What about the gatherer? Aren't they supposed to collect tubers and fruits wherever available. Those IMO would be in most places in Africa even during cold times. What about Turkana basin which is supposed to have been warm for at least the last 4 million years, and is supposed to be the cradle of humanity, and gave us our lack of fur and high sweat glands?

According to Wrangham, cooking must have divided us into hunters and gatherers. Also the fact is that hunting is hard, and is not successful all the time. There would need to be an alternate food for the times it fails. Humans couldn't be just starving like carnivores, when our body can digest carbs, and there is plentiful carbs around as tubers.

The other issue is that during low vegetation periods, animals become very lean, and not really useful for eating, unless supported by tubers. Its not like every tribe was able to do things done by the native americans.

Could it be that we are seeing only one side of the story?

Off the wall question: If a person were to meet J IRL & then describe this person to others, would the pronoun be "he" or "she"? That is, is JS of the male or female persuasion?

It's not important, but I am curious. I hear the words coming from JS in a female voice, but I see that others refer to J as "he".

Beth

I like the reasoning here btw...

Out hunt/Out forage = Out feed = Out breed

AAAaaahhhhh ha (unfortunately this applies also to modern refined high energy food sources and the legion of bottom feeders created who fail to fully utilize their big phat brains)

I think it is important that blog mentions the difference between human and our primates in terms of evolution of brain.
This will help me better understand evolution.
I assume since homoerectus were doing more scavanging and hunting then its primates he required certain physical features:
1. Running away fast
2. Seeing predators from distance
3. Need to have better co-ordination
Just like spotted hyena.
High fat from bone marrow and brain helped simplify gut so he could stand straight. Also humans are taller then our primates which might also have helped in seeing predators early.
Also Homo Erectus also moved out of Africa just like human ancestors. There should be a strong reason why this happened.

Since it's been mentioned several times, here are a couple of things I remember from "Catching Fire" by R. Wrangham, which I found absolutely fascinating.
1) the differences between chimp hunting and human hunting.
a. chimps spend, at most, around 20 minutes on any individual hunt, this being the longest they can manage to free up enough time and energy from the endless round of chewing their food (5-7 hours per day) that is necessary for them. If they don't catch their prey within this timeframe they give up. Humans go on lengthy hunts, sometimes lasting many hours to days, and on their return need to have a meal ready for them that can be quickly consumed (cooked food meets this need), often in the dark (the fire that cooked the food, also provides enough light to see what you're eating).
b. chimp males hunt, chimp females not so much. The males seldom share, although sometimes they may reward a persistent female or juvenile "beggar," meaning females and juveniles eat much less meat than males. In humans, the meat hunted is shared, sometimes with extreme attention to providing equal shares, with everyone within the band, family or locality. There is little discernible difference between female and male or adult and juvenile meat consumption.

2) This food sharing between the different sexes, and all ages, is the singular human "fact" that Wrangham stresses as making humans different, and argues that it is difficult to conceive of in a context with no cooking, as raw food is time-consuming to eat, and frees up little time for other activities, especially human style extended hunting activities. Hunting AND gathering, as a way of life, implies some specialisation in the methods of obtaining foods, as well as a common base to which all foods are brought for sharing so that everyone benefits from the same diet combining the different specialised activities. Human hunters, in Wrangham's view, may or may not require gatherers (eg Inuit and other almost exclusively meat-eating cultures), but definitely do require cooks. Likewise cooks, require protection for their kitchen stores and fires from food thieves. Wrangham gets to the beginning of a very interesting line of thought about human gender relations with this argument.

There is more, but this is a taste of a book that leaves the reader with a great deal to think about for long after.

Let's not forget that gathering included not only plants but many animals, too, both invertebrate (snails, grubs, shell fish) and vertabrate (lizards, turtles, etc.) alike.

A timely article on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2012/02/super-predatory-humans.shtml

something that interests me a great deal is whether humans are the only animal which has ever changed it's dietary source, this assuming we did come from small ape-like creatures which largely ate plants.

looking forward to the rest of the series!

@Aaron Blaisdell – "when I first met JS at AHS11, my first thought was “he sure looks like a gnoll!”." That made me smile.

– ——
One thing that stikes me about modern HG commentary is that it often fails to note that many of the HGs that have been studied are surviving in arguably marginal conditions – either pushed out by agriculture and colonialism to remote land (which is impoverished as the most fertile land was taken for farming), and, is existing in a post-megafauna age.

The geographic distribution of HG would have varied massively over the past 2my. Where HG have thrived/prefer to exist and where they are now found are not necessarily the same thing. Also, we might see HG hunting birds in the Savannah – but if they could hunt something much bigger and juicier, I am sure they would do! We should not confuse 'optimal/preferred behaviour' with 'survival bahviour'.