I often think about some unknown brave souls who gave their lives trying things out for the very first time… paving the path for all mankind. When I’m eating some weird stuff like sea crustaceans, wild mushrooms dishes or exotic fruits dishes it’s not hard to be appreciative. I’ve been feeling, for a while now, that we ought to put aside a day to honor these brave souls… I mean we have Left Hander’s day you know…
This is a question that I’ve wondered a far bit about myself. Apparently a lot of existing hunter-gatherer societies have a set procedure for assessing the ediblity of new foods which involves getting a designated guinea pig (IIRC, in some Native American cultures, said guinea pig was generally a big, strong guy, possibly because he’d have a tougher constitution) who’d eat a little bit and wait. If nothing happened, they’d eat a bit more and so on until it was established if it was comepletely safe, safe in small doses, or not safe at all.
As for foods that require processing to be non-toxic, that is a question that continues to annoy me.
No, they didn’t.
Dogs weren’t even domesticated until people had already spread over the entire Old World, and pigs weren’t domesticated until people hadliterally spread over the entire world. So whatever techniques were used , it didn’t involve animals.
Slaves were certainly taken amongst HGs, but it was never a common event, and they were never kept for long periods. More importantly, it’s kinda hard to take prisoners when you are suffering from chronic malnutrition due to not knowing what to eat.
In addition to the above methods, I think the Universal Edibility Test is likely similar to how early man tested foods.
you’ll stumble across what is yuckky but nutricious and what is delectable but poisonous only if your parents left you to fend for yourself while still a toddler. lower animals have a very visible nurturing pattern to teach their young what and what not to eat. since we evolved from single mindless cells, i’m sure offspring were trained by their parents throughout the evolution path.
People are tend to be disgusted by foods they were not exposed to before age 3-6. I forget exactly how it works though, but in some cultures eating worms, rotten meat or insects is not considered disgusting, in others eating fish or beef is disgusting. The concept of what is acceptable vs. disgusting is supposedly implanted in our minds when we are young and we carry it with us.
This article kindof talks about it, but the concept I’m thinking of is a little different. I don’t even know where I heard the idea, but basically the implication was that we learn when we are young what foods are not acceptable, and carry that bias with us for life. So it is likely that the culture you are in has already tested certain foods and found them bad.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v129/ai_4088984/?tag=mantle_skin;content
However I don’t know ‘how’ it works. I never ate indian food before I was 6, but had no problems trying it. But I won’t eat rotten meat despite rotten meat being considered acceptable in some other cultures.
I agree with most everything Blake has said in this thread.
Some common wild plants are extremely deadly, though, and can kill a human in very small doses. Water hemlock (Cicuta virosa) comes to mind. There are reports of children dying from just skin contact with the plant; eating the small, bulbous root is enough to kill an adult in short order (a native suicide method in Siberia). Water hemlock has a mild, pleasant taste, and can easily be mistaken as one of the edible Apiaceae species.
Military-style edibility tests often rule out edible, highly useful plants: dandelion has an acrid taste and contains a milky substance and is deemed inedible, for instance. Probabilities are a very poor way to deal with wild plant edibility.
Amongst my capuchins, the taste testing of new food falls into two category. The first is similarity to familiar foods. I was once following around a group of migrating males who came across some grapefruit trees near the remains of a farm. Grapefruits do not grow in the wild and the males were curious about this new fruit. Most of them failed to open it, but one did and had a little taste. Since it was citrus, he treated it the same way he did other citrus fruits - he rubbed it all over his fur.
The second method of tasting new foods comes from babies or adventurous individuals. Babies will suck/chew on all sorts of things and, amongst capuchins, the mothers don’t stop them. I imagine that eating small amounts of poisoned food makes them sick, but not enough to kill them (although we do have high infant mortality…)
Amongst the adventurers, there is a capuchin named Gadget who is famous for discovering all sorts of new foods, including those discarded by humans. How or why he decides to eat certain things is beyond us, but others express interest in him when he eats something new. Even the alpha male will come over and watch him eat something unknown, but potentially tasty. The capuchins sometimes eat food that is quite nasty if you don’t process it correctly. It’s always amusing to watch a baby grab a solana fruit and bite into it, only to express horror at finding hundreds of tiny, sharp hairs sticking in their mouth. I imagine at some point in the past, a monkey like Gadget figured out the trick and his group survived whilst others didn’t. These brave food explorers probably pushed the limits of our human diet.
What, before or instead of eating it?
Yup, this I think is pretty much it - Trial and error. Saw a documentary once, (years ago, so I cant remember the title) were they showed how indiginous tribesmen of the Amazon found out wheter a new species of plant or animal they’d encountered was safe to eat. One of the older womanfolk would go through a process pretty similar to the mentioned article. Take a little sample, rub it, taste, then eat a little, then a little more - if at any point bad reactions were experienced that food source was permanently off limits for the entire tribe. (And this would be passed on to children and their children in turn).
What was implied on the show, tough not said directly, but seemed to make a certain cynical sense, was that it was a older woman or man performing the tests typically, so if something went wrong it wouldnt kill off a healthy young’un.
^
that’s for unknown substances with eating potential. we still test new products today for public safety.
regarding early man, i still think most of this problem is done away with through ordinary parenting and nurturing (way back to when there were still no homo sapiens.) i’ve a feeling people would rather stick to the foods they know. that at least is observable in their hunting, gathering and general settlement patterns.
What this does not explain is how someone figures out what to do to make something inedible edible (such as the shark I mentioned above that takes months to process…and is still considered one of the nastiest tasting things on the planet).
Of course we all learn from our parents and society what is edible and what isn’t.
That is not the question.
The question is, if you go back far enough, there had to be a time when no one had tried a given food. There are all sorts of mushrooms for instance. Some are edible, some are poisonous. Who figured out which was which and how?
so we’re talking about unknown substances only. the method described: touch to skin, to lips, to tip of tongue, eat (give 5 minutes between each stage) was codified into a survival technique. there was one airman shot down over indochina who did this in his account.
but one jungle course does instruct people to observe what primates eat. though monkeys might have a different tolerance for toxins, their preferences are believed closest to humans.
I think it is mainly a matter of incremental adaptation.
Take cassava. Some varieties are edible without processing, others mildly toxic, and still other very toxic. I suppose that, when hungry enough, people would try the mildly toxic, and then do various things to make it less nasty … naturally, once a method was found, they would apply it to the more toxic species - and do more of it (if soaking mildly toxic cassava for a few hours makes it good, soak bitter cassava for a few days - that sort of thing).
Take away the intermediate steps, and it indeed looks very odd.
In most cases, I suspect, when you have gone back far enough for that, you will no longer be talking about human beings, or anything capable of “figuring things out” or otherwise making deliberative choices.
Disclaimer: Many monkeys were harmed in the course of these experiments.
Instead of eating it. They ‘grope’ as we call it with citrus fruits and chili peppers.
I also forgot to mention that occasionally we come across one of them puking. I’ve never personally been lucky enough to follow them all day and see what caused the puking, but perhaps they all experiment a little with their diet.
Some dropped dead after eating the particular matter… a sacrificial act for the posterity.
Pretty sure my example of the shark in post #18 or cassava mentioned here were obviously deliberative attempts by modern humans to eat a certain food.
Who the hell kills a shark, eats some, gets sick, decides to bury it then dig it up at random times to see if it is “better” but keeps getting sick so buries it again then digs it up after several weeks then hangs it up to dry for several months then tries it again and pukes again but decides it is edible, just tastes and smells awful?
I should also add that proto-humans did not completely colonize the planet. It was “modern” humans who did that. Sooner or later they’d be in areas where the flora and fauna were not well known to them. Some things would probably have been familiar but a lot wouldn’t have been recognizable.
I imagine someone eating pufferfish (fugu) learned the hard way. I would guess some was eaten with no trouble then someone inadvertently nicked the sack with the poison in it (or ate it) and died in short order.
Other foods may not be so obvious.