Evidence of cooking 780,000 years ago rewrites human history

A new study, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, suggests that early humans first cooked food around 780,000 years ago. Before now, the earliest evidence of cooked food was around 170,000 years ago, with early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals using fire to cook vegetables and meat.

Burnt fish teeth reveal ancient cooking practices
The study team analyzed the remains of fish teeth (from carp and barbel) found in the proximity of fireplaces at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. By analyzing the crystal structure of the teeth, the team found that they had been cooked under 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit). "This suggested that the fish had been cooked at a controlled temperature rather than just burned," study co-author Irit Zohar from Tel Aviv University, Israel, told DW. "Until now, no one could prove that Homo erectus cooked food. This is the first evidence that erectus had the cognitive ability to control fire and cook food."

The study team found their evidence in an archaeological site located in the northern Jordan Valley, in modern-day Israel. The site, called Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, is known to date back to around 780,000 years ago.

www.dw.com...

Now this is pretty cool. Reminds me a bit of the bizarre movie "Quest For Fire"- except even they may have gotten it wrong if this is true.
Instead of running around and killing each other over the mysterious fire urn, they were cooking fish over fire pits, with full control over the flames.

The article goes into how they came to this conclusion by analyzing the molecular structure of the fish teeth. And the fact that some 5,000 of these fish teeth were found close to a fire pit.

Every time they find something like this that basically pushes the reset button on known human history, I keep wondering what all has been lost to history, and particularly, technology. The stone megaliths and their construction, for example. Was there really an ancient formula for a plant paste of some kind that could melt rock- that has been lost forever to history?

But this also has even more religious implications, showing stronger evolutionary human history dating back far, far beyond what had previously been known. So is there a biblical explanation for this?

Pretty fascinating article, and worth the read!

That is so cool. Excellent post, thanks for sharing.
I love when science and discovery manages to teach us something new about ourselves, while simultaneously showing us just how little we know.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Interesting find. Thanks for sharing.

More evidence that cooking food lead to, or aided the evolution of a more 'tight knit' brain? Just a thought.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Well there are hawks that start fires to drive out prey animals from the bushes, so most likely we have been using fire a lot longer than we think.

As for megaliths, Joseph Davidovits has many lectures that one can find and watch, in one of them he goes in to great details on how and where these cultures sourced all the materials needed to create all kinds of geopolymer concretes and aggregates, and all of his theories make perfect sense, just need a couple of rocks and the right type of activators, through trial and error. Kinda the same with huasca, thousands upon thousands of plants in the jungle, but combine the right ones you suddenly have created a religion that will last for eternity.

Much easier to lift baskets of crushed stone than a whopping boulder.

I don’t mean to spoil the party, but there is no convincing evidence that this site is 780,000 years old. They’re just speculating

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
But this also has even more religious implications, showing stronger evolutionary human history dating back far, far beyond what had previously been known. So is there a biblical explanation for this?

I think there is a biblical explanation for it.

In Genesis chapter 1, verse 26, it says:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

You'll notice is says "over all the earth."

Now, in Genesis chapter 2, verses 7 and 8, it says:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

God put Adam in a garden that had only one entrance. It was separated from the rest of the world. When Adam and Eve sinned and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, God placed one angel to guard the entrance to Eden. From this, we can see that, inside the Garden of Eden was a "walled community," for want of a better description. But, you'll remember back in the first chapter of Genesis, God created man to have dominion over all the earth. Adam and Eve only had dominion of the area inside the Garden of Eden at first, so the people who did have dominion over the earth must have been a different creation of man.

How do we know there are two different descriptions in Genesis of God creating man? When we look at Genesis chapter 4, we get the story about how Cain killed Abel; (these are the first two sons of Adam and Eve.) God puts a mark on Cain so that nobody will kill him. Who could possibly kill him other than Adam or Eve, or maybe some unnamed daughters of theirs? They hadn't even had a third son that could account for society growing in numbers somewhere else, because of incest - brothers and sisters marrying and producing offspring. Cain goes off to the land of Nod and it's those people God used the mark for.

As we see in the latter half of Genesis chapter 4, Cain goes off to the land of Nod, which is east of Eden, and took a wife. We know that the people in the land of Nod are not related to Adam and Eve, because in the last two verses of Genesis chapter 4, we see where Adam and Eve have a third son, and named him Seth. Seth didn't come along until after Cain went to the land of Nod and took a wife, so that tells us that the people in the land of Nod were a different creation of man, one from before God created Adam and Eve. And they must have been a thriving lot of people.

How long were the people in the land of Nod allowed to flourish and have dominion over the earth? The Bible doesn't say, but I think it could have been a long time. Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth, so it must have been a much longer time than 130 years to give the people in the land of Nod time to flourish and grow in numbers.

I know a lot of Bible scholars don't agree with this, but the Bible clearly states that the people in land of Nod were a different creation and were not related to Adam's line. They had to be a different creation, for why else would the Bible notate the lineage of Jesus, in different places throughout the book, and how it was kept pure? Kept pure from what? If Adam and Eve were the first people created, there were no other people to mingle with to make the bloodline impure. It had to be that other line of people in Nod that the Bible is speaking of that was distinct from the line of Jesus. And the line of Jesus was officially started when Adam and Eve had Seth. Seth was to be their appointed seed instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.

I also think there may have been a very long period of time between when God created man in Genesis 1 and when he created Adam in Genesis 2. It makes sense to me because when they find dinosaur bones that are really old, how else would you explain all that time since they went extinct?

I hope everyone can follow along with my logic and see what I'm saying.


TCB

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Let's expand the finding just a bit more:


They were humans, but they weren't h. sapiens like us. This was h. erectus.

Until h.sapiens came along, they and Neanderthals were the most inventive hominins. Once h. sapiens evolved, all bets were off. Our species is the "hold my beer!" bunch of the hominin groups.

So... while it does change our understanding of the history of human members of the hominins, it does NOT change our history of h.sapiens.

a reply to: Byrd

Nice try, but anyone with two eye balls and half a brain can easily deduce this fish was cooked by aliens hunting for a novelty pet to bring to their overlords on the other side of the galaxy. Everyone knows roasted fish is how you lure cro magnon within range of your phaser mine trap.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

A new study, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, suggests that early humans first cooked food around 780,000 years ago. Before now, the earliest evidence of cooked food was around 170,000 years ago, with early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals using fire to cook vegetables and meat.

Burnt fish teeth reveal ancient cooking practices
The study team analyzed the remains of fish teeth (from carp and barbel) found in the proximity of fireplaces at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. By analyzing the crystal structure of the teeth, the team found that they had been cooked under 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit). "This suggested that the fish had been cooked at a controlled temperature rather than just burned," study co-author Irit Zohar from Tel Aviv University, Israel, told DW. "Until now, no one could prove that Homo erectus cooked food. This is the first evidence that erectus had the cognitive ability to control fire and cook food."

The study team found their evidence in an archaeological site located in the northern Jordan Valley, in modern-day Israel. The site, called Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, is known to date back to around 780,000 years ago.

www.dw.com...

Now this is pretty cool. Reminds me a bit of the bizarre movie "Quest For Fire"- except even they may have gotten it wrong if this is true.
Instead of running around and killing each other over the mysterious fire urn, they were cooking fish over fire pits, with full control over the flames.

The article goes into how they came to this conclusion by analyzing the molecular structure of the fish teeth. And the fact that some 5,000 of these fish teeth were found close to a fire pit.

Every time they find something like this that basically pushes the reset button on known human history, I keep wondering what all has been lost to history, and particularly, technology. The stone megaliths and their construction, for example. Was there really an ancient formula for a plant paste of some kind that could melt rock- that has been lost forever to history?

But this also has even more religious implications, showing stronger evolutionary human history dating back far, far beyond what had previously been known. So is there a biblical explanation for this?

Pretty fascinating article, and worth the read!

i saw quest for fire.

good movie.


so bbq was invented 800k ya?

noice.

a reply to: Byrd

Yeah, and after the replies in this thread, I'm going to need about 20 of those beers lest my head explode. Recommend a brand please cause I don't drink much- I tried a Blue Moon with an orange once, and that wasn't too bad.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
a reply to: Byrd

Yeah, and after the replies in this thread, I'm going to need about 20 of those beers lest my head explode. Recommend a brand please cause I don't drink much- I tried a Blue Moon with an orange once, and that wasn't too bad.

try
a corsendonk.

if you can find it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Byrd

Nice try, but anyone with two eye balls and half a brain can easily deduce this fish was cooked by aliens hunting for a novelty pet to bring to their overlords on the other side of the galaxy. Everyone knows roasted fish is how you lure cro magnon within range of your phaser mine trap.

Except there were no Cro Magnon back that far. Oh, wait.....There was Raquel Welch in "1,000,000 years BC." Sorry, forgot about that part.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Let's expand the finding just a bit more:


They were humans, but they weren't h. sapiens like us. This was h. erectus.

Until h.sapiens came along, they and Neanderthals were the most inventive hominins. Once h. sapiens evolved, all bets were off. Our species is the "hold my beer!" bunch of the hominin groups.

So... while it does change our understanding of the history of human members of the hominins, it does NOT change our history of h.sapiens.

Fascinating .
Everyone knew this since grade-school .
Now , mind stating what you think about the date being pushed back 100s of 1000s of years ?

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Great news to hear. Now I can say things like, "Mankind has been cooking fish for 780,000 years, and this restaurant still can't do it right."

a reply to: Byrd

I wonder if Neanderthals had an evolutionary advantage over us. With a smaller frontal cortex wouldn't most memories go into long-term memories, allowing for quicker learning curves?

Then has anyone figured out what that extra lob on the back of their brain was for yet. It's really weird to think that Neanderthals might have been the peak of human evolution, and we're just on the down slide from there.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

was hoping it turned out to be a mammoth so i could say, throw another mammoth on the barbie.

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Well there are hawks that start fires to drive out prey animals from the bushes, so most likely we have been using fire a lot longer than we think.

As for megaliths, Joseph Davidovits has many lectures that one can find and watch, in one of them he goes in to great details on how and where these cultures sourced all the materials needed to create all kinds of geopolymer concretes and aggregates, and all of his theories make perfect sense, just need a couple of rocks and the right type of activators, through trial and error. Kinda the same with huasca, thousands upon thousands of plants in the jungle, but combine the right ones you suddenly have created a religion that will last for eternity.

Much easier to lift baskets of crushed stone than a whopping boulder.

The problem is you have to crush the stone, then carry it up, make a mold, then bring up water. You then have to let it set and then remove the mold. Despite what Davidovits says we don't have evidence of them doing this. We see them cutting rocks out as blocks, they have tool marks on them, and they aren't uniform, and don't show mold marks, etc.

originally posted by: cooperton
I don’t mean to spoil the party, but there is no convincing evidence that this site is 780,000 years old. They’re just speculating

www.science.org...

The Acheulean site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov in the Dead Sea Rift of Israel documents hominin movements and technological development on a corridor between Africa and Eurasia. New age data place the site at 780,000 years ago (oxygen isotope stage 19), considerably older than previous estimates.

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

Nope they have a date based on oxygen isotope stage 19. I have link above that explains what that is.

i wonder if they had
a prehistoric hell's kitchen?

caveman ramsey, lol.
or a mammoth cook off every year?! @ bernnieJgato.


i bet food was a big driver in developing a society, bringing tribes together.

cooking foods made digestion easier and safer to eat.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Well there are hawks that start fires to drive out prey animals from the bushes, so most likely we have been using fire a lot longer than we think.

As for megaliths, Joseph Davidovits has many lectures that one can find and watch, in one of them he goes in to great details on how and where these cultures sourced all the materials needed to create all kinds of geopolymer concretes and aggregates, and all of his theories make perfect sense, just need a couple of rocks and the right type of activators, through trial and error. Kinda the same with huasca, thousands upon thousands of plants in the jungle, but combine the right ones you suddenly have created a religion that will last for eternity.

Much easier to lift baskets of crushed stone than a whopping boulder.

The problem is you have to crush the stone, then carry it up, make a mold, then bring up water. You then have to let it set and then remove the mold. Despite what Davidovits says we don't have evidence of them doing this. We see them cutting rocks out as blocks, they have tool marks on them, and they aren't uniform, and don't show mold marks, etc.

Crushing stone is much easier than forming them with a chisel, also easier to carry baskets full of crushed stone and the activator, and to do the molds, than it is to lift up giant blocks. there is evidence, nanoscale silica spheres are present in egyptian blocks, and those are not found in the surrounding natural stones. molds do not mean uniform, using molds does not mean there would be no tool marks, using a mold does not mean there must be mold marks, i know, i have used geopolymers myself, made the molds, finished the casts, used all kinds of stone in them. they are cured in 24h.