Ancient Food Technology (2001).pdf

TECHNOLOGY AND CHANGE IN HISTORY

Ancient Food Technology

Robet I. Curtis

TECHNOLOGY AND CHANGE

IN HISTORY

V O L U M E 5

B Y

ROBERT I. CURTIS

BRILL

This 1)(1e)k is printed on acid-free paper.

L i b r a r y o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a T h e L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a is also available.

D i e D e u t s c h e B i b l i o t h e k - C I P - E i n h e i t s a u f n a h m e C u r t i s , R o b e r t I.s

Anc ient food t e c h n o l o g y / by R o b e r t I. Curtis. Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 2001

(Technology and change in history ; Vol. 5) ISBN 90 0 1 09681 7

I S S N 1385-920X I S B N 9 0 0 4 0 9 6 8 1 7

© Copyright '2001 by Koninklijke Brill .NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. .No /)art of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that

!lie appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, '222 Rosewood Drive. Suite 910

DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

List of Abbreviations xi List of Figures xiii List of Plates xv List of M a p s xvii Acknowledgements xix Foreword xxiii P A R T O N E P R E H I S T O R Y

C h a p t e r O n e : Lower a n d Middle Paleolithic Periods 3

A. Hominids a n d T h e i r Tools 4 B. Early Hominid Subsistence Strategies 20

C. Hominid Intelligence 32

C h a p t e r T w o : U p p e r Paleolithic a n d Neolithic Periods 35

A. U p p e r Paleolithic Period 35 B. Last Glacial M a x i m u m 48 C. Epipaleolithic Period a n d the Rise of Agriculture 57

D. Neolithic Period 65 1. Southwest Asia 65

2. Europe 74 3. Egypt 77

S u m m a r y and Conclusions to Part O n e 81

PAR T T W O

E G Y P T A N D T H E N E A R E A S T

C h a p t e r T h r e e : Egypt 1 93 A. Cereal Processing 99

1. Storage 99 2. Bread and Beer 105

TABLE O F CON TENTS VI11 a. Milling 114 b. Bread M a k i n g 117 c. Beer Production 131 C h a p t e r Four: Egypt II 142 B. Wine 142 C. Oil 164 D. Animal Processing 165 1. Butchery 165 2. Dairy Products 173 3. Fish 173 E. Sweeteners 176

C h a p t e r Five: T h e Ancient N e a r East 178

A. Prehistoric Period 180 1. Cereal Processing 183

2. Wine 184 3. Oil 187 B. Historic Period 189

1. Food Technology a n d the Rise of the State 190

2. Cereal Processing 195 a. Storage 195 b. Milling 199 c. Bread Making 205 d. Beer Production 210 3. W i n e 219 4. Oil 226 5. Animal Processing 233 a. Butchery 233 b. Dairy Products 234 c. Fish 238 6. Sweeteners 240

P A R T T H R E E

M E D I T E R R A N E A N C I V I L I Z A T I O N S

C h a p t e r Six: T h e Greek World: Bronze Age T h r o u g h the Hellenistic

Period 259 A. Bronze Age 259

1. Cereals 260 2. Wine a n d Olive Oil 267

3. Miscellaneous Processes 274 B. Classical and Hellenistic Periods 275

1. Cereal Processing 276 a. Storage 276 b. Milling 279 c. Bread Making 289 d. Beer Production 294 4. Wine 294 5. Olive 303 6. Animal Processing 313 a. Butchery 313 b. Dairy Products 315 c. Fish 316 7. Sweeteners 322 C h a p t e r Seven: R o m e I 323 A. Cereal Processing 325 1. Storage 325 2. Milling 335 3. Bread M a k i n g 358 4. Beer Production 370 B. W i n e 372 C. Oil 380 C h a p t e r Eight: R o m e II 395 1). Animal Processing 395 1. Butchery 395 2. Dairy Products 399 3. Fish 402 E. Sweeteners 417 F. Refrigeration 419 _ο

S u m m a r y and Conclusions to Part T h r e e 420

Select Bibliography 435

Index 467

Abbreviations of m o d e r n works follow those listed either in the most recent issue of L'Année Philologique, or in the American Journal of Archaeology 95, no. 1 (Jan. 1991). In general, abbreviations of ancient Greek a n d R o m a n authors conform to those listed in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3r<l edition (Oxford: O x f o r d Universi-ty Press, 1998). Abbreviations of papyri a n d ostraca conform to those listed in

Checklist of Editions of Greek Papyri and Ostraca. Supplement No. 4 of Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. J o h n F. Oates, Roger S. Bagnall, William H.

Willis, and K. A. W o r p , eds. 3,{l ed. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Attention is particularly drawn to the following:

The African Archaeological Review

American Journal ()) Physical Anthropology American Anthropologist

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.

J a m e s B. Pritchard, ed. 3rd ed. Princeton, N . J . : Princeton University Press, 1969.

L'Année Epigraphique

Annual Review of Anthropology

A rchaeological Review from Cambridge Biblical A rchaeologist

Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture Cambridge Ancient History

Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines. C.

D a r e m b e r g and FI Saglio, eds. 10 Vols. Paris: Hachette, 1877 1918.

J o h n M. E d m o n d s , ed., The Fragments of Attic

Comedy. 4 Vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957-1961. Human Evolution

Inscriptiones Graecae Ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. R e n é

C a g n a t et al, eds. 4 Vols. Paris: E. Leroux, 1911-27.

Journal of Anthropological Research Journal of A rchaeological Research Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Cuneiform Studies

Afr Archaeol Rev AJPA A m e r A n t h r A N E T L ' A n n E p . A n n R A n t h r Archaeol R e v C a m b BiblArch BullSumAgri CAM Dar.-Sag. E d m o n d s H um Ε vol IG R R J A n t h r R e s J Arch Res J A r c h S c i J O S

I.IST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Journal of Human Evolution Journal of World Prehistory

Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wolfgang Helck, E b e r h a r d

Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf, eds. 6 Vols. Wiesbaden: O t t o Harrassowitz, 1975— 1986.

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.

(A=Athenische Abteilung; B = B a g h d a d e r Abteiling; I=Istanbuler Abteilung; Κ = K a i r o Abteilung;

M = M a d r i d e r Abteilung; R = R ö m i s c h e Abteilung)

Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. A.

Pauly, G. Wissowa, a n d W . Kroll, eds. Stuttgart: J . B. Metzler, 1894-1980.

Review of Paleobotany and Paly no logy

Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin: W. de Gruyter & Co., 1928 .

M. I. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of

the Hellenistic World. 3 Vols. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1941. _/ x i i J H u m E v o l J W o r l d Prehist LÄ M D AI R E RevPalaeobotPalynology RIA S E H H W

1. C l a d o g r a m of hominid evolution, with associated tool kits 12

2. O l d o w a n Tools 13 3. Acheulian Tools 16 4. Mousterian Tools 38 5. Final Perigordian tools (blade and bone) 39

6. Egyptian d o m e d granaries 102 7. Hieroglyphic symbols associated with food technology 109

8. Fifth-Dynasty T o m b of Rec-em-Kuy, at S a q q a r a 113

9. Bakery-Brewery model from Twelfth-Dynasty T o m b of Meket-re, al

T h e b e s 126 10. T o m b of Rameses III 128

11. T o m b o f N a k h t 152 12. Egyptian wall paintings showing grape treading a n d pressing with bag

press 155 13. Bag press in f r a m e 159

14. Assyrian c a m p 204 15. Sumerograms for kaš, šim, a n d ninda 206

16. Lcver-and-weight press f r o m Ekron, Israel 230 17. Milking frieze from T e m p l e of Ninhursag, at Ubaid 236

18. C r e t a n Hieroglyphic Form 116, for wine 268

19. Megarian Bowl, f r o m T h e b e s 283 20. H o p p e r mill, from Olynthus 285

21. Archaic bakery model 292 22. Hero's weight-and-drum press, according to D r a c h m a n n 312

23. North granary in R o m a n fort at Housesteads 332

24. M o r g a n t i n a and Pompeian rotary mills 342

25. Pompeian rotary donkey mill 346

26. Barberai water mill 354 27. G e a r i n g for water mill 356 28. Relief from the T o m b of Eurysaces 359

29. Kneadinsr machine 364 30. Miliarium, from Stabiae 375 31. Trapetum, from Pompeii 383 32. W e d g e press, from H e r c u l a n e u m 386

LIST OF FIGURES XIV

34. Composite drawing of Tripolitanian oil press 389 35. Pliny's second lever-and-screw press, according to D r a c h m a n n . . . 392

1. Limestone mortars a n d pestle, from VVadi K u b b a n i y a 2. Q u e r n a n d rubber, from Wadi K u b b a n i y a

3. Basalt m o r t a r a n d pestle, from J e r i c h o 4. Fifth-Dynasty granary models, from Giza 5. Reed a n d rush sieve, from Lisht

6. Fifth-Dynasty servant statue of w o m a n grinding grain, f r o m Giza 7. Bakery-brewery model from Twelfth-Dynasty T o m b of Meket-re, f r o m

T h e b e s

8. Bread loaves from Eleventh-Dynasty tomb, from T h e b e s 9. Fifth-Dynasty servant statue of m a n baking bread, from Giza 10. Relief of royal kitchen, from A m a r n a

1 1. Sixth-Dynasty servant statue of a "Brewer," from Giza

12. Eleventh-Dynasty servant statues of men making beer, from Deir el-Bersheh

13. Sixth-Dynasty beer vat, from Giza

14. Eighteenth-Dynasty stela of Syrian drinking beer with siphon, from A m a r n a

15. VVine a m p h o r a e from T o m b , of T u t a n k h a m u n

16. Model of butcher's shop f r o m T o m b of Meket-re, from T h e b e s 17. Saddle quern a n d rubber, from J e r i c h o

18. Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablet discussing brewing techniques 19. Impression of banquet scene on Early Dynastic 111 cylinder seal 20. G r a n a r y model from Geometric II tomb, from Athens

21. Hopper-rubbers, f r o m Olynthus

22. Black-figure vase showing satyrs treading grapes, from Athens

23. Black-figure vase showing two men operating oil press, from Athens 24. Stone-spouted press bed, from Olynthus

25. Salt-fish (.salsamentum), from Corinth

26. R o m a n rotary handmill from R o m a n fort at Chesters

27. Pompeian rotary donkey mills from bakery (Reg. VII.ii.22) in Pompeii 28. Funerary relief of P. Nonius Zethus, from Ostia

29. Barbegal water mill

30. Sarcophagus of M . Annius Octavius Valerianus

31. K n e a d i n g machine f r o m bakery at Reg. VII.ii.22 in Pompeii 32. R o m a n relief showing grape treading, from R o m e

LIST OF PLATES

XVI

33. R o m a n relief showing the boiling of musturn to make defrutum 34. R o m a n rotary crushing basin (trapetum), from Boscoreale

35. Reconstructed lever-and-drum press in Villa of the Mysteries, near Pompeii

36. Relief of butcher shop, f r o m Ostia 37. Altar of Atimetus, from R o m e

38. Cheese press from R o m a n fort at Balmuildy, on Antonine Wall, Scotland 39. Late fourth-century A. D. salting vats at Santa Pola, Spain

1. East and South Africa 5

2. Europe a n d Southwest Asia 37

3. Egypt and Southwest Asia 96

4. Ancient N e a r East 179

5. Eastern Mediterranean 261

An a u t h o r must inevitably assume full responsibility for his work, but the final product is always more than just the result of his efforts alone. I gladly and with-out reservation acknowledge the assistance of n u m e r o u s individuals a n d institu-dons without whose support this book would neither have been finished nor would have attained what value readers may j u d g e to reside in it. W h e n acknowledging one's debt to those who have contributed in one way or another, an a u t h o r invariably runs the risk of omitting someone deserving of mention. Should there be any in this category, I hereby warmly thank them and apologize for the unintended omission. M a n y individuals a n d institutions provided timely a n d valuable assistance. Some offered advice and suggestions, freely given, a n d received by m e with m u c h appreciation, even if not always followed. O t h e r s gave encouragement not only at the beginning when the project was first under-taken but, most importantly, throughout the period of research and writing when at times my energy a n d spirits flagged. And still others, in a spirit of pro-fessional collegiality, materially assisted in obtaining illustrations and permis-sions to publish them. All in their own way significantly contributed to the final product; none but myself, however, is accountable for it. T o all I concede a tremendous debt of gratitude a n d offer my sincere thanks in hopes that the book in its final form to some degree finds favor with them.

I would like to thank Ervan Garrison, Elizabeth K a n n , J a r e d Klein, D a n Robie, and Gay Robins, who read portions of the book in manuscript, thereby saving me from mistakes of commission and omission, keeping me focused on the topic at h a n d , a n d providing guidance a n d timely suggestions on where the book might b e improved. W h e r e imperfections of any kind remain, the fault lies where it should, with the author. O t h e r individuals were instrumental in provid-ing a visual c o m p o n e n t to the book. T h e s e include Lindsay Allason-Jones, Francesco Buranelli, Richard Fazzini, Robert Foley, Seymour Gitin, Sue Hutchison, Lawrence Keppie, David Mattingly, Mark J. Meister, Georgina Plowright, Scott Sanders, G u y Sanders, Stacey H. Savatsky, Bettina Schmitz, J o a n Tucker, Fred Wendorf, Brandon Wester, Donald White, a n d Larry

Zim-m e r Zim-m a n . I would especially like to thank C a t h a r i n e Roehrig, who during Zim-my visit to the D e p a r t m e n t of Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan M u s e u m of Art, in New York, gave of her time and expertise in assisting my research,

mak-ing the trip a m e m o r a b l e a n d successful one. T o Susan Morris a n d the staff of the Interlibrary Loan Office of the University of Georgia Libraries, I extend a

A( :Κ NOW I ,ED Ci Ε M ENTS XX

w a r m note of thanks for their skill a n d professionalism in tracking down m a n y a n d obscure books and articles. A m o n g those whose conversation on specific aspects of ancient food technology or linguistic matters always provided grist for the mill, I particularly wish to recognize my colleagues Bob Harris, J a r e d Klein, and Benedict Lowe. I would specifically like to thank Julian Deahl, Senior Acquisitions Editor, at Brill Academic Publishers, for his encouragement throughout the writing of this book, his sympathetic understanding in periods of personal crisis for the author, which intervened to slow progress on the book, and for his seemingly eternal patience.

M a n y institutions graciously provided photographs and line drawings a n d permissions to publish them, often with nominal or no charge at all. These include Ägyptisches M u s e u m of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, both the Agora a n d Corinth Excavations; the Archaeological Institute of America; Ashmolean M u s e u m , Oxford; British M u s e u m ; Brooklyn M u s e u m of Art; Michael C. Carlos M u s e u m of Emory Uni-versity; C e n t r e Camille J u l l i a n - C N R S ; Direzione Generale Musei Vaticani; English Heritage; Griffith Institute, Ashmolean M u s e u m ; Hargrett Collection of the University of Georgia; H u n t e r i a n M u s e u m of the University of Glasgow; J o n a t h a n P. Rosen Collection, New York; Metropolitan M u s e u m , New York, both the Egyptian and Ancient N e a r Eastern Collections; M u s e u m of Fine Arts, Boston; the M u s e u m of Antiquities of the University and Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle U p o n Tyne; the Oriental Institute, Chicago; Pelizaeus M u s e u m , Hildesheim; a n d the Saalburg M u s e u m . A m o n g publishers who gave permission to use illustrations from works published by them are Academic Press, American

Journal of Archaeology, Antiquity, the British School of Archaeology in Iraq,

Chrysalis Books G r o u p , T h e J o h n s Hopkins University Press, McGraw-Hill Companies, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, a n d Routledge.

T h e writing of this book was immeasurably supported through two Senior Research grants from the Vice President for Research of the University of Geor-gia, with additional financial assistance from Wyatt Anderson, Dean of Arts a n d Sciences, and Richard A. LaFleur, H e a d of the D e p a r t m e n t of Classics. I would also like to thank the D e p a r t m e n t of Classics at the University of Leeds, which granted me the teaching position of Visiting Professor of Classics during the fall of 1997, a n d provided lodging a n d library assistance, plus gracious camaraderie, while I was conducting research in England.

M y final, a n d most heartfelt, appreciation goes to my wife, Susan, and daugh-ter, Julia. Susan, a professional librarian, contributed her expertise in ferreting out the most obscure references. O n one occasion in particular, when other m o r e enjoyable activities beckoned, she spent her free time in Boston perusing the collection of the M u s e u m of Fine Arts looking for any art historical material

related to ancient food technology. Julia, though disappointed, was always understanding when, on too m a n y occasions, her father begged off participating in other activities in order to spend time on the book. Both had for m a n y months 011 end to e n d u r e my long absences, both of mind and body, a n d to walk a r o u n d a n d step over books, papers, a n d photographs scattered about the house. Without their patience and generosity my task would have been far m o r e onerous than it otherwise was.

In J a n u a r y 1939, while excavating in the northern section of the Archaic cerne-tery at Saqqara, Walter B. Emery discovered a rather humble t o m b dating to the Second Dynasty (early third millennium B. C.).1 Denoted T o m b 3477, in size and intrinsic value of its contents it was rather unremarkable save in one respect. It had lain undisturbed from the time of the burial in it of a w o m a n of about sixty years of age. Emery found there an almost perfectly preserved meal, laid out on dishes of pottery, alabaster, a n d diorite. H e r e was a near pristine example of a funerary meal found in other Early Dynastic burials, though none preserved so well as this nor so elaborate. Emery was excited because he believed that it proved what he had long suspected, that is, that early Egyptians as part of the funerary ritual included cooked meals with the deceased.2 Later tombs contained not only examples of food items but m o r e frequently paintings, sculpture, a n d models of food a n d drink, which, apparently through a magical transformation, were intended to serve as gifts to the gods or as sustenance for the deceased throughout eternity.:i

Emery's interest lay m o r e in the meal's symbolic importance than in the indi-vidual food items a n d what they can tell us about the state of Egyptian food technology. Foods found in T o m b 3477 fell into two general categories, those which were eaten in their natural state, w h e t h e r cooked or raw, a n d those which h a d been processed in some fashion. In the former category were stewed fruit (possibly figs) a n d berries. Processed foods included grape wine, a triangu-lar loaf of b r e a d m a d e from e m m e r wheat, circutriangu-lar honey-cakes, a sort of por-ridge of ground barley, various cuts a n d portions of beef, cleaned a n d dressed fish a n d fowl, a pigeon stew, a n d perhaps cheese.1 T h e s e processed foods show Egyptian knowledge of the principles of butchery, fermentation, milling, a n d cooking. Already, at the dawn of the historical period in Egypt, nearly 5,000 years ago, the Egyptian diet was both varied a n d technologically sophisticated.

' W a l t e r B. E m e r y , A Funerary Repast in an Egyptian Tomb of the Archaic Period Leiden: N e d e r l a n d s Instituut voor hot N a b i j e O o s t e n , 1962).

- T h e typicality of a such a s u m p t u o u s meal is d e b a t a b l e . Cf. Hilary W ilson, Egyptian Food and Drink (Bucks: Shire Publications Ltd., 1988), p. 11.

5

E m e r y , Funerary Repast, p. 2.

1

Ibid., pp. 6 7. There was also an unidentifiable liquid m a d e of s o m e fatty substance. The food items were identified by Alfred Lucas, at that time c h e m i c a l advisor for the Egyptian A m i q -uities Service.

F O R E W O R D XXVI11

T h e y were, however, neither the first to apply technology to food nor the last to d o so.

All species of animals must have food to survive. Herbivores graze on grasses, forage off bushes or trees, and dig for roots a n d bulbs. Carnivores hunt or a m b u s h a n d kill their prey, or scavenge previously killed animals. Omnivores participate in some or all of these activities. Although animals exhibit greater or lesser large a n d small motor dexterity, visual, aural a n d olfactory acuteness, speed, strength, ingenuity, patience, endurance, and, in pack animals, coopéra-tion, n o n e of these food procuring activities rely on technology per se. If by the term food technology one understands simply a method of acquiring something to eat or drink through solving a specific technical problem, then clearly m a n y animals engage in food technology. So, for instance, over thirty years ago J a n e Goodall demonstrated that chimpanzees, whose diet is basically frugivorous, that is, m a d e u p of fruits, leaves, bark, and pith, sometimes m a d e and used sim-pie tools, such as sticks, stems, a n d small twigs, to catch a n d eat termites a n d ants. T h e y also use leaves as a drinking tool, and, at certain times of the year exploit stone h a m m e r and anvil technology to get at meat in nuts. Indeed, out-side of the use of weapons, most habitual tool-use behavior of chimpanzees cen-ters on subsistence. T u f t e d capuchin monkeys were observed to produce simple stone tools for cutting a n d hammering. T h e "archer fish" projects water spouts at insects, spiders, and other small creatures to knock t h e m into the water a n d so render them more readily available to eat. Likewise, various south Pacific birds use small twigs held in their bill to probe for insect larvae in trees, a n d sea otters while floating on their backs place stones on their chest and p o u n d hard-shell mollusks against them to crack the shell.5 T h e conclusion seems inescapable. H u m a n s are not the only animals to make and use tools and were probably not the first to create tools to exploit opportunities for obtaining food. T h e question is, of course, m o r e complicated than this when h u m a n s are involved.

Not all foods require processing to be edible; fruits, m a n y nuts, and most veg-etables come readily to mind. T h e s e and even uncooked meat were basic food items for prehistoric humans. O t h e r foods for a variety of reasons required some

י J a n e G o o d a l l , " T o o l u s i n g a n d A i m e d T h r o w i n g in a C o m m u n i t y of Freeliving C h i m -p a n z e e s , " Nature '201 (2» Mar.,' 1964): 1 2 6 4 - 6 6 ; B e n j a m i n B. Beck, Animal Tool Behavior: Vie Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals ( N e w Y o r k : G a r l a n d S T P M Press, 1980), esp. p p . 2 0 105, 109 15; G r e g o r y C h a r l e s W e s t e r g a a r d a n d S t e p h e n J . S u o m i , " A S i m p l e S t o n e - t o o l T e c h n o l o g y in M o n k e y s , " JHumEvol 27 (1994): 3 9 9 4 0 4 ; E l i s a b e t t a V i s a l b e r g h i , " C a p u c h i n M o n k e y s : A W i n d o w i n t o T o o l U s e in A p e s a n d H u m a n s , " in Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. K a d i -lcen R . G i b s o n a n d T i m I n g o l d , cds. ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1993), p p .

138 50; W i l l i a m C . M c G r c w , " T h e Intelligent U s e of T o o l s : T w e n t y P r o p o s i t i o n s , " in ibid., p p . 1 5 4 - 5 7 .

degree of alteration. Some foods, for example, d e m a n d processing to render them m o r e palatable or easier to digest. Others, poisonous in their natural state, can be m a d e safe when properly treated or rendered into a different form. W h e n processed in some fashion to achieve these purposes, the n u m b e r and variety of available foods expand a n d more food becomes available for more people. Excess foods or those needed as a safeguard against future want can be stored for short or long periods of time when properly processed. T h e y can also be transported if necessary or desired. Additionally, some foods in processed form have a value beyond alleviating hunger. Fermented grain, grapes, and dates, for example, in the form of alcoholic beverages, through their mind-alter-ing characteristics, give pleasure beyond bemind-alter-ing merely tasteful or safe. This rais-es two qurais-estions. W h a t exactly dorais-es the term "food technology" mean, and what was ancient man's contribution to it? The former question can be fairly precisely defined; the answer to the latter will occupy the remainder of this book.

Food technology concerns the knowledge a n d practical application of the principles of food science to the preservation, processing, preparation, packag-ing, storage, a n d transportation of food.'׳ While this definition fits well in the m o d e r n , complex world, and, as will become clear, serves as the basis for defin-ing the scope of this book, it does not entirely encompass the ancient view of technology, or at least the Greek view of it.7 T h e m o d e r n world has severed the link between technology and technique. Knowledge of the principles of tool use (technology), for example, has been separated from the skilled use of the tool itself (technique). T h e latter embodies specific a n d practical know-how gained primarily through observing and copying procedures. T h e former, on the other h a n d , is theoretical knowledge capable of general application.8 So, today, to consider an activity as technical is to imply that its focus is narrow and its perfor-mance is perfunctory, requiring little or no general or theoretical knowledge. O n e thinks of the difference between an electrician and an electrical engineer, or between a cook and a food scientist. This dichotomy is foreign to the Graeco-R o m a n view of technology in general a n d serves only to obscure our knowledge of the changing relationship between m a n a n d his diet.

T h e term technology derives from the Greek τέχνη, meaning craft, skill, and cunning of hand; it can also refer to the process of doing or making something

'׳ Dictionary of Nutrition and Food Technology. A r n o l d E. B e n d e r , c d . 6th cd. ( L o n d o n : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1990), p. 114."

7

W e h a v e little i n f o r m a t i o n o n w h a t p r e c e d i n g c u l t u r e s t h o u g h t a b o u t it, if t h e y p o n d e r e d the q u e s t i o n at all.

8

T i m I n g o l d , " T o o l - u s e , Sociality a n d I n t e l l i g e n c e , " in Tools, Language and Cognition, p p . 433-36.

F O R E W O R D XXVI11

related to art or craft. T h e term μηχανή, artificial contrivance or machine, simi-larly assumes the manual operation of some apparatus to assist the application of τέχνη. Inherent in both these terms is the idea that the craftsman utilizes knowl-edge to effect something practical or meaningful. For the ancients, therefore, knowledge and technique go h a n d in hand. I should also add that the ancient would include what we would call superstition as a natural concomitant to tech-nique.9 In the m o d e r n world, the tool, an instrument manipulated by h u m a n agency, is distinguished from the machine that is not manually operated but runs upon some n o n - h u m a n power, such as electricity. Although much of ancient technology does depend upon working by hand, it will become clear that in the area of food the ancient world progressed from the use of simple hand tools to complex machines operated by animal or water power designed to produce more and better products more efficiently. T h e j o u r n e y from simple tool to complex machine, however, was a long one, and m a n y of the old hand techniques contin-ued in use long after new mechanical apparatus had appeared on the sccne. T h e reasons for this vary, and involve differences of economic status, the speed and methods by which technical knowledge was transferred, a n d the degree to which new methods and tools replaced the old. I propose to look at food technology f r o m the ancient perspective, focussing not only 011 the theoretical principles employed, even if not completely understood, by them but also on who applied them, why, under what conditions, to what practical application they were put, and what products they produced.

Technological innovation in antiquity did not develop in a vacuum a n y m o r e than it docs today. Just as it arises within a certain environment so it also m a n y times alters the society f r o m which it springs. T h e conclusion about technologi-cal change that Frances a n d J o s e p h Gies have ascribed to the Medieval period applies equally to the ancient world:1 0

The most momentous changes are now understood not as single, explicit inven-lions but as gradual, imperceptible revolutions . . . taking place through incremen-tal improvements, large or small, in tools, techniques, and the organization of work. This new view is part of a broader change in historical theory that has come to perceive technological innovation in all ages as primarily a social process rather than a disconnected series of individual initiatives.

יי G e o r g e W . H o u s t o n , " T h e S t a t e of t h e A r t : C u r r e n t W o r k in t h e T e c h n o l o g y of A n c i e n t R o m e , " C J 8 5 (1989): 8 0 .

1(1

P r a n c e s a n d J o s e p h Gics, Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel. Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages (Ν. Y.: H a i p e r Collins, 1994), p. 2. Cf. for t h e R o m a n p e r i o d , K e v i n G r e e n e , " T h e S t u d y of R o m a n T e c h n o l o g y : S o m e Theoretical C o n s t r a i n t s , " in Theoretical Roman Archaeology: First Confer-ence Proceedings. E l e a n o r S c o t t , e d . (Aldershot: A v e b u r y , 1993), p p . 39 47.

In this book, therefore, I propose to describe a n d discuss not only the technolo-gies applied by ancient m a n to food processing but also to place these innova-tions within their social, economic, a n d political context. Food technology, for example, played a role in religion, the rise of the state, the creation of bureau-cratic institutions, even the development of writing itself. Going one step further,

I will focus on the ramifications of these innovations upon ancient society at large. 111 other words, what led to these advances in food technology and what were their influences, intended 01־ not, upon that society?

111 approaching this subject I had to answer several questions. First a n d fore-most was the question of where to begin. W h e r e , for instance, does agriculture or husbandry end and food technology begin? T h e answer is not an easy one, but is not altogether arbitrary. Agriculture is closely allied to food processing, since both deal directly with food a n d neither particularly require skilled individ-uals. Nevertheless, a clear distinction can a n d should be drawn between these two activities. T h e selection of plants to be grown, the preparing of the soil for planting, the sowing of seeds, the care of the plants during growing, and the liar-vesting of the produce all fall clearly u n d e r agriculture. If foods consumed in their natural state without further processing, as nuts, fresh vegetables, fruits, and milk often are, are not in some way altered after harvesting, they do not fall u n d e r the category of food technology. T h e grape and olive, however, most often receive further treatment after picking, and grains are only selected for their various uses after they have been separated from the stalk through thresh-ing. Food technology begins at the point when these plant foods undergo specif-ic processes to change their form in some way (such as milling grain into Hour) or to so alter them as to create a different food product altogether (for instance, fermenting grapes into wine). In other words, for the grape and olive it is 111 the vat; for grain, it is 011 the threshing room floor. T h e care, raising, and feeding of animals as well as the use of their byproducts, such as wool, skin, horn, a n d so on, plainly belong to animal husbandry. I would also include in the same cate-gory the raising of bees for their honey a n d the milking of cows, sheep, and goats for their milk. But the processing of the honey a n d the production of but-ter, cheese, or yogurt from milk fall into the realm of food processing. So also butchery of the animal, which precedes preservation of the meat, qualifies for inclusion. And finally, (lie methods and tools for catching fish are not part of food processing, but what one does to preserve the fish for later consumption, whether salting, smoking, drying, or fermenting, clearly is.

T h e second question involved what to d o with those subjects that affected food technology but were not part of it. Here, I mean, for example, grain stor-age and long-distance transportation of finished pre )ducts. HcW ing no 1ntcnt10n<il effect 011 the food item, nevertheless, storage of cereals as an alternative to

F O R E W O R D XXVI11

immediate processing docs play a role in the decision of when to process. Like-wise, storage a n d transportation of a food item after processing also constitute a continuation of that process. Here, I am thinking particularly of the racking of wine or the storage of preserved fish a n d their subsequent delivery to market. I have, therefore, classed storage a n d transport containers as part of food technol-ogy in accordance with the m o d e r n definition of the term. And, finally, the invention of pottery led directly to important innovations in cooking and other techniques to alter food. But pottery has m a n y other uses. I have, therefore, restricted my discussion to particular containers that were developed specifically to process foods, a n d have left to others to treat pottery more widely.

The present book is essentially a handbook, and as such, claims only modest aims. It neither breaks new ground nor advances a particular thesis about the subject. It does, however, seek to synthesize the vast a m o u n t of work accom-plished on the topic and to present the state of the question on ancient food tech-nology as it exists in A. D. 2000. Food techtech-nology has never received the atten-tion it deserves, being usually relegated to a minor sidelight in a discussion of agriculture or as an afterthought to general discussions on ancient technology where pride of place goes to engineering, metallurgy, or water power. R. J. Forbes, in Studies in Ancient Technology, for example, devoted comparatively little space to food processing a n d preservation, and scattered this information a m o n g several different volumes." He relied almost exclusively on literary sources, a n d did not attempt to place the role of food technology in its societal context. This book, therefore, will for the first time focus specifically on ancient food technolo-gy, a n d will bring to bear literary, archaeological, epigraphic, art historical, a n d scientific evidence upon the subject. In doing so, it goes beyond previous general histories of ancient technology by showing the interrelationship of food technolo-gy with ancient society, believing that the former cannot with profit be isolated from the latter. I have also sought to point out areas where controversy continues and in which further work is necessary. T o take only one example, food technolo-gy, more so than any other area of ancient technolotechnolo-gy, involved the active partie-ipation of women, since they were in all places and at all times intimately con-nected with its function. In some instances, they may have been the instigators of technical innovation if not of invention itself. Because the information on ancient

11 _{R . J . F o r b e s , Studies in Ancient Technology. 9 Vols. ( L e i d e n : E . J . Brill, 1 9 5 5 - 1 9 6 4 ) . F o r b e s} dis-t r i b u dis-t e s his discussion of f o o d dis-t e c h n o l o g y in f o u r d i f f e r e n dis-t v o l u m e s , widis-th a p o r dis-t i o n of V o l u m e T h r e e c o n t a i n i n g t h e bulk o f t h e m a t e r i a l . H e also w r o t e t h e c h a p t e r o n food t e c h n o l o g y in C h a r l e s S i n g e r , E . J . H o l m y a r d , a n d A. R . H a l l , eds., A History of Technology. 8 Vols. ( O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 5 4 84), I: '238 98, b u t e v e n h e r e he l u m p s c h e m i c a l s a n d c o s m e t i c s a l o n g with f o o d .

food technology is so scattered and because this is the first attempt to bring it all together, I have provided full, though not exhaustive, documentation of both pri-mary and secondary sources. Considering the rate of archaeological discovery and evaluation, some of what is contained between these two covers may be in need of revision by the time it is published. So, for example, as this book was going to press, Cambridge University Press brought out a book entitled Ancient

Egyptian Materials and Technology, too late for me to consult.12

A word needs to be said on the organization of the book. 111 organizing the book along chronological and geographic lines while focussing on products that received processing, I have departed somewhat from the usual topical organiza-tion of handbooks in this series. Food technology tended to be associated with certain plant foods, such as the cereals, grapes, a n d olives, the Mediterranean triad as they have come to be known, but not others, and a few animals, such as cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs, desirable for their meat or dairy by-products. Food technology does not lend itself well to discussion of its separate principles, since several technological applications are often applicable to a single product. So, for instance, grain milling could involve four separate processes: parching, pounding, grinding, a n d sieving. Fermentation plays a primary role in the pro-duction of wine, but so does treading a n d pressing. T o concentrate on each activity or principle separately would, I believe, result in a loss of understanding of the whole, thereby giving a false impression of the technology itself. Addition-ally, to treat the subject strictly topically would, I believe, have hindered, if not prevented, accomplishing a m a j o r goal, that of placing food technology within ancient society. So, for example, Forbes' topical treatment of the subject tends to mix Egyptian, ancient N e a r Eastern, Greek, a n d R o m a n contributions in a way that obscures the role of innovation within each society. My choice has been to a p p r o a c h the topic by culture a n d chronologically within each one. T h e geographical areas include the ancient N e a r East, Egypt, and both the eastern and western Mediterranean. T i m e a n d space constraints, unfortunately, require omission of the Far East a n d the New World. T h e chronological periods u n d e r review span the years from the a p p e a r a n c e of genus homo, ca. two a n d one-half million years ago, to the period of the late R o m a n Empire. Three overlapping time periods structure the work: the prehistoric period, the historical period of Egypt a n d the ancient N e a r East, and the G r a e c o - R o m a n period. I have com-posed each of the three parts as self-contained units, so that each can be read separate from the others. I have, however, provided cross-references and have

1

'-' P a u l T . N i c h o l s o n a n d Ian S h a w , eds., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2000).

F O R E W O R D XXVI11

designated subsections so that someone interested in, say, milling or wine mak-ing could read those parts only of each section. This has, of course, necessitated some repetition across cultures. Effort has been m a d e to keep this to a mini-m u mini-m , though I have not hesitated to include a mini-m o d e r a t e a mini-m o u n t where it seemed necessary for the discussion at h a n d . Comparison of ancient a n d mod-ern production methods a n d description of physical a n d chemical changes undergone by the product when processed, for example, have been placed where the technology is first discussed in detail. T h e quantity a n d quality of evi-dence available, however, has determined where that discussion comes in the book. So, for instance, modern wine making a n d the chemical and physical changes inherent in the process first receive full treatment in the chapter on Egypt, even though Egyptian knowledge of the process apparently came from inhabitants of Southwest Asia. T h e latter people likely acquired it from popula-tions farther to the east where evidence for wine making precedes that in Egypt by nearly a thousand years. While information for wine making in those areas is not plentiful, it is for Egypt. M e t h o d s for salting fish, though probably practiced by peoples of the N e a r East a n d definitely by Greeks, are more clearly under-stood from evidence dating to the R o m a n period. And finally, I have appended to each section a chapter summarizing the technological innovations arising from the cultures discussed. A reader desiring a rapid overview of ancient food technology, therefore, could read these s u m m a r y chapters. I hope that they will also encourage the reader to investigate the other chapters to learn the role of food technology in each ancient culture.

T H E L O W E R A N D M I D D L E P A L E O L I T H I C P E R I O D S

T o undertake a study of the development of ancient food technology wc must first know where a n d when m a n began a n d how he evolved. This is not an easy task. Practitioners of paleontology and paleoanthropology study fossil evidence, such as bones, or artifacts that betray behavior, such as tools, weapons, and jew-elry, a n d c o m p a r e t h e m with m o d e r n data to create hypotheses to explain the evolutionary history of m a n . T h e evidence, however, does not remain static. Archaeological finds increase almost daily, and scientific instruments become ever m o r e accurate a n d precise in measuring various aspects of the evidence. So, for example, no sooner have archaeologists a n n o u n c e d the discovery in one place of the oldest fossil evidence for early m a n , than in another location comes the claim for a still older fossil. This generates reinterpretation of evidence and reconsideration of theories once considered strong. Theories are constantly being produced, altered, refined, a n d sometimes discarded. C h a n g i n g interpre-tations of often contradictory evidence begets controversy a n d characterizes a field continually in (lux. Nevertheless, as competing theories arise a n d contend with each other, dead ends are met, new directions are taken, our understanding of m a n ' s beginnings becomes clearer.

T o impose order on the mass of archaeological material dating to the early Chronological

periods of m a n ' s history — there is, of course, no written evidence — and to fiameumk

relate it to cultural developments down to historic times, prehistorians have defined subdivisions of time based upon observed changes in the most frequently found and widely-spread artifacts, stone tools. So, for instance, the period encompassed by the use of the first tools received the n a m e Paleolithic and, in general terms, spanned the period from roughly '2.5 million years B. P. to about 10,000 years B. P. By convention, these arc further subdivided into Early, or Lower, Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic, a n d Late, or U p p e r , Paleolithic. T h e term "Stone Age" has been attached to archaeological time sequences to distin-guish tool development in Sub-Saharan Africa from what transpired in Europe and Eurasia. T h e division points are roughly identical, except that the Middle Stone Age began about 100,000 years earlier than the Middle Paleolithic. T h e final 10,000 years, roughly 20,000 10,500 B. P., are now in some areas, such as North Africa and the Middle East, frequently denoted Epipaleolithic. In geolog-ic terms, the period coincides with the years stretching from the Late Pliocene

CHAPTER ONE 4

epoch to the Late, or U p p e r , Pleistocene. T h e subsequent period, falling geolog-ically into the Early Holocene, is styled Neolithic, or "New Stone" age, a n d is characterized not only by the m a n u f a c t u r e of polished stone implements, but m o r e importantly by its d o m i n a n t cultural activity, the practice of agriculture a n d the domestication of plants a n d animals. T h e term Mesolithic, sometimes limited to northwestern Europe but frequently applied m o r e broadly, designates the period in the Early Holocene just preceding the arrival of agriculture. O n e needs to keep in mind that, although, as will be shown later, the Paleolithic era began in East Africa and the Neolithic period arose in Southwest Asia, these cul-tural activities may have occurred at different times elsewhere, and, although the sequences of development may be similar, they need not be synchronous. Additionally, every stage of development observed in one area may not always a p p e a r in another. This can result from, a m o n g other factors, the m o m e n t u m a n d direction of the spread of the culture with its technology from one area to another a n d the rate of adaptation of the innovation in a different environment. O u r understanding of the relationship of cultural development in various geo-graphic areas may also be h a m p e r e d by the degree of archaeological work accomplished in one place c o m p a r e d to that in another.1

A. Hominids and Their Tools

Ausiralopiihecines Most everyone agrees that m a n began in Africa, where ca. five or six million years ago (mya) he became genetically separated from the great apes, particularly chim-panzees.2 Until recently, evidence placed the earliest hominid population in Ethiopia, at H a d a r , where in 1974 archaeologists discovered Australopithecus

afaren-sis, familiarly called "Lucy," a small creature with a rather ape-like head who lived

perhaps 3.5 mya.3 Lucy was not the first hominid identified in Africa, but she was

1

G r a h a m e C l a r k , World Prehistory. In New Perspective. 3 r d c d . ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1977), p p . 24—25; 1). B r u c e D i c k s o n , Ancient Preludes. World Prehistory from the Perspectives of Archaeology, Geology, and Paleoecolog}׳ ( M i n n e a p o l i s / St. P a u l : W e s t P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1993), p p .

1 9 2 - 9 3 , '

- R i c h a r d G . K l e i n , " A n a t o m y , B e h a v i o r , a n d M o d e r n H u m a n O r i g i n s , " JWorldPrehisl 9, n o . 2 (1995): 1(59; P. V . T o b i a s , " T h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l B a c k g r o u n d of H o m i n i d E m e r g e n c e a n d t h e A p p e a r a n c e of t h e G e n u s Homo," JHumEvol 6, n o . 2 (1991): 135.

3

D o n a l d C . J o h a n s o n a n d M a i t l a n d A. E d c y , Lucy. The Beginnings of Humankind ( N e w Y o r k : S i m o n a n d S c h u s t e r , 1981). A c o n v e n i e n t s u m m a r y o f t h e physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v a r i o u s Plio-Pleistocenc h o m i n i d s a n d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e i r e v o l u t i o n c a n b e f o u n d in A l a n Bilsbor-o u g h , " D i v e r s i t y , E v Bilsbor-o l u t i Bilsbor-o n a n d A d a p t i Bilsbor-o n in E a r l y H Bilsbor-o m i n i d s , " in StBilsbor-one Age PrehistBilsbor-ory. Studies in Memory of Charles McBurney. G . Ν . Bailey a n d P. C a l l o w , eds. ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1986), p p . 1 9 7 - 2 2 0 .

CHAPTER ONE

6

the oldest up to that time.4 Fossil evidence discovered in 1992-1993, however, indicates that the earliest known hominid population inhabited Aramis, Middle Awash, Ethiopia, about 4.4 mya. T e r m e d Ardipithecus ramidus, this hominid differs significantly from apes in its dental, cranial, and post-cranial characteristics, and to a lesser extent from Australopithecus, with which it may be a sister taxon.5 Shortly after Ard. ramidusי discovery, another find, Australopithecus anamensis, from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya, near Lake T u r k a n a , was announced. Dating between 3.9 and 4.2 mya, this is the earliest hominid which reliable evidence shows to have walked upright at least part of the time.6 A. anamensis may prove to have been an

intermediary in a direct lineage between Ard. ramidus and A. afarensis. T h e r e is, however, controversy over whether these are linear species or examples of the radiation of several different species, some of which were contemporary with each other and only one of which eventually led to humans.7

In addition to H a d a r , A. afarensis fossils have been unearthed at Laetoli in T a n -zania and in the early 1990s at Maka and Fejej in Ethiopia, the latter find possi-bly extending the A. afarensis population back to 4.0-4.18 mya.8 T o judge from bones and fossil footprints, this hominid was especially suited for walking upright, though it retained an essentially ape-like rib cage.9 W h e t h e r linearly derived from

4

Australopithecus africanus w a s first d i s c o v e r e d in 1925 at T a t i n g in S o u t h A f r i c a , w h i l e a r o b u s t f o r m , A. hoisei, w a s d i s c o v e r e d in 1959 in n o r t h e r n T a n z a n i a o n t h e w e s t e r n e d g e of t h e e a s t e r n Rift Valley at O l d u v a i G o r g e . P. V . Tobias, Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 4 ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i -versity Press, 1991), p. 17. V a r i o u s r o b u s t a n d gracile a u s t r a l o p i t h e c i n e s h a v e c o m e to light at o t h e r places in S o u t h A f r i c a , s u c h as S t e r k f o n t e i n , M a k a p a n s g a t , S w a r t k r a n s , a n d D r o m d r a a i . See R i c h a r d G . K l e i n , " T h e S t o n e A g e P r e h i s t o r y o f S o u t h e r n A f r i c a , " AnnRAnth 12 (1983): 2 5 48־; B e r n a r d A. W o o d a n d M . Ellis, " E v i d e n c e for D i e t a r y S p e c i a l i z a t i o n in t h e ' R o b u s t ' A u s -t r a l o p i -t h e c i n e s , " in Fossil Man. New Fac-ts — New Idea. V l a d i m i r V . N o v o -t n y a n d A l c n a M i z e r o v a , eds. (Brno: A n t h r o p o s I n s t i t u t e - M o r a v i a n M u s e u m , 1986), p p . 1 0 2 - 0 3 .

5

T i m 1). W h i t e , G e n S u w a , a n d B e r h a n e A s f a w , "Australopithecus ramidus, a N e w Species of E a r l y H o m i n i d f r o m A r a m i s , E t h i o p i a , " Nature 371 (22 S e p t . 1994): 3 0 6 12; t e r m i n o l o g y revised in Nature 3 7 5 (4 M a y 1995): 88.

6

M e a v e G . L e a k e y , C r a i g S. Feibcl, I a n M c D o u g a l l , a n d A l a n W a l k e r , " N e w F o u r m i l l i o n -y e a r - o l d H o m i n i d S p e c i e s f r o m K a n a p o i a n d Allia Ba-y, K e n -y a , " Nature 3 7 6 (17 A u g . 1995): 5 6 5 7 1. S i n c e as yet l o w e r skeletal r e m a i n s of t h e strongly ape-like h o m i n i d Ard. ramidus h a v e not c o m e t o light, o n e c a n n o t s p e c u l a t e o n t h e d e g r e e of b i p e d a l i t y of this spccies. "Earliest B i p e d a l A n c e s t o r ? " Archaeology (Nov. D e c . 1995): 18. 7 E l i z a b e t h C u l o t t a , " N e w H o m i n i d C r o w d s t h e F i e l d , " Science 2 6 9 (18 A u g . 1995): 9 1 8 ; D e a n Falk, T i m o t h y B. G a g e , B r u c e D u d e k , a n d T o d d R . O l s o n , " D i d M o r e T h a n O n e Specics of H o m i n i d C o e x i s t B e f o r e 3.0 M a ? E v i d e n c e f r o m Blood a n d T e e t h , " JHumEvol 2 9 (1995): 591 6 0 0 ; K l e i n , " A n a t o m y , B e h a v i o r , a n d M o d e r n H u m a n O r i g i n s , " p p . 169 70. B

J o h n K a p p e l m a n , C a r l C . S w i s h e r , III, J o h n G . Fleagle, S o l o m o n Yirga, T h o m a s M . B r o w n , a n d M u l u g e t a F e s e h a , " A g e o f Australopithecus afarensis f r o m Fejej, E t h i o p i a , " JHumEvol 3 0 (1996):

1 3 9 - 4 6 . !1

T i m 1). W h i t e , G e n S u w a , W i l l i a m K . H a r t , R o b e r t G . W a l t e r , G i d a y W o l d e G a b r i e l , J e a n d e H e i n z e l l n , J . D e s m o n d C l a r k , B e r h a n e A s f a w , a n d E l i s a b e t h V r b a , " N e w D i s c o v e r i e s of

Aus-Ard. ramidus or one of several contemporaneous hominids, A. afarensis seems to

have been the ancestor of all later hominids. Somewhere around 3.0 2.5 mya A

afarensis split into two general directions. T h e first, which proved a dead end,

con-stituted the robust australopithecines, usually denominated P[aranthr0pus)

aethiopi-eus, P. robustus, and P. boisei. T h e second, or gracile, form, named A. africanus,

known only from southern Africa, may have led directly to the genus Homo. T h e recent discovery in the H a t a Beds of the Middle Awash Valley of Ethiopia of a new species, Australopithecus garhi, thus far known only from craniodental remains a n d dated to 2.5 mya, has now challenged this conclusion. Although clearly descended from A. afarensis, this hominid possesses some dental features similar to those of early genus Homo. This has led its discoverers to suggest that A. garhi is a prime candidate for the nearest ancestor of our own species.10

M a j o r site locations for fossil remains of the earliest example of the genus demis H o m o

Homo include Olduvai Gorge in T a n z a n i a , in Ethiopia in the vicinity of Lake

T u r k a n a , a n d especially in Kenya, on the northeast shore of Lake T u r k a n a at Koobi Fora a n d at C h e m e r o n to the s o u t h . " T h e genus Homo can be

anatomi-tralopithecus at M a k a in E t h i o p i a , " Nature 3 6 6 (18 N o v . 1993): 261 65; R i c h a r d L e a k e y , 771e Origin of Humankind{ N e w Y o r k : Basic Books, 1994), p p . 5 5 56; M i c h a e l H . D a y , " H o m i n i d L o c o m o t i o n

F r o m T a t i n g to t h e Lactoli F o o t p r i n t s , " in Hominid Evolution. Past, Present, and Future. Phillip V . T o b i a s , e d . ( N e w Y o r k : A l a n R . Liss, Ltd., 1985), p p . 1 1 5 - 2 7 .

10

R i c h a r d G . K l e i n , The Human Career. Human Biological and Cultural Origins ( C h i c a g o : T h e U n i versity of C h i c a g o Press, 1989), p p . 158 62; i d e m , " A n a t o m y , Behavior, a n d M o d e r n H u m a n O r i -g i n s , " p. 170; H e n r y M . M c H c n r y a n d R a n d a l l R. Skelton, "Is Australopithecus africanus A n c e s t r a l to Homo?" in Hominid Evolution, p p . 221 26; a n d T o b i a s , Olduvai Gorge, V o l . 4, p p . 8 11, 8 2 0 27; Bilsb o r o u g h , "Diversity, E v o l u t i o n a n d A d a p t i o n , " p p . 2 1 0 13. T h e lineage of Homo r e m a i n s c o n t r o versial. D o n a l d C . J o h a n s o n a r g u e s t h a t A. afarensis w a s the a n c e s t o r of all later h o m i n i d s , but c o n -siders it m o r e likely t h a t A. africanus led to P. robustus/bosei a n d w a s not a p r e c u r s o r to Homo. H e thinks t h a t t h a t link h a s yet to b e discovered. D o n a l d C . J o h a n s o n , " T h e M o s t Primitive A u s t r a l o p -i t h e c u s , " -in Hom-in-id Evolut-ion, p p . 2 0 3 21. F o r A. garh-i, see B e r h a n e Asfaw, T -i m W h -i t e , O w e n Lovejoy, B r u c e L a t i m e r , Scott Simpson, a n d G e n S u w a , "Austalopithecus garlic. A N e w Species of E a r l y H o m i n i d f r o m Ethiopia,'5 Science 2 8 4 (23 April 1999): 6 2 9 35. Its b r a i n c a s e size of ca. 4 5 0 cc. is well b e l o w t h a t o f H. habilis at ca. 6 4 0 cc. C f . also Leakey, The Origin of Humankind, p p . 21 36.

11

T h a t / / . habilis, t h e earliest i d e n t i f i a b l e e x a m p l e of Homo, r e p r e s e n t s a single t a x o n is strongly m a i n t a i n e d b y T o b i a s , " E n v i r o n m e n t a l B a c k g r o u n d , " 129 4 2 , a n d i d e m , Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 4, p p . 3 49. O t h e r s , h o w e v e r , assert t h a t , b e c a u s e o f significant a n a t o m i c a l v a r i a t i o n s s e e n in fossils f r o m d i f f e r e n t sites, t h e earliest r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f this g e n u s m a y actually r e p r e s e n t t h r e e different species o f Homo. So, f o r i n s t a n c e , d i f f e r e n c e s 111 e n d o c r a n i a l c a p a c i t y a n d t o o t h size incline s o m e s c h o l a r s to believe t h a t Π habilis at O l d u v a i G o r g e differs f r o m Homo finds at K o o b i F o r a a n d so p o s t u l a t e t h r e e s e p a r a t e species: H. habilis sensu stricto, II. rudolfensis, a n d II. ergaster. S e e , e.g., B e r n a r d W o o d , " O r i g i n a n d E v o l u t i o n o f t h e G e n u s Homo" Nature 3 5 5 (27 F e b . 1992): 7 8 3 90; i d e m , " E a r l y H o m i n i d Species a n d S p e c i a t i o n , " JHumEvol 2 2 (1992): 351 6 5 ; D a n i e l L. L i e b e r -m a n , B e r n a r d A. W o o d , a n d D a v i d R. P i l b e a -m , " H o -m o p l a s y a n d E a r l y Ho-mo: a n Analysis of t h e E v o l u t i o n a r y R e l a t i o n s h i p s of II. habilis sensu stricto a n d II. rudolfensis," JHumEvol 3 0 (1996): 97 120; a n d G . Philip R i g h t m i r e , " V a r i a t i o n A m o n g E a r l y Homo C r a n i a f r o m O l d u v a i G o r g e a n d t h e K o o b i F o r a R e g i o n , " AJPA 9 0 (1993): 1 33. '

C H A P T E R ONE

8

cally differentiated from Australopithecus in a n u m b e r of ways, but most clearly by possession of a cranial capacity ranging from two to five times larger.12 T h e dif-ferential between P. robustus, with an average endocranial capacity of 530 cc, a n d the earliest Homo, H. habilis, with 640 cc, is quite small. T h e slightly younger a n d more widely dispersed contemporary, H. erectus, however, had a significantly larger endocranial capacity, averaging 1,043 cc.13 Although increased brain size is important, brain structure seems m o r e critical in processing, learning, and retaining information. Increased mental complexity a n d processing capacity affect linguistic skills, tool use, and social intelligence. 14

12 _{A u s t r a l o p i t h e c i n e c r a n i a v a r y f r o m 3 8 0 cc to 5 3 0 cc, w h i l e t h e earliest Homo h a d a c a p a c i t y} of f r o m 6 0 0 cc to 752 cc. Homo erectus, ;1 l a t e r f o r m f o u n d at sites e x t e n d i n g f r o m A f r i c a to C h i n a o v e r a l o n g s p a n of t i m e , w e i g h s in w i t h a c r a n i a l c a p a c i t y v a r y i n g b e t w e e n 7 0 0 cc a n d 1250 cc. By c o m p a r i s o n , t h e b r a i n of m o d e r n m a n , Homo sapiens sapiens, v a r i e s b e t w e e n 1,000 cc a n d 2 , 0 0 0 cc. T o b i a s gives slightly v a r y i n g figures f o r t h e m e a n e n d o c r a n i a l c a p a c i t i e s f o r e a r l y h o m i n i d s , b u t t h e y a r e relatively close. S e e T o b i a s , Olduvai Gorge, V o l . 4, p. 708, T a b l e 181, a n d p p . 7 9 9 8 0 1 . F r a n k E. Poirier, Understanding Human Evolution. 2 n d e d . ( E n g l e w o o d Cliffs, N . J . : P r e n -tice Hall, 1990), p p . 1 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 1 1 ; D i c k s o n , Ancient Preludes, p p . 185 86; J o h n YVymcr, The Palae-olithic Age ( N e w Y o r k : St. M a r t i n ' s Press, 1982), p p . 4 6 47.

13

F i g u r e s given by Phillip V7. T o b i a s , in L a r r y T r a s k , Phillip V . T o b i a s , T h o m a s W y n n , lain D a v i d s o n , W i l l i a m N o b l e , a n d Paul M e l l a r s , " T h e O r i g i n s o f S p e e c h , " CArchJ 8, ηθ. 1 (1998): 75. Homo habilis m a y u p o n f u r t h e r investigation p r o v e to b e m o r e a n e n d - s t a g e of a u s t r a l o p i t h e c i n e d e v e l o p m e n t t h a n t h e first e x a m p l e of g e n u s Homo. C f . C l a r k , World Prehistory, p. 22. A h o m i n i d similar to II. habilis of e a s t e r n A f r i c a a n d p e r h a p s a p r e c u r s o r to II. erectus has b e e n d i s c o v e r e d at L o n g g u p o in S i c h u a n , C h i n a a n d d a t e s to ca. 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 y e a r s a f t e r t h e a p p e a r a n c e of II. habilis in A f r i c a . R o y L a r i c k a n d Russell C h i c h o n , " T h e First A s i a n s , " Archaeology ( J a n . - F e b . 1996): 5 1 - 5 3 . H. erectus fossils h a v e b e e n r e c o r d e d in N o r t h a n d East A f r i c a (Algeria a n d O l d u v a i G o r g e , f o r e x a m p l e ) , S o u t h e a s t Asia (Java), a n d C h i n a . W h e t h e r II. erectus m a d e it to E u r o p e is o p e n to q u e s -tion. They d i s a p p e a r f r o m t h e fossil r e c o r d s a b o u t 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 B. P., a l t h o u g h s o m e m a y h a v e sur-vived as late as 2 7 , 0 0 0 B.P. in J a v a . C . C . S w i s h e r , III, W . J . R i n k , S. C . A n t o n , H . P. S c h w a r c z , G . H . C u r t i s , A. S u p r i j o , a n d W i d i a s m o r o , " L a t e s t Homo erectus of J a v a : P o t e n t i a l C o n t e m p o r a n e -ity with Homo sapiens in S o u t h e a s t A s i a , " Science 2 7 4 (13 D e c . 1996): 1 8 7 0 - 7 4 ; A n n G i b b o n s , "Homo erectus in J a v a : A 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - Y e a r A n a c h r o n i s m , " Science 2 7 4 (13 D e c . 1996): 1 8 4 1 - 4 2 ; Dick-soil, Ancient Preludes, p p . 187 90; W y m e r , Palaeolithic Age, p p . 46, 138 39; J o h n A. J . G o w l e t t , Ascent to Civilization. The Archaeology of Early Humans. 2 n d e d . ( N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , Inc., 1993), p p . 84- 8 5 , 1 0 0 - 0 9 ; K l e i n , Human Carier, p p . 183 2 2 3 .

" K l e i n , " A n a t o m y , B e h a v i o r , a n d M o d e r n H u m a n O r i g i n s , " p. 169; Poirier, Understanding Human Evolution, p p . 140 42; K a t h l e e n R . G i b s o n , " T o o l U s e , L a n g u a g e a n d Social B e h a v i o r in R e l a t i o n s h i p to I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g C a p a c i t i e s , " in Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evo-lution. K a t h l e e n R. G i b s o n a n d T i m I n g o l d , cds. ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1993), p p . 251 69; C h r i s S t r i n g e r , " H u m a n E v o l u t i o n a n d Biological A d a p t a t i o n in the P l e i s t o c e n e , " in Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology. Prehistoric Human Adaption in Biological Perspective. R o b e r t Foley, e d . ( L o n d o n : A c a d e m i c Press, 1984), p p . 77 78. W h y t h e b r a i n size of Homo i n c r e a s e d as it d i d , t h e r e b y initiating a n e v e r w i d e n i n g d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n it a n d o t h e r e a r l y h o m i n i d s , r e m a i n s u n k n o w n . O n e line of t h o u g h t associates t h e e v o l u t i o n of b i p e d a l i s m w i t h the d e v e l o p m e n t of a b l o o d f l o w system in t h e b r a i n t h a t a l l o w e d for a n i n c r e a s e d c o o l i n g c a p a b i l i t y d u r i n g h y p e r t h e r -m i a t h e r e b y a l l o w i n g f o r l a r g e r b r a i n size a n d i n c r e a s e d -m e n t a l c a p a c i t y . S e e D e a n Falk, " E n l a r g e d O c c i p i t a l / M a r g i n a l Sinuses a n d E m i s s a r y F o r a m i n a : T h e i r Significance in H o m i n i d

T h e C h e m e r o n site in K e n y a has yielded the oldest evidence thus far for the H. habilis and genus Homo. T h e date o f c a . 2.5 mya established for H. habilis, or "skillful m a n , " stone tools is contemporaneous with dating of stone tools found in Ethiopia at K a d a G o n a

and West G o n a . At H a d a r archaeologists have uncovered remains of genus

Homo, dated by potassium-argon dating of volcanic ash to ca. 2.33 mya, in the

same strata as finds of stone flakes and chopping tools of the O l d o w a n lithic industry.1 5 Recent studies showing tool making a n d tool-use a m o n g m o d e r n monkeys a n d chimpanzees, however, cause some hesitation in attributing the first tool use to Homo. If tool behavior of m o d e r n apes is any indication of early hominid activities, australopithecines m a y have used simple tools, particularly wooden ones, which would have left no archaeological trace. But, stone tools m a d e by m o d e r n apes are clearly inferior to those that began to a p p e a r at this time in East Africa.1 6 T h e flaking skill evident in O l d o w a n tools found at G o n a implies a m u c h earlier development of the knowledge of stone-tool manufacture, but the identification of the hominid who m a d e the tools remains unknown. T i m e and location, however, make A. garhi a p r i m e contender for the tool

mak-E v o l u t i o n , " in mak-Evolutionary History 0J the "Robust" Australopithecus. F r e d e r i c k mak-E. G r i n e , e d . ( N e w Y o r k : Aldi n e d e G r u y t e r , 1988), p p . 8 5 9 6 , a n d S t e v e n M i d i e n , 77ie Prehistory of the Mind. A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science ( L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1996), p p . 2 0 4 - 0 6 . A s e c o n d i d e a , r e f e r r e d to as t h e " e n e r g e t i c a p p r o a c h , " suggests t h a t a shift f r o m a n essentially v e g e t a r i a n diet to o n e b a s e d on m e a t , a n d so o n e m o r e easily digestible, allowed f o r smaller gut tissue. T h i s p e r m i t -ted a n e v o l u t i o n w h e r e b y e n e r g y , o t h e r w i s e utilized for a l a r g e r g u t to digest p l a n t f o o d s , w a s d i v e r t e d to t h e b r a i n . T h e e x t r a e n e r g y w e n t i n t o s u p p o r t i n g a l a r g e r b r a i n . T h e r e m a y also b e a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n i n c r e a s e d b r a i n size a n d tin־ e x t r a e n e r g y a c q u i r e d by a m o t h e r w h o s e diet b e g a n to b e m o r e heavily m e a t b a s e d . T h e m o t h e r ' s a d d e d e n e r g y w a s passed o n to h e r fetus w h o s e b r a i n size t h e r e b y i n c r e a s e d . S e e A n n G i b b o n , " S o l v i n g the B r a i n ' s E n e r g y Crisis," Science 2 8 0 , 29) 5 3 6 8 .״ח M a y 1998): 1345 47. But cf. C . M . H l a d k , b . J . C h i v e r s , a n d P. P a s q u e t , " O n D i e t a n d G u t Size in N o n - h u m a n P r i m a t e s a n d H u m a n s : Is t h e r e a R e l a t i o n s h i p to B r a i n Size?" CurrAnth 40, nM. 5 (Dec. 1999): 6 9 5 9 7 .

'־' S. S e m a w , P. R e n n e , J . W . K . H a r r i s , C . S. Feibel, R. L. B e r n o r , N . Fesseha, a n d K . M o w -b r a y , " 2 . 5 - m i l l i o n - y e a r - o l d S t o n e T o o l s f r o m G o n a , E t h i o p i a , " Nature 3 8 5 (23 J a n . 1997): 3 3 3 - 3 6 . W h o m a d e the tools at G o n a is u n k n o w n . See also A . M . H . S., "Earliest R e m a i n s of G e n u s H o m o , " Archaeology 5 0 , 1 (Jan. Feb. 1997): 26; T o b i a s , " E n v i r o n m e n t a l B a c k g r o u n d o f H o m i n i d E m e r g e n c e , " p. 138; i d e m , Olduvai Gorge, V o l . 4, p p . 8 3 0 32; A n d r e w Hill, S t e v e n W a r d , Alan D e m o , G a r n i s s C u r t i s , a n d R o b e r t D r a k e , "Earliest H o m o , " Nature 3 5 5 (20 F e b . 1992): 7 1 9 22; G l y n n Isaac, " T h e A r c h a e o l o g y of H u m a n O r i g i n s : S t u d i e s of t h e L o w e r P l e i s t o c e n e in East A f r i c a 1971 1981," in The Archaeology of Human Origins. B a r b a r a Isaac, c d . ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m -b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1989), p p . 126 '27.

"׳ G r e g o r y C h a r l e s W e s t e r g a a r d a n d S t e p h e n J . S u o m i , " A S i m p l e S t o n e - t o o l T e c h n o l o g ) ׳ in M o n k e y s , " JHumEvol 17 (1994): 4 0 3 . T h e viability of r e l i a n c e o n c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n o b s e r v e d b e h a v i o r s 111 m o d e r n c h i m p a n z e e s a n d o t h e r a p e s a n d a s s u m e d b e h a v i o r s in e a r l y h o m i n i d s is n o t s h a r e d b y all p a l e o a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s . Dissenters p r e f e r t o rely u p o n fossil e v i d e n c e a l o n e . C f . R i c h a r d Polls, " H o m i n i d H u n t e r s ? P r o b l e m s of I d e n t i f y i n g t h e Earliest H u n t e r / G a t h e r e r s , " in Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology, p p . 129 6 6 .