Clearly and less contreversially people in prehistory (most likely
lower palaeolithic)took in salt from the blood of animals in their
food. Mesolithic hunter gatherers were well aware of fire and were
likely using it for a variety of uses including cooking. I don't see
how one can assume meso hunter gatherers were eating semi raw meat.
Which begs the question of why did early humans begin to cook their
food, it would certainly reduce their salt (blood) intake. Perhaps
they were eating meat for a different reason in very early
prehistory... such as transferral of energy from gut to brain...
=bigger brain? Perhaps a high salt intake resulted as a side effect
rather than a reason to eat raw meat.

Sometimes what people and animals crave may not always be good for
them. eg heroine/people, cream/cats


Black Sausage is made with blood but is cooked is it not?
As far as every part of the animal was needed... not true at all,
humans are not purely functional animals, in many modern day hunter
gatherer societies parts of animals may be taboo and not eaten, or
used. Not to mention that in the past when a kill was made or an
animal to scavange was found, the early humans involved may have only
been able to carry so much and have to move quite quickly (they were
in competition with other scavangers) and would likley choose
portions which Lewis Binford called 'high yield' ie. Shoulders etc.
big meaty parts. skulls, knuckles, teeth etc. probably not tasty
besides too little nutrition.

someone else wrote
Since all of that type of evidence is long gone-------where is your
evidence
that it did not happen?? If you don't have any why do you challenge
the
obvious?

What is the obvious that I am challenging? You don't need evidence of
something not happening to suggest it didn't happen... obviousley in
the right context a lack of evidence can be construed as evidence in
itself. Along with a body of theory, we can usefully discuss the
validity of certain statements made about the past.


Evidence is not long gone... there are bone assemblages, cave art,
tools. although the record is imperfect there are still data sets
from which to base theory and conclusions. As for trying to prove
that it did not happen, that is not my intention. My problem is that
some statements are made as if they are truths and thus already
proven.
For example, this comment was associated with 'hunter gatherers' of
pre-agricultural communinities...
No wonder, that the salt element of real blood and that of salt
brine, became a mysterious powerful magic.

Did it? Was it portrayed in cave art as such? Is there any evidence
or body of theory that can further explain this bold statement?

How about writing... the similarities between the salt element in
blood and that of the salt element in brine may have given it a
powerfull ritual/magical element in ...insert relevant context, and
further evidence or explanation/theory...

Cheers,
Andy (the devil's advocate) Failes :-)

Hmmm... I just remembered that I once read about an experiment they
did with babies to see if they would crave and feed themselves what
they needed nutritionaly. I remember because there was alot of fuss
about cruelty (this would never be permissable these days). Has
anyone else ever come across this?? It must have involved salt.