some fractions of DNA from other species as
well. And if you want to differentiate between
the old, you know, the really ancient species,
as I mentioned before, between the Australopithecus
suffrensis, Australopithecus bozi, for example,
and for the Homo erectus, so you can see similarities,
but I'm not sure about the DNA that is really
in this stage to answer about those questions.
So what I can say from the research itself is
that There are differentiations. And when we
talk about homo erectus, this is the first homo,
this is the first species of human that create
tools. And he used tools. So he create tools
that he can use them for other tools. To create
another tool. So if, for example, I'll give you
an example. He create some indexes that he can
chop. uh woods you can chop skins uh little and
produce other stuff from them to use with or
to process for example if it's meat or if it's
plant as i also plant as i mentioned in my research
so this is kind of the differentiation and this
person the the abel the the homo habilis this
is the first You know, homo habilis, it's considered
as homo erectus. This is the species that went
out of Africa in the first out, the big first
out of Africa, and then spread it all over, you
know, into Asia and Europe. And then, yeah. Then,
you know, if we haven't mixed that much with
them, where have they gone? Why are they extinct
right now? And I'm asking that, having in mind
the hypothesis then, we're the ones who have
destroyed them. So can you confirm that? I can
refer to this. But again, these are the big question
of actually in prehistory and I don't want to
be risked with other colleagues. But I'll try
to answer, I think, on the right answer. And
I want to mention that the suitable species were
survived. Those who were adjustable enough to
the changes, also in environment, also in the
surroundings. You know, climate change. Also,
there may be the change of amount of animals
around them, the predators that maybe attack
them. And there is a huge discussion about the
production of tools. For example, the differentiation
between the Australopithecus, as I mentioned
them, to the Homo habilis. So when you succeed
to create some tools, so maybe you can defend
yourself better than other species. Further,
if you went to the Homo erectus in the Geisha
B 'not Yaakov, 780 ,000 years from now, these
hominids, they will control on fire. So this
is the first evidence out of Africa of human
species that control on fire. So this control
brings with itself, you know, maybe can stand
by its own, the control of fire that can lead
for other options, maybe survival options, maybe
you can extinct other species, I guess, with
these abilities. So it's adaptions that human
species, specific human species, as we know,
maybe the Homo sapiens further, but if we talk
now about Homo erectus, they made those adaptations
to the surroundings that helped them to survive
upon the others. Okay, let's go back to your
study. So now we have, you know, defined and
given context around the years. But what about
the location? How did you select the location?
How did you make the decision to start digging,
you know, at the banks of the South Jordan River,
I think. So I'll just mention that this excavations
were happened way before me as a student, even.
And I have a PhD, of course, and the research,
but the the leader of the excavation, and she's
also signed on this research as well, with her
help. and she was excavated in a she was excavator
in the 80s and the 90s of the last century and
she she actually made a really great job about
preserving the the finds that she take out of
the the ground out of the soils so actually when
you excavate you reduce layers from the soil
Sorry, most of the layers, most of the sediments
were thrown away after the excavation, wild excavation
itself. And sorry, Nahama Goren in Bar, Professor
Goren in Bar, kept a lot of the sediments and
kept a lot of the finds also in a way that allowed
it to preserve better. for me to come and check
this. So I came into this after the second degree
when I talked with my supervisor. And my supervisor
mentioned me that her supervisor, Nahamah Goremin
-Bah, Professor Nahamah Goremin -Bah, have a
lot of material sits and wait for people to investigate
it for microremains. So actually there are a
lot of microremains that I can do in actually
any archaeological site. I can use in any kind
of find to extract and resell starches if we
talk about starches or maybe other microremains
like pollen and like other phytoliths. And my
specialty, actually I'll just mention it, I'm
a specialist with starch. And what I decided
to do is to take some kind of case study that
will be strong enough and maybe will fade much
light about plant processing and production of
foods out of plants. And when she suggested this
as a quite good sampling site, I jumped. almost
right away and decided to test these stones because
they thought these actually percussive tools,
not just a stone. And it was fantastic to test
them. And of course, again, I'll repeat, there
are a lot of options here in Israel and a lot
of corporations to do, but this is kind of unique
material to work on and prehistory. that, for
me, is most interesting than other periods, for
example. So this is what led me to investigate
this site and take these samples out of this
site. So it's a combination between great taking
care about the stuff, the great checking and
analyzing of the material, and great context.
of material and its combination of all. Yeah.
And I think this is what brought me to this.
And I guess we could get to the conclusion of
that study. And maybe a way to sum it up is,
yes, we were hunter -gatherers, but maybe we
were more gatherers than hunters. So would you
agree with that? You know, summary? So I'm, I'm,
I must agree with this summary, because, and
maybe I'll say something for, you know, in the
beginning of this, well, most of the archaeological
sites that were excavated, they're excavated,
and the finds and the tools kept right away,
they kept right away after the excavation and
they classified and when you're excavating by
hands so a lot of the sediments that around the
finds are thrown away so all the macro remains
actually I wish I wish that I think that this
is what the archaeologists done of course they're
keeping all of the macro remains that what they
can see but a lot of the material conclude also
micro -remains that can't be seen unless you're
taking them to the lab and test them under the
microscope. So what you can find in most cases
in archaeological sites, especially in prehistoric
sites, is that you can find bones close to plants
or other stone tools, net stone tools. and maybe,
maybe, maybe a little bit of charcoals, or even
that, not that much. Sometimes you can see if
it's further in prehistory, like from the Epipaleolithic
through the Neolithic period, and of course,
go through to the Roman period, you can see also
the structures, the buildings, and if it's in
prehistory, you maybe will see three stages of
stones that may be served as the base of the
wood or something. So this is what you mostly
see when you're excavating. And when decided
to take the research of microremains into the,
you know, to take the samples and take them into
the microscope and observe them, it's a new world
for the archaeologists. in large but also for
the micro remains researchers, because you can
reveal much more out of the excavation. And if
you, if we as archaeologists want to reconstruct
the real picture about how people in this case,
how our ancestors live or manage their lives,
and what activities they've done, you must check
in all directions. And I'm not blaming, of course,
the archaeologists in large, and of course it's
not. This is the process of research. Well, now
we are in a period that those micro -remains
researchers are able to be done. So we have the
microscope, we have other chemicals we can use.
And it's great how the... you know how the technology
is improved in all aspects so it's allowed us
to do this but most of the archaeological excavations
up to kind of the 20 years from now ago most
of them they excavate you know bare hands just
collect the pints and this is what the archaeologists
done so i can't blame them but this what caused
the bias of not seeing any plant remains because
plant remains are organic they are more affected
by the surroundings, they are more affected by
other insects or microorganisms. Also, the purpose
of this research is to investigate an archaeological
site, a prehistoric archaeological site, is that
this specific site was waterlogged. The waterlogged
is surrounded without oxygen. the possible of
microorganisms that needs oxygen to live and
to eat the starches, the starch remains from
the staples decreased, increasingly decreased.
So it's great, great, you know, to check there.
So this is what we need inside and I hope for
that. And the starches were preserved, but it's
not the case in all other, you know, archaeological
sites. It's also dependent on preservation. So
if you, as you mentioned, the three thousand
years from the Christian, from the Bible, for
example. So in those archaeological sites, there
are high percentages of preservation of organic
materials. And by the way, these organic materials
are from charcoals. Most of them were burnt.
and then they preserved because when you burn
something, you transform it to charcoal, and
then it became unorganic in some way. And then
it's less breakable, less damaged. Of course,
it's damaged and there are economic processes
on archaeological sites in large, but most of
them are preserved. And here, in this unique
site, the macro -remains, the plant macro -remains
were preserved also because they were they were,
you know, soaked with water under the water in
soil sediments. So it was soil sediment that
was a swamp and it was a lake shore before this,
like 780 ,000 years ago. And this is what afford
the preservation. So we assume that because there
is macro botanical remains of plants, we assume
that we have here a potential to reverse starches.
And this is it. Also, it's a unique site because
of the macro botanical remains of fruits, different
kinds of fruits, almonds, and a lot of other,
like acorns. others that probably consume and
as we mentioned here they they probably consume
and I think what is if you if you will ask me
and probably will you you want to ask but I think
I'm I'm jumping over maybe I'll continue the
uniqueness of these riches the uniqueness the
uniqueness of this research is that we examine
starches we examine plant residues out of tools.
Most of the archaeological remains excavating
the archaeological site, they are found close
to tools, close to other remains of humans. So
it's indirect evidence that macro botanical remains.
But they are in the site, so we can talk about
them. that maybe they can use with, you know,
plant processing, maybe they brought for specific
reasons, and probably it is. But when you discovered
and when you reveal touches or plant proxies
out of tools, so it's like you, you know, picking
out in your plate, in your plate at home. So
it definitely came from what you processed and...
probably consumed. And it's more direct evidence
for the process of plants. And it's probably
the earliest evidence of plant processing and
consumption of plants. That's absolutely fascinating
to think that archaeologists would look at you
know, the, those macro, um, clues of what early
people ate, um, and, and, and just have that,
you know, bias of, you know, not, uh, looking
at the micro stuff, um, which yes, like you said,
um, is more rich in, in, in clues on what exactly
they, they, they were eating, what was their
their diet about. So you talked about instruments.
Are we talking here about, and you mentioned
plates, like some sorts of plates. Are we talking
about cooking here? Were those people, you know,
that advance in their manipulation of food? So
it's a great question, and I think you touched
the point exactly. Well, as I mentioned before,
the site was known by the oldest evidence of
controlling the fire outside of Africa. So fire
was there, and we can see also evidence of charcoals
that were brought intensifically over the site.
And also we can see, of course, other remains
of animals, of mammals, from different kinds
of mammals, and also fish. But here in these
reaches, we find out also starches that were
damaged in a way that's really similar to cooking
or, if you would like, fire processing of plants.
I'm trying to be careful with my words, but...
The evidence well, it's it's look like this and
we present it also in the research we gave also
a figure for this and we present the statues
and we suggest that those touches went over a
processing on grindstone tools and Grindstone
tools is kind of large terms for percussive tools
for processing tools. So these plans brought
brought to these tools, the stone tools, basalt
stone tools, and they were processed. This is
what we extract, this is what we take out from.
So not the plates, actually not the ancient plates,
but the processing tools. So if you want, it's
like the food processor today on the, you know,
that sits in our kitchen. So this was the ancient
food processor, and they use this and process
it. and maybe after this or maybe before that
they brought this production this you know maybe
it was a flower or something like that and they
process it or create it at some point and put
it through the fire and then consume it. We guessed
that they consume it so yeah I'm choosing my
words here because this kind of stuff that are
a little bit kind Kind of jump over, but we can
talk about it, I guess. So I'll just say that
the evidence came out of these processing tools,
they call them percussive tools, and it was specific
plant parts. And they didn't mention it before
and they think it's worth to mention that the
starchy parts in plants are really specific because
the starch not... and all of the plants. So you
need to pick specific parts of plants that contain
the starch. And these kinds of plant parts came
from different kinds of plants. So for example,
from acorns, we found evidence for acorns. We
found evidence of species. It's a starch formation
that is correlated with barley. Wild grass and
also rate so it's a similar formation. So actually
it's it could be that all of these four were
processed but Probably some of them like two
of them three of them. Maybe all of them were
processed. So we talked about acorns about wheat
or barley or the two others and also chestnuts
that these are nuts also roots of water lily
yellow water lily and we mentioned chestnut and
maybe also lily bulbs. So it's kind of big, you
know, big, big kind of range of species that
came from different kinds of plant parts. So
we talked about bulbs, nuts and grains and seeds
also. And it's unique also because we found it
on these tools, but these kind of plants came
from different seasons. So you can find them
in different seasons. So you can yield like the
yield, when you need to go out and harvest them,
you can find them in different kinds of seasons.
For example, the chestnuts and the water yellow
lily, they are actually harvested in the winter,
mostly in the winter, autumn. And if we talked
about wheat or barley, or also oat, they found
around the spring into the summer, and acorns
somewhere in between, also close to the winter.
So it's kind of range of seasonality. And we
can talk here about seasonality preferences,
or maybe depending on the seasons. So it means
that this ancient hominid, Ancient hominins,
they knew the surroundings, they knew the year
-round seasonality, they knew, of course, well,
without doubt, they knew the cycles of climate,
the cycles of plant production, next -generation
season production of the plant. And it's, I think,
it's extreme. extremely interesting to know that
they have these develops and if we combine it
also to the processing that maybe they take the
plants and after the process put them also in
fire and you combine all the things you can talk
here about really developed cognitive of those
kind of species the hominids and if you would
say Homo erectus if you want Homo erectus back
then back to around 800 ,000 years from now.
800 ,000 years. So it's, I think it's really
interesting and need saying. Quick follow -up
question. Do you think there were more plants
that they consumed and that maybe, you know,
because of the limitation of the sites, you did
not get to discover? Because, you know, it's
It feels like it's really wide ranging the kinds
of plants they were eating. So I'm thinking maybe
it was not limited to that. Great question. Definitely
they consume more. Definitely. Because, as I
mentioned, starches found in specific plant parts.
And the starches are not familiar with all kinds
of plants. There are plants, for example, the
mole leafy. with leaves, plants with leaves,
that you consume the leaves, so leaves not produce
starches for storage. The starch that I'm talking
about is starch for storage, not starch for energy
that every plant produce for its energy. So starch
is a storage source, not all of the plants create
it. So they create sometimes oils and fats, and
sometimes also allium, the different kind of
sugar. So, and we can find on the site different
kinds of plants in the macro remain now. We're
talking about plants that live after the seeds
and grains, but those kinds of remains are, well...
Let us know about huge range of plants and huge
range of other plant parts. For example, the
fruits, as I mentioned, and other kinds of seeds
and grains that mostly go through fire. So we
can talk also about your example that I didn't
found in the starch. They have starches, but
I didn't found the starch of them in the percussive
tools, but they are called how they call, I just
forget the name for now, but they are kind of
small popcorn that they are being sold now even
today in India. And this is a species that extinct
in Israel and all of the surrounding of, you
know, the Eastern Mediterranean, but it's now
lives only in India. And ancient remains of it
discovered in Geshub not Yaakov. Again, seven
780 ,000 years from now. So, yeah, fascinating,
I guess. Yeah. Truly. And something else that
strikes me about this is, like you said, there
are many plants, the eight that are now extinct.
And then there are others that we don't see as
food. So basically 780 ,000 years ago, they had
a more diverse, um, um, you know, plant food,
um, um, cuisine than, than we do, because we're
really limited on the kinds of legumes and, um,
plant foods that we eat. Great. Definitely a
great notice, I must confess. And also deals
with, as probably you noticed already, with the
agricultural revolution. And as also researchers
in this period, I can say that we limited our
plate. kind of eight founder crops. So these
eight founder crops are the wheat, the barley,
chickpea, lentils, baba bean, and the flax, and
maybe I forgot someone in between, pea also,
and chickpea. And these kind of species, those
are the most common today to the region of the
eastern Mediterranean. We can add them the maize,
and also tomato and potato that came from the
Americas, and we can add also mash bean and others,
and rice of course from Asia. So it's a small
group of plants, but these small groups of plants
that were picked and create our small bag of
plants that we are mostly consumed today, it's
not what has happened back then. And maybe if
you want, if we try to summarize it differently,
maybe I can say that we reduced our preferable
species of plants out of something that was big
and huge And we domesticate those specific plants.
It's not came from out of nowhere. It came from
somewhere. The somewhere was, you know, back
then that our ancestors knew all the surroundings,
knew all the plants, all the, you know, the resources
in large. And from them, they picked and, you
know, reduced what we're using today. When I
think about hunter -gatherers or gatherers, hunters,
I always thought, you know, how can they find
what they eat in the wild? And I realized now
that I was thinking, how can they find bell peppers
and potatoes and, you know, what we usually cultivate?
But actually, you know, they were eating more
different species and more diverse species than
that. So of course they would find, you know,
other things, other sources of food. If you don't
widen your window of, you know, food available,
plant food available, of course you would think,
you know, they would never survive in the wild.
Yeah, what we know today, just selective, you
know, selectivity from what they knew. If I go
back, so I always thought if I go back to those
early people, I would find some bloodthirsty
groups who had a really hard time surviving and
Basically hunting all the time something like
that cartoon. I don't know if you know it primal
I think it won some awards but you know that
Early human is just obsessed with hunting and
it's all very bloody and violent But you know
what you're describing is more of a community
Just eating plants and cooking them together.
I don't know, I get the feel of togetherness
and peace from our ancestors that I did not get
from mainstream culture, pop culture, our, you
know, mainstream view of those ancestors of ours.
Yeah, and this is connect for something else
that I don't want to go inside, but actually
this is what we have been, you know, weighed
on like road to be looked to. And if we're, there
is sentence that my lecturer used to say in our
lectures every time almost and that we talked
about the prehistory against our modern times.
And he mentioned that if we can imagine clock,
the picture of clock and Two seconds close to
12 are the end of the life that we are know today
about getting rich, achieve supplies, and living
in buildings, wanting to buy a car or using a
phone call. All of this that brought us to the
agricultural revolution and from there to settle
and to be more hunter. and to build the big houses
and to be, to achieve to be, you know, more and
more and more from all different kinds. And then
I do not say that it's not good or good. I just
mention it. So it's only to like in the time
scale on the, you know, on the, on the timeline
of all human species. When you took this, When
you took us, where we are now in the modern life,
it's only two seconds from all the clock. Like
it's promissed from all the prehistory of the
human species and what it's going through. And
all the others, as you mentioned, it's the hunter
-gatherer, or if you like, gatherer -hunters,
yes, definitely. And these were communities that
took each other, you know, to care about each
other and treat each other and if I'll just throw
here an anecdote, 30 ,000 years from now in a
cave in Shanidar in Iraq, for example, there
is an evidence for medicine treatment for people
inside the cave. So you can see actually a bone
that arrowhead embedded inside it. And then you
can see this bone healed. someone needed to treat
this person, to treat this species, to treat
this individual. So these were communities that
needed to take care of each other, needed to
bring food to the ancient table together, no
matter who went to collect, no matter who went
to hunt, no matter... who bring, you know, other
unorganic stuff like the tools that I told you
when someone needs to produce tools. So it was
kind of communities that work together. It's
not just as we know from today that every individual
is for itself. And I must add for this is that
it was also diverse and the group was really
much the center and not the individual. This
is one thing, and then the second thing that
I think it must be mentioned. Actually, I wonder
how to say this, but you know what? Everyone
needs to to take care to each other and to notice
to see each other but yeah never mind it's not
fixed in my mind right now and it seemed important
yeah yeah well it's so important maybe we'll
need to edit it after this but yeah never mind
i just okay maybe that's talk about it off recording,
if you want, because I'm curious. Let me ask
you this about those people. And you alluded
to it when you talked about how it's more collective
and less about one individual. I always thought
that if we were hunter societies, then, of course,
we became very hierarchical and patriarchal because
there are only a few of us who have the athletic
abilities to hunt or, you know, to go after praise.
And so if we depend on them to get our food,
then they gain socially more power. I always,
you know, thought of it that way. But if we depended
not on hunters for our for sustaining ourselves,
but actually on plants, and finding those plants,
and then cooking those plants, the way society
was built was much more equitable, and the distribution
of responsibilities was much more fair, and I
guess, because of that, maybe it was less hierarchical.
Is that a good way of looking at things? A good
analysis of social structures in prehistoric
time? I think it's hard. I understand where you're
going to, but I think it's hard to answer this
in analytic, you know, tools or maybe in such
a research. I think we should be more careful
because, and I'll say while I'm saying this,
so from what we can know from, you know, from
ethnographical research, all of the kind of those
activities will happen in those ancient sites
if we, you know, throw it to the ancient times.
all of the activities happened there were some
groups so if you want well it's not that true
to say you know that females were collected and
the males were went out to hunter to hunt so
it's not it's not true as we can see it also
from ethnographical evidence but i'm not going
there for you know for for that but i'm mentioning
that some were specialized with Flint napping,
some were specialized with wood making, some
were specialized with creating, some were specialized
with hunting, and some were specialized with
gathering. And all of that needs to be done in
a community, like in a complete community. You
need all of these kinds of resources, activities,
you need all of these kinds of persons to be
able to live. and live properly. At some point,
at some point, and this is also why I mentioned
the two seconds theory in the clock, at some
point this arrangement was disturbed. And there
are a few, or maybe more than few, hypothesis
in archaeology that combines also history and
combined also A climate change and animal moving
and all different kind of you know different
kind of what is it. Why this arrangement was
the why this you know all of this yeah you want
the net of how things work all of the field.
Since three point two million years from now
since lucy the start of the crisis and up to
the. 10 ,000 years from now for the agricultural
revolution. So things will change. And I think
that if we want to talk about kind of, if you
would say, you know, something to wish for is
the communities that we used to live like them.
you know, the range of years from 3 .2 until,
you know, 10 ,000 years from now. That it was
a community that everyone took care about each
other. And there is someone, and this is kind
of, you know, this is cross -wide, all of the
archaeologists and other hypothesis people, that
something happened and disturbed this. And I
think this is the thing that we need to take.
If it's rather it's good or not, or trying to
judge it, you know, it's not in our hands. This
is what this is. I think the point that they
want to bring. Yes, definitely. I am of the opinion
that. it's not very interesting or useful to
moralize everything. Let's just study it as it
is and try to understand it instead of judging
it. But yeah, it's interesting how you describe
it and how there was this turning point in our
history or prehistory that changed us as societies.
Okay, I need to ask this before we stop the recording.
What do you make of people who would say they
could not be that relying on plants because plants
do not offer enough nutrients for sustaining
themselves. They need that animal protein. What
do you make of that? So you kind of remind me
what I wanted to say before. So it's great. Because
as we're learning, as we're studying ancient
societies, also today and also in archaeology.
So you can see that there's a kind of percentages
of how much we consume. how much they consume,
plants or animals, or the combinations in between.
And the research that I just read, and I think
that it also became a consensus that there are
some kind of periods around the year that are
needed to be, that you need to eat a little bit
more fat. and periods that you need to eat less.
For example, the summer that you need to eat
less, and the winter that you need a little bit
more. But again, this research is specifically
a research that I'm really interested with, and
I like the claims there, is that they talk about
70 % for plants and 30 % for meat and flushes
and fatties. This is in the winter and 80 % and
20 % in the summer. So I think you can understand
from this the main bottom. So most of what we
eat, I think is based on plants and all of other
kinds of types and less of what I can say about,
you know, probably you are not, but... others
that less consume the other fatties and what
needs to be for creating the body and to stay
alive. But this, of course, in ethnographical
societies, the research was on them. So I think
we kind of have an answer. And of course, plant
-rich. rich, really rich in proteins and don't
conclude the carbohydrate unless I don't know
if someone emphasized them. I don't know. Yes,
I mean, as a vegan, I know that, you know, we
can sustain ourselves with plants only. But it
is beautiful to think that I could be invited
by our prehistoric people to a meal and You know,
again, as a vegan, I would be able to eat what
they had because, you know, they had most of
their cooking was plant based, which is incredible.
And what do you make of the fact that, you know,
because I think of my grandparents and their
generation before mine, and they were also, you
know, relying mostly on plant food. for them,
you know meat was a plus something for special
events or luxury and It's the case for many cultures
and I'm finding out that you know, there was
this reliance on plants mostly and animal proteins
were just you know a plus Can we draw something
like? a link from, you know, our prehistoric
people to to our more recent ancestors, like
some kind of not tradition. I'm also losing my
word now. Let me let me try to help you. And
there is one. Of course, we know this from historical
documents about feasting about, you know, meat.
made food or meals, you know, great meals for
the king of this and the other king, or nevermind.
But I can just bring an example from Epipoleolithic
period site. It's called the Chilazon, Chilazon
cave. It's also in Israel, the north of Israel.
And in this site, what the excavator, Professor
Leo Grossman found, with the excavators of course
is that this cave was served as a shaman cave
and shaman a burial cave for the shaman shaman
i'm not going inside this it's worth to read
about this about this rituals i think i think
you will find it and all the audience also will
find it interesting and they explain why why
it's interpreted as shaman and I think it really
is, although we are not like to combine between,
you know, kind of modern thoughts and throw it
to the ancient things, but it's worth to read.
And then she found evidence about feasting. So
it's really high cave that it's really hard to
climb to there. And inside the cave, there were
three Three cattles. Three cows inside it that
they were butchered and they were consumed. And
it was one level of, you know, one level size.
So it means that probably that some kind of butchering,
the butchering is of course, but maybe also the
feasting. Maybe they consume the meat that they,
you know, the cattle that they butchered. And
it's around the ceremonial thing around the burial
of the shaman. So you can see evidence, I guess
you can use it as an evidence for eating meat
in special events, also in prehistory, although
it's really in the edge between you know, the
prehistory and actually before the agricultural
revolution and after the agricultural revolution.
It's really, you can point it as the dot. And
I think it's pretty interesting. And again, it's
an evidence. I want to also to mention something
about the, you mentioned before, you know, really
fast, you said those primitive, you know, ancient
mans. But I think it's worth to, to open it a
little bit and they think from what we discussed
all of the conversation that we have now today
is that we can learn that maybe we are the primitive.
Maybe we are the primitive that think that what
we have in our plate and when we go to the grocery
shop and buy what we need. Maybe this is primitive
and not to go out and maybe not to involve with
other activities, not to participate in gathering
if you want or other resources that we want to
bring outside and not open our eyes to the surroundings
and to understand what we have, how much material
we have and we can have in our hands. And I think
maybe we are the primitive and not them. And
I must, yeah. I think those are great parting
words. I really loved this conversation. Such
a treat. And my vision of our early ancestors
has really changed because of you. They're less
scary now. And life during prehistoric time sounds
less awful. You know, they had those hospital
caves and, you know, churches caves and they
ate water lily for breakfast. So it seems cool.
I mean, that's, that's a life. Definitely, I
must, you know, just to be more specific, they
used any kind of resources. Everything that they
could use, so they say why not. Of course, they
did not have the luxury of like us, you know,
to... to yeah if they had to eat animals of course
they would um it's uh it's understandable and
uh you know i'm not trying to say that our early
ancestors were vegans or something like that
of course not but the fact that they relied that
much on on plant based you know goes against
most of what i was taught and what I watched
on TV and read about, any work of fiction too.
It's not the, but you have shown that it's not
the reality, it's not the truth. So yes, very,
very interesting and very grateful for that conversation.
Hadar, thank you so much. Did you want to add
something? Thank you everyone for listening.
I kindly invite you to share this podcast with
the vegans you know. Let's encourage more people
to take action. Again, thank you so much for
caring and I will see you next Tuesday for a
new episode.