ANTH 330 Week 2 Worksheet 2023

pdf

School

University of Oregon *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

330

Subject

Anthropology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by ChefPony3990

ANTH 330 Hunter-Gatherers Scalise Sugiyama WIN 2023 Week 2 Film Worksheet: Did Cooking Make Us Human? Purpose This worksheet tests your understanding of the diet humans are adapted to, the different ways in which the human body is adapted to this diet, and different lines of evidence relevant to invesFgaFng this subject. Instruc?ons It is highly recommended that you download this worksheet and type your answers into the document offline (this provides back-up of your work). It is also recommended that you answer the quesFons on this worksheet while you are watching the film (i.e., don’t rely on memory when compleFng the worksheet). Your answers should demonstrate that you understand the concept/behavior/phenomenon in quesFon. This is a wri?ng assignment: you must answer in complete sentences organized into a cohesive paragraph. Each quesFon is worth 20 points. 1. The film shows an experiment in which a group of people volunteered to eat a diet similar to that of Australopithecines. Iden?fy at least different 5 foods that were included in this diet. How did the diet affect the par?cipants’ weight? How did the diet affect the par?cipants’ diges?on? How did the diet affect the amount of ?me spent ea?ng? What do these effects suggest about the diet our species ( Homo sapiens ) is designed to eat? Some of the foods included in the diet were tomatoes, bananas, oranges, raspberries, mushrooms, broccoli, carrots, and peppers. There was a large quanFty of fruits, vegetables, and nuts to be eaten each day and so the parFcipants would spend the majority of their Fme chewing and many of them weren’t able to finish their food at all. For example, one of the study’s parFcipants humorously said that he had been eaFng a carrot for 20 minuets. However, the types of food they were eaFng did not provide enough energy to support modern human bodies. One of the parFcipants menFoned that while she didn’t feel hungry, she also didn’t feel full. Also, some of the parFcipants suffered from upset stomachs throughout the week as a result of struggling to digest all of the raw fruits and vegetables. By the end of the two weeks the parFcipants lost 5kg in weight on average, demonstraFng how humans cannot survive only eaFng raw fruits and vegetables. The results of this study show that something must have happened to change our bodies and the diet we require since Australopithecines. 2. According to Peter Ungar, what are the main differences between Australopithecine and Homo habilis teeth? Peter Ungar describes the Australopithecine teeth to be large and ﬂat with very large enamel while the Homo Habilis teeth are smaller, have more crests, and have less enamel. Australopithecine teeth are more primed to eat raw fruits, vegetables, and nuts while Homo Habilis teeth are more primed to eat meats. 3. The film shows an experiment conducted with a chewing machine (the “Bitemaster”), two sets of teeth (one from an Australopithecine and one from a more recent human ancestor), and pieces of meat. Describe the effects that the Australopithecine teeth and the teeth of the more recent human ancestor had on the piece of meat. How are these effects different? What does the experiment suggest about the kind of food our species ( Homo sapiens ) is designed to eat?

ANTH 330 Hunter-Gatherers Scalise Sugiyama WIN 2023 Due to the large and ﬂat shape of the Australopithecine teeth, they were unsuccessful in breaking the piece of meat apart. Instead, the meat was squished, ﬂa]ened, and remained in one piece. Peter Ungar menFoned how it had a similar effect as hi^ng a steak with a hammer. AlternaFvely, the teeth from the more recent ancestor made a hole all the way through the piece of meat due to the sharp and small shape. This experiment suggests that our species has been designed to have a diet that consists of meat while the Australopithecine did not. 4. What evidence found in Swartkrans Cave suggests that early humans were ea?ng meat? What evidence found in Swartkrans Cave suggests that early humans controlled fire? How old is the part of the Swartkrans site that contains evidence that early humans controlled fire? According to the film, besides cooking, what other purposes might fire have been used for at this site? According to Professor Travis, what evidence would support the hypothesis that cooking occurred at the Swartkrans site? In the more recent parts of the cave bones with the marks of stone tools can be found which provides proof that early humans were eaFng meat. Specifically, the bones have evidence that our ancestors would accidentally scratch the bones when removing the meat and also percussion damage where individuals broke open the bones to get out the edible marrow. Also found in the cave were burned animal bones which provide possible evidence of a very repeFFve process of burning animal bones in fires close the the cave’s entrance. This proves that these early humans had control of fire and were cooking their meat a million years ago, making this site the earliest possible evidence of cooking in the world. Another purpose for controlling fires was to frighten predators away and to help in the process of hunFng prey. According to Professor Travis, bones with butchering marks that have also been burned would further support the hypothesis that cooking occurred at the Swartkrans site. Professor Travis also believes that other evidence can be found from seeing what modern day hunger gatherers leave behind a_er they prepare their prey. 5. The film shows an experiment conducted by Richard Wrangham using lab mice. Two changes occurred in the mice when their diet was changed from raw yams to cooked yams. What were these changes? What do these changes suggest about the amount of energy provided by raw vs. cooked food, and what is the explana?on for this difference? The mice who ate the cooked yams had much more energy and traveled further than the mice eaFng raw yams. Even though they had more energy and were more acFve, the mice who ate the cooked yams did not lose any weight at the end of the four days and instead put on weight. This suggests that our ancestors who ate cooked foods had much more energy lost less weight than our ancestors who only ate raw foods. Based on what the mechanical stomach showed raw foods when eaten have very li]le mechanical breakdown causing the food to sit in the colon which prolongs digesFon. AlternaFvely, due to the less rigid structure of cooked foods, we can start to digest and release all of the foods nutrients much easier. This experiment also shows that there is a greater amount of sugars being released in the gut and bloodstream when eaFng cooked foods which can explain where the higher levels of energy come from. More specifically, when the potato is heated, the energy-rich molecules break down allowing the starch to be released from the starch grain which in turn aids with digesFon. 6. In Dr. Stephen Secor’s experiments with Burmese pythons, did the snakes expend more energy diges?ng raw or cooked meat? What was the difference in energy expenditure between raw and cooked meat diges?on? Explain whether/how these findings support Wrangham’s experiment with mice and yams. Dr. Stephen Secor finds that when the pythons are fed ground cooked steak the energy expended on digesFon simulaFon has decreased by 24% compared to the intact raw stake. This shows that eaFng

ANTH 330 Hunter-Gatherers Scalise Sugiyama WIN 2023 cooked food reduces the energy required to carry out the process of digesFon by a quarter. These findings support Wrangham’s experiment with mice and yams due to it providing evidence that digesFng raw foods takes a lot more energy than cooked foods and therefore the mice who are the raw yams were a lot less energeFc during digesFon. 7. Summarize Peter Wheeler’s small gut/big brain hypothesis. Peter Wheeler believes that the smaller digesFve system that was able to evolve due to a shi_ in diet, reserved energy that could be used to power a larger brain. This can be seen in how the increase in brain size in Homo Erectus mirroring the reducFon in the size of its gut. This would have been necessary as our brain consumes 20% of our energy which Peter Wheeler equates to having a 20 wa] lightbulb on inside your head all the Fme. AlternaFvely, most other primates who do not cook only use 10% of their energy to power their brain. In other words, the energy spared from constantly eaFng and digesFng raw foods was made available to the brain.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ANTH 330 Week 2 Worksheet 2023

Related Documents