With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Already have an account?
Purchase a PDF
How does it work?
- Select the purchase option.
-
Check out using a credit card or bank account with
PayPal . - Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.
Control of fire was apparently acquired rather late in the course of hominid evolution. It is therefore necessary, in the study of dietary selection by early hominids, to consider the range of plants that would have proven inedible without cooking. Some plants contain toxins or digestibility-reducing compounds, and some plant constituents are indigestible. Cooking mitigates the impact of toxins and renders complex carbohydrates more digestible. Plant foods high in cellulose and/or starch are not readily digestible uncooked, and these constituents reduce the digestibility of other nutrients. Since nutrient intake is limited by the amount of food that can be processed per unit time, non-fire-using hominids should have attempted to increase nutrient intake by minimizing intake of these carbohydrates. Unlike animal sources of protein, plant materials generally lack a full complement of amino acids, and a variety of such materials must be ingested to obtain a balance of essential amino acids. Leaves and legumes, both possible sources of essential amino acids, may be ruled out as major suppliers of them for non-fire-using hominids-leaves because of their cellulose content and legumes because of their high frequency of toxic compounds. The limitations on the availability of plant protein strengthen the inference that some animal protein was ingested by early hominids on a regular basis. A ranking of plant parts as potential foodstuffs for non-fire-using hominids is proposed. When considered in conjunction with ecological factors, such a ranking should be helpful in generating models of hominid dietary selection before fire.
Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.Current Anthropology is a transnational journal devoted to research on humankind, encompassing the full range of anthropological scholarship on human cultures and on the human and other primate species. Communicating across the subfields, the journal features papers in a wide variety of areas, including social, cultural, and physical anthropology as well as ethnology and ethnohistory, archaeology and prehistory, folklore, and linguistics.
Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Current Anthropology
© 1984 The University of Chicago Press