4 ms·

I think they kind of cover that: > They found the chemical biomarkers of seaweed and aquatic plants in 26 samples, which suggests that early humans were eating

I think they kind of cover that: > They found the chemical biomarkers of seaweed and aquatic plants in 26 samples, which suggests that early humans were eating—or, at the very least, chewing—these bounties from the sea Like, yeah maybe the fish they were eating was covered with seaweed, but unless they were popping the stomach/intestines into their mouth... for the parasite load(?), the seaweed in the fish is digested. This isn't Carbon-14 dating, they identified families of plants on the the ancient teeth, not digested plant matter.

crazygringo 3y ago
There are plenty of compounds that aren't broken down by digestion. Salmon flesh is pink because of the astaxanthin in its natural diet, for example. And the article doesn't make any mention of which specific biomarkers they chose or whether they're affected by digestion. They're obviously pretty hardy compounds to begin with if they're not broken down by saliva to begin with, or thousands of years of natural decay. And it does seem kind of akin to carbon-14 dating. It's not like they found actual recognizable pieces of the plants in between their teeth or anything.
- undersuit 3y ago
  Don't worry: >Aquatic ecosystems are complex with some isotopic variability even within the same species of seaweed, freshwater algae, and freshwater aquatic plants (macrophytes), making use of this C&N isotopic data to detect these resources somewhat challenging, certainly where it represents <20% of the diet. Moreover, while stable isotopic analysis remains valuable in providing a broad view of major foods consumed, this is dependent on the dietary protein intake, with seaweeds lower in protein compared to meat or fish, and can therefore be overlooked due to equifinality, where other foods can, in combination, be used to explain the stable isotopic data observed, sometimes in contradiction to other archaeological evidence available. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41671-2#Sec8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41671-2#Sec8

crazygringo 3y ago

There are plenty of compounds that aren't broken down by digestion. Salmon flesh is pink because of the astaxanthin in its natural diet, for example. And the article doesn't make any mention of which specific biomarkers they chose or whether they're affected by digestion. They're obviously pretty hardy compounds to begin with if they're not broken down by saliva to begin with, or thousands of years of natural decay. And it does seem kind of akin to carbon-14 dating. It's not like they found actual recognizable pieces of the plants in between their teeth or anything.

undersuit 3y ago
Don't worry: >Aquatic ecosystems are complex with some isotopic variability even within the same species of seaweed, freshwater algae, and freshwater aquatic plants (macrophytes), making use of this C&N isotopic data to detect these resources somewhat challenging, certainly where it represents <20% of the diet. Moreover, while stable isotopic analysis remains valuable in providing a broad view of major foods consumed, this is dependent on the dietary protein intake, with seaweeds lower in protein compared to meat or fish, and can therefore be overlooked due to equifinality, where other foods can, in combination, be used to explain the stable isotopic data observed, sometimes in contradiction to other archaeological evidence available. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41671-2#Sec8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41671-2#Sec8