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.