Our Ancestors used fire 1 Million years ago

New evidence has been discovered that supports the claim that one of our ancestors, Homo erectus, used fire more than 1,000,000 years ago.

Traces of ash and burnt bone about a million years old were discovered in Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa by an international team

The Wonderwerk Cave was home to Homo erectus and then to us, Homo sapiens.



The use and control of fire can be considered one of humanities biggest technological achievements until modern times. No other animal uses fire like we do.

We used fire to cook our food, making it easier to digest, keeping predators away and also for culture:

Socializing around a camp fire might actually be an essential aspect of what makes us human.

Sitting around a camp fire, telling tales, singing songs, THINKING.

Of course today the camp fire has been replaced by the television, but many people still enjoy the hypnotic fireplace.

www.cbc.ca...
www.imdb.com...

Good post Nicolas... I just had finished reading this article and I'm not sure of your opinion, but I know many like myself have long believed human origins are "far" older than believed.

There are others sources also (identified in the same article) which have long believed proof 'could' show human used and controlled fire is more than 1.5 millions years old too.

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
Good post Nicolas... I just had finished reading this article and I'm not sure of your opinion, but I know many like myself have long believed human origins are "far" older than believed.

There are others sources also (identified in the same article) which have long believed proof 'could' show human use of fire is more than 1.5 millions years old too.

When ever lightning struck the earth and caused fire, i suppose.

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
Good post Nicolas... I just had finished reading this article and I'm not sure of your opinion, but I know many like myself have long believed human origins are "far" older than believed.

There are others sources also (identified in the same article) which have long believed proof 'could' show human use of fire is more than 1.5 millions years old too.

When ever lightning struck the earth and caused fire, i suppose.

Lightning in a cave?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
Good post Nicolas... I just had finished reading this article and I'm not sure of your opinion, but I know many like myself have long believed human origins are "far" older than believed.

There are others sources also (identified in the same article) which have long believed proof 'could' show human use of fire is more than 1.5 millions years old too.

When ever lightning struck the earth and caused fire, i suppose.

Lightning in a cave?

Trees would have been everywhere. Lightning strikes a tree, the burning branch lands on the ground, a hominid walks by and picks it up, brings it home, and there you go: prehistoric shopping.

reply to post by Jordan River


No JR... you should read the article before replying... these remains of fire outlined in this article are deep in a cave where lightening could not strike...
The second remains mention, i.e. the 1.5 million year old remains are debateable due to other factors as you allude too.

reply to post by AdamsMurmur


Well said Adams... and highly probable... as more sites are explored more indisputable proof will come forward regarding the origin of humans.

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

There are others sources also (identified in the same article) which have long believed proof 'could' show human used and controlled fire is more than 1.5 millions years old too.

Some anthropologists think H. erectus could have first evolved 1.8 million years ago. They were very successful and are most likely our direct ancestors.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.stanford.edu...

Before them we would have to look at Australopithecus (Lucy) as being on our family tree. They showed up about 4 million years ago. But it wasn't until H. erectus that our future was secured IMO. 4 million years ago is also when the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey starts with the ape like hominids.

Here's a family tree back to 2 million years ago, but it keeps changing regularly now with new discoveries:

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

Trees would have been everywhere. Lightning strikes a tree, the burning branch lands on the ground, a hominid walks by and picks it up, brings it home, and there you go: prehistoric shopping.

It could have started just like that. We would have had to overcome our fear of fire and then later be able to start a fire at will.

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

 

There are others sources also (identified in the same article) which have long believed proof 'could' show human used and controlled fire is more than 1.5 millions years old too.

Some anthropologists think H. erectus could have first evolved 1.8 million years ago. They were very successful and are most likely our direct ancestors.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.stanford.edu...

Before them we would have to look at Australopithecus (Lucy) as being on our family tree. They showed up about 4 million years ago. But it wasn't until H. erectus that our future was secured IMO. 4 million years ago is also when the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey starts with the ape like hominids.

Here's a family tree back to 2 million years ago, but it keeps changing regularly now with new discoveries:

I do hope to live long enough to see confirmation of what I believe shall be proven Nicolas:

#1 - Man is millions of years older than most think and we have yet to uncover exciting new finds documenting what remains of the proof.

#2 - Proof will be found between Homo erectus and Lucy confirming an ever continuing evoloution.

#3 - Evidence will be found of early ancestors being much more mobile than originally thought and thus groups splitting with some becoming isolated and altering the evolutionary trail

The future is exciting... I wish I were able to be part of the exploration.

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
reply to post by Jordan River

 

No JR... you should read the article before replying... these remains of fire outlined in this article are deep in a cave where lightening could not strike...
The second remains mention, i.e. the 1.5 million year old remains are debateable due to other factors as you allude too.

edit on 2-4-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling

This might be a crushing theory of mine. /sarcasm

If lightning struck at night a glow would emit and some "brain surgeon of our prehistoric ancestor" decided to take a flaming tree limb into a cave. just a theory. obviously not concrete

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
reply to post by Jordan River

 

No JR... you should read the article before replying... these remains of fire outlined in this article are deep in a cave where lightening could not strike...
The second remains mention, i.e. the 1.5 million year old remains are debateable due to other factors as you allude too.

edit on 2-4-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling

This might be a crushing theory of mine. /sarcasm

If lightning struck at night a glow would emit and some "brain surgeon of the prehistoric world" decided to take a flaming tree limb into a cave. just a theory. obviously not concrete

You are likely correct as there were no zippos and unlikely to have been flint devices around at the time... so the inquisitive bipedal picked up the ember... ugh... uh... huh... ow... and carried it quickly into the cave... lol ... and although he didn't know what he had... he now had it... lol

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
reply to post by Jordan River

 

No JR... you should read the article before replying... these remains of fire outlined in this article are deep in a cave where lightening could not strike...
The second remains mention, i.e. the 1.5 million year old remains are debateable due to other factors as you allude too.

edit on 2-4-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling

This might be a crushing theory of mine. /sarcasm

If lightning struck at night a glow would emit and some "brain surgeon of the prehistoric world" decided to take a flaming tree limb into a cave. just a theory. obviously not concrete

You are likely correct as there were no zippos and unlikely to have been flint devices around at the time... so the inquisitive bipedal picked up the ember... ugh... uh... huh... ow... and carried it quickly into the cave... lol ... and although he didn't know what he had... he now had it... lol

You fools! Everyone knows that Prometheus brought the fire from Olympus!

Originally posted by CaptChaos

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
reply to post by Jordan River

 

No JR... you should read the article before replying... these remains of fire outlined in this article are deep in a cave where lightening could not strike...
The second remains mention, i.e. the 1.5 million year old remains are debateable due to other factors as you allude too.

edit on 2-4-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling

This might be a crushing theory of mine. /sarcasm

If lightning struck at night a glow would emit and some "brain surgeon of the prehistoric world" decided to take a flaming tree limb into a cave. just a theory. obviously not concrete

You are likely correct as there were no zippos and unlikely to have been flint devices around at the time... so the inquisitive bipedal picked up the ember... ugh... uh... huh... ow... and carried it quickly into the cave... lol ... and although he didn't know what he had... he now had it... lol

You fools! Everyone knows that Prometheus brought the fire from Olympus!

Darn it... Capt C.. you are correct... I almost forgot... lmao...

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

It is widely accepted that Homo erectus knew the use of fire.

Sites in Europe and Asia seem to indicate controlled use of fire by H. erectus, some dating back 1.5 million years ago. Wikipedia

Erectus also had stone tools (hand-axes) and might even have had language.

Please note that the question of where H. erectus stands in the human lineage has never been clearly answered due to lack of data. It may be that erectus is a direct ancestor of Sapiens; but it may equally well be that both are descendants of some common, earlier species.

*

How long ago you think humans were around depends on what you call 'human'. The oldest Homo Sapiens remains known are less than a quarter of a million years old, so if yours is a strict species definition then that is the answer. But if you define 'human' as a set of traits such as language, toolmaking and tool-use, the mastery and use of fire, etc., then many earlier hominid species, such as erectus and ergaster would also qualify (along with our cousins the Neanderthals, of course).

*

The further back you go the more apelike the human lineage becomes.

If you believe Sapiens himself is more than a million years old, well, there is no positive proof that you are wrong, but none that you are right either. Science will not recognize an earlier date than the present one until conclusive fossil or archaeological evidence for it is shown.

reply to post by Astyanax


Right now, the earliest confirmed date for H. sapiens is 200,000 years ago.

Homo ergaster seems to be a problem child since many physical anthropologists don't think there is enough of a difference between it and Homo erectus for it to be a separate species. It must be a great temptation to name a new fossil find a different species. While some name fossil evidence as H. ergaster, others name the same fossil as H. erectus. One archeology site makes this conclusion:

In short, H. ergaster does not show significant promise of lasting as a separate taxon due to several factors. It has not been shown to be significantly different from erectus to require the designation of a new hominid species, and it has not been shown to be closer to modern humans morphologically as has been claimed by some. At this time, ergaster basically means early H. erectus from Africa.

archaeologyinfo.com...

So the jury is still out on this one. Maybe some new finds will change the picture even more.

Right now, the lineage seems to be H. erectus --> H. heidelbergensis --> H. sapiens. Again, new finds could change this.

I found an interactive site of human evolution created by the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. You can click on anything on the screen to get more information, from milestones to the different species. They have also reconstructed what the different species would look like when you click on the red species names.

humanorigins.si.edu...

reply to post by CaptChaos


Oh sorry, I forgot

Apparently humans can't do anything without divine or alien intervention. Didn't aliens build the Parthenon? I mean it has all those straight lines and everything and is older than Puma Punku.

Come to think of it, I think aliens built the Empire State building and Big Ben in London didn't they?

I think humans don't get enough credit for their ingenuity and creativity.

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


Now now, divine intervention may have first started from a mushroom (or "apple", if you get what I mean). Totally plausible that they stumbled upon a certain red mushroom that expanded their consciousness, so credit can still remain with early man (but this goes back only to about the last ice age, and only neanderthals and homo sapiens were around then). Shamans are the earliest "spiritual teachers", and there's evidence in cave drawings that what they drew was actually from altered states of consciousness. Of course trance dances and meditation can reach that state too, among other things. My point is that some of our earliest art (creativity as you said) may have started from those altered states of consciousness, and are not just depictions of the hunt or animals out on the savannas.


Just some food for thought (pun intended).

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


Interesting article but it is all a bit confusing. Why is a human like species able to make fire, cook his food, make weapons and probably dress himself against the cold considered a Homo Erectus? If you'd ask me this human like species is able to think quite well and should be labeled Homo Sapiens.

Maybe they are trying to be carefull before reputations and established theories are questioned. Anyways, the mainstream accepted theory that man, as it is today, is 150.000- 200.000 years old is on its way into the bin.

Originally posted by zatara
Anyways, the mainstream accepted theory that man, as it is today, is 150.000- 200.000 years old is on its way into the bin.

On the contrary, as more and more molecular data accumulates this theory receives more and more support. If you're truly interested in the subject, and don't have access to scientific literature, check at least this and this blog regularly. The guy who owns them is extremely informed on all matters related to relatively recent human evolution.