Early use of fire by hominds

[Ten oz]

Presumably the same reasons they would knock stones together to make sparks; insatiable curiosity. By playing with embers in the effort to satisfy said insatiable curiosity.

 

The discovery that certian rocks produced sparks came from tool making. The playful curiosity would've came later and isn't necessary for having accidentally making a fire. I was just providing extra example. In the case of the hot embers they could not nearly as easily been interacted with nor would they have been as readily availible.

 

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

 

I am mildly offended you even have to ask. I thought it was pretty damn funny when I was typing it if I do say so myself...

 

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.

No contradiction. We, humans, have not witnessed Chimps use things in a new way. When we started observing chimps they were already using sticks. We have not witnessed a new use. Simply understanding that at some point in history they must have started using sticks is not equal to us witnessing the process.

 

And yes other animals use things. Hardly the point. Chimps were merely one example. What examples do you have of animals, free from human intervention, developing new types of tools? Animals where we have observed it happen.

 

 

A human need no more than tooth and nail to get a hide from carrion. Non sequitar. One does not need to kill a large animal before availing themselves of a large dead animal's remains. Say carrion. Not. 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.

 

The God stuff is obviously a joke. Please lighten up. We are debating a speculative topic where we both may be mostly right or completely wrong.

 

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

In previous post I have clearly stated sharpening wooden spears with other piece of wood. I did not say sharpening spears against rocks.

 

 

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

 

Again, speculative debate. Neither of use will be proving anything here today. It is not known what the intial draw to fire was. The best argument either of us are capable of making serve only to entertain each other. Much like sparking rocks or playing with hot embers entertained our ancestors.

 

 

You presume to underestimate my skills in the wild. 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.

If you can a find, track, and take a deer down with nothing but what the forrest provides more reliably than I can make a fire with sticks and stones you need your own survival show. I myself am not ashamed to admit that I would be eating insects over a small fire that took me hours upon hours to create. That is assuming the climate was hospitable. Otherwise I would possibly be dead being eaten by insects.

[Acme]

The discovery that certian rocks produced sparks came from tool making. The playful curiosity would've came later and isn't necessary for having accidentally making a fire. I was just providing extra example. In the case of the hot embers they could not nearly as easily been interacted with nor would they have been as readily availible.

Nonsense and poppycock. There is a distinction between WAG and reasoned speculation. There is nothing to suggest rocks were first struck together to make a tool and everything to suggest the striking was playful curiosity. Hot embers are as easy to come by as wildfires and as easy to investigate as to flee from.

 

I am mildly offended you even have to ask. I thought it was pretty damn funny when I was typing it if I do say so myself...

Given the nature of forum discourse you would do the readers a favor by throwing us a winky or such a matter.

 

No contradiction. We, humans, have not witnessed Chimps use things in a new way. When we started observing chimps they were already using sticks. We have not witnessed a new use. Simply understanding that at some point in history they must have started using sticks is not equal to us witnessing the process.

Non sequitar that presumes you know of everything humans have observed chimps doing, let alone the possibility chimps do 'new' things humans have not observed. But again we are not talking about chimps or even primates; the OP is about hominids which is a narrow class of primate. I only introduced the chimp videos to falsify your claim that [paraphrasing] 'all animals flee from fire'.

 

And yes other animals use things. Hardly the point. Chimps were merely one example. What examples do you have of animals, free from human intervention, developing new types of tools? Animals where we have observed it happen.

My only mention of other animals was in response to others and I don't recall that I introduced that area of argument. It does not matter what other animals do -whether witnessed or not- in regards to what hominids do and did in relation to fire use. Since we cannot and did not directly witness early hominid behavior of any kind we have just scant archaeological evidence and well-reasoned speculation. I have given many reasons why your speculation is not well-reasoned in the face of alternative speculations. Occam's razor and all that jazz.

 

The God stuff is obviously a joke. Please lighten up. We are debating a speculative topic where we both may be mostly right or completely wrong.

It wasn't obvious as I already pointed out. When humor is obvious -and good- I'm light as a feather.

 

In previous post I have clearly stated sharpening wooden spears with other piece of wood. I did not say sharpening spears against rocks.

Fine; even so I again suspect you have never actually attempted such a feat or you would not think it makes a fire.

 

Again, speculative debate. Neither of use will be proving anything here today. It is not known what the intial draw to fire was. The best argument either of us are capable of making serve only to entertain each other. Much like sparking rocks or playing with hot embers entertained our ancestors.

Bbbbuuuttt you claimed hominids would flee from embers! And now you acknowledge they don't necessarily. Pray did I convince you? And I do not write simply to entertain my direct correspondent; I write to entertain, and per se inform, all readers. Presuming you didn't give me those rep ups, I have entertained and informed one or two others to my great satisfaction.

 

If you can a find, track, and take a deer down with nothing but what the forrest provides more reliably than I can make a fire with sticks and stones you need your own survival show. I myself am not ashamed to admit that I would be eating insects over a small fire that took me hours upon hours to create. That is assuming the climate was hospitable. Otherwise I would possibly be dead being eaten by insects.

Indeed I should then have my own show. I can think of 2 or 3 versions of deadfall traps as I type, none of which require other than what may be found in the forest. [Depending on game and terrain available, I know how to build numerous traps including snares and pits.] Chance may well kill me before I killed a deer, but chaos favors the prepared imagination and I imagine myself prepared to survive by my knowledge and wits.

 

Dead deer in hand I could, beside eating it, make tools from the antlers and bones, glue from the hooves, and tan the hide with its brains or tannin rich woods or nuts found about. I also have a good working knowledge of edible, medicinal, and poisonous plants and I imagine early hominids acquired and shared like knowledge in ways similar to their use of fire, i.e. through curiosity and experiment.

 

Well, my pea brain has got a good workout and I trust you have at least a 2oz smile Ten oz.

[Moontanman]

No contradiction. We, humans, have not witnessed Chimps use things in a new way. When we started observing chimps they were already using sticks. We have not witnessed a new use. Simply understanding that at some point in history they must have started using sticks is not equal to us witnessing the process.

 

And yes other animals use things. Hardly the point. Chimps were merely one example. What examples do you have of animals, free from human intervention, developing new types of tools? Animals where we have observed it happen.

 

 

 

Here ya go...

 

http://www.insidescience.org/content/bonobo-stone-tools-competent-ancient-human/768

Chimps fashion their own tools, they do not simply pick up a stick...

[Mauricio Porte]

I just thought of another natural occuring fire source: Lava Lakes are also common in the Great Rift Valley, and some of them have been active for hundreds of thousands of years. They don't necesarilly erupt violently during most of their lifespan. Sure lava lakes and volcanos are extremely dangerous, but in contrast to wildfires they can be more passive. Some lava lakes wuldn't even necessitate climbing up the slopes since they had a constant flow. By the time lava is reaching the bottom it is already more viscous and slow-moving since it is already much cooler.

Some hominids may encounter lava and out of curiosity poke it with a stick. It might ignite, hell even the site could've became sort of a traditional/religious gathering place for hominids who discovered it such as the Olduvai Gorge or certain caves.

Any thoughts?

Edited September 8, 2014 by Mauricio Porte

[Acme]

...

Some hominids may encounter lava and out of curiosity poke it with a stick. It might ignite, hell even the site could've became sort of a traditional/religious gathering place for hominids who discovered it such as the Olduvai Gorge or certain caves.

 

Any thoughts?

Early hominids may have thrown a few of their kind in the lava to appease Ten oz' gods. Or just out of curiosity and for a little fun.

 

Cave-woman throws a chunk of hot lava to her friend who catches it and drops it immediately. Cave-woman ask friend, "what's wrong; is it hot?". Friend says, "no; it just doesn't take me long to examine a chunk of lava".

[Ten oz]

Early hominids may have thrown a few of their kind in the lava to appease Ten oz' gods. Or just out of curiosity and for a little fun.

 

Cave-woman throws a chunk of hot lava to her friend who catches it and drops it immediately. Cave-woman ask friend, "what's wrong; is it hot?". Friend says, "no; it just doesn't take me long to examine a chunk of lava".

Perhaps an early hominid accidentally died by falling into lava, by chance something good happened the next day and that is where the idea of god appeasement through sacrifice came from? Edited September 9, 2014 by Ten oz

[Mauricio Porte]

Perhaps an early hominid accidentally died by falling into lava, by chance something good happened the next day and that is where the idea of god appeasement through sacrifice came from?

 

I'd say without a doubt that early superstitions definitely came from those sort of events, and I know you're joking on this one, but it is kind of a very specific example.

[Ten oz]

 

I'd say without a doubt that early superstitions definitely came from those sort of events, and I know you're joking on this one, but it is kind of a very specific example.

The plausibilityof the example is what makes it funny.

[Mauricio Porte]

The plausibilityof the example is what makes it funny.

Agreed.

[Anthony Morris]

http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prepare/grassfires/

 

Seems to me, since grass fires might be more common events than trying to shape a rock with a random iron nodule, that our ancestors would be much more likely to discover the use of fire in the array of cooked meat and nuts and roots they would find after a brush fire went past. Not all animals run away from fire as has been mentioned previously and there is no reason to assume that our ancestors were any more skittish around it than any other predatory mammal or bird of the same sort of habitat. In Africa, predators often stroll behind the fire to feed on what it leaves in its wake. Our ancestors would likely have done so. If the fire was coming toward them, they would likely run away like everyone else. Smoke on the horizon would alert our ancestors to the presence of a fire and they would run towards it to investigate at the very least and to bring back what harvest they could. This is the simpler means of discovering and valuing fire.

 

Knocking the right two rocks together would be a handy discovery only for those who already know what value fire has. Not only would a spark maker need the right two rocks (iron and flint) but he/she would also need tinder. Tinder is a little more complex thinking than striking a spark. Recognizing the spark for what it is, is another bit of complex thinking. Same with rubbing two sticks together. Friction as a starter method is a more logical progression since our ancestors probably understood friction causes heat,but they probably would not have made the intuitive leap towards fire-starting without first having used fire.

 

Once they started taming coals, they probably used the friction method before progressing to iron and flint. Learning how to control fire would precede successful attempts at making it. Without the knowledge of tinder, they would not have managed a successful fire. Playing with naturally occurring coals would have been more fertile ground for developing tinder technology.

 

At least that seems the simplest and most direct route to fire technology development

[Mauricio Porte]

The more it has been discussed, the more plausbile ehe wildfire scenario seems to me

 

In Africa, predators often stroll behind the fire to feed on what it leaves in its wake.

Could you give me some examples so I can investigate this behavior more analytically?
Also, wouldn't meat get charred from a wildfire? Would it still be edible?

[Anthony Morris]

meat does get charred but I've eaten plenty of crappy burned steaks in my time. no one died and it tasted okay actually : )

 

Every time I try to search for leopards and fire at the same time I get information for fire companies and other macho crap. I know I've seen this behavior on documentaries about Africa's savannah habitat. That's all I can give you. But it does figure that the fire goes one way and animals on the "back" side of the fire might have an advantage at finding cooked food.