Mauricio Porte Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Now I'd like to move the discussion on fire use by hominds further from its earliest incarnations: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85193-early-use-of-fire-by-hominds/to a time where fire creation and use had become commonplace.Let's say we're a H. erectus specimen living around the fertile crescent region of the Middle East circa .7myr BP. We would living in a sort of tropical climate, with cool grasslands and sparse woodlands. Now the question becomes: which of the various methods of starting fires would be tmost likely to be in use? I'd like to think of flint and iron since stone tools had been used and struck for so much time by then, that I find it simple to imagine the transition, but I get the doubt as to where iron could be found. Friction methods don't convince me as much though, since now I'd have to think as to how this distinct technique (friction vs. percussive) could've developed. Edited April 10, 2015 by Mauricio Porte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Now I'd like to move the discussion on fire use by hominds further from its earliest incarnations: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85193-early-use-of-fire-by-hominds/to a time where fire creation and use had become commonplace. Let's say we're a H. erectus specimen living around the fertile crescent region of the Middle East circa .07myr BP. We would living in a sort of tropical climate, with cool grasslands and sparse woodlands. Now the question becomes: which of the various methods of starting fires would be tmost likely to be in use? I'd like to think of flint and iron since stone tools had been used and struck for so much time by then, that I find it simple to imagine the transition, but I get the doubt as to where iron could be found. Friction methods don't convince me as much though, since now I'd have to think as to how this distinct technique (friction vs. percussive) could've developed. Metallic iron and/or steel is not necessary for firelighting and likely wasn't available in the time frame you have outlined. Firelighting To produce sparks, one may strike a hard stone (for example flint or quartz) onto another containing iron (such as pyrite or marcasite). ...Pyrite is found around the fertile crescent and -as any valuable resource- may have been traded for in areas where it is not found. Pyrite Info & Map The friction method is as likely to have developed from rubbing sticks together as the percussion method developed from striking stones together. Edited April 10, 2015 by Acme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauricio Porte Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Great, thank you very much your answer gave me precisely what I needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The first fires were probably opportunist ones when bushfires started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The first fires were probably opportunist ones when bushfires started.Yes; we already had that discussion and Mauricio linked to it in the opening post. >>Early use of fire by hominds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Yes; we already had that discussion and Mauricio linked to it in the opening post. >>Early use of fire by hominds Sorry. Missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Sorry. Missed that.No worries. We can take some measure of pleasure in that your succinct reply here is in agreement with my rather lengthy argument in the sister thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauricio Porte Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 by the way I wrote 0.07myr BP when I meant 0.7myr BP; but I don't think it'll make much difference since we're talking about a H. erectus and not heidelbergensis or another more recent hominid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 by the way I wrote 0.07myr BP when I meant 0.7myr BP; but I don't think it'll make much difference since we're talking about a H. erectus and not heidelbergensis or another more recent hominid.I missed that error, but I think you're right about not making a difference inasmuch as you said H. erectus and -our previous discussion notwithstanding- there is evidence of fire use by that species. Wiki says this about H. erectus and fire: Full mention:Homo erectus Brief quote: Use of fire... A site at Bnot Ya'akov Bridge, Israel has been claimed to show that H. erectus or H. ergaster obtained control of fire between 790,000 and 690,000 BP.[50] To date this has been the most widely accepted claim, although recent reanalysis of burnt bone fragments and plant ashes from the Wonderwerk Cave have sparked claims of evidence supporting human control of fire by 1 Ma.[51] ... While there is a measure of doubt on dating and circumstances, I understood your original question and I'm happy that you were satisfied with my answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauricio Porte Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 As you may or not remember, I'm writing a novel in which each chapter's characters are a more recent species. Therefore plausibility is very important to me even if it's a work of fiction, I'd rather propose things that are more probable to have happened that things that are more spectacular let's say. Anyways maybe you'd appreciate these timelines that I've been making and using:https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0krnpl8pnpz9z1/Especies%20vs%20Tiempo.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzek2g6roat00uo/Especies%20vs%20Lugar.jpg?dl=0 I'm also thinking on making another in which I compare species to technology/toolsPD: the red lines in the first chart indicate when each story takes place, the cyan and blue bands indicate interglacial/glacial periods respectively 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 As you may or not remember, I'm writing a novel in which each chapter's characters are a more recent species. Therefore plausibility is very important to me even if it's a work of fiction, I'd rather propose things that are more probable to have happened that things that are more spectacular let's say. Anyways maybe you'd appreciate these timelines that I've been making and using: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0krnpl8pnpz9z1/Especies%20vs%20Tiempo.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzek2g6roat00uo/Especies%20vs%20Lugar.jpg?dl=0 I'm also thinking on making another in which I compare species to technology/tools PD: the red lines in the first chart indicate when each story takes place, the cyan and blue bands indicate interglacial/glacial periods respectively Thanks; I'll have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Making even very crude stone tools by banging various rocks together provides a perfect environment for learning to make fire with stone sparks. Friction also works well, without special stones etc, and also would have been available from tool making behaviors - sharpening a point on a wood or bone tool by abrasion, say. The act of sharpening a wooden stick to a point by rubbing it on a stone creates considerable heat quite rapidly - enough to burn the finger, in a couple of strokes. Also fire was not only maintained in place while camped (buried coals, etc) but commonly carried from place to place as embers in special carry structures, by stone age nomads we have encountered in modern times. Carrying fire, from a grassland wildfire to a woodland waterside camp, would be my guess as first adaptation. That also fits my suspicion that carry aids - hollow logs, large mollusc shells, animal stomachs, purpose constructed net bags and cords (vines and seaweed stems, then - ) are among the first if not the very first constructed implements, two or three step constructions. Edited April 13, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Making even very crude stone tools by banging various rocks together provides a perfect environment for learning to make fire with stone sparks. Friction also works well, without special stones etc, and also would have been available from tool making behaviors - sharpening a point on a wood or bone tool by abrasion, say. The act of sharpening a wooden stick to a point by rubbing it on a stone creates considerable heat quite rapidly - enough to burn the finger, in a couple of strokes. Also fire was not only maintained in place while camped (buried coals, etc) but commonly carried from place to place as embers in special carry structures, by stone age nomads we have encountered in modern times. Carrying fire, from a grassland wildfire to a woodland waterside camp, would be my guess as first adaptation. That also fits my suspicion that carry aids - hollow logs, large mollusc shells, animal stomachs, purpose constructed net bags and cords (vines and seaweed stems, then - ) are among the first if not the very first constructed implements, two or three step constructions. Yes; we already had that discussion and Mauricio linked to it in the opening post. >>Early use of fire by hominds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now