Early use of fire by hominds

[Mauricio Porte]

Sub-saharan Africa is prone to fires and showers of considerable quantity. If we are to assert that use of fire first came into being by opportunistic means, Which would you think is more likely?

a) most of earliest fire management by hominds came from yearly fires that burnt a wide area of grasslands
b) most of earliest fire management by hominds came from lightning strikes to trees during storms

[Ten oz]

I think there are more than those two ways. Flint tools struck by iron or magnesium rich stones would've produced sparks. Accidental fires could've been a natural by product of early tool making. It is even conceivable that early applications of line/rope created enough heat from friction to combust; or at least char enough to inspire a quest for combustion.

 

Of the two means listed I think I prefer option "A". Grass fires would have pushed animals hunted by humans in a direction away from the fire. It would've been a good ambush opportunity for humans. So I think early humans may have looked forward to seasonal wild fires and perhaps even looked to influence them.

[dimreepr]

It’s an impossible question to answer with any certainty. Ten oz is right, in that, there are many more possible reasons why the link between fire; and the spark of understanding that lead to the manufacture of fire.

 

My guess given the advantages, in which, post fires certain flora and fauna were easier to eat and digest. Sparks, in the right conditions, naturally causes fires, the observation of which created that understanding.

[Mauricio Porte]

I am aware that there may be more options and that It is impossible to know for certainty. But I think that by the time humans accidentally learned how to create fire they already had an understanding of how to use fire, which I believe should've come from natural sources and those two are the ones I identified as the most probable of natural fire ocurrances. Toolmaking was an important part of the day by day so accidental fires could be very old indeed, but I think it is more probable that they learned to control big natural fires before they could start and control small fires. I make this assumption because creating small fires has some intention in itself.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mauricio Porte

[dimreepr]

We can’t control ‘big natural fires’ now; why would you think our understanding of fire hasn't an intention?

[Mauricio Porte]

Sorry I mispoke, I don't mean we control the actual big natural fire in itself, but rather that the opportunity to control fire would first come from the big existing natural fires since they are so common in nature, especially considering where human evolution took form. So throughout the experiences learned from these fires and an opportunistic approach, eventually you get the mindset that being able to create a fire is actually advantegeous since by then fire starts to take a more important role for the species. So yeah probably during this time fire was (in several ocasions) created accidentally, but before they could identify the advantages of creating fires and before they actually tried to start fires as a cultural/technological item, first they should already understand to some extent the concept of fire, which I think more probably comes from the natural world, since wildfires are not uncommon anyways and had being occurring well before fire was even used for the first time.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mauricio Porte

[Acme]

Sub-saharan Africa is prone to fires and showers of considerable quantity. If we are to assert that use of fire first came into being by opportunistic means, Which would you think is more likely?

 

a) most of earliest fire management by hominds came from yearly fires that burnt a wide area of grasslands

b) most of earliest fire management by hominds came from lightning strikes to trees during storms

How do you think grassland fires get started? Does lightning only start a fire if it hits a tree? Does a tree only burn if it's hit by lightning? What evidence have you that grassland fires were annual events in sub-Saharan Africa?

 

I don't question that humans were using fire before they were creating it; it's common even today for 'primitive' people to carry fire in ember pots/baskets as they travel, rather than going to the trouble of starting a new fire. As to the most likely way it all started, any WAG is as good as another.

[Dekan]

Doesn't it seem strange that only Humans have exploited fire.. Other animals always seem to run away from fire. Without realising the benefits it can bring - like keeping warm, on cold nights.

 

Even such a simple benefit as keeping warm, seems very advantageous from an evolutionary viewpoint. Not to mention the potential offered by fire to cook, and make more things eatable.

 

So why haven't other species made use of fire - is it just because their brains are too small?

[Ten oz]

Doesn't it seem strange that only Humans have exploited fire.. Other animals always seem to run away from fire. Without realising the benefits it can bring - like keeping warm, on cold nights.

 

Even such a simple benefit as keeping warm, seems very advantageous from an evolutionary viewpoint. Not to mention the potential offered by fire to cook, and make more things eatable.

 

So why haven't other species made use of fire - is it just because their brains are too small?

Good question. This is why I think humans probably didn't exploit the benefits of fire until they started producing as a by product of using other tools. Natural fires or wild firs are very dangerous and would've force our ancestors to flee just as all other animals flee. I don't think early humans hung around wild fires looking to stay warm. Wild fire grow and spread too quickly and too unpredictably

[Moontanman]

Good question. This is why I think humans probably didn't exploit the benefits of fire until they started producing as a by product of using other tools. Natural fires or wild firs are very dangerous and would've force our ancestors to flee just as all other animals flee. I don't think early humans hung around wild fires looking to stay warm. Wild fire grow and spread too quickly and too unpredictably

 

 

Have you ever tried to start a fire by hitting two rocks together? It's very difficult, to say it would happen by accident begs the imagination...

[Ten oz]

Have you ever tried to start a fire by hitting two rocks together? It's very difficult, to say it would happen by accident begs the imagination...

Any two rocks won't work. Flint and rocks high in iron however will regularly produce a spark. That is only one way. Friction pulling rope or line around trees or rocks could've charred or caught fire. Even using wood to sharpen other pieces of wood would've easily created smoke, heat, and charring. Not a stretch that early hominids could have made the connection between charring/smoke and fire. It took an incredible amounts of time for hominids to figure out how to use fire so however unlikely accidental fires may have been they still did most likely happen. In my opinion accidental fires created sharpening spears, making tools out of flint, and so on seems more likely because they wouldn't have as quickly gotten out of control the way natural fires do.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Ten oz

[Acme]

Good question. This is why I think humans probably didn't exploit the benefits of fire until they started producing as a by product of using other tools. Natural fires or wild firs are very dangerous and would've force our ancestors to flee just as all other animals flee. I don't think early humans hung around wild fires looking to stay warm. Wild fire grow and spread too quickly and too unpredictably

Sounds like putting a cart before a horse to me. While humans may have fled the worst of a wild fire, they likely well returned to their digs as it died down and there would find small fires & smoldering embers. Finding such small burnings to have smaller hazards than the big burn and finding such benefits as warmth, hardened wood, cracked rock etcetera, they learned to use fire and keep it burning on a small scale.

[Ten oz]

Sounds like putting a cart before a horse to me. While humans may have fled the worst of a wild fire, they likely well returned to their digs as it died down and there would find small fires & smoldering embers. Finding such small burnings to have smaller hazards than the big burn and finding such benefits as warmth, hardened wood, cracked rock etcetera, they learned to use fire and keep it burning on a small scale.

Maybe, I am not claiming to know. Just giving my opinion. Perhaps they would've return post fire. I just don't know of examples in nature where animals return to a still smoldering habitat. Then again there aren't any examples in natures where animals do many of the things humans do......

[Moontanman]

Any two rocks won't work. Flint and rocks high in iron however will regularly produce a spark. That is only one way. Friction pulling rope or line around trees or rocks could've charred or caught fire. Even using wood to sharpen other pieces of wood would've easily created smoke, heat, and charring. Not a stretch that early hominids could have made the connection between charring/smoke and fire. It took an incredible amounts of time for hominids to figure out how to use fire so however unlikely accidental fires may have been they still did most likely happen. In my opinion accidental fires created sharpening spears, making tools out of flint, and so on seems more likely because they wouldn't have as quickly gotten out of control the way natural fires do.

 

 

Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion...

[Acme]

Maybe, I am not claiming to know. Just giving my opinion. Perhaps they would've return post fire. I just don't know of examples in nature where animals return to a still smoldering habitat. Then again there aren't any examples in natures where animals do many of the things humans do......

Exactly. That is, humans do many things that other animals do not and per se cannot. Even today we return to our burned homes to pick through the still hot ashes to recover what we may.

 

Allow me to give reference to my earlier allusion to carrying rather than making fire.

 

Fire pot @ Wiki

A fire pot is a container, usually earthenware, for carrying fire. Fire pots have been used since prehistoric times to transport fire from one place to another, for warmth while on the move, for cooking, in religious ceremonies and even as weapons of war.

...

[Ten oz]

Exactly. That is, humans do many things that other animals do not and per se cannot. Even today we return to our burned homes to pick through the still hot ashes to recover what we may.Allow me to give reference to my earlier allusion to carrying rather than making fire.Fire pot @ Wiki

I have no doubt it would've been easier to carry fire than create fire. I never suggested otherwise. My comments were directed at how humans first came to see fire as a tool or benificial thing. Not how early humans created or transported it. I don't think you can draw linear connections between what humans did with it once they were using it with how they initially thought to use it. Ideas and applications of ideas are often different.

 

I don't think wild fires would've been the source hominids initial interest in fire because it would've been so threatening. Small fires that quickly went out and did not destroyed everything in sight would've allowed hominids to think about fire rather than just evacuate and run from it. Seeing that fire could be contained, small, and short lived would've been a huge insight I think. Which is why I think accidental fires started by hominids is the more likely reason hominids starting thinking about fire in ways no other animals has. No animal other than humans reasonably could've create fire accidentally during other activities.

 

That said once they started wanting fire surely collecting it from wild fires would've been common place. I am commenting on what made them want fire. Not how they used it.

[Acme]

I have no doubt it would've been easier to carry fire than create fire. I never suggested otherwise. My comments were directed at how humans first came to see fire as a tool or benificial thing. Not how early humans created or transported it. I don't think you can draw linear connections between what humans did with it once they were using it with how they initially thought to use it. Ideas and applications of ideas are often different.

But transporting and/or creating fire is seeing it as a tool or beneficial thing. Use is as use does.

 

I don't think wild fires would've been the source hominids initial interest in fire because it would've been so threatening. Small fires that quickly went out and did not destroyed everything in sight would've allowed hominids to think about fire rather than just evacuate and run from it. Seeing that fire could be contained, small, and short lived would've been a huge insight I think. Which is why I think accidental fires started by hominids is the more likely reason hominids starting thinking about fire in ways no other animals has. No animal other than humans reasonably could've create fire accidentally during other activities.

Perhaps, but you give no credible reasons to suggest humans accidently created small fires before they would have encountered naturally occurring small fires. Small fires are a consequence of large fires and small fires can occur from lightning strikes on a small or isolated fuel load.

 

That said once they started wanting fire surely collecting it from wild fires would've been common place. I am commenting on what made them want fire. Not how they used it.

They would want fire after encountering it naturally occurring on a small scale and recognizing the benefits and their ability to control it.

[Ten oz]

But transporting and/or creating fire is seeing it as a tool or beneficial thing. Use is as use does.

Why would something be carried unless there were already an intended use? Examples of early transport of fire do not speak to what inspired use of fire in the first place. Obviously inspiration came before particle application?

 

Perhaps, but you give no credible reasons to suggest humans accidently created small fires before they would have encountered naturally occurring small fires. Small fires are a consequence of large fires and small fires can occur from lightning strikes on a small or isolated fuel load. They would want fire after encountering it naturally occurring on a small scale and recognizing the benefits and their ability to control it.

What is a credible reason? Both of our thoughts on the issue are speculation. We know early humans, once they were using fire, both transported fire in pots and started fires. We don't know the origins of the original fire being transported? We don't know what motivatived early hominids to make their own fires.

My opinion; Flint and iron rich rocks produce sparks. We know early hominids used them as tools. I don't think it is a stretch to think sparks would've been a wonder to early hominids. Sparks produce light and an odor unique to burned material. Creating sparks just for the sake it or as a game in addition to tool making is easy for me to imagine. Kids do it to this day for fun. As for primitive wooden tools they were often created by friction heavy means. Wood heats up, chars, and smokes fairly easily. Again, it is easy for me to imagine that producing smoke while rubbing a point into a spear would've intrigued early hominids. I also think it is fair to assume they took notice of the added strength in the point of charred spears. These varies ways of accidental or unintended heat and smoke production over time could've helped shape the way they viewed and thought about fire.

Wildfires have always happened. I think it is easier to look outside the box when faced with something new, especially if it isn't threatening. New things spark curiousity. Natural wildfires were nothing new and very threatening. In my opinion natural fires would've produced a standard flight vs fight response. Not a response of curiosity and discovery. So what changed?

[Acme]

Why would something be carried unless there were already an intended use? Examples of early transport of fire do not speak to what inspired use of fire in the first place. Obviously inspiration came before particle application?

My point is that carrying fire is a use. I think I adequately covered the inspiration aspect by talking about humans investigating small fires.

 

What is a credible reason? Both of our thoughts on the issue are speculation.

Granted; we think, therefore we argue. My argument is that my speculation can beat up your speculation.

 

We know early humans, once they were using fire, both transported fire in pots and started fires. We don't know the origins of the original fire being transported? We don't know what motivatived early hominids to make their own fires.

But we do know that natural fires were occurring before humans even entered the picture, so it stands to reason fire was open to investigation before tool use.

 

My opinion; Flint and iron rich rocks produce sparks. We know early hominids used them as tools. I don't think it is a stretch to think sparks would've been a wonder to early hominids. Sparks produce light and an odor unique to burned material. Creating sparks just for the sake it or as a game in addition to tool making is easy for me to imagine. Kids do it to this day for fun. As for primitive wooden tools they were often created by friction heavy means. Wood heats up, chars, and smokes fairly easily. Again, it is easy for me to imagine that producing smoke while rubbing a point into a spear would've intrigued early hominids. I also think it is fair to assume they took notice of the added strength in the point of charred spears. These varies ways of accidental or unintended heat and smoke production over time could've helped shape the way they viewed and thought about fire.

Yes; but as I just pointed out, wild-fire clearly came first as a subject of animal investigation whether human or otherwise.

 

Wildfires have always happened. I think it is easier to look outside the box when faced with something new, especially if it isn't threatening. New things spark curiousity. Natural wildfires were nothing new and very threatening. In my opinion natural fires would've produced a standard flight vs fight response. Not a response of curiosity and discovery. So what changed?

A bird in the box is worth 2 outside the box. Why would a natural small fire or hot embers engender any less fascination than your sparking rocks?

[Ten oz]

My point is that carrying fire is a use. I think I adequately covered the inspiration aspect by talking about humans investigating small fires. Granted; we think, therefore we argue. My argument is that my speculation can beat up your speculation.

 

Fire carrying is not a use but rather a means to use potentially use and thus an inspiration or reason must have proceeded it. Why would a group of hominids scavenge the remains of a wildfire, collect hot embers, and then carry those hot embers to a new local? How would they have known embers alone could even create a new fire? Reason for wanting fire had to come first just as I must present a speculation before you can attempt to top it.

 

But we do know that natural fires were occurring before humans even entered the picture, so it stands to reason fire was open to investigation before tool use. Yes; but as I just pointed out, wild-fire clearly came first as a subject of animal investigation whether human or otherwise. A bird in the box is worth 2 outside the box. Why would a natural small fire or hot embers engender any less fascination than your sparking rocks?

Natural fires existed throughout evolution. One day our interaction with fire changed. Other animals and Humans alike tend to use existing materials in the way they are generally used. It is seldom a human thinks to do something completely new with a common item. Even something seemingly simply as the wheel took god hundreds of thousands of years to finally give us. That I am aware of we haven't really seen other animals invent new ways us using common items at all. Chimps use basic stick tools to collect insects. We did not see them invent that use for the stick though, haven't seen them make the leap to sharpening those sticks and spearing larger prey. As for how they came to use sticks in the first place, we don't know. Normally something drives change though.

 

When something new is done there tends to be a series of reasons. Simplicity in theories provide one dimensional explanations. An example of such an explanation would be to say early humans adapted to wearing animal fur because they were cold. While not totally wrong it is very one dimensional. Wearing animal fur wasn't possible before tools capable of skinning an animal and cleaning tissues from fur were invented. For that matter killing animals large enough to wear was impossible before humans designed the tools and stradegies that could kill large prey. So wearing fur required a long progression of changes and advancements. Simply being cold being the least of them. Humans were able to think of doing different things with animal fur because so many other conditions had already changed. That and nudity is sin of course. Perhaps nudity is why god held off so long on giving us the wheel?

 

Sharpening spears and noticing the charred ones that smoked a little bit during sharpening made better spears would've have provided a change in how fire was thought about. Would've provided a reason for wanting fire. Just as many hunting parties resulted in nothing caught I imagine many attempts to create fire resulted in no fires. To say that it is too hard to make fire and thusly wouldn't have been done is nonesense. Killing deer and making clothing from its fur with nothing but stick and stones is incredibly difficult too and yet was done for thousands of years as a standard way of life. I would go so far as to say you and I would stand a much better chance of making a fire with sticks and stones than we would killing a deer with sticks and stones.

 

Yes, collecting fire from natural fires is a lot easier. I have no doubt that whenever possible that is how early hominids did it. I am speaking to the desire to have fire in the first place. Something changed. Something made early hominids view fire differently after millions of years of evolving in a world with natural fires they/we instinctively avoided. What made the instinct to avoid become a desire to have????? Burning bushes that spoke aside.

[Acme]

Fire carrying is not a use but rather a means to use potentially use and thus an inspiration or reason must have proceeded it.

Re-read that carefully and see that you are contradicting yourself. If 'use [noun]' does not mean 'a means to use' then I'll walk on hot embers. Allow me to profer a reference in support of my assertion.

use @ The Free Dictionary

...

n. (yoos)

1.

a. The act of using; the application or employment of something for a purpose: with the use of a calculator; skilled in the use of the bow and arrow.

b. The condition or fact of being used: a chair in regular use.

2. The manner of using; usage: learned the proper use of power tools.

3.

a. The permission, privilege, or benefit of using something: gave us the use of their summerhouse.

b. The power or ability to use something: lost the use of one arm.

4. The need or occasion to use or employ: have no use for these old clothes.

5. The quality of being suitable or adaptable to an end; usefulness: tried to be of use in the kitchen.

6. A purpose for which something is used: a tool with several uses; a pretty bowl, but of what use is it?

7. Gain or advantage; good: There's no use in discussing it. What's the use? ...

Why would a group of hominids scavenge the remains of a wildfire, collect hot embers, and then carry those hot embers to a new local?

Presumably the same reasons they would knock stones together to make sparks; insatiable curiosity.

 

How would they have known embers alone could even create a new fire?

By playing with embers in the effort to satisfy said insatiable curiosity.

 

Reason for wanting fire had to come first just as I must present a speculation before you can attempt to top it.

Nonsense. As I just pointed out, curiosity is more likely to come before useful discovery.

 

Natural fires existed throughout evolution. One day our interaction with fire changed. Other animals and Humans alike tend to use existing materials in the way they are generally used. It is seldom a human thinks to do something completely new with a common item.

Balderdash. Humans exhibit a preeminent and persistent urge to experiment and per say play.

 

Even something seemingly simply as the wheel took god hundreds of thousands of years to finally give us.

God? Surely you jest. Even if you didn't mean to, the statement is a joke.

 

That I am aware of we haven't really seen other animals invent new ways us using common items at all. Chimps use basic stick tools to collect insects.

Again you directly contradict yourself. And chimps aren't the only materials users, e.g. birds, ant, etc., but again we are talking about humans here, or hominids if you will.

 

We did not see them invent that use for the stick though, haven't seen them make the leap to sharpening those sticks and spearing larger prey. As for how they came to use sticks in the first place, we don't know. Normally something drives change though.

Non sequitars. Humans are as humans do. Evolution drove the changes that make us what we were and are.

 

When something new is done there tends to be a series of reasons.

Sometimes the reason -at least for humans- is nothing more than play and satisfying curiosity. The arguments of cause & effect belong in threads on that topic, no end of which no doubt exist here and unresolved at that.

 

Simplicity in theories provide one dimensional explanations. An example of such an explanation would be to say early humans adapted to wearing animal fur because they were cold. While not totally wrong it is very one dimensional. Wearing animal fur wasn't possible before tools capable of skinning an animal and cleaning tissues from fur were invented.

Again with the non sequitar. A human need no more than tooth and nail to get a hide from carrion.

 

For that matter killing animals large enough to wear was impossible before humans designed the tools and stradegies that could kill large prey.

Non sequitar. One does not need to kill a large animal before availing themselves of a large dead animal's remains. Say carrion.

 

So wearing fur required a long progression of changes and advancements.

Not.

 

Simply being cold being the least of them. Humans were able to think of doing different things with animal fur because so many other conditions had already changed. That and nudity is sin of course. Perhaps nudity is why god held off so long on giving us the wheel?

Please stop with the god crap. It is neither scientifically tenable nor funny. While nudity may be 'sin' in some cultures and times, it is not an universal taboo in either.

 

Sharpening spears and noticing the charred ones that smoked a little bit during sharpening made better spears would've have provided a change in how fire was thought about.

Me thinks you have never sharpened a wooden stick with a rock else you would know better than to make this assertion.

 

Would've provided a reason for wanting fire. Just as many hunting parties resulted in nothing caught I imagine many attempts to create fire resulted in no fires. To say that it is too hard to make fire and thusly wouldn't have been done is nonesense.

Clearly making fire was done, however nothing you have argued supports the assertion that fire was made by humans/hominids before they used fire.

 

Killing deer and making clothing from its fur with nothing but stick and stones is incredibly difficult too and yet was done for thousands of years as a standard way of life. I would go so far as to say you and I would stand a much better chance of making a fire with sticks and stones than we would killing a deer with sticks and stones.

You presume to underestimate my skills in the wild.

 

Yes, collecting fire from natural fires is a lot easier. I have no doubt that whenever possible that is how early hominids did it. I am speaking to the desire to have fire in the first place. Something changed. Something made early hominids view fire differently after millions of years of evolving in a world with natural fires they/we instinctively avoided. What made the instinct to avoid become a desire to have????? Burning bushes that spoke aside.

Again your religio reference is dull. I have addressed quite substantively what would draw humans to small fires. As early humans had only word of mouth it may well be the use of fire was discovered and lost numerous times and in numerous different groups. It seems the best we can know of it is archeological remains wherein the juxtaposition of human and hearth may be reasonably connected as to suggest fire's use by humans.

[Ophiolite]

My point is that carrying fire is a use.

In that case, driving myself to work is a job.

[Acme]

 

My point is that carrying fire is a use.

In that case, driving myself to work is a job.

 

Correct.

 

job @ The Free Dictionary

 

job n. ...

3.

a. A task that must be done: Washing the windows is not my job.

b. A specified duty or responsibility. See Synonyms at task.

...

task @ The Free Dictionary

task n. ...

3. A function to be performed; an objective.

...

1. a specific piece of work required to be done as a duty or chore

...

3. any piece of work

...

Edited September 6, 2014 by Acme

[Moontanman]

I would like to point out that many other animals use natural fire as a way to obtain prey, I see no reason why early humans wouldn't have done the same until some great genius thought of taming the fire...

[Acme]

... I just don't know of examples in nature where animals return to a still smoldering habitat. ...

Have you looked? A short search of 'monkey playing with fire' returns -beyond a host of games-by-that-name- a germane result. Here's the video. [Note the operative term 'play'] Arguably not hominids, but merely primates. They don't flee even when the keepers toss smoldering chunks toward them. Go figure.

 

 

Here's a cat playing with a candle flame found searching 'animals playing with fire'. Again, while there may be fleas there is no fleeing and we're even lower on the intelligence spectrum than primates.

 

Cat playing with fire

 

And here we have a Bonobo actually building and using a campfire, a skill it learned by imitation. For a hominid such a campfire is more easily & quickly started with an already burning ember than striking flint or using a fire drill. Monkey see, monkey do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EMbWDRzqNhc

.

I would like to point out that many other animals use natural fire as a way to obtain prey, I see no reason why early humans wouldn't have done the same until some great genius thought of taming the fire...

I don't doubt it, however I can't find a reference to support it yet. Do you have something handy?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Acme