1

THIS IS A PRE-PRINT VERSION

The final published version can be found at

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315001166

* Corresponding author: email: fleroy@vub.ac.be, tel: +32-2-6293612

MEAT TRADITIONS: THE CO-EVOLUTION OF HUMANS AND MEAT

Frédéric LEROY*1 and Istvan PRAET

2

1 Research Group of Industrial Microbiology and Food Biotechnology (IMDO), Faculty of Sciences

and Bioengineering Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium

2 Department of Life Sciences, University of Roehampton, Whitelands College, Holybourne Avenue,

London SW15 4JD, United Kingdom

2

Abstract

The debate on the future of meat centres on recent environmental, economical, ethical, and health

issues, whereas historical dimensions are all too often overlooked. The fiery discussions are

nevertheless affected by an underlying legacy of “meat traditions” and accompanying hunting,

slaughtering, eating, and sharing activities, rituals, and rites. Eating meat is a biocultural activity.

Therefore, a closer inspection of the evolutionary, collective, and semiotic aspects of meat in human

societies is required. This study ventures such an exploration based on a heuristic model inspired by

Maslow’s pyramid of needs, distinguishing between physiological, security, community, value, and

holistic levels. Besides the potential relevance of an innate craving, it is argued that meat has

interfered with the development of fundamental human characteristics, both as a physical and

conceptual resource. This relates, amongst others, to elements of gender differentiation, cooperation

and reciprocity, social stratification and power, religion, cultural expression, and identity. As such,

meat traditions provide a basis for evolutionary and long-term social processes, on which more recent

and shallow courses of action are superposed, affecting contemporary behaviour. Several research

questions were identified to further explore and anticipate the impact of meat on human populations

and their societal and economic functioning.

Keywords: meat, society, evolution, culture, tradition, history, Maslow

3

1. Introduction

Meat is a key element of our evolutionary heritage (Stanford, 1999; Stanford & Bunn, 2001; Smil,

2002, 2013). The age-old interlacing of the collection, consumption, and societal integration of meat

(hereafter labelled as “meat traditions”) with hominin development has influenced our biological and

cultural modes of operating (Ehrlich, 2000). Although some have labelled meat as the most significant

of foods, particularly rich in social and cultural meaning (Twigg, 1983; Seleshe et al., 2014), its true

societal impact has not received the attention it deserves. For policy makers, this would nonetheless

represent a strategic factor in view of the imminent courses of action that are required to set up

sustainable meat production systems (Hoogland et al., 2005; de Boer et al., 2006; Boland et al., 2013;

Vranken et al., 2014), and to improve food security (Población, 2013). Instead, a poor understanding

of the factual bearing of meat traditions jeopardizes attempts to predict trends in global meat intake

and to moderate its consumption (Vinnari & Tapio, 2009), even if such intentions are emerging

amongst a considerable minority of consumers (Walters & Portness, 1999; Latvala et al., 2012;

Vranken et al., 2014). This leads, for instance, to arguments on whether or not meat-eating is normal,

natural, and necessary (Shepard, 1998; Joy, 2010; DeMello, 2012; Smil, 2013; Graça et al., 2014).

According to Fiddes (1991), the issue may not even be why we eat meat at all, but rather why we do

so consistently and in such quantities, and why with such ceremony and strong emotional responses.

Or, as commented by Smil (2002): “there is little that is neutral about meat”.

To understand how food affects human societies over time, attention to historical change is

crucial (Pilcher, 2006). Understanding the historical trajectory of meat is therefore essential (Burkert

et al., 1987; Jones, 2007; Pollan, 2013). However, tracing this historical framework is a complex task,

as meat is embedded in numerous ecological, cultural, and social processes (Bulliet, 2005; deFrance,

2009), and subjected to personal and perceptual interferences (de Boer et al., 2006; Turner &

Thompson, 2013). These effects can usefully be understood as acting in a cascade-like framework,

creating heterogeneity between and within societies and influencing contemporary behaviour.

The present study will mostly focus on the long-standing developments of meat traditions and

intends to contribute to a more adequate anticipation of future tendencies related to the production and

4

consumption of animal muscle. Evidently, we are aware of the crudeness of our approach, which is of

a sensitizing rather than definitive nature. It certainly has not been our ambition to cover all aspects of

this intricate theme in detail. Nevertheless, as the linkage between physiological and social

perspectives on meat traditions is still largely uncharted territory, it is our opinion that the study will

help to engender an indispensable debate on the matter through the identification of pertinent research

questions.

2. A model approach

World challenges within the area of food and agriculture are highly complex and multidisciplinary,

involving the interactions and dynamics of human communities (van Mil et al., 2014). In agreement

with Belasco (2008), food-related behaviour should be studied as a system, requiring an integrated

approach for dedicated contemplation. More specifically, the structural outline of this study is inspired

by the pyramid of needs (Maslow, 1943), containing a physiological basis, followed by a security,

community, value, and holistic level (Fig. 1). Notwithstanding its intuitive theoretical value and

lasting usefulness in a wide range of different disciplines (e.g., Taormina & Gao, 2013; Burhan et al.,

2014; Jackson et al., 2014; Rajasakran et al., 2014), Maslow’s approach has sometimes been criticized

for a number of reasons, but within specific contexts of application and not on a universal level. These

include its linear and upward directional build-up, the rigidness of its layers, the questionable upper

position of self-esteem, and a too “individualistic” emphasis on self-actualization (Rajasakran et al.,

2014). Critique on the lack of empirical validation is not entirely fair, as some studies clearly go into

that direction (e.g., Taormina & Gao, 2013; Burhan et al., 2014). Taken together, we believe that the

model nevertheless offers an excellent scaffold to organize thought and to hierarchically condense the

complexity of a vast topic into a workable set of basic layers. Moreover, the built-in spotlight on

human needs and motivations is central to the development and implications of meat traditions,

further supporting the choice of methodology for the specific purposes of the present study.

Even though the pyramid of needs has been used to study food issues before, e.g., with

respect to health promotion (Webb, 2007), the dedicated use of this methodology as presented here is

5

novel and differs in intent from Maslow’s original. We have ventured to refine the model, addressing

the above-mentioned points of critique and adapting it to our specific case. As a result, the potentially

problematic layers of self-esteem and self-actualization have been replaced by more appropriate

denominations for the current theme, i.e., “value and hierarchy” and “holism and symbolic impact”,

respectively. Also, in contrast to common interpretation, we do not imply strict demarcation or a

causal and linear progression of the different layers, although this may at times be corresponding with

the chronological and evolutionary data. Yet, readers who do not share our reservations about

diachronicity and teleological implications are of course free to interpret the data according to the

model’s original setup. As for all organized and complex systems, in both natural sciences and

humanities, different levels of structure can emerge from previous ones through phase shifts but not in

predictable ways and with their own set of specific laws (Gazzaniga, 2011). The heuristic model also

presents a rough nature-nurture gradient, which is at least partially arbitrary but facilitates the

comprehensive understanding of societal developments (Ehrlich, 2000). Whereas the physiological

level refers to biological evolution, cultural elements gradually gain in importance over the different

layers to achieve their maximal impact on the holistic top level. While the lower levels are situated

within evolutionary and distal time frames, the upper ones become progressively more proximal,

heterogeneous, and context-related (de Boer et al., 2006). Yet, we would like to warn against a too

stereotypical viewing of prehistory over long stretches of time in contrast to a succession of more

recent epochs, which may create the illusion of a transition from a biological to a social state of being

(Jones, 2007). In how far each level is “biological” or “cultural” is not just a conceptual problem but

also an empirical question, requiring more fine-grained investigation.

Although a modification of the pyramid of needs has been our model of choice, other

structuring methods could have served equally well. The pyramidal pattern of cultural materialism

would have been an evident alternative (Harris, 1979; Fig. 1). According to the latter framework, food

traditions are a function of biophysiological, environmental, demographic, technological, and

political-economic factors (Harris, 1987). Yet, its assumption that culture is a mere social code and

surface pattern, obscuring biological fundaments, contrasts with the view of scholars that emphasize

social drama and narratives (Jones, 2007). In this study, we have chosen not to pre-judge whether

6

meat traditions are determined by “fundamental biological needs” or “environmental constraints” (as

cultural materialism assumes) or whether they are the result of some kind of biosocial will and

constitute a creative force in themselves. Other options to tackle the vastness of the subject could have

included the AGIL paradigm schemes (Parsons, 1970), the four-stage information model by Lenski

(1974), or ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), each with their own set of advantages

and disadvantages. Proper application of the mature version of ecological system theory, and its

emphasis on proximal processes, would for instance have led to a large amount of complexity (Tudge

et al., 2009), exceeding the scope of the present study.

3. Physiological level: evolutionary impact

The bottom level of the model (Fig. 1) stretches back to the Palaeolithic era, relating to the evolution

of hominins into Homo sapiens. It reflects the indispensable physiological meaning and dietary

relevance of meat for the sustainability and development of our ancestors and, although this aspect

became less relevant in the post-Neolithic period due to altered lifestyles and food production systems

(Smil, 2002), it raises questions as to which degree meat still has a biological urgency today (Fig. 2).

3.1. Meat for brains

As a precious resource of energy and protein, meat has been involved in the evolutionary

development of hominins into intelligent and social mammals, although the chain of causality of this

process remains uncertain. A growing reliance on meat consumption has been underlined by

comparative gut morphology, records from fossil stable isotope and cranio-dental feature analyses, the

co-evolutionary behaviour of certain parasites, and the finding that humans have poor in vivo

capacities to produce taurin and to elongate plant fatty acids (Man, 2007; Pereira & Vicente, 2013).

The augmentation of meat-eating during the period of cephalic development of hominins during the

Pleistocene is well documented (Flinn et al., 2005), although the consumption of plant material

remained abundant (Bulliet, 2005). Homo erectus, for instance, was clearly more predatory and a

7

larger consumer of animal products than earlier species (Shipman & Walker, 1989). Therefore, a

prominent role of meat in the bioenergetic transformations needed to support the development of the

human brain has been suggested, acting via increases in the dopaminergic activity (Previc, 2009) and

nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide levels (Williams & Dunbar, 2013), and via the fuelling of the

cerebral phosphocreatine circuits (Pfefferle et al., 2011).

The expensive-tissue hypothesis has played a pivotal role in this meat-for-brains hypothesis,

suggesting a constricted relationship between dietary changes, brain size, and gut build-up (Aiello &

Wheeler, 1995). Brain development would have been energetically enabled by the relative reduction

of a metabolically expensive intestinal system, shifting towards the use of high-quality foods of

animal origin. Larger brains, in turn, are needed for complex foraging behaviour, the emergence of

more elaborate cognitive skills, and the use of tools (e.g., for extracting bone marrow). Nonetheless,

some authors have questioned the direct brain-gut relationship, suggesting possible contributions to

energetic availability for brain development via other effects, including decreased locomotion costs as

well as cognitive and social solutions for stabilised energy input (Navarrete et al., 2011). In addition,

the fire-based thermal processing of food, both animal and vegetal, may have offered energetic

advantages (Carmody et al., 2011)

Of course, meat has merely been acting as the nutritional input required for brain building and

not as the actual trigger. The driver for this process is to be found elsewhere (Gazzaniga, 2011),

probably in the emerging need for trouble-solving to guarantee food security (see section 4) and the

challenges imposed by sociogenesis, as discussed below (see section 5.1).

3.2. Meat hunger

Based on the above-mentioned physiological importance of meat as a potent fuel and source of

building blocks, an evolutionary propensity for meat craving may have been established, in particular

when on low-protein diets. This assumption would imply an inborn and universal “meat hunger”

(Harris, 1987). Accordingly, it has been suggested that homeostatic regulations and learned

8

associations between protein intake, umami taste, and post-ingestive signalling (Morrison et al.,

2012), may be at the basis of a yearning for savoury high-protein foods (Griffioen-Roose et al., 2012).

However, one should bear in mind that food craving is a complex phenomenon resulting from

underlying cognitive, conditioning, and emotional processes, not to be simplified as the direct result

of specific foods or nutritional needs, and not necessarily synonymous with an increased intake of the

craved foodstuffs (Hill, 2007). Indeed, dietary inclinations may be overruled by socio-cultural factors

and some scholars challenge the notion of a biologically-engraved homogeneity of the human taste for

meat (Orlove, 1997; Renton, 2013).

3.3. Contemporary effects and implications for future research

The question arises if lasting evolutionary consequences related to the above-mentioned mechanisms

of brain fuelling and meat craving are to be expected; this would imply a potential physiological drive

for meat inclusion in human diets (Fig. 2). The evolutionary discordance model, for instance,

advocates the health benefits of a Palaeolithic meat-based diet based on instinctual and genetically

determined grounds, although this approach may overlook human behavioural, genetic, and metabolic

flexibility (Turner & Thompson, 2013).

With respect to the relevance of meat for brain fuelling, some experimental data indeed

suggest that creatine supplementation can beneficially affect brain health and function (Allen, 2012),

for instance by improving working memory and intelligence scores in vegetarians and vegans, who

likely have lower phosphocreatine reserves (Rae et al., 2003). Yet, it is not clear to which degree such

effects can be achieved through actual meat consumption and dedicated clinical studies would be

needed to support these preliminary findings.

Whether and how an innate meat craving can influence meat consumption trends remains

unclear. In an Australian study by Lea & Worsley (2003), 78% of the respondents saw the enjoyment

of eating meat as the main obstacle for becoming vegetarian. Likewise, 23% of former Canadian

female vegetarians admitted reverting to omnivorous diets because of reminiscence for the taste of

meat (Barr & Chapman, 2002). In some other surveys, however, meat has been reported as a food

9

category yielding low “desire to eat”, in particular with women and vegetarians (Blechert et al., 2014).

Although deliberate meat avoidance is more common amongst Western females than males (Fiddes,

1991; DeMello, 2012; Ruby, 2012), this is not universal (Morris, 1994) and could as well be due to

present-day concerns about weight control, health, and animal ethics, or to differences in stress-

induced eating behaviour (Haverstock & Forgays, 2012). Note that gender effects also appear in the

subsequent levels of the model, as discussed below. Further behavioural field studies are required as

these lines of thought have been insufficiently explored, especially when compared to the body of

research dealing with sugar craving (Ventura et al., 2014).

4. Security level: cooperative system development

The second stage of the model serves as a stepping stone between the preceding physiological level

and the subsequent community-centred level (Fig. 1). On the one hand, it underlines the vital aspect of

meat in the Palaeolithic for biological functioning, leading to precarious situations if supply became

problematic. On the other hand, it deals with the formation of social interaction schemes to maximize

food security, eventually leading to sociogenesis. Although such developments are rooted in a distant

past, the discussion below suggests that the associated mechanisms are still operating in contemporary

societies (Fig. 2), despite the fact that overt links with meat traditions have been blurred and replaced

by more complex economic and political relationships.

4.1. Cooperative meat hunting

For survival, social entities adjust to their environments in ways that depend on access to resources

and organization of labour. Hunting for meat may have instigated cooperation, although such

transition is better explained by multiple factors than by a single model (Smith et al., 2012). Meat-

providing strategies, originally based on (confrontational) scavenging, eventually led to group

hunting, with humans becoming obligate collaborative foragers (Stanford & Bunn, 2001; Tomasello

et al., 2012). Thus, male-dominated cooperative hunting schemes developed (Boesch, 2002); a

10

behaviour sometimes mirrored in chimpanzees (Fahy et al., 2013), but not in other great apes

(Tomasello et al., 2012). Even if some of the required traits may be innate, the more refined hunting

roles evolve with age, sometimes after lengthy learning periods (Boesch, 2002).

4.2. Sex-differentiated cooperation

It has been speculated that food security issues were at the origin of sexual task segregation, leading

to male-dominated hunting (Kuhn & Stiner, 2006). Whether this is rooted in a remote evolutionary

past shared with other hominins (Fahy et al., 2013) or not older than the Upper Paleolithic (Kuhn &

Stiner, 2006), is subject to debate. Reasons for this differentiation may be related to the perilous

nature of hunting, which would have put the preciousness of pregnancy and child care at avoidable

risk (Stanford & Bunn, 2001). According to socio-biological speculation, reproductive-age women

may even have acted as a means for energy storage based on their glutealfemoral fat deposits

(Leonetti & Chabot-Hanowell, 2011). To close the occupational gap, women focused on food

gathering and processing (Stoet, 2011), balancing nutrients and supplying food during periods of low

hunting success (Leonetti & Chabot-Hanowell, 2011). Deviations from this pattern may occur so that

female contributions to hunting become substantial, in particular when prey is abundant and hunting

failures are low (Bliege Bird & Bird, 2008). Focus should therefore not be on the sexual task division

in pregiven gender terms, but rather on the emergence of gender within a specific socioecological

context. According to Kuhn & Stiner (2006), sexual task division provided a demographic advantage

for H. sapiens over other hominins in Eurasia. The distinctively human investment in family

provisioning by males may be ascribed to an outweighing of its associated energetic costs by the

benefits of transporting hunted prey to the home basis, considering the energy-dense character of

meat. Meat exchanges amongst kin may or may not be linked to inclusive fitness theory (Koster,

2011), but this was not necessarily the primary goal as more elaborate non-kin resource sharing was

envisaged by the hunters.

4.3. Sharing and trade of meat

11

Non-kin sharing of meat obtained by hunting seems to have added substantially to the fruition of

unique human characteristics (Jones, 2007; Koster, 2011). Due to the perishable nature of meat, the

capturing of large prey that exceeded the nutritional requirements of the hunter and his nearest kin

probably led to sharing behaviour with low associated costs. Because of the unpredictability of

hunting, sharing decreases risks and leads to lower daily variations and higher averages (Hawkes,

1991). Yet, excessive focus on this “Man-the-Hunter” point of view has been dismissed by feminist

critique (Slocum, 1975; Stanford, 1999). Sophisticated meat sharing systems have been described in

hunter societies, but there is divergence with respect to its variability and the underlying biocultural

motives (Thiel, 1994; Hawkes et al., 2001a,b; Sugiyama & Sugiyama, 2003).

Chimpanzee populations are often studied as models for early hominins, as they arguably

display a certain degree of cultural diversity and engage in both coordinated hunting and non-kin

sharing of meat, albeit to a limited extent and despite the fact that they are mostly herbivorous

(Stanford, 1999; Stanford & Bunn, 2001; Tomasello et al., 2012). It has been suggested that males

give captured meat to unrelated females in return for sexual favours (Gomes & Boesch, 2009). Others

refute this hypothesis and state that meat-sharing behaviour in chimpanzees results from sharing-

under-pressure (“tolerated theft”) to avoid harassment (Gilby, 2006; Gilby et al., 2010), although both

hypotheses are not mutually exclusive (Jaeggi & Van Schaik, 2011). Alternatively, male chimpanzees

may share meat for social bonding and agonistic support (Mitani & Watts, 2001). They do not,

however, bring food back to a centralized location to provision others (Tomasello et al., 2012).

With respect to human hunter-gatherers, sharing-under-pressure may occur too, but

mutualistic behaviour and reciprocal altruism, frequently framed in a meat-for-sex hypothesis

favouring the more successful hunters, seem more plausible to some researchers (Gurven, 2004; Gilby

et al., 2010; Tomasello et al., 2012). As a result, “market”-type social interactions and long-term

relationships may well have originated from a set of exchangeable commodities for meat, including

sex, child care, healing, information, tool production, and even coalitionary support and protection

(Sugiyama & Sugiyama, 2003; Gomes & Boesch, 2011; Jaeggi & Van Schaik, 2011). Cashinahua

males, to mention just one example from field studies, use meat in exchange for sexual intercourse but

12

also for political manoeuvring (Kensinger, 1983). Yet in many other ethnographic cases, such a

straightforward link is often absent (e.g., Descola, 1996; Ingold, 2000). Even so, meat - and later

cattle - probably have played an important role as social pecunia, thus being at the origins of

economic and political currency-based working models (Stanford, 1999; Ehrlich, 2000).

4.4. Contemporary effects and implications for future research

Mechanisms that originally led to cooperative meat traditions have now evolved into the complex,

multifaceted market interactions that characterize global economy. The original aspects of group

tactics, altruism, and cheating have been heavily recontextualized, so that a direct implication of meat

traditions is no longer applicable. For some aspects, however, a durable impact on human behaviour

has been suggested, including the consequences of male provisioning on the structuring of nuclear

families (Hawkes, 1991). When dealing with meat, an archetypal masculine aura is present in some

societies that have long abandoned substantial hunting practices (an observation to which we will

come back in section 7.4). This has for instance been described for contemporary North Americans

(Harris, 1987; Sobal, 2005) and in Cretan villages (Herzfeld, 1985). In contrast to other food stuffs,

the sourcing of meat (e.g., at the butcher’s shop) and its preparation still have a mannish tinge,

particularly for special occasions (Fiddes, 1991), with cooking often being public and outdoors, and

involving fire (Sobal, 2005; Kiple, 2007). Further anthropological investigation should look into the

societal pertinence of these findings and their likely cross-cultural variations.

5. Community level: sociogenesis

The community level logically follows the previous level dealing with food security, as social

activities originally aiming at the stabilization of the meat supply engendered more elaborate

collective networks and activities (Fig. 1). This level distinction is obviously not a purely

chronological succession since the development of human communal behaviour, involving advanced

intelligence and language, cannot be uncoupled from the brain expansion theories and the need for

13

cooperation and proto-economic interactions, as described for the first two levels. It does, however,

single out certain societal features of which further examination should lead to a better comprehension

of contemporary behaviour (Fig. 2).

5.1. The social brain and linguistic development

In contrast to theories that point towards the solving of ecological problems or implications of

nutritional, morphological, and functional alterations, the “social brain hypothesis” entails that

intelligence is associated with the emergence of complex social interactions, involving such traits as

tactical deception and coalition-formation (Dunbar, 1998; Gamble et al., 2011; Gowlett et al., 2012).

From a similar perspective, the “ecological dominance-social competition” model states that primary

cognitive skills to master the natural world evolved into competition for dominance amongst peers in

an increasingly complex social structure, thus selecting for advanced communication, empathic, and

other social skills (Flinn et al., 2005). Along this process, female-centred households materialized

from focal sites, which offered protection of obtained carcasses against carnivores (Rose & Marshall,

1996). This eventually led to the promotion of kinship, bonding, and cultural transmission, including

linguistic development (Stanford, 1999; Leonetti & Chabot-Hanowell, 2011).

Speculations on the origin of language are numerous (e.g., Ferretti & Adornetti, 2014; Woll,

2014), whereby explicit links have often been made to the emerging need for cooperation in hunting

and meat sharing (Jones, 2007; Swatland, 2010). As such, it was crucial for the understanding of the

intentions of interlocutors (Dunbar, 1998) and to deal with the increase in social complexity (Gamble

et al., 2011). For instance, it has been suggested that language developed from social grooming,

involving female “gossiping” coalitions to dissuade males from skirmishing and force them into

hunting coalitions for the benefit of the group, eventually causing women to be more verbal and

socially skilful (Dunbar, 1996). Paralleling the improvement in coordination skills, communication

may then have been refined from pointing and pantomiming towards conventional languages

(Tomasello et al., 2012). In this process, the use of metaphor is crucial for both human cognition and

societal development (Dunbar, 1998), as much of our social and physical reality is understood in

14

orientational, ontological, and structural metaphores. Meat traditions have potentially established

some of the main metaphorical building blocks identified by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), such as

“collaboration”, “shared”, “pursuing”, “companion”, and “resources”.

5.2. Social bonding, friendship, and community meat rituals

Since time immemorial, hunting and meat sharing have played a role in human intra-community

relationships (Jones, 2007; Pollan, 2013). Even in chimpanzee populations, both aspects are related to

bonding and the development and maintenance of relationships between males (Mitani & Watts,

2001). Hunting can represent a way to escape social tensions in the presence of close friends, as

observed for the Peruvian Cashinahua (Kensinger, 1983), or a way to structure long-termed

interpersonal relationships that could be drawn on in times of destitution, as for the Brazilian Xavante

(Welch, 2014) and the residents of the lower Omo valley in Ethiopia (Tadie & Fisher, 2013). The

sharing of food, and meat in particular, equally acts as a bonding mechanism (Belasco, 2008), as well

as a powerful system of communication, a statement of shared values, and an expression of affiliation,

hospitality, gratification, and affection (Fiddes, 1991; Welch, 2014). Intriguingly, both hunting and

meat commensality often have had - and still seem to have - a ritual character (Welch, 2014), for

instance involving shamanism, which may not only lead to altered states of consciousness but also to

enhanced social cohesion (Rossano, 2007). Whereas community and commensality aspects of meat

traditions are further discussed in section 6.2, a further reference to the importance of ritual is to be

found in section 7.1.

5.3. Contemporary effects and implications for future research

Whether or not the above-mentioned mechanisms are still operative within today’s communal

bonding systems would require dedicated approaches (Fig. 2). Philological and linguistic

methodologies, for instance, should be employed to study to which degree meat traditions have

penetrated and still affect worldwide languages and reasoning, including some of the central

15

metaphors. Even though hunting has now globally moved to the background, still leading to a sort of

Männerbund in certain (sub)societies (Burkert et al., 1987), the sharing of (specific types of) meat

remains an important social activity (Smil, 2002; Johnson et al., 2011). In a recent focus group study

by Graça et al. (2014), some participants stated that meat consumption affirms belongingness,

gastronomic tradition, and collective identity. This is especially the case during festivities, both of a

civic and religious nature (Orlove, 1997; Población, 2013; Seleshe et al., 2014). Meat is not only a

central part of Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Eid al-Adha celebrations, but also of local

festivals such as German Schlachtfests, Spanish matanzas, and Italian maialatas (Smil, 2013). Such

culturally deep-rooted meat traditions and rituals will likely be playing a role in the future shaping of

meat production systems. They may even hold back socio-economic reorientation and development

strategies that target chronic malnutrition (Población, 2013). Nevertheless, a more systematic review

of what the anthropological literature has to say about this specific issue would no doubt be a fruitful

exercise. Given the current state of our knowledge, it may seem hazardous to theorize about the exact

role of meat in sociogenesis and bonding, especially in Palaeolithic cultures, yet recent advances in

social anthropology suggest that such an enterprise is, at least in principle, not unfeasible. Sustained

comparative research demonstrating long-term cultural continuities and what some call

“anthropological invariants” (e.g., Descola 2005) is particularly promising in this respect.

6. Value level: hierarchal positioning

This level of the model illustrates how communities that were forged by meat traditions can undergo

differentiation and structuring into specific hierarchies. Once again, this is a conceptual rather than a

clear-cut chronological continuation of the previous levels. Although it partly refers to the Palaeolithic

and Mesolithic periods, an increasingly heterogeneous and culture-dependent role of meat in the

consolidation or abolishment of power structures becomes apparent throughout the ages.

6.1. Social differentiation

16

With increasing population sizes, for instance due to prey abundance during the Upper Palaeolithic,

societies became increasingly sedentary and less egalitarian (Rossano, 2007), developing notions of

niche specialization, private ownership, and a stronger masculine control of the resource base

(Ehrlich, 2000; Sugiyama & Sugiyama, 2003; Leonetti & Chabot-Hanowell, 2011). In contrast to

hominids structured around alpha males, as is the case for chimpanzees, human societies nevertheless

are believed to originally have been of an egalitarian nature, based on tribe membership and often

including sexual parity despite differences in gender roles (see section 4.2). Eventually, societal

positioning and economic stratification developed along meat-based scenarios, with meat distribution

acting as a source of inequality (Bulliet, 2005; deFrance, 2009). As any cooperative scheme, meat

sharing is vulnerable to the risk of free riders, a problem believed to have been tackled through social

selection by means of reputation and the development of sensitive cheater-detection abilities. Early

hominin bands must have had notions of interdependency and mutualistic cooperation, penalizing

cheaters through shunning and exclusion from mating (Tomasello et al., 2012). A direct contribution

of meat to hierarchal positioning in hunter societies is reflected in the phenomenon of costly

signalling, in which prey that are hard to kill are displayed and distributed, for instance during

collective feasts, as to transmit information about courage, power, dedication, and generosity, as well

as to generate sexual compensation by females (Hawkes, 1991; Koster, 2011). To males, these efforts

of “competitive magnanimity” may become even more valuable with variance in hunting success, in

contrast to females that rather hunt to optimize provision to small kin networks and when risks on

failure are low (Bliege Bird & Bird, 2008). Yet, estimation of the hunting skills of individuals may

not always be that easy (Hill & Kintigh, 2009). For further nuance of this “showing-off” behaviour by

males we refer to section 7.4.

6.2. Meat as a hierarchical consolidator

With the conversion to stratified societies, novel social conventions and norms surfaced, involving

group identification and intergroup competition, and corroboration and fine-tuning of conformity

trough collective cultural practices (Burkert et al., 1987; Ehrlich, 2000; Tomasello et al., 2012). These

17

involved the establishment of cults and specialized rituals for the elite, claiming divine justification

through ancestral legacy (Rossano, 2007). In many societies throughout history, the types of meat that

were consumed on special occasions or during communal gatherings have had a clear class

component (Bulliet, 2005; Pilcher, 2006; Régnier et al., 2006; deFrance, 2009; Scholliers, 2009;

Johnson et al., 2011; Kovárová, 2011; DeMello, 2012). In Argaric funeral rituals, for instance, cattle

and ovicaprids were associated with the highest and lowest social groups, respectively (Jiménez &

Guerrero, 2007). In the Assyrian empire, differences in cooking procedures (e.g., boiling versus

roasting) were in a strict relationship with the hierarchical systems governing the redistribution of the

sacrificial meat cuts (Gaspa, 2012). Following ancient Greek and Roman ceremonies, the sacrificial

meat was reserved to the elite, whereas leftovers were given or sold to the public (Alcock, 2006;

Pilcher, 2006). It seems likely that commensality rituals not only served in maintaining solidarity but

also in legitimizing social asymmetry. For zooarchaeological evidence worldwide, up to the

colonization of the Americas, we refer to the overview by deFrance (2009). But even in a more recent

past, such links between meat and power were still manifest. For now, some examples from early

English modernity should suffice to illustrate this point. In the 16th and 17

th century, for instance,

upper classes consumed excessively meaty diets whereas the populace hardly had access to meat

(DeMello, 2012; Smil, 2013). Royal forests and hunting privileges for the elite were established,

whereby, in the 18th century, poaching of aristocratic game was punished severely through the Black

Act, as it threatened social order (Ross, 1987). Still during the same century, hierarchies of beef cuts

were elaborated by guildsmen, with the choicest parts reserved for the nobility (Pilcher, 2006).

6.3. Meat and societal turmoil

Well into the modern era, the societal centrality of meat has been ascribed to the power represented by

its consumption, demonstrating economic, cultural, and symbolic capital and allowing the distinction

of class (Bourdieu, 1984) and gender (Twigg, 1983). It is unfeasible to judge the role of meat

traditions in societal class struggle or general uproar in early human history, but in more recent times

meat provisioning issues have contributed to the democratic revolutions of the late 18th and 19

th

18

century (Horowitz et al., 2004), as well as to the nationwide protests of 1980 in Poland (Pilcher,

2006). Frustration with the societal distinctions in the access to meat contributed to the undermining

of the legitimacy of the old elites and their meat monopolies. In 1790, for instance, the popular

demand for red meat had become a central issue for Parisian revolutionaries. Likewise, the violent

Chilean food riots in 1905 were triggered by tariff-imposed reductions in the access to meat, a highly

valued product which was symbolic for the societal disparity between the rich and poor (Orlove,

1997). But we repeat the proviso that such rather anecdotal evidence from the last three centuries is

merely indicative; a more fine-grained, cross-cultural comparison of Western and non-Western meat

traditions is bound to nuance our all-too-basic hypothesis in interesting ways.

6.4. Contemporary effects and implications for future research

Even today, meat traditions can serve as a means for societal status demarcation and consolidation

(Smil, 2002), although their primordial role is no longer of the same bearing (Fig. 2). The

consumption of meat from expensive, exotic, and even endangered animals still generates status

(DeMello, 2012). Also, meat’s persistent central place in contemporary Western diets is believed to be

largely because of it is connotations of success and power (Belasco, 2008). Within households, men’s

food preferences for meat often dominate dietary choices and strengthen patriarchal structures (Sobal,

2005). Culturally encoded, prioritized meat consumption by males even can result in nutrient

deficiencies amongst female and infant populations (Ross, 1987). In some societies, the quantity and

frequency of meat consumption correspond with a person’s hierarchical position, with meat being a

status symbol for the privileged and a rare treat for the populace (Orlove, 1997; Ruby & Heine, 2011).

These particularities need to be characterized further and should not be neglected when setting up

strategies in the worldwide struggle against malnutrition. In addition, meat remains highly emblematic

as a status food to which emerging economies are nowadays aspiring. Asian and Latin-American

countries that are claiming rights to enjoy Western standards of meat access are being pointed at as

potential threats to sustainable meat production (Boland et al., 2013; Liu, 2014). We dare to speculate

that meat will play a considerable role in the power struggle between the traditional and emerging

19

economical power blocks in a shifting global equilibrium. Illustrative is the controversy around the

recent takeover of Smithfield, the iconic and largest pork producer and processor in the United States,

by the Chinese group Shuanghui (Reuters, 2013). Big claims such as this one need of course to be

substantiated. Positing a straightforward link between meat and power may, upon closer inspection,

turn out to be overly simplistic (Morris, 1994). At this stage, however, we do maintain it is a

productive hypothesis that merits more in-depth exploration. The key question is: in how far did

access to meat, throughout the ages, become defined by hierarchical position? And: how to account

for the considerable variability, not just with respect to the meat of choice, but also with regards to the

methods of production and distribution? To undertake a more comprehensive (historical) enquiry

would be a fascinating and, we think, path-breaking enterprise.

7. Holistic level: symbolic impact and controversies

With respect to the tangible impact of meat traditions on contemporary societies, the upper, holistic

level is probably the most pertinent one (Fig. 1), although its content also affects all preceding levels

and their associated epochs. Indeed, several of its elements relate to the fundaments for gender

differentiation, language, ritual, community, and power structures, as established in the previous

layers of the model. It is also the most contextual of all levels, displaying large variability on

geographical and temporal scales, as well as between individuals. Due to the complexity of meat as a

signifier and to maintain the focus of the present study, we must restrict ourselves to a rather sketchy

outline and some illustrative but non-exhaustive examples. More dedicated research will be needed to

fully explore the implications of this holistic level.

7.1. Cultural and religious establishment of meat traditions through ritual and myth

Little is known about the origins of hunting rituals and meat-based rites, except that they have always

been strongly embedded in a cultural scaffold of myth and folk tales (Burkert et al., 1987; Kovárová,

2011; Gaspa, 2012). A comprehensive anthropological investigation of the issue is lacking to this

20

date, but we can already point to a few fascinating observations. Bakker (2013), for instance, has

detailed the role of Palaeolithic meat traditions in the basic poetic and narrative structure of the

Odyssey, on its turn an everlasting influence on Western culture. In addition, Neolithic deities were

often zoomorphic and either predators or prey of humans (Kovárová, 2011), involving the idea of a

“Master of animals” who (subliminally) held an important position in the major religions of Antiquity

and still appears in contemporary forms of animism (cf., Descola 2005). Even the Prometheus myth,

as Hesiod recounts it in his Theogony, seems to contain very similar motifs (Pollan, 2013). In

addition, it is well-known that the invention and use of fire for the ritual cooking of flesh is also a

predominant theme in Amerindian and other myths (Lévi-Strauss, 1983; Fiddes, 1991). The centrality

of animal sacrifice in rituals and religions worldwide is probably no coincidence, despite the vast

cultural variability of the practice and the ideas associated with it (deFrance, 2009; DeMello, 2012;

Reed, 2014). However, this is not the place to dilate on the various anthropological theories about

sacrifice. Suffice it to mention that some authors consider it the most fundamental of rites, giving

structure to human society and its institutions (Burkert et al., 1987). The need for sacrificial animals

may even have been at the basis of animal domestication, regardless of ecological, nutritional, or

energetic paradigm shifts (Bulliet, 2005; Kiple, 2007). Alternatively, it has been suggested that

domestication resulted from the corralling of (auroch) herds by shamans to reinforce their ritual

authority (Lewis-Williams & Pearce, 2005).

In any case, ritualistic laws and taboos relating to slaughter are widespread across cultures,

and have usually been dealt with by ascertaining a sense of reciprocity (Hoogland et al., 2005), as a

prerequisite for the maintenance of a delicate cosmic balance. As documented in myth and practice,

animals that have been “taken” through hunting have to be compensated for (Rossano, 2007; but see

Descola, 2005, for a trenchant critique of this “cosmic balance” idea). Reciprocity, and its cultural

implications, may thus speculatively be rooted in an ecological adaptation to the hunter-gatherer

context, tied to cyclic oscillations in prey availability (Layton et al., 1991). As described below,

resource and habitat norms and taboos would act as stabilizers in this ecological conservation cycle

(Colding & Folke, 2001; Luzar et al., 2012).

21

7.2. Taboos on meat eating and hunting

An obvious relic of ritualized meat traditions in human culture is constituted by the prevalence of

meat taboos (Meyer-Rochow, 2009; Johnson et al., 2011). No other food is so highly estimated yet

tabooed more often than meat, in a seemingly contradiction with its exceptional nutritional quality and

esteemed value (Fessler & Navarrete, 2003; Ruby & Heine, 2012). Potential explanations are either of

a functionalist or symbolic kind, or derived from evolutionary psychology (Harris, 1987; Fessler &

Navarrete, 2003; DeMello, 2012). According to functionalists, taboos originate from ecological

management, affecting hunting pressure on vulnerable animal species, and help in preventing

parasites and maladies. Symbolic explanations focus on issues of purity, sympathetic magic,

prototypicality, and cosmology. Evolutionary views refer to feelings of disgust and conditioned

aversion, due to neophobia and food safety risks. For a further discussion of different hypotheses on

the matter, see for instance Johnson et al. (2011), but one should bear in mind that any explication of

dietary prohibitions must also be seen in terms of individual dietary preferences (Morris, 1994).

Examples that illustrate the importance of meat taboos throughout the ages and between

different cultures abound. The usual focus is on dominant monotheistic religions (e.g., Mukherjee,

2014), but the concept is equally valid for other, less-studied or hybrid belief systems (Nam et al.,

2010; Luzar et al., 2012; Seleshe et al., 2014). We limit ourselves here to a brief discussion of some

aspects of the history of Christianity, which has had a confounding relationship with meat traditions.

This involved, for instance, variable degrees of lawful and unlawful hunting for Roman Catholic

clerics and condemnation of the vegetarianism of Manichaeans and Cathars as both a symptom and

assertion of heresy (Kellman, 2000). In addition, lard was used as an “article of faith” to distinguish

oneself from Muslims and Jews during the Reconquista (Kiple, 2007), which contrasts with

Dominican ascetics (Smil, 2002) as well as Northern-American movements such as the Seventh-Day

Adventists that propagated abstention from meat as an expression of devotion (Kellman, 2000). For

Christians, consumption of meat is normally prohibited on Fridays, but central during the Sacristy and

the Easter celebration. In Evangelized communities, the blending of such Christian restrictions with

22

indigenous taboos can be surprisingly complex and dynamic (Luzar et al., 2012), underlining the need

for proper contextualization to avoid overgeneralizations.

7.3. Meat and artistic expression

Archaeological data suggests that the origins of artistic expression, a human universal, relate to

religious sentiments in connection to hunting rituals (Rossano, 2007). This is of course speculative,

but meat-providing animals, such as aurochs, became indeed the first known objects of animal art

during the Upper Palaeolithic (Rimas & Fraser, 2009). In this context, it is worth mentioning that the

Greek word for painter is “animal-drawer” (), an expression possibly rooted in the ancient

shamanistic functions of the artist. Artistic idioms and skills may originally have served as indicators

of cognition, associated with certain mental talents for perception, planning, and creativity involved in

meat traditions (Dunbar, 1998; Sugiyama & Sugiyama, 2003; Flinn et al., 2005).

Although the above remains very hypothetical, it can be inferred from art history that the

creative contributions of meat traditions have been substantial, serving a multitude of religious,

magical, and even esthetical purposes. Any listing of the full figurative and semiotic spectrum outside

the framework of a dedicated investigation would evidently remain reductionist. For a more dedicated

analysis we refer to the thriving field of human-animal studies, as reviewed by Bulliet (2005) and

DeMello (2012). Interesting case studies for further analysis can be singled out but remain merely

indicative, including the use of slaughter, animals, and “bestiaries” by artists of the Middle Ages

(Seetah, 2007), a detailed discussion on the place of the wild boar and the domestic pig in Western art

history (Pastoureau, 2004; Kovárová, 2011), or the symbolism of meat in artistic milestones (e.g.,

Rembrandt's Carcass of Beef or the 17th-century vanitas paintings).

7.4. Vitality, masculinity, and promiscuity

Meat, derived from animal muscle, is often seen as the most nutritive of foods (Rozin et al., 2012).

Some historical examples of its application in military contexts illustrate this point (Smil, 2002,

23

2013), and date at least back to the Roman and Persian armies that relied on salted meat products for

reasons of convenience but probably also because of their perceived strength-inducing nature (Alcock,

2006; Swatland, 2010; Leroy et al., 2013). Even in recent centuries, such notions were still prevailing,

as when 18th-century European visitors contemplated the meat-fed American soldiers which were

substantially taller than their German and French counterparts (Kiple, 2007). During the 19th century,

England was importing meat at an elevated rate with a large share destined for the military apparatus

(Ross, 1987), while it was commonly assumed that soldiers of the Second World War deserved red

meat (Belasco, 2008).

In association with this aura of vitality, meat can also act as an icon of manhood, dominion,

and virility (Adams, 1990; Ruby & Heine, 2011; DeMello, 2012; Rozin et al., 2012), although this

view has been criticized as Eurocentric since elsewhere women often are eager meat eaters too

(Morris, 1994). As alluded to in section 6.1, hunting for meat is considered as a central feature of

male identity in various indigenous societies (e.g., Kensinger, 1983), and risky hunting strategies may

sometimes be favoured following a “showing-off” stratagem to display male bravery (Hawkes, 1991).

However, such connotations are far from universal; ethnographers specializing in lowland South

America have been intrigued by the fact that Amazonian hunters see it as a point of honour not to

show off (Descola, 1996; Praet, 2013). Even so, animal killing is often a central part of the rites of

passage framing the transition to manhood, as in the !Kung and Masai communities (Fiddes, 1991).

Such notions are also reflected in the masculinity of bull-fighting matadors, enjoying pronounced

societal status (Rimas & Fraser, 2009). A disproportionate number of meat taboos that apply to

females only have contributed to the upholding of the above-mentioned stereotypes (Fessler &

Navarrete, 2003). Several examples of culturally restricted access to some types of meat are described

for women worldwide (Meyer-Rochow, 2009). In contrast, it has been suggested that males have a

privileged relationship with meat in Western traditions (Pilcher, 2006). Examples can be found in

books on manner of the 17th century, stressing that it is most important for a well-bred master of the

house to carve and distribute the meat (Fiddes, 1991), which is supported by many historic texts

(Cazes-Valette, 2012). Barbequing and roasting of meat have particular strong connotations,

underlining maleness. According to structuralist theory, roasting enhances meat’s symbolic value, as

24

opposed to boiling of meat which “dilutes” the product value (in a soup or stew) and tends to

emphasize generosity (Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Harris, 1987).

Meat may also be perceived as lust-stimulating and its restriction has been advocated by 19th-

century educationalists to confine sexuality, masturbation, and nymphomania in pubescence (Twigg,

1979; Fiddes, 1991; Belasco, 2008). The Catholic Church has at times associated meat with carnal

desires, proposing fish as a penitential substitute (Kiple, 2007). Red meat seems particularly

evocative, especially given its symbolic association with blood (Fessler et al., 2003).

7.5. Contemporary effects and implications for future research

Cultural predispositions and prescriptions are bound to remain important factors in the determination

of future meat consumption trends. This could, amongst other effects, result in a relative global rise in

importance of certain product categories, dictating the source of animals that should be used or not as

food but also the temporal dependency on specific calendars (Seleshe et al., 2014). Poultry, for

instance, is expected to become more important still, as it is not subjected to taboos from the leading

belief systems in emerging populations worldwide, in contrast to pork and beef (Devi et al., 2014).

However, religious influence is not necessarily of a conformist nature. A rearticulation of Christian

meat abstention habits has been presented as a “Pauline call” to meet ecological concerns about the

impact of animal production on global warming (Grumett, 2011).

From a more secular point of view, “meat” is a recurrent Gestalt that not only serves a

cultural role but time and again leads to emotional disturbance, especially in Western societies

(DeMello, 2012). This propensity to upset is, for instance, reflected in the way meat is depicted by

contemporary artists (e.g., Francis Bacon’s Figure with Meat from 1954, Jana Sterbak’s Vanitas from

1987, Tania Bruguera’s El Cuerpo Del Silencio from 1998, Jan Fabre’s Benen van de rede ontveld

from 2000, Andrea Hasler’s Matriarch from 2014, and the various provocative works by artists such

as Heide Hatry and Dimitri Tsykalov). How this relates to the earlier uses of meat throughout art

history, as mentioned in section 7.3, is a captivating yet wholly underexplored problem.

25

More pragmatic research questions relate to the way meat consumption by contemporary

consumers is affected by perceived masculinity and will remain to be so. Recent data from Euro-

American countries show a clear male preference for red meat (Kubberød et al., 2002; Rozin et al,

2012), whereas male vegetarians are greatly outnumbered by their female counterparts (Ruby, 2012).

Some ethical vegetarians even go as far as to believe that meat consumption causes increased

aggression (Rozin et al., 1997), tentatively linked to blood chemistry mediation (Weinstein & de Man,

1982). In contrast, vegetarians are perceived as effeminate, pacifist, and non-competitive (DeMello,

2012; Ruby, 2012). This is not only valid for Westerners, but also in some Asian countries such as

Vietnam (Robert, 2012). Overall, the linguistic relationship of men to meat in these regions is mostly

metonymical, underlining emotions of power, whereas to women more metaphorical and denigrating

relationships may be found, suggesting “consumption” (Fiddes, 1991; Belasco, 2008; DeMello,

2012). In how far such suggestive yet disparate findings can be combined to draw broader conclusions

on the interplay between sex, gender, and meat remains an open question.

The above-mentioned assertive idiom can also be reflected in territorial notions, with

considerable impact potential on meat consumption patterns and their societal meaning. Past

observations, as for English nationalistic claims on roast beef (Kiple, 2007), still linger in the fiestas

patrias in Chile (Orlove, 1997) and the barbequing practices of Americans (Willard, 2002; Scott,

2010) and Israeli (Avieli, 2013) to celebrate their respective independence days. Meat may even serve

as an instrument of territorial expansion, albeit through eating culture. American food culture, typified

by its democratic access to meat and the central position of the hamburger, became a model for

modernity and contemporary culture (Horowitz et al., 2004). This is frequently associated with the

romanticized, manly icons of cowboys and frontier life (Sobal, 2005). Others view McDonaldisation

as a cultural threat, with fierce opposition in some countries of the Old Continent (Leroy & Degreef,

2015). In a more moderate variant, meat traditions may be perceived as an instrument for the

affirmation of religio-cultural group identity (Johnson et al., 2011).

8. Discussion

26

To avoid that food practices become the result of contradictory prejudices, rationalised desires,

fashions, and received opinions, we need a “rigorous thinking-through of why food matters and what

our relationship to it should be“ (Baggini, 2014). Following a structural analysis based on a heuristic

working model, the present study’s main argument is that several human characteristics have

developed in parallel with meat traditions. As a result, the current debate on meat is affected by a

legacy of meat traditions that display both a biological and cultural basis. Upon analysis, several

challenges of both a scholarly and practical nature have been identified, in particular related to the

exploration of human capacities, opinions, and behaviours. From a fundamental point of view, these

could, for instance, contribute to current debates on the genesis of cognition, language, and symbolic

thought (e.g., Barnard, 2012), as well as to the burgeoning body of literature which questions the

“representationalist” framework in which the problem of beginnings is usually cast within

anthropology and within science more broadly [Deleuze & Guattari (1987) is the locus classicus; but

see especially Ingold (2000) for a critique of the idea of “points of origin”]. Also, an in-depth study of

the role of early meat traditions in the rise of metaphorical thought may yield important insights,

underlining their entwinement with the development of human societies and biologies. More down-to-

earth questions relate to the possible impact of meat traditions and their associated physiological and

social needs on the current attitudes and future trends with respect to meat consumption (Fig. 2). For

instance, it will have to be established how all these fundamental aspects relate to moral

disengagement mechanisms (DeMello, 2012; Graça et al., 2014).

Being at the intersection of biology, psychology, and culture, food is fundamentally important

to understand social groups (Johnson et al., 2011). Although the model approach followed was a

structural one, we would like to warn against all too simple cause-and-effect relationships and

advocate the use of multiple pathways when further analyzing the detailed aspects identified in the

present study. This is particularly the case since several entanglements are to be discerned, especially

with respect to brain enlargement, life-history shifts, tool use and hunting practices, language

development, food sharing, and societal organisation (Kaplan et al., 2000). We adhere to the

conceptual model of Gamble et al. (2011), sketching a co-evolutionary flux of humans and things,

wherein “materials” and “emotions” have acted as the nucleus around which social systems have been

27

elaborated at all times. In this process, meat and animal proteins are indeed to be considered as

fundamental “materials”, in tune with co-evolutionary behaviours that were selected to enhance the

“emotions” that buttressed early human societies, such as the use of language, music, and art (Gowlett

et al., 2012). One may for instance wonder to which degree the concept of meat sharing around a

communal “hearth” is still pertinent, both during festivities and everyday life, as it must originally

have shaped and channelled emotions in profound ways (Jones, 2007; Pollan, 2013). Shepard (1998)

goes as far as stating that, for a healthy existence, humanity should return to a direct involvement in

hunting and butchering, as well as to the celebration of the social and cosmological function of meat

eating. Latent effects of a hard-wired “meat hunger”, or any long-lasting cultural associations with

“maleness”, societal demarcation, and cultural expression may all be factors of importance when

analyzing societal mind-sets towards meat (Fig. 2).

Although the above-mentioned effects have the potential to determine and steer food choices,

it is important to realize that they are often overruled by rational and perceptual processes on an

individual level, as well as by proximal cultural determinants (de Boer et al., 2006). The fact that meat

is polyvocalic and polysemic only adds up to the complexity (DeMello, 2012). Regardless of certain

universal dimensions and correlates on the long term, context-dependency through inter- and intra-

cultural variability is not to be overlooked (deFrance, 2009). Impressive changes have indeed been

taken place over the last centuries and even decades, including the nutrition transition in modern

Western Europe leading to noncommunicable disease (Grigg, 1995). It has even been speculated that

a resubstitution of meat to plant-based products is emerging as a curbing influence in high-income

countries (Vranken et al., 2014). Of particular relevance to contemporary societies are the

industrialization of meat production, consumerism, animal welfare concerns, nutritional disorders,

financial dynamics, and ecological constraints. The increasing demand for meat in BRIC countries

will certainly be a factor of importance (Boland et al., 2013; Chen & Abler, 2014; Devi et al., 2014).

Also, it is yet unclear if meat will maintain its central role in Western diets, as differing attitudes and

moral stances develop (Holm & Møhl, 2000). The central question to be answered is thus whether the

physiological, security, community, value, and holistic levels identified in this study will be decisive

28

for the future of meat in a changing world, or if other more stringent societal factors will abruptly

come into play.

Acknowledgements

FL acknowledges financial support of the Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (OZR,

HOA, SRP, IRP, and IOF projects).

References

Adams, C. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist–vegetarian critical theory. New York, NY,

USA: Continuum.

Aiello, L.C., & Wheeler, P. (1995). The expensive-tissue hypothesis: The brain and the digestive

system in human and primate evolution. Current Anthropology, 36, 199-221.

Alcock, J.P. (2006). Food in the ancient world. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Press.

Allen, P.J. (2012). Creatine metabolism and psychiatric disorders: Does creatine supplementation

have therapeutic value? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1442-1462.

Avieli, N. (2013). Grilled nationalism: Power, masculinity and space in Israeli barbeques. Food,

Culture and Society, 16, 301-320.

Baggini, J. (2014). The virtues of the table: How to eat and think. London, UK: Granta Publications.

Bakker, E.J. (2013). The meaning of meat and the structure of the Odyssey. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Barnard, A. (2012). Genesis of symbolic thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barr, S.I., & Chapman, G.E. (2002). Perceptions and practices of self-defined current vegetarian,

former vegetarian, and non-vegetarian women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102,

354-360.

Belasco, W. (2008). Food: The key concepts. Oxford, UK: Berg.

29

Bliege Bird, R., & Bird, D.W. (2008). Why women hunt: Risk and contemporary foraging in a

Western Desert aboriginal community. Current Anthropology, 49, 655-693.

Blechert, J., Meule, A., Busch, N.A., & Ohla, K. (2014). Food-pics: An image database for

experimental research on eating and appetite. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, article 617.

Boesch, C. (2002). Cooperative hunting roles among Taï chimpanzees. Human Nature, 13, 27-46.

Boland, M., Rae, A., Vereijken, J., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Fischer, A.R.H., Boekel, van M.A.J.S.,

Rutherfurd, S.M., Gruppen, H., Moughan, P.J., & Hendriks, W.H. (2013). The future supply of

animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 29, 62-

73.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London, UK: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.

Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.

Bulliet, R.W. (2005). Hunters, herders, and hamburgers. The past and future of human-animal

relationships. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.

Burhan, N.A.S., Mohamad, M.R., Kurniawan, Y., & Sidek, A.H. (2014). National intelligence, basic

human needs, and their economic growth. Intelligence, 44, 103-111.

Burkert, W., Girard, R., & Smith, J.Z. (1987). Violent origins: Ritual killing and cultural formation.

Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press.

Cazes-Valette, G. (2012). Viande. In J.-P. Poulain (Ed), Dictionnaire des cultures alimentaires (pp.

1391-1403). Paris, France: Presse Universitaire de France.

Carmody, R.N., Weintraub, G.S., & Wrangham, R.W. (2011). Energetic consequences of thermal and

nonthermal food processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America, 108, 19199-19203.

Chen, D., & Abler, D. (2014). Demand growth for animal products in the BRIC countries.

Agribusiness, 30, 85-97.

Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2001). Social taboos: “Invisible” systems of local resource management and

biological conservation. Ecological Applications, 11, 584–600.

30

de Boer, J., Hoek, A., & Elzerman, H. (2006). Social desirability: Consumer aspects. In H. Aiking, J.

De Boer, & J.M. Vereijken (Eds.), Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas?

(pp. 99-127). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, Environment and Policy.

deFrance, S.D. (2009). Zooarcheology in complex societies: Political economy, status, and ideology.

Journal of Archaeological Research, 17, 105-168.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of

Minnesota Press.

DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society. An introduction to human-animal studies. New York, NY,

USA: Columbia University Press.

Descola, P. (1996). In the society of nature. A native ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Descola, P. (2005). Par-delà nature et culture. Paris, France: Gallimard.

Devi, S.M., Balachandar, V., Lee, S.I., & Kim, I.H. (2014). An outline of meat consumption in the

Indian population – A pilot review. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources, 34,

507-515.

Dunbar, R.I.M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London, UK: Faber and

Faber.

Dunbar, R.I.M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6, 178–190.

Ehrlich, P.R. (2000). Human natures: Genes, cultures, and the human prospect. Washington DC,

USA: Island Press.

Fahy, G.E., Richards, M., Riedel, J., Hublin, J.-J., & Boesch, C. (2013). Stable isotope evidence of

meat eating and hunting specialization in adult male chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 5829-5833.

Ferretti, F., & Adornetti, I. (2014). Against linguistic Cartesianism: Toward a naturalistic model of

human language origins and functioning. Language and Communication, 37, 29-39.

Fessler, D., & Navarrete, C. (2003). Meat is good to taboo. Dietary proscriptions as a product of the

interaction of psychological mechanisms and social processes. Journal of Cognition and Culture,

3, 1–40.

31

Fessler, D.M.T., Arguello, A.P., Mekdara, J.M., & Macias, R. (2003). Disgust sensitivity and meat

consumption: A test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism. Appetite, 41, 31–41.

Fiddes, N. (1991). Meat: A natural symbol. London, UK: Routledge.

Flinn, M.V., Geary, D.C., & Ward, C.V. (2005). Ecological dominance, social competition, and

coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence. Evolution and Human

Behavior, 26, 10–46.

Gamble, C., Gowlett, J., & Dunbar, R. (2011). The social brain and the shape of the Palaeolithic.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 21, 115-136.

Gaspa, S. (2012). Meat offerings and their preparation in the state cult of the Assyrian empire.

Bulletin of SOAS, 72, 249-273.

Gazzaniga, M.S. (2011). Who’s in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. New York, NY,

USA: HarperCollins Publishers.

Gilby, I.C. (2006). Meat sharing among the Gombe chimpanzees: Harassment and reciprocal

exchange. Animal Behaviour, 71, 953-963.

Gilby, I.C., Thompson, M.E., Ruane, J.D., & Wrangham, R. (2010). No evidence of short-term

exchange of meat for sex among chimpanzees. Journal of Human Evolution, 59, 44–53.

Gomes, C.M., & Boesch, C. (2009). Wild chimpanzees exchange meat for sex on a long-term basis.

PLoS ONE, 4, e5116

Gomes, C.M., & Boesch, C. (2011). Reciprocity and trades in wild West African chimpanzees.

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 2183–2196.

Gowlett, J., Gamble, C., & Dunbar, R. (2012). Human evolution and the archaeology of the social

brain. Current Anthropology, 53, 693-722.

Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M., & Oliveira, A. (2014). Moral disengagement in harmful but cherished

food practices? An exploration into the case of meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental

Ethics, 27, 749-765.

Griffioen-Roose, S., Mars, M., Siebelink, E., Finlayson, G., Tomé, D., & de Graaf, C. (2012). Protein

status elicits compensatory changes in food intake and food preferences. American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, 95, 32-38.

32

Grigg, D. (1995). The nutritional transition in Western Europe. Journal of Historical Geography, 22,

247-261.

Grummet, D. (2011). Eat less meat: A new ecological imperative for Christian ethics? Expository

Times, 123, 54-62.

Gurven M. (2004). To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 543–559.

Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York, NY, USA:

Random House.

Harris, M. (1987). Foodways; Historical overview and theoretical prolegomenon. In M. Harris, &

E.B. Ross (Eds.), Food and evolution: Toward a theory of human food habits (pp. 57-90).

Philadelphia, PA, USA: Temple University Press.

Haverstock, K., & Forgays, D.K. (2012). To eat or not to eat. A comparison of current and former

animal product limiters. Appetite, 58, 1030-1036.

Hawkes, K. (1991). Showing off tests of a hypothesis about men’s foraging goals. Ethology and

Sociobiology, 12, 29-54.

Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (2001a). Hadza meat sharing. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 22, 113–142.

Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (2001b). Hunting and nuclear families. Current

Anthropology, 42, 681–709.

Herzfeld, M. (1985). The poetics of manhood: Contest and identity in a Cretan mountain village.

Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.

Hill, A.J. (2007). The psychology of food craving. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 66, 277-285.

Hill, K., & Kintigh, K. (2009). Can anthropologists distinguish good and poor hunters? Implications

for hunting hypotheses, sharing conventions, and cultural transmission. Current Anthropology, 50,

369-377.

Holm, L., & Møhl, M. (2000). The role of meat in everyday food culture: An analysis of an interview

study in Copenhagen. Appetite, 34, 277-283.

33

Hoogland, C.T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J.J. (2005). Transparency of the meat chain in the light of

food culture and history. Appetite, 45, 15-23.

Horowitz, R., Pilcher, J.M., & Watts, S. (2004). Meat for the multitudes: Market culture in Paris, New

York City, and Mexico City over the long nineteenth century. American Historical Review, 109,

1055-1083.

Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill.

London, UK: Routledge.

Jackson, J.C., Santoro, M.J., Ely, T.M., Boehm, L., Kiehl, A.L., Anderson, L.S., & Ely, E.W. (2014).

Improving patient care through the prism of psychology: Application of Maslow's hierarchy to

sedation, delirium, and early mobility in the intensive care unit. Journal of Critical Care, 29, 438-

444.

Jaeggi, A.V., & Van Schaik, C.P. (2011). The evolution of food sharing in primates. Behavioral

Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 2125-2140.

Jiménez, G.A., & Guerrero, J.A.E. (2007). Poder y prestigio en las sociedades de la cultura de el

Argar. El consumo comunal de bóvidos y ovicápridos en los rituales de enterramiento. Trabajos de

Prehistoria, 64, 95-118.

Johnson, K.A., White, A.E., Boyd, B.M., & Cohen, A.B. (2011). Matzah, meat, milk, and mana:

Psychological influences on religio-cultural food practices. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

42, 1421-1436.

Jones, M. (2007). Feast: Why humans share food. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows. An introduction to carnism. San

Francisco, CA, USA: Cornari Press.

Kaplan, H.S., Hill, K.R., Lancaster, J.B., & Hurtado, A.M. (2000). A theory of human life history

evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9, 156-185

Kellman, S.G. (2000). Fish, flesh, and foul. The anti-vegetarian animus. The American Scholar, 69,

85–96.

Kensinger, K.M. (1983). On meat and hunting. Current Anthropology, 24, 128-129.

34

Kiple, K.F. (2007). A movable feast. Ten millennia of food globalization. New York, NY, USA:

Cambridge University Press.

Koster, J. (2011). Interhousehold meat sharing among Mayangna and Miskito horticulturalists in

Nicaragua. Human Nature, 22, 394-415.

Kovárová, L. (2011). The swine in Old Nordic religion and worldview. Reykjavik, Iceland: University

of Iceland. http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/10143/25318/1/Lenka_Kovarova_MA.pdf.

Kubberød, E., Ueland, O., Rodbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specific

preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 285-294.

Kuhn, S., & Stiner, M. (2006). What’s a mother to do? A hypothesis about the division of labor

among Neandertals and modern humans in Eurasia. Current Anthropology, 47, 953-980.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago

Press.

Latvala, T., Niva, M., Mäkelä, J., Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Kotro, J., & Forsman-Hugg, S. (2012).

Diversifying meat consumption patterns: Consumers' self-reported past behaviour and intentions

for change. Meat Science, 92, 71-77.

Layton, R., Foley, R., Williams, E., Chang, C., Ingold, T., Olszewski, D.I., Rosenberg, M., Shackley,

M.S., Smith, E.A., & Zvelebil, M. (1991). The transition between hunting and gathering and the

specialized husbandry of resources: A socio-ecological approach. Current Anthropology, 32, 255-

274.

Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in

Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 6, 505–511.

Lenski, G.E. (1974). Human societies: An introduction to macrosociology. New York, NY, USA:

McGraw-Hill.

Leonetti, D.L., & Chabot-Hanowell, B. (2011). The foundation of kinship. Human Nature, 22, 16-40.

Leroy, F., Geyzen, A., Janssens, M., De Vuyst, L., & Scholliers, P. (2013). Meat fermentation at the

crossroads of innovation and tradition: A historical outlook. Trends in Food Science and

Technology, 31, 130-137.

35

Leroy, F., & Degreef, F. Convenient meat and meat products. Societal and technological issues.

Appetite, in press (doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.022).

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The culinary triangle. Partisan Review, 33, 586–595.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1983). The raw and the cooked. Chicago, IL, USA: Chicago University Press.

Lewis-Williams, D., & Pearce, D. (2005). Inside the Neolithic mind. London, UK: Thames & Hudson.

Liu, C. (2014). China's appetite for meat swells, along with climate changing pollution. Scientific

American (May 20), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-appetite-for-meat-swells-

along-with-climate-changing-pollution/.

Luzar, J.B., Silvius, K.M., & Fragoso, J.M.V. (2012). Church affiliation and meat taboos in

indigenous communities of Guyanese Amazonia. Human Ecology, 40, 833-845.

Man, N. (2007). Meat in the human diet: An anthropological perspective. Nutrition and Dietetics, 64,

S102-S107.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Meyer-Rochow, V.B. (2009). Food taboos: Their origins and purposes. Journal of Ethnobiology and

Ethnomedicine, 5, 18.

Mitani, J.C., & Watts, D.P. (2001). Why do chimpanzees hunt and share meat? Animal Behaviour, 61,

915–924.

Morris, B. (1994). Animals as meat and meat as food: reflections on meat eating in southern Malawi.

Food and Foodways, 6, 19-41.

Morrison, C.D., Reed, S.D., & Henagan, T.M. (2012). Homeostatic regulation of protein intake: In

search of a mechanism. The American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and

Comparative Physiology, 302, 917-928.

Mukherjee, S.R. (2014). Global Halal: Meat, money, and religion. Religions, 5, 22-75.

Nam, K.-C., Jo, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Meat products and consumption culture in the East. Meat

Science, 86, 95–102.

Navarrete, A., van Schaik, C.P., & Isler, K. (2011). Energetics and the evolution of the human brain

size. Nature, 480, 91-94.

36

Orlove, B.S. (1997). Meat and strength: The moral economy of a chilean food riot. Cultural

Anthropology, 12, 234–268.

Parsons, T. (1970). The social system. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Pastoureau, M. (2004). Une histoire symbolique du Moyen Âge occidental. Paris, France: Seuil, La

librairie du XXIe siècle.

Pereira, P.M.C.C., & Vicente, A.F.R.B. (2013). Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the

human diet. Meat Science, 93, 586-292.

Pfefferle, A.D., Warner, L.R., Wang, C.W., Nielsen, W.J., Babbitt, C.C., Fedrigo, O., & Wray, G.A.

(2011). Comparative expression analysis of the phosphocreatine circuit in extant primates:

Implications for human brain evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 205-212.

Pilcher, J. (2006). Food in world history. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Población, E.A. (2013). Fisheries and food security in Timor-Leste: The effects of ritual meat

exchanges and market chains on fishing. Food Security, 5, 807-816.

Pollan, M. (2013). Cooked: A natural history of transformation. New York, NY, USA: Pinguin Press.

Praet, I. (2013). Animism and the question of life. London, UK: Routledge.

Previc, F.H. (2009). The dopaminergic mind in human evolution and history. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Rajasakran, T., Sinnappan, S., & Raja, S.S. (2014). Purushartha: Maslow’s need hierarchy revisited.

Anthropologist, 18, 199-203.

Rae, C., Digney, A.L., McEwan, S.R., & Bates, T.C. (2003). Oral creatine monohydrate

supplementation improves brain performance: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, 2147–2215.

Reed, A.Y. (2014). From sacrifice to the slaughterhouse: Ancient and modern approaches to meat,

animals, and civilization. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 26, 111-158.

Régnier, F., Lhuissier, A., & Gojard, S. (2006). Sociologie de l’alimentation. Paris, France: CNRS.

Renton, A. (2013). Planet carnivore. London, UK: Guardian Books.

Reuters (2013). U.S. clears Smithfield's acquisition by China's Shuanghui.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-usa-china-smithfield-idUSBRE98513I20130907.

37

Rimas, A., & Fraser, E.D.G. (2009). Beef: The untold story of how milk, meat, and muscle shaped the

world. New York, NY, USA: HarperCollins.

Robert, C. (2012). Eating vegetarian in Vietnam. In L. Coleman (Ed.), Food: Ethnographic

encounters. Oxford, UK: Berg.

Rose, L., & Marshall, F. (1996). Meat eating, hominid sociality, and home bases revisited. Current

Anthropology, 37, 307-338.

Ross, E.B. (1987). An overview of trends in dietary variation from hunter-gatherer to modern

capitalist societies. In M. Harris, & E.B. Ross (Eds.), Food and evolution: Toward a theory of

human food habits (pp. 19-23). Philadelphia, PA, USA: Temple University Press.

Rossano, M.J. (2007). The evolution of conscious experience: Ritual, altered states and the origins of

religion. In V.W. Fallio (Ed.), New developments in consciousness research (pp. 89-118). New

York, NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers.

Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The

transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8,

67–73.

Rozin, P., Hormes, J.M., Faith, M.S., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is meat male? A quantitative

multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 39,

629-643.

Ruby, M.B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, 141–150.

Ruby, M.B., & Heine, S.J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56, 447–450.

Ruby, M.B., & Heine, S.J. (2012). Too close to home. Factors predicting meat avoidance. Appetite,

59, 47–52.

Scholliers, P. (2009). La viande de cheval, les abats et la charcuterie, marqueurs des frontières en

Belgique, 1800-1914 (pp. 117-143). In M. Montanari, & J.-R. Pitte (Eds), Les frontières

alimentaires. Paris, France: CNRS.

Scott, R. (2010). Meat my hero: “I have a dream” of living language in the work of Donna Haraway,

or, Ride ’Em Cowboy! Poroi, 6, 1–15.

38

Seetah, K. (2007). The Middle Ages on the block: Animals, guilds and meat in the Medieval period.

In A. Pluskowski (Ed.), Breaking and shaping beastly bodies: Animals as material culture in the

Middle Ages. Oxford, UK: Oxbow.

Seleshe, S., Jo, C., & Lee, M. (2014). Meat consumption culture in Ethiopia. Korean Journal for

Food Science of Animal Resources, 34, 7-13.

Shepard, P. (1998). Coming home to the Pleistocene. Washington D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater

Books.

Shipman, P., & Walker, A. (1989). The costs of becoming a predator. Journal of Human Evolution,

18, 373-392.

Slocum, S. (1975). Woman the gatherer: Male bias in anthropology. In R.R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an

anthropology of women (pp. 36-50). New York, NY, USA: Monthly Review Press.

Smil, V. (2002). Eating meat: Evolution, patterns, and consequences. Population and Development

Review, 28, 599-639.

Smil, V. (2013). Should we eat meat? Evolution and consequences of modern carnivory. Chichester,

UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Smith, J.E., Swanson, E.M., Reed, D., & Holekamp, K.E. (2012). Evolution of cooperation among

mammalian carnivores and its relevance to hominin evolution. Current Anthropology, 53, S436-

S452.

Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, and marriage. Models of masculinity. Food and Foodways, 13, 135–158.

Stanford, C.B. (1999). The hunting apes: Meat eating and the origin of human behavior. Princeton,

NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.

Stanford, C.B., & Bunn, H. (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. Oxford; UK: Oxford

University Press.

Stoet, G. (2011). Sex differences in search and gathering skills. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32,

416-422.

Sugiyama, L.S., & Sugiyama, M.S. (2003). Social roles, prestige, and health risk. Social niche

specialization as a risk-buffering strategy. Human Nature, 14, 165-190.

Swatland, H.J. (2010). Meat products and consumption culture in the West. Meat Science, 86, 80-85.

39

Tadie, D., & Fischer, A. (2013). Hunting, social structure and human–nature relationships in lower

Omo, Ethiopia: People and wildlife at a crossroads. Human Ecology, 41, 447-457.

Taormina, R., & Gao, J.H. (2013). Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of

the needs. American Journal of Psychology, 126, 155-177.

Thiel, B. (1994). Further thoughts on why men share meat. Current Anthropology, 35, 440–441.

Tomasello, M., Melis, A.P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., & Herrmann, E. (2012). Two key steps in the

evolution of human cooperation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 53, 673-

692.

Tudge, J.R.H., Mokrova, I. Hatfield, B.E., & Karnik, R.B. (2009). Uses and misuses of

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and

Review, 1, 198–210.

Turner, B.L., & Thompson, A.L. (2013). Beyond the Paleolithic prescription: Incorporating diversity

and flexibility in the study of human diet evolution. Nutrition Reviews, 71, 501-510.

Twigg, J. (1979). Food for thought: Purity and vegetarianism. Religion, 9, 13–35.

Twigg, J. (1983). Vegetarianism and the meanings of meat. In A. Murcott (Ed.), The sociology of food

and eating (pp. 18-30). Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Company.

van Mil, H.G.J., Foegeding, E.A., Windhab, E.J., Perrot, N., & van der Linden, E. (2014). A complex

system approach to address world challenges in food and agriculture. Trends in Food Science and

Technology, 40, 20–32.

Ventura, T., Santander, J., Torres, R., & Contreras, A.M. (2014). Neurobiologic basis of craving for

carbohydrates. Nutrition, 30, 252-256.

Vinnari, M., & Tapio, P. (2009). Future images of meat consumption in 2030. Futures, 41, 269-278.

Vranken, L., Avermaete, T., Petalios, D., & Mathijs, E. (2014). Curbing global meat consumption:

Emerging evidence of a second nutrition transition. Environmental Science and Policy, 39, 95-106.

Walters, K., & Portness, L. (1999). Ethical vegetarianism. Albany, NY, USA: SUNY Press.

Webb, G.P. (2007). Nutrition: A health promotion approach. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.

Weinstein, L., & de Man, A.F. (1982). Vegetarianism vs. meatarianism and emotional upset. Bulletin

of the Psychonomic Society, 19, 99-100.

40

Welch, J.R. (2014). Xavante ritual hunting: Anthropogenic fire, reciprocity, and collective landscape

management in the Brazilian cerrado. Human Ecology, 42, 47-59.

Willard, B. (2002). The American story of meat: Discursive influences on cultural eating practice.

Journal of Popular Culture, 36, 105–118.

Williams, A.C., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (2013). Big brains, meat, tuberculosis, and the nicotinamide

switches: Co-evolutionary relationships with modern repercussions? International Journal of

Tryptophan Research, 6, 73-88.

Woll, B. (2014). Moving from hand to mouth: Echo phonology and the origins of language. Frontiers

in Psychology, 5, article 662.

41

Fig.1. Heuristic model to study the biocultural impact of meat traditions. The segregations between

levels of meaning are conceptual and have no absolute value; in reality, levels are expected to be

intertwined. The presence of a nature-culture gradient as well as congruence with the cultural

materialist analytical model (Harris, 1979) have been indicated on the right.

Holistic levelCultural and religious

implications, symbolism, and ethics

Value levelSocietal differentiation and hierarchical

positioning

Community levelLinguistic developments, societal consolidation, and meat rituals

Security levelHunting strategies, resource management, social cooperation,

and meat sharing systems

Physiological levelNutritional and evolutionary impact of meat

Superstructure (Mental “emic” elements: values, beliefs, goals, ...; “etic” behavioural elements: art, sports, ...)

Structure (Political and domestic organisation, production, exchange, hierarchisation, control, family structure, age and sex roles, ...)

Infrastructure (Modes of food production, population dynamics, habitat interactions, ...)

N

atu

re

C

ult

ure

42

Fig. 2. Identification of research questions that are required to map potential interference of the

different levels of meat traditions with attitudes towards meat in contemporary societies.

Physiological Security Community Value Holistic

Is there any contemporary impact of a physiology-based effect on brain health and capacity or innate

“meat hunger”?

Is there an intrinsic link between current meat traditions and social mechanisms ? For instance, to

which degree is meat still desired for communal

bonding?

To which degree do meat traditions still serve as a tool for

societal status demarcation and

consolidation?

To which degree are meat traditions

primary to religion, ritual, and cultural

expression, and how firm are meat’s

symbolic effects still?