scholarly journals Human Diet Evolution: Meat, Fire, and Tapeworms

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Grube ◽  
Hector H. Garcia ◽  
George H. Perry

The human diet today is very different than the diets of other primates, implying major changes following the split of the human and chimpanzee/bonobo lineages about 6 million years ago. For example, at various timepoints our ancestors began consistently eating meat, cooking food with fire, and consuming products from domesticated plants and animals. Such dietary shifts are important to study because they were likely associated with important cultural and biological changes like tool use and increased brain size. However, the timing of some of these dietary shifts is extremely difficult to study with only archeological and fossil data, leading to uncertainty. In this article, we discuss how studies of human tapeworm parasites can help. Tapeworms could only have been acquired once meat was being consistently consumed and then may have later adapted to heat stress from human cooking.

Author(s):  
Jessica Lynn Campbell

This chapter proposes to “Flip the Script” of the prescribed diet in USA today that primarily revolves around eating meat. The consumerization of the consumption of meat is pervasive in this country, and individuals are culturally constructed to believe animal proteins are essential to the human diet. Using script theory, this chapter examines social networking sites (SNSs) as channels for implementing a mass dietary change in today's society, that which excludes meat. Script theory determines that individuals use instrumental knowledge of how to understand, react, and respond to situations that are repeatedly encountered. Being ideal spaces for initiating social changes, SNSs replicate real-life situations and are platforms, whereby messages can be shared, promoted, and exchanged in a global networked public.


Behaviour ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 139 (7) ◽  
pp. 939-973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Boire ◽  
Nektaria Nicolakakis ◽  
Louis Lefebvre

AbstractTools are traditionally defined as objects that are used as an extension of the body and held directly in the hand or mouth. By these standards, a vulture breaking an egg by hitting it with a stone uses a tool, but a gull dropping an egg on a rock does not. This distinction between true and borderline (or proto-tool) cases has been criticized for its arbitrariness and anthropocentrism. We show here that relative size of the neostriatum and whole brain distinguish the true and borderline categories in birds using tools to obtain food or water. From two sources, the specialized literature on tools and an innovation data base gathered in the short note sections of 68 journals in 7 areas of the world, we collected 39 true (e.g. use of probes, hammers, sponges, scoops) and 86 borderline (e.g. bait fishing, battering and dropping on anvils, holding with wedges and skewers) cases of tool use in 104 species from 15 parvorders. True tool users have a larger mean residual brain size (regressed against body weight) than do users of borderline tools, confirming the distinction in the literature. In multiple regressions, residual brain size and residual size of the neostriatum (one of the areas in the avian telencephalon thought to be equivalent to the mammalian neocortex) are the best predictors of true tool use reports per taxon. Innovation rate is the best predictor of borderline tool use distribution. Despite the strong concentration of true tool use cases in Corvida and Passerida, independent constrasts suggest that common ancestry is not responsible for the association between tool use and size of the neostriatum and whole brain. Our results demonstrate that birds are more frequent tool users than usually thought and that the complex cognitive processes involved in tool use may have repeatedly co-evolved with large brains in several orders of birds.


1991 ◽  
Vol 334 (1270) ◽  
pp. 243-251 ◽  

The assumption that large mamm al hunting and scavenging are economically advantageous to hominid foragers is examined in the light of data collected among the Hadza of northern Tanzania. Hadza hunters disregard small prey in favour of larger forms (mean adult mass ≥ 40 kg). Here we report experimental data showing that hunters would reduce their mean rates if they included small animals in the array they target. Still, daily variance in large animal hunting returns is high, and the risk of failure correspondingly great, significantly greater than that associated with small game hunting and trapping. Sharing large kills reduces the risk of meatless days for big game hunters, and obviates the problem of storing large amounts of meat. It may be unavoidable if large carcasses cannot be defended economically against the demands of other consumers. If so, then large prey are common goods. A hunter may gain no consumption advantage from his own big game acquisition efforts. We use Hadza data to model this ‘collective action' problem, and find that an exclusive focus on large game with extensive sharing is not the optimal strategy for hunters concerned with maximizing their own chances of eating meat. Other explanations for the emergence and persistence of this practice must be considered


Author(s):  
Susana Carvalho ◽  
Megan Beardmore-Herd

The origin of technology is believed to have marked a major adaptive shift in human evolution. Understanding the evolutionary process(es) underlying the first human adaptation to tool use, and the subsequent process(es) that led Homo sapiens to become the only extant primate fully dependent on technology, is one of the most stimulating topics of research of present-day archaeology. New fields of research have been founded (e.g. primate archaeology, Pliocene archaeology) during the quest to find out how old technology is, where it originated, and who were the first tool users. Historically, the vast majority of the information on this topic comes from the study of lithic (stone) tools, tools whose manufacture was generally believed to be a uniquely human characteristic until well into the 1960s. The production of lithic technology was linked first to the origin of the earliest hominins (the taxonomic group comprising modern humans, extinct human species, and all immediate human ancestors), being thought to have co-evolved with traits such as bipedalism or hunting/scavenging, and later to the evolution of the genus Homo and accompanying increases in brain size. As a result of breakthroughs in the field of primatology, and greater interdisciplinary work between archaeologists and primatologists, a paradigm shift in beliefs surrounding the uniqueness of human technology is underway. Following discoveries from the second half of the 20th century and the early 21st century, habitual tool use, tool manufacture, and the production of flakes are now known to occur in extant non-human species, firmly decoupling brain size expansion, bipedalism, and the origins of technology. Knapped stone tools and cut-marked bones have been discovered dating to ca. half a million years before the earliest evidence of Homo, giving rise to the possibility that earlier, previously unconsidered hominins, or even other extinct non-human primates, could have been responsible for the inception of tool use and manufacture. Following these advances, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the origins of technology may lie much further back in time than the earliest discovered modified stone tools—perhaps as far back as the late Miocene with the last common ancestor of Homo and Pan. Moreover, discoveries of lithic technology in more distantly related species, where convergent evolution is the most parsimonious explanation, strongly suggest the existence of multiple evolutionary pathways for technological emergence. While there is still much to unearth, the extension of the antiquity of modified stone tools, combined with the increased focus on interdisciplinary studies between archaeologists, primatologists, and paleoanthropologists, has gone a long way in overturning outdated beliefs by demonstrating that the development of technology is unlikely to have been a simple, linear process resulting from a single event or factor in the evolutionary history of humans.


2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugène Morin ◽  
Marie-Cécile Soulier

Bone grease processing is frequently used in archaeology to investigate human diet breadth because it constitutes a costly mode of lipid procurement. However, problems of equifinality often complicate the identification of this activity. This paper develops new criteria focused on morphology, the presence of micro-inclusions, and forms of damage that were derived from a bone grease rendering experiment that involved red deer(Cervus elaphus)long bones. Because they are poorly represented in a distinct experiment focused exclusively on marrow extraction, the criteria presented here appear to provide robust signatures of bone grease processing. A survey of the actualistic literature shows that certain bone processing activities, such as stewing and soup making, mostly involve coarse spongy fragments. Because these fragments are too large to be ingested, grease can be extracted from them only through heating or boiling. In contrast, bones ingested in bone meal or as flour necessitate pulverization. A high percentage of coarse fragments may therefore provide a proxy for cooking technology or, minimally, the use of fire, if other patterns are consistent with grease extraction. Given the evolutionary significance of these innovations, the criteria presented here may help to strengthen arguments about dietary shifts during the Paleolithic and later periods.


2021 ◽  
pp. 67-80
Author(s):  
Susan D. Healy

In this chapter I discuss the data for tool use having driven increases in brain size. Because humans habitually make and use tools and because hominid brain size appears to have increased around the time that we see tools in the fossil record, tool use has been suggested to be key to increasing brain size. As an increasing number of animals are being shown to use tools, and sometimes to make them, there is an opportunity to use the comparative method to examine whether tool making really has led to brain size increases. I discuss issues with attributes of tasks used to test physical cognition and propose that nest building is a plausible model behaviour with which to look at all aspects of physical cognition, including its neural bases. I conclude that the data are far too few to give much support to the Technical Brain Hypothesis.


2012 ◽  
Vol 220 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Biryukova ◽  
Blandine Bril

2012 ◽  
Vol 220 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Rieger
Keyword(s):  
Tool Use ◽  

1995 ◽  
Vol 50 (11) ◽  
pp. 947-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Peters
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document