What did we eat ?

[Roving Rich]

So we've been on this Island for a few thousand years now, and had a good reason for habiting the place to start with. I believe our island was covered in dense forest. So no fields ? - we weren't farmers at this stage so no crops of wheat or barley, no herds of cows or sheep. What was our staple diet ??
Any ideas
Rich

 

[Not Bob]

What time period are we talking about?

 

[Buckshot]

Our digestive system is not designed to cope with lots of seeds on a daily basis (hence the Atkins diet) so I think it was probably a meat based diet with what ever plants could be gathered along the way.
This I suppose is a similar idea to some of the tribesmen of today

Just a thought

Mark

 

[Roving Rich]

Date wise - any time before we started farming, so when we were still hunter gatherers.
What i'am trying to establish is if there was a handful of plants, or nuts, seeds etc that formed the basic sustenance of our ancestors. So in bushcraft terms can i gather certain items that will keep me alive, then other items to spruce it up a bit ?
I don't believe we were big hunters. Lots of energy is expended on hunting with no guaranteed success. If the county was still covered in "wildwood" it would be virtually impassable, therefore imposable to hunt in. I certainly believe we had meat in our diets, and had greater hunting instincts than today. But i don't think this was the basis of our diet.
I remember a documentary on an African tribe, where the men would go off hunting and return days later with or without food. Meanwhile the Women gathered plants and seeds and caught the occasional rat and sustained the family and life in the village.
What do you reckon, Acorns ?
Rich

 

[Ed]

I don't believe we were big hunters. Lots of energy is expended on hunting with no guaranteed success.

Really.... We have many examples of neolithic hunting tools, spears heads, fish hooks, and even some nets.... which opens up some big oppertunites... Also we domesticated the dog as a hunting companion (early cave paintings show dogs hunting along side man) so I think the evidence would suggest that we were keen hunters.

Remember these people were just as smart as us.... they just didn't have the kit. I personally don't like the term hunter gatherer/stone age ... It makes people think of sub human cavemen that you seen in the films..... I prefer to think of it as the wood technology age as its puts things in a different light.

Ed

 

[Roving Rich]

Ed-
"I prefer to think of it as the wood technology age as its puts things in a different light."
Your right it does, Wooden age doesn't have quite the same ring though.
I know lots of fishermen with tons of tackle and shooters with all the latest kit. It doesn't stop them coming back empty handed though.
So it seems we believe we were more Hunters than Gatherers ?
I feel a poll coming on.
Rich

 

[Stuart]

I cant really vote either way on this one.

I dont think our diet was predominatly one or the other what ever could be gathered, trapped, or hunted was eaten

Hunting:

is very energy intensive but is worthwhile for large animals that will provide days and days of food

gathering:

is much more economical it does not produce as much calories but it provides carbohydrates

Trapping:

this is an important one that is often overlooked it uses as much energy as the gathering but offers the returns of the hunter, cave paintings dating to around 40,000 BC Show pitfall traps and paintings from the later Neolithic era show snares, enclosure traps, deadfalls and nets being used. once you have mastered net making you can use long nets and gillnets to provide huge catches of small mammals and fish.

 

[Ed]

No please don't get me wrong..... berries and plant food etc were the greater greater percentage of our diet back then.... there have been studies on the reamins of these people to calculate a rough percentage but I cannot remember what it is. I do know that studies on neanderthals has shown there diet was about 90% meat!!! not sure about homo sapien though....

I'm just saying that we did hunt alot, at the time it probably be a big social event... like going to the football is now a days. Remember it was just not always for food alone.... how many prehistoric peoples have we found wearing leather and carrying leather goods....

 

[Ed]

Also you would have to take into account the region and what is available, the culture of the people (which we can only guess at with prehistory).... there are many factors involved in this....

A prime example of this are the mongolian horsemen of today who can gain all their food and most things they need to live from the horses... very little vegitation is used at all... they believe it is bad to be tied to the land and that is a main factor in the continuation of their nomadic existance.


Ed

 

[Keith_Beef]

Also you would have to take into account the region and what is available, the culture of the people (which we can only guess at with prehistory).... there are many factors involved in this....

A prime example of this are the mongolian horsemen of today who gain all their food and most things they need to live from the horses... very little vegitation is used at all... they believe it is bad to be tied to the land and that is a main factor in the continuation of their nomadic existance.


Ed

The Mongolians you mention don't eat their horses, so far as I know, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
They may drink koumiss (fermented mare's milk), but that is as far as it goes.

They hunt prairie dog like animals, using small calibre rifles (.22 or .38, I think) mounted on a bipod. An essential bit of kit for this is a special hat with long ears.

Don't laugh, it's true!

You lay on the plain, with your rifle on the bipod, and your hat on your head. After a while, you pull a string so the ears on your hat stand up. The prairie dogs are naturallu very curious animals, and will start to stare at your hat, wondering what sort of animal you are. When there are enough of them in view, and you think you might get a few, you shoot.

They also herd yaks, which provide flesh, milk (which can be turned into yoghurt and butter) and leather. Maybe the herd goats and sheep, too, which will provide more milk, flesh, leather and wool which can be turned into felt or woven into cloth.

Now, getting back to the original question, not all of Erope, or even our island, was covered with dense forest. There would have been expanses of marshland (modern East Anglia, for example) and grassy flood plains (what is now the Vale of York, for example), too. Early settlers probably lived in transitional areas, where they could hunt and trap on the plains and the fringes of marshland, catch fish, and take wood from the forest for fuel and lumber.

Keith.

 

[MartiniDave]

I suspect our ancestors were probably "opportunists", eating whatever came their way by the means they had, with a bit of luck for good measure.

Dave

 

[Ed]

The Mongolians you mention don't eat their horses, so far as I know, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
They may drink koumiss (fermented mare's milk), but that is as far as it goes.

They hunt prairie dog like animals, using small calibre rifles (.22 or .38, I think) mounted on a bipod. An essential bit of kit for this is a special hat with long ears.

They also herd yaks, which provide flesh, milk (which can be turned into yoghurt and butter) and leather. Maybe the herd goats and sheep, too, which will provide more milk, flesh, leather and wool which can be turned into felt or woven into cloth.

You are quite right, though it is their tradition not to rely on on the other animals. They are quite proud of the fact that they could live from the horse alone. This can still be seen in modern times where it is the tradition when a new child is expected, mare's are put to stud so the child can be provided for in times of need.... the herd is increased as the population is increased.

Ed

 

[Not Bob]

It's very difficult after all this time to know what the early inhabitants of Britain ate since vegetable matter decays more rapidly than bone. Also the presence of pollen in an inhabited area does not necessarily mean that people ate that plant but only that such a plant grew in the area. The evidence for prehistoric life in Britain is rather patchy and so is rather conjectural but at present the generally accepted story runs much like the following.

Britain has been continually inhabited since about 10,200 years ago. The country had been inhabited before but a return to cold conditions at around 10,500 years ago had meant the abandonment of the country. There is evidence from around 12,000 years ago of a highly mobile population whose main meat sources in late winter, spring and summer were wild horse and red deer. Food sources were probably seasonal - in autumn the population may have relied more on sea coast resources such as fish and seals.

The re-warming which allowed humans to return to Britain may havetaken place in as little as 10-50 years. The return may have been due to the desire to exploit reindeer and wild horse. Humans may have followed the herds to Britain in the Spring and then followed them back to the Continent and the southern North Sea area (which was land at the time) when cooler weather approached.

By 10,000 years ago temperatures were at least as high as those today. The tundra vegetation gave way to a forested environment, first of birch, hazel and pine and then of oak and other deciduous trees such as elm, lime and alder. With the spread of forest conditions large herds of wild animals were replaced by forest species. At this time it is likely that the main food source was meat. By weight half of this meat came from wild cattle, followed by elk and red deer, with roe deer and wild pig bringing up the rear.

At first there is little evidence for the consumption of freshwater fish especially in the North of the country which is probably due to the coldness of the North Sea at the time. This meant a lack of small prey fish for the larger fish such as pike to feed on. There is evidence in Scotland of people eating cod and sturgeon; the cod probably being caught offshore using skin boats. Birds were also taken including guillemots, gannets and cormorants.

As the population grew people seem to have become less mobile with an increased reliance on aquatic sources of food and on gathered plant foods. There is increasing evidence for the importance of aquatic food sources. Surprisingly perhaps given their prevalence in other periods there is scarce evidence for acorns being used as food during the Mesolithic period. Hazelnuts were an important food source (no grey squirrels) and some archaeologists have suggested that humans deliberately encouraged the species. There is also growing evidence of deliberate burning off of the natural vegetation especially in upland areas by Mesolithic man. This may have been to encourage the growth of new shoots either to exploit for food or as a means to attract deer.

Though it is obvious that numerous plant species must have been exploited for food there is little direct evidence of which plants in particular, though we do know that fat hen, nettle and yellow water lily were eaten.

The increased utilisation of plant species was possibly due to the loss of hunting lands as the population grew and the sea levels rose. At around 3,500BC the first farmers reached Britain and the story changes again.

(Phew! I must learn to type one day)

 

[stuart f]

Hey has nobody seen the Flintstones,they had take-aways and everything.
Hunter/gatherers! no no no they just went out for a Dino burgers

 

[Keith_Beef]

It's very difficult after all this time to know what the early inhabitants of Britain ate

You said it, Not Bob!

The increased utilisation of plant species was possibly due to the loss of hunting lands as the population grew and the sea levels rose. At around 3,500BC the first farmers reached Britain and the story changes again.

(Phew! I must learn to type one day)

Good on you, then, for taking the time to do it.

Very informative. Thanks.


Keith.

 

[Les Marshall]

: -l) Anything we could get our hands on that did not eat us first!!

 

[Smudge]

From what I remember (and quickly refreshed upon) animals were important for food and skins although the bulk of diets was that of berries and nuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/oldest_house_03.shtml