评论
打印
Anyway, they concluded that cooking wasn't necessary to bring about the physiological changes that Wrangham was trying to account for, and that "... meat eating was largely dependent on mechanical processing made possible by the invention of slicing technology."
他们的结论是，如果想要产生兰汉姆解释的生理变化，烹饪并不是必要条件，并且表示“……肉食在很大程度上依赖于机械加工，切片技术的发明使之成为可能。”
So in their understanding, cooking might still have a place in this pivotal moment of human development, but our definition of cooking might have to expand to encompass preparation methods outside of applying heat.
因此，在他们的理解中，烹饪确实可能在那个人类发展的关键时刻十分重要，但我们对烹饪的定义可能需要扩展到生火加热以外的食材准备上去。
There's a big reason this explanation is appealing.
这一解释存在吸引力是有重要原因的。
The cooking hypothesis requires a degree of fire control by hominids dating back 1.8 million years ago.
烹饪假说要求180万年前的原始人对火有一定程度的控制。
At the time of that 1999 piece, the most compelling evidence for the human control of fire dated back only about 250,000 years.
在1999年那篇文章发表的时候，最可信的人类控制火的证据只能追溯到大约25万年前。
Intriguingly, the intervening years have seen new archeological discoveries that provide evidence for controlled use of fire well before that time frame, with compelling evidence pointing as far back as a million years ago.
有趣的是，在之后的几年里，又出现了新的考古发现，这些发现表明远在25万年这一时间之前就有人类祖先控制并使用火的证据，令人信服的证据最早可以追溯到100万年前。
Unfortunately for Wrangham, that leaves about 800,000 years of supposed fire use unaccounted for in the archaeological record.
对兰厄姆来说，不幸的是，考古记录中最早的所谓使用火的记录距离他的推测还有大约80万年。
If we accept even earlier estimates, going back maybe as far as 1.6 million years, there's still a gap in the record.
如果我们接受更早的估计，追溯到160万年前，离180万年还是有些差距。
Wrangham suggests that the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.
兰厄姆认为，缺乏证据并不一定说明没有证据。
And while he's logically correct, fire does have a habit of leaving visual traces of its existence.
虽然他的逻辑是正确的，但火能够留下视觉上看得到的痕迹。
You know, burnt ground, that kind of thing.
你懂的，烧焦的地面，诸如此类的东西。
As Anna K.Behrensmeyer, paleoecologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History said, back in 1999, "I think there would be evidence if it were [behind] as important an evolutionary leap as [Wrangham's team] suggests."
正如1999年史密森尼国家自然历史博物馆的古生态学家安娜·K·贝伦斯迈尔所说，“我认为，如果存在像（兰厄姆的团队）所称的那样重要的进化飞跃，就会存在证据。”
My point was, we need to have this theory in order to encourage people to look for the evidence.
我的观点是，我们需要这个理论，以鼓励人们寻找证据。
And so it's been, you know, very exciting seeing that the evidence for the control of fire has been pushed farther back.
因此，看到人类控制火的证据被推到越来越远的时间点，这是非常令人兴奋的。
The evidence is getting in the right direction.
证据正朝着正确的方向发展。
You know, personally I'm disappointed because I thought within ten years we would totally nail it.
就我个人而言，我很失望，因为我以为十年内我们就能完全搞定它。
But well, give us another ten years and we'll see it all the way back.
但再给我们十年时间，我们就会看到这个理论的来龙去脉。
That doesn't mean we have to throw out Wrangham's insights, or his fascinating book, which I definitely recommend.
我并不是否认兰厄姆的观点，或者他那本引人入胜的书，这是我绝对推荐的。
But it does mean that we might be better off thinking about a range of technological advances, from the development of tools to better hunting practices to the use of fire.
但现在的情况确实意味着，我们最好先考虑一系列技术进步，包括工具的发展，更好的狩猎技术，再去考虑火的使用。
That makes identifying a single food's impact a bit tricky.
这让确定一种食物的影响变得有点棘手。
Tubers and other underground storage organs were probably important, perhaps critically so, but they may not deserve any type of singularly exalted status in our discussion of cooking.
块茎和其他地下贮藏器官可能很重要，也许是至关重要的，但在我们讨论烹饪时，它们可能不配具有特别崇高的地位。
Meat is obviously incredibly important to our development as a species - along with cooking, broadly defined, we might very well say it's what made us human.
肉类显然对人类的发展极其重要——与烹饪一样，从广义上讲，完全可以说是肉类造就了人类。
But I have to admit, on a qualitative level, the life of a hominid from 1.8 million years ago seems to share more with the life of his apelike predecessor than it does with mine.
但我必须承认，在质的层面上，180万年前的原始人的生活似乎与他的类人猿祖先更加接近，而不是和我们更接近。
They're both living outside, they probably can't conceive of language or art, like the Matrix...
他们都住在外面，他们可能没有语言或艺术，就像《黑客帝国》里一样……
Maybe we need to come closer to the present to identify a food that shaped life as we know it today.
也许我们需要出现时间更接近于现在的食物，来确定是哪种食物塑造了我们如今这样的生命。
