<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://organizeseries.com/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book Review &#8212; Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham</title>
	<atom:link href="/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/</link>
	<description>Notes and Queries in Anthropology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 18:00:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evolution and Food &#124; Professormthompson&#039;s Blog</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-704196</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evolution and Food &#124; Professormthompson&#039;s Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-704196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] we saw chasing chimpanzees in Africa in the video, Why Sex?). The review first appeared on the blog Savage Minds. If you&#8217;re interested in the topic of how what we eat has affected how we evolved you might [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] we saw chasing chimpanzees in Africa in the video, Why Sex?). The review first appeared on the blog Savage Minds. If you&#8217;re interested in the topic of how what we eat has affected how we evolved you might [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Thompson</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-703131</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Thompson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-703131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As is documented with the widespread standardization apparent in the Oldowan and Acheulian tool traditions, the spread of knowledge among paleolithic humans, however thin they might have been on the ground, did take place. It seems reasonable to suppose that cooking would have been useful enough to be quickly transferred across cultures of proto-humans.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As is documented with the widespread standardization apparent in the Oldowan and Acheulian tool traditions, the spread of knowledge among paleolithic humans, however thin they might have been on the ground, did take place. It seems reasonable to suppose that cooking would have been useful enough to be quickly transferred across cultures of proto-humans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-702957</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fred]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 03:58:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-702957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matt, the thing about cooking is its very much like those theories about climate  or social interaction and human evolution--each represents a causal factor explaining nearly all evolutionary traits. While I agree with your points, I also want to raise the issue of the &quot;spread of cooking&quot; as this suggests a distributed human population geographically separated into overlapping demes. Given a number of genetic studies which suggest paleolithic populations and even modern species of Homo were thin on the ground, we might have to consider less a &quot;spread&quot; situation. If there is no spread effect, then the earliest development of cooking may have been less advantageous than Wrangham might have considered (this does not imply that later improvements in cooking might not have confered greater fitness).

Thus the earliest antecedents to cooking as Wrangham envisions might have very likely been preceded by selective pressures that contributed to cooking being developed. Such selective forces may have already begun to transform social dynamics as you outline in terms of children-parent relations to nutrition. Rather than seeing cooking as a cuase of the division of sexual labour, it may be possible to consider such a division arose only after nutitional needs were satisfied. In other words, long after cooking had been established. Following your suggestion we might consider the intial stage of cooking to arise out of the mother-child dyadic relationship, and that as the infant becomes more independent, the dyadic relationship dissolves and so too does &quot;cooking.&quot; In short, the early stage of &quot;cooking&quot; (in only the sense of processing food) may have been applied only to the child&#039;s nutition and not to the adult.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, the thing about cooking is its very much like those theories about climate  or social interaction and human evolution&#8211;each represents a causal factor explaining nearly all evolutionary traits. While I agree with your points, I also want to raise the issue of the &#8220;spread of cooking&#8221; as this suggests a distributed human population geographically separated into overlapping demes. Given a number of genetic studies which suggest paleolithic populations and even modern species of Homo were thin on the ground, we might have to consider less a &#8220;spread&#8221; situation. If there is no spread effect, then the earliest development of cooking may have been less advantageous than Wrangham might have considered (this does not imply that later improvements in cooking might not have confered greater fitness).</p>
<p>Thus the earliest antecedents to cooking as Wrangham envisions might have very likely been preceded by selective pressures that contributed to cooking being developed. Such selective forces may have already begun to transform social dynamics as you outline in terms of children-parent relations to nutrition. Rather than seeing cooking as a cuase of the division of sexual labour, it may be possible to consider such a division arose only after nutitional needs were satisfied. In other words, long after cooking had been established. Following your suggestion we might consider the intial stage of cooking to arise out of the mother-child dyadic relationship, and that as the infant becomes more independent, the dyadic relationship dissolves and so too does &#8220;cooking.&#8221; In short, the early stage of &#8220;cooking&#8221; (in only the sense of processing food) may have been applied only to the child&#8217;s nutition and not to the adult.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Thompson</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-702881</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Thompson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 02:17:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-702881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are absolutely correct that the focus on meat consumption in human evolution has eclipsed the role of vegetable matter in human diets. What Wrangham says is that it is cooking, whether vegetable or meat, that was the most important.

In my opinion the privileging of meat in anthropological analysis stems from the fact that it is primarily procured by men. That cooking is an activity primarily orchestrated by women could explain why it took so long to articulate an effective theory for its place in human evolution. For a very long time anthropologists simply did not consider female activities to be of great significance. Wrangham, however, does not explore &quot;my&quot; point in depth.

Wrangham does situate cooking in an increasingly complex tradition of food preparation. In effect it grew out of such techniques as pounding and chopping. But he argues that once cooking was discovered the practice would have spread rapidly. In effect, once there was cooking there was no going back, certainly not once adaptations to a cooked diet set in.

Yes, there are stages to consider too, the advent of cooking in containers for example. Wrangham intimates that such innovations may have contributed to further evolution of Homo, such as the emergence of Heidelbergensis.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are absolutely correct that the focus on meat consumption in human evolution has eclipsed the role of vegetable matter in human diets. What Wrangham says is that it is cooking, whether vegetable or meat, that was the most important.</p>
<p>In my opinion the privileging of meat in anthropological analysis stems from the fact that it is primarily procured by men. That cooking is an activity primarily orchestrated by women could explain why it took so long to articulate an effective theory for its place in human evolution. For a very long time anthropologists simply did not consider female activities to be of great significance. Wrangham, however, does not explore &#8220;my&#8221; point in depth.</p>
<p>Wrangham does situate cooking in an increasingly complex tradition of food preparation. In effect it grew out of such techniques as pounding and chopping. But he argues that once cooking was discovered the practice would have spread rapidly. In effect, once there was cooking there was no going back, certainly not once adaptations to a cooked diet set in.</p>
<p>Yes, there are stages to consider too, the advent of cooking in containers for example. Wrangham intimates that such innovations may have contributed to further evolution of Homo, such as the emergence of Heidelbergensis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-702377</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fred]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-702377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most of these theories concerning human evolution often dismiss the evolutionary part, and from your discussion I wonder if Wrangham&#039;s model deliberates whether  cooking sprung de novo or by stages? We needn&#039;t begin with cooking meat, but perhaps focus on vegetable material, nuts and tubers as the initial material to be cooked. Most evolutionary theories of human evolution often jump to the &quot;meat eating&quot; portion of human evolution and miss out on earlier possible forms of food consumption that just might be visible in the environment among animals. Consider Japanese macaques and their habit of washing potatoes, or chimps consumption of hard nuts, which once passed through the gut and are re-eaten ( a &quot;do it yourself&quot; form of &quot;cooking&quot;). If we are to offer a human evolutionary perspective of human diet, then by the premises of evolutionary theory there should be elementary or modified forms of it presented in the environment by other species.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most of these theories concerning human evolution often dismiss the evolutionary part, and from your discussion I wonder if Wrangham&#8217;s model deliberates whether  cooking sprung de novo or by stages? We needn&#8217;t begin with cooking meat, but perhaps focus on vegetable material, nuts and tubers as the initial material to be cooked. Most evolutionary theories of human evolution often jump to the &#8220;meat eating&#8221; portion of human evolution and miss out on earlier possible forms of food consumption that just might be visible in the environment among animals. Consider Japanese macaques and their habit of washing potatoes, or chimps consumption of hard nuts, which once passed through the gut and are re-eaten ( a &#8220;do it yourself&#8221; form of &#8220;cooking&#8221;). If we are to offer a human evolutionary perspective of human diet, then by the premises of evolutionary theory there should be elementary or modified forms of it presented in the environment by other species.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Thompson</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-698582</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt Thompson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:28:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-698582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wrangham discusses that example at length.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wrangham discusses that example at length.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Book Review — Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham &#124; Savage Minds &#124; ReviewTica</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-698051</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Book Review — Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham &#124; Savage Minds &#124; ReviewTica]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-698051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Book Review Continued here: Book Review — Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham &#124; Savage Minds [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Book Review Continued here: Book Review — Catching Fire, by Richard Wrangham | Savage Minds [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zora</title>
		<link>/2010/11/23/book-review-catching-fire-by-richard-wrangham/comment-page-1/#comment-698026</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zora]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4529#comment-698026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Polynesians cooked food in earth ovens--and still do, for special occasions. Preparing an imu is hard, heavy work; it is done by men. 

Perhaps this is an irrelevant &quot;amongthe&quot; that doesn&#039;t refute the main point. Perhaps not. Do we know for sure that women do all the cooking &quot;amongthe&quot; hunter gatherers? And that this has always been so?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Polynesians cooked food in earth ovens&#8211;and still do, for special occasions. Preparing an imu is hard, heavy work; it is done by men. </p>
<p>Perhaps this is an irrelevant &#8220;amongthe&#8221; that doesn&#8217;t refute the main point. Perhaps not. Do we know for sure that women do all the cooking &#8220;amongthe&#8221; hunter gatherers? And that this has always been so?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
