Nothing new in that sense (diet was more than meat). Of course hunter gatherers also gathered, and used whatever food was available to them. In the source study

Nothing new in that sense (diet was more than meat). Of course hunter gatherers also gathered, and used whatever food was available to them. In the source study [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107.full.pdf+html http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107.full...] the discuss nine different plants that were found ground to flour, while they use the term "grain" all over the place, only one is actually a seed and it's not wheat, others are mostly roots. Nothing wrong with that. Here's another [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2871q7u63170045/ http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2871q7u63170045/] that uses isotope data to state "evidence indicates that animal, not plant, protein was the dominant protein source for all of the humans measured". Doesn't negate use of plants, just that they were not a "dominant" source of protein. And really, before mechanical processes, how much grinding and collecting of grains did one have to do for one meal? If there's no other source of food, yeah sure, but otherwise, the payoff is a lot bigger for hunting, or nuts, and fruit, maybe even honey.