New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Molars Say Cooking Is Almost 2 Million Years Old

Human molars and jaws responded to the invention of cooking by getting smaller. Fossils thus indicate that controlled-fire cooking probably originated about 1.9 million years ago. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Most large animals have to chew food extensively and form it into a mushy ball that’s easy to swallow. Cooking makes a huge difference—it softens the food and dramatically reduces eating time. Researchers calculated that if we lived like our non-cooking primate cousins, we’d spend about 48 percent of the day eating. But modern humans spend only about 5 percent of the day chowing down. So when our ancestors invented cooking, it gave them a major survival advantage.

So how long have ago did our forebears start barbecuing?

The softer food available via cooking allowed for the evolution of smaller molars and a smaller jaw. Researchers therefore compared the molars and body sizes of extinct hominids with modern humans and other primates. Turns out that Homo erectus and Neanderthals had, and modern humans have, molars that are smaller than would be predicted by looking at general primate evolution. The finding is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Chris Organ et al, Phylogenetic rate shifts in feeding time during the evolution of Homo


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Based on the appearance of the smaller eating apparatus, the researchers infer that humanity discovered the benefits of cooking about 1.9 million years ago. And we’ve been enjoying the convenience, speed and taste benefits ever since.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe