After you've read Part II: Rise & Spread of Food Production, identify one point or issue with which you agree, disagree, or about which you would like to learn more. Use the SVHS databases or the Internet to find out more.
Your comment to this post should include the author, title, source, link or database title, and a summary of the source. In your summary, please explain why you choice this particular topic for further exploration.
"Amygdalin" from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. www.mskcc.org/node/3171
ReplyDeleteI wanted to find out more about cyanide poisoning and amygdalin, which is found in almonds. This article provided information about past modern uses for this chemical. It is also called Laetrile and was, at one point, used in Europe and the United States as alternative cancer therapy. It was said to have killed cancer cells. However, lab testing on animals showed that the chemical did not affect the cancer cells, and only gave the tested animals symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It is not an approved drug in the United States and can cause a variety of unpleasant symptoms including death. I decided to research this topic because I was curious about the bitter gene in almonds that early humans were able to engineer away, whether purposeful or not. Humans were probably very quick in understanding that bitter almonds could be fatal, while sweet ones were safe. This probably helped speed up the process of domesticating this species.
Hutchinson, Jennifer. "The Neolithic Revolution." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras, ABC-CLIO, 2016, ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/2. Accessed 28 Dec. 2016.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in conducting further research on the Neolithic Revolution. The article begins by explaining the shift from hunter-gatherers to farmers who were able to refine their current tools and clothing. It then goes on to explain how agriculture started in different regions at different times, such as it starting 10,000 years ago in the near east, 7500 BCE in China, and 3500 in the Americas. The food grown in these regions varied, and the author explains how this shift was not all of sudden but took place over many centuries. There are two common theories of why this shift occurred, one bing the concentration of people and animals in areas where resources were naturally abundant and the other being the lack of resources which forced people to produce their own food. This production of food allowed for the growth of increasingly complex societies which also lead to the spread of diseases. I took an interest in this topic because it is truly amazing how these people in the past decided to change their way of life from hunter-gatherers to farmers. This shift allowed for the advancement of many societies which lead us to where we are today because without this change our lives could be very different right now.
Pryor, Cathy. “Rethinking Indigenous Australia’s Agricultural Past.” RN, ABC, 15 May 2014, www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/rethinking-indigenous-australia’s-agricultural-past/5452454.
ReplyDeleteChapter 8 of Guns, Germs, and Steel is about how certain crops were adopted in some places and not in others, and how the Fertile Crescent was one of the first places agriculture thrived in. Once more, there s limited information on Australia, and prompted me to learn more about early food production in Australia. The article begins by describing Thomas Mitchell's exploration into Australia in the early 1800s, and how his observations contrast to what we originally thought about Australia: that Aboriginal Australians did not develop agriculture. The article then goes on to claim that many historians and writers have stated that Australia was actually very developed in agriculture in ancient times, and that early explorers have described the lands as "cultivated" and "managed" in many writings. The article then goes on to say that Aboriginal Australians were not actually farmers, but were creative hunter-gatherers. They manipulated the land with fire and by clearing underbrush away to make parts of it appealing for certain animals, and then hunted those animals. The article concludes with the fact that people have been trained to look for signs of Aboriginal Australian agriculture, and that more archeological work needs to be done in Australia in order to recognize what was lost when Europeans came to the land. I chose to research this topic more because it seemed unreasonable that Aboriginal Australians never developed agriculture in all of the time that they had, and I wanted to find specifics on their hunter-gatherer methods.
Sanchez-Perez, R., K. Jorgensen, C. E. Olsen, F. Dicenta, and B. L. Moller. "Bitterness in Almonds." Plant Physiology 146.3 (2008): 1040-052. Web. 1 Jan. 2017. http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/146/3/1040.full.
ReplyDeleteIn this study, the causes of wild Almond seeds having a strongly bitter taste is studied. I chose this topic because genealogy, evolution and how we affected the trajectory of some species interests me greatly. For example, almonds have become a healthy food staple and are often farmed, while many other types of nuts and fruits remain wild and not recognized in modern society. This is because our ancestors were skilled enough to breed out the gene that caused the plant to produce cyanogenic diglucoside amygdalin, chemical compound whose taste is very bitter as shown in the journal. They started by analysing the amount of both amygdalin and prunasin in four unique species of almonds. Every two weeks of growth, a measurement was taken and conclusively showed that the bitterness of a species plant had a positive correlation with the amount of amygdalin. As a result of this, they concluded that this was the compound causing the bitterness.
Feranec, Robert S. "Who Dunnit?" Dig, vol. 10, no. 9, Nov.-Dec. 2008, pp. 28-29. Science Reference Center. Accessed 7 Jan. 2017.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 9, Diamond mentions a series of Pleistocene-era extinctions that hindered domestication of animals in the Americas and Australia. I wanted to learn more about these extinctions. This article mainly addresses the cause of the extinctions specific to North America, but also provides some background information on the extinctions themselves. It mentions some animals that were wiped out, such as wooly mammoths and saber-toothed cats. It also discusses how neither human activity nor the fluctuating climate could have wiped out these animals alone, and concludes that it was probably a combination of the two factors. One more interesting detail it mentions is that during that time, the North Americans were still hunter-gatherers and simply hunted these now-extinct animals instead of trying to domesticate them. I chose to research this because these extinctions were a primary reason as to why the Americas and Australia had fewer candidates for domesticated animals than Eurasia.
Mark, Joshua J. "Fertile Crescent." Ancient History Encyclopedia, 2 Sept. 2009. Accessed 18 Jan. 2017
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about the Fertile Crescent, Diamond explained that many people think this is where food production and domestication most likely occurred, because of the soil and climate. This topic interested me, because it is a possible to start to what keeps populations alive today. This article was mainly about the location of the Fertile Crescent and what makes this place so “worthy” of appreciation. Other than food production, the Fertile Crescent is known to be the starting place of urbanization, writing, trade, science, history, and organized religion. This article also states many inventions that were invented here: soap, beer, hygiene. Although Diamond did not state any other inventions besides agriculture, Diamond seemed to speak highly of the Fertile Crescent and so does this author.
Christine Dell’Amore, “Your Hamster May Have Surprising Origins” National Geographic http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/07/hamsters-origins-syrian-aleppo-animals-world-pets/
ReplyDeleteIn part two of Guns, Germs, and Steel Diamond refutes the argument that the failure to domesticate certain animals arose from cultural differences and I was interested in his discussion about keeping wild pets as animals. The article I found discusses the Syrian Hamster and its development from a wild animal to a pet. Including the Syrian Hamster, there are twenty-six species of wild hamsters that can be found in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The Syrian Hamster was first discovered 1797 and was given its name in about 1840. Zoologist Israel Aharoni led an expedition in 1930 to look for Syrian hamsters in Aleppo. Aharoni and his team found a Syrian hamster, or golden hamster and her eleven infants eight feet under a wheat field. Aharoni took the twelve hamsters to study, however the mother ate one of her children so Aharoni was left with ten hamsters. Later more hamsters escaped and other implications occurred which left Aharoni with only four hamsters. The hamsters bred and eventually became pets in the United States and United Kingdom between the 1930s and 1940s. Twelve more hamsters were found underground in Aleppo in 1971 and were sent to the United States, but scientists do not know if there are anymore wild hamsters. Although I could not find a decent article about a more interesting wild animal becoming a pet such as a kangaroo, I thought that the process of hamsters becoming pets was interesting and related to some of Diamond’s information he provided in chapter nine.
Hall, Carol. "Here's Why Zebras Have Never Been Domesticated." Science Alert, 23
ReplyDeleteSept. 2016, www.sciencealert.com/
this-is-why-zebras-have-never-been-domesticated. Accessed 20 Jan. 2017.
After reading Chapter 9 in Guns, Germs, and Steel I was confused why Diamond had mentioned that zebras have never been domesticated. This confused me because I've always seen that they have a close resemblance to the donkey and the horse, I did not understand why they have never been domesticated when it seems that it would be possible to do such a thing. After reading the article I understand. They describe in the article that the zebra is very similar to the horse and the donkey however it resembles the donkey more. It is also a very physical animal that has adapted and survived on its own for so long. It's kick can break a lion's jaw and it is extremely agile it can run out of the possibility of being caught by a lassoe. The horses were domesticated early on and were really adapted to working with humans. As this happened the zebras became more and more adaptive to their environment and their "fight or flight" instincts really increased. They have developed traits that horses have not which make them unsuitable to be domesticated by humans. However, now they're are less than 800,000 in the world and the human race is doing that. The less there are the less there is a chance of domesticating them. So along with physical features and their traits they are not suitable for being domesticated compared to the horses and other tamable animals.
After reading the Chapter in Part Two of Guns, Germs, and Steel I wanted to look into more about how genetically almonds became less poisonous and therefore allowed us to eat them. After looking at the article about Cyanide poisoning in almonds, I realized that there is a small amount of Cyanide in the almonds that we buy from our supermarket. The article said that grocery store almonds contain about 25.2 milligrams of cyanide. This means that someone weighing 160 lbs would have to eat 50 ounces of almonds to maybe get cyanide poisoning. Although it is the bitter almonds that are the most poisonous, and we cannot get them in the United States, eating too many of the bitter almonds can lead to poisoning. Cyanide works fast and might be deadly, as it blocks oxygen from getting to the cells in your body. This surprised me as to why humans would domesticate this kind of nut, when simply they could just eat acorns.
ReplyDeleteCoroleone, Jill. "Can You Get Cyanide Poisoning from Eating Almonds?" LIVESTRONG.COM. Leaf Group, 04 May 2016. Web. 21 Jan. 2017. .
Wolchover, Natalie. "Why Can't All Animals Be Domesticated?" Live Science, 30 Apr. 2012, www.livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html. Accessed 20 Jan. 2017.
ReplyDeleteI was still curious about why all animals could not be domesticated and wanted a clear presentation of all of the reasons after reading Part Two of Guns, a Germs, and Steel. This article helped to clarify and expand on the facts. Once humans realized the usefulness of some animals, domestication began which eventually ended up favoring a number of certain species, including the cow, goat, sheep, chicken, horse, pig, dog, and cat. The question that this article helps answer is: why these species and not others? The first of several criteria that animals supposedly need to meet is not being picky eaters so that they can survive off of what they find around human settlements. Also, animals that mature quickly are ideal because those are the most convenient to humans, because they wouldn't have to put the time, energy, and food into growing animals. The animals must also be able to breed in captivity for humans to be able to utilize them. Next, they should have an amicable nature which makes them more agreeable with humans. They must also be calm and controlled so they won't have a tendency to flee, which would complicate herding. Finally, the species need to have some form of social hierarchy so that they can be taught to recognize humans as the leader. In essence, this article helped me further understand the specific reasons for the selective domestication of species stating the main points and then elaborating on them.
“Here's what fruits and vegetables looked like before we domesticated them” Tanya Lewis
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-fruits-and-vegetables-looked-like-before-we-domesticated-them
In the second part of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond goes into detail about how people domesticated plants to make them more desirable. Diamond mentioned how we domesticated and bred plants like berries to be larger and nuts to be less bitter. This article shows pictures of plants before and after we domesticated or bred out the undesirable traits. Wild bananas were tough and had large, hard seeds, but we bred them to be soft and sweet with smaller seeds. Wild carrots were originally small, white roots but now carrots are sweet, thick, and orange. Peaches were once the size of cherries with large pits and tasted sour and salty. Now, peaches are large, have smaller pits in proportion to the fruit, and taste sweet. This article expanded upon the examples given in GGS.
A Map Of Where Your Food Originated May Surprise You
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/13/481586649/a-map-of-where-your-food-originated-may-surprise-you
JEREMY CHERFAS - author
In the start of chapter 7 of Rise and Spread of Food Production, I was drawn into how all crops that we know today came from a singular wild plant species. Diamond states how crop development is a highly specialized and conscious task carried out by skilled scientists. To achieve their goal of development, they plants seeds in various areas seeing what the outcome may be as they constantly monitor them. The article I found relates to this by showing where the original source of the wild plant really came from. Seeing this opened my eyes and I made me think how scientists managed to make this a plant here? Well, going back to what Diamond had to say, we can see that the scientists used various methods to make this possible. For example, lemons, limes, coconuts, ginger, and eggplants all originated from Southeast Asia. Now, they can be domesticable in the United States and in other parts of the world because of scientists advancement in evolving these wild plants.
Mark, Joshua J. "Fertile Crescent." Ancient History Encyclopedia, www.ancient.eu/ Fertile_Crescent/.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading part 2, I realized that "fertile crescent" was brought up a lot and I was wondering what it was. The book briefly mentioned what the fertile crescent was but I still wanted to know more about it. In this website I learned that the fertile crescent is the area in the Middle East which has a crescent-like shape. It runs from the Persian Gulf through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and northern Egypt where it ends. The fertile crescent received its name in 1916 from James Henry Breasted. It is known as the Cradle of Civilization and is thought to be the birthplace of not only agriculture but also writing, urbanization, trade, science, history, and organized religion. Today the fertile crescent remains only in its name because of extensive damming of rivers and a draining works program brought about by Iraq. The fertile marshlands shrank greatly in size and Syria, Iraq, and Turkey are ignoring pleas from environmental groups to stop damming and draining the lands.
Why Can Some Animals Be Domesticated, But Not Others? By: Suzanne Sadedin
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/24/why-can-some-animals-be-domesticated-but-not-others/#5f28386f1bcc
After reading part 2, my interest in why certain animals could not be domesticated grew, as well as how animals were domesticated. This article first starts off by listing some characteristics of animals that help domesticate it, including having low aggression, low fear, having a group, easily persuaded, mind, and have a fast growth rate so that more generations can be domesticated in a shorter time. Then, the article goes on to explain the work of a scientist who started to breed and domesticate wild foxes, which turned them from lonely and shy animals to friendly and playful. The author then suggests that many animals can be domesticated, it just takes time and patience. Finally, the author touches on the difference between domesticating and taming an animal, with domesticating being selecting certain organisms in a species to benefit humans, while taming is making a particular animal safe and comfortable around humans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html
ReplyDeleteTracking the Ancestry of Corn Back 9,000 Years by Sean B. Carroll
In "How to make an Almond," Jared Diamond notes that scientists are still debating how many years it must have taken for corn to be domesticated. I also wanted to know exactly how much time was taken to make the corn that we know today, and exactly why ancient farmers chose a useless grass to domesticate. This article answers both questions very well. By discovering residue of corn's ancestor, teosinte, on ancient tools that date back to 8,700 years ago, we can conclude that it took about 9,000-10,000 years to fully domesticate corn when it was first discovered. In addition, the residue being found on a grinding tool indicates that the original corn was not domesticated to eat directly, but to grind up into a powder to make starchy foods. Over time, though, different products that would taste good eaten raw would be bred as well, to produce sweet yellow corn.