Skip to content
home Harvard Magazine
E-mail updates

Sign up to be notified of new issues.

View a sample newsletter

Follow Harvard Magazine on Twitter
  • An episode Kenya would rather forget: Megan Shutzer '10 examines the lasting effects of the 2007 election violence http://ow.ly/E6Wo 1 hour 22 min ago
  • Telling the stories of mental illness and mental-health care in Ghana http://ow.ly/E6Uy 2 hours 14 min ago

 STAY CONNECTED

    

ARIZONA: Scottsdale, Paradise Valley & Carefree. Rox Stewart, Princeton ’63, Russ Lyon Sotheby’s International Realty, 602-316-6504; E-mail: rox.stewart@russlyon.com.

View more classifieds

Primitive Protection Racket

Evolution by Fire

by Jonathan Shaw

 

Photograph by Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard News Office

Richard Wrangham

Keywords

anthropology

Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand what makes humans special. How did we develop large brains, for example? Moore professor of biological anthropology Richard Wrangham offers a fresh perspective in his new book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, in which he argues that cooking—because it made more calories available from existing foods and reduced the caloric cost of digestion—was the breakthrough technological innovation that allowed humans to support big brains. He also suggests that cooking shaped the human mating system, among many other effects.

Wrangham observes that chimpanzees, from whom humans diverged millions of years ago, eat many things raw that humans can’t, suggesting that Homo sapiens evolved away from this ability. In fact, he notes that people who choose to consume only raw food generally don’t get enough calories unless they do something that essentially pre-digests it, such as running it through a blender. Women on such a diet typically stop menstruating. 

That is because cooking—thanks to chemical processes that differ for starches, meats, and connective tissue—increases the number of calories in the food available to the human digestive system. Cooking also reduces the energy cost of digestion: gorillas, for example, must chew all day to absorb enough nutrition. Cooking makes more metabolic energy available for other things: the development of a large brain relative to gut size, or later, in prehistoric societies, more time available for hunting.

Wrangham believes that the control of fire and physiological changes resulting from a cooked diet would have occurred relatively quickly, citing the famous example of the beaks of finches in the Galápagos, which have changed rapidly from generation to generation in response to environmental cues. The taming of fire, through cooking, would have changed everything about us, he says, from the size of our faces and our brains to our social organization.

When this great leap forward took place is hard to say, even roughly. Wrangham favors a period 1.8 million years ago, when Homo erectus emerged. But as his colleague, MacCurdy professor of prehistoric archaeology Ofer Bar Yosef, has pointed out, there is still no evidence for the use of fire before 800,000 years ago.

Perhaps the most provocative of Wrangham’s ideas is that cooking shaped social relations between human males and females, from the sexual division of labor to the mating system itself, which, he argues, is based not on sex but on food. Among other primates, males and females looking for food collect the same things. Wrangham believes cooking, by providing quick calories, allowed human males to focus on hunting, leaving gathering and cooking to the females. This would explain the eventual sexual division of labor and our practice of sharing food.

But it also left cooks vulnerable to exploitation. Cooking, he points out, “is a conspicuous and lengthy process.” 

In the bush, the sight or smell of smoke reveals a cook’s location at a long distance, allowing hungry individuals who have no food to easily locate cooks in action…The effect among Homo erectus is easily imagined. Because females were smaller and physically weaker, they were vulnerable to bullying by domineering males who wanted food. Each female therefore obtained protection from other males’ wheedling, scrounging, or bullying by forming a special friendship with her own particular male. Her bond with him protected her food from other males, and he also gave her meat. These bonds were so critical for the successful feeding of both sexes that they generated a particular kind of evolutionary psychology in our ancestors that shaped female-male relationships and continues to affect us today. 

Wrangham describes the resulting pair-bond as a “primitive protection racket” in which husbands “used their bonds with other men in the community to protect their wives from being robbed, and women returned the favor by preparing their husbands’ meals.” Cooking brought many benefits to humans, he concludes, but it “trapped women into a newly subservient role enforced by male-dominated culture. Cooking created and perpetuated a novel system of male cultural superiority. It is not a pretty picture.”

Responses to “Evolution by Fire

  1. October 28, 2009

    this is very intersting raeding i would to suggest taht fire made the change as the homo erct start gathering around the fire there were many cahnges to happen like the family language then social activities we are still worship fire like when light a cnadle staurdays then the need to keep records and hence the bigening of writting
    I think that the fire was the most important milestone in our evoluatoin and recently electricity??
    thanks

    ~Dr Amir Abdelnour FRCS

  2. October 28, 2009

    I agree that cooking created bonds around the fire (supposedly women cooking) and around eating (men and women together). But I believe the steps to describe the bond of subservience for the female are a bit contrived. Would it not be more parsimonious to say that women developed a bond to each other as a group and to a man or men of the group for protection from other males because males are simply bigger and stronger and could use this not just around food and cooking but also around taking anything, sex, clothing, the fire itself, etc.

    ~Marianela Soto, EdM '81

  3. October 29, 2009

    Seems stunningly obvious, in hindsight. Large increases in available nutrition create more possibilities for development of mental and socially-based abilities.
    Look at the reverse, when people are deprived of nutrition because of geographic and socio-political factors, how their physical and mental capabilities are impaired, and social functioning deteriorates.

    ~David Yao

  4. October 29, 2009

    In some cultures, Persian for example, the discovery of fire is a turning point in epic history - Jamshid/Yama in the Indo-Iranian tradition.

    But more to my point is the awkwardness of the last paragraph in this otherwise objective article. Many many women, myself included, really enjoy cooking, find it a creative and artistic part of their lives, as long as the option of not cooking periodically also exists.

    ~Eden Naby

  5. October 31, 2009

    For more reading see also: Goudsblom, Johan, Fire and Civilization.
    (= Fire and Civilisation) London / New York etc. 1992: Allen Lane / The Penguin Press

    ~Annelies Blom

  6. November 10, 2009

    I don’t think the relationship created was/is so unilaterally dominating as the author moralizes in the last graf here.

    Nature has a way of creating balance given long enough.

    ~Stephen Tapp '71

Add a new comment

Your email address is kept private and will not be shown publicly
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <span> <b> <i> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.

Copyright ©1996—2009
Harvard Magazine Inc.
Contact the webmaster