Debate on Origin of Fire

Fire: A Debate Over its Origins
The ability to control fire was clearly a turning point in human history, although the conditions which enabled humans to master the ability to control fire remains controversial amongst anthropologists. The fact that it was understood that fire was a significant milestone is evident even in myth, as the god Prometheus is depicted as offering fire to the first humans, and thus giving humans godlike power. Fire is a source of warmth, enabling human beings to better survive harsh conditions in the cold, and also a source of light, extending the productive day of humans. The beginnings of the human use of fire are often called so-called cooking hypothesis. As anyone who has ever cooked is aware, it is considerably easier to digest food which has been broken down through the process of fire. When humans were able to regularly cook their food, they were able to digest it more efficiently, process the nutrients present in the food, and thus spend less time focused upon gathering nutrition and more energy doing other things, including making productive contributions to culture.
But because fossil remains are incomplete, and humans were scattered very widely all over the globe, even during the early stages of their evolution from primates, anthropologists continue to debate just when fire was used and how it was used. This is the central focus of the debate between Dr. Francesco Berna and Dr. John Shea at Boston University.
Anthropologist Francesco Berna argues that the evidence that early Homo erectus used fire is “scant and inconclusive” but that the hypothesis that humans used fire this early in their history is not entirely without merit (Berna, 2013, p.1). Berna notes based on recovered remains of primates, Homo erectus’ body mass, likely feeding time, and molar size means a cooked diet likely formed part of daily sustenance, in some manner (Berna, 2013). True, the fact that humans may have consumed fire-charred remains does not necessarily mean that humans used fire in an intelligent and controlled way. “A well-controlled fire, such as a small ephemeral camp fire, will produce very limited amounts of ash, charcoal, and burnt bones and sediments” (Berna, 2013, p.1). In other words, although forest fires and other sources of external, nature-generated fire may create fire, this does not mean that humans could rely upon that fire in a reliable fashion through sustained cultivation. On the other hand, because the ability to control fire demands contained use by definition and produces limited debris and sediment, the absence of such traces means that a controlled camp fire is unlikely to leave lasting evidence, and the absence of the existence of means to start a fire does not mean that one did not exist, since many ways of starting a fire leave no traces.
Based upon the biological evidence of human remains, and “upon reviewing the archaeological record,” Berna ultimately urges that “the earliest claims for traces of fire are indeed associated with Homo erectus for sites in Africa, Asia, and Europe” (Berna, 2013, p.2). This could mean that even before humans achieved distinction as a species in their current form, humans were using fire as a source of nutrition, cultural and social definition in terms of how they governed their day, and even perhaps as a form of very primitive agriculture, through the use of controlled burning. Fire was thus an important part of how humans became human, not simply a cultural tool of later humans.
Homo erectus, in Berna’s view, is indeed the first Prometheus. He does, however, note that this is merely a hypothesis, since it still requires a great deal of reconstruction and supposition of early human life that predates a complete archeological record. “The controversies stem from the fact that all of these are open-air sites and it is not possible to completely exclude the action of wild fires” in terms of the conclusive evidence which does remain of the human use of fire during this early period (Berna, 2013, p.2). Berna views recently unearthed examples of controlled burning in caves to further support his assertion, but again notes that he finds this merely to be a promising hypothesis, rather than definitive and conclusive.
John Shea states that that fire must be viewed in through the lens of a cost-benefit analysis. Yes, fire provides both food and protection. It enables humans to more effectively digest their prey as well as better enables them to protect themselves against predators. But fire is obviously quite risky. Although all of us have delighted in a tasty barbeque, the costs of fire in the form of forest and plain fires are testimony to the tremendous destruction it can cause. Fire must be contained and used effectively and sparingly to provide benefits. There is a reason that human beings are the only species who have used fire in such a manner, in contrast to other intelligent species who could have benefited from it. Thus, rather than viewing the ability to contain fire as a fuel for human development and evolution, Shea suggests that humans must have attained some type of evolutionary level of intelligence to make fire a friend rather than a foe. Simply adding fire to human life alone does not necessarily mean humans are able to reap the benefits.
Evidence for fire is “ubiquitous,” states Shea, for Homo sapiens, but not for early manifestations of the human animal (Shea, 2013, p.1). The existence of Homo sapiens in colder climates, along with evidence of controlled burning and the use of fire as a method of cooking further supports the fact that Homo sapiens used fire, given the unlikely ability for the species to remain warm and viable under such conditions. Shea does note, however, that “important derived features of the Genus Homo, such as brain enlargement and reduced dental robusticity, long precede the oldest evidence for fire” (Shea, 2013, p.4). Still, Shea calls himself a pessimist or a realist when it comes to surmising the extent to which controlled fire was available to early humans. Despite the fact that anthropologists are, like Berna, “glass half full optimists,” Shea is not comfortable speculating about the existence which does not exist (Shea, 2013, p.4).
It is interesting to review the tone of the debate between the two men, because unlike many political debates, the debate is relatively friendly. Furthermore, both of them agree on several critical points, namely that fire was very significant for Homo sapiens, Early Homo sapiens clearly used fire to stay alive and advance the progress of the species. Both also concede that it is impossible that species before Homo erectus were able to control fire. They are essentially debating over a very specific period of time, in an attempt to answer the question if Homo erectus used fire in an intelligent manner. In Shea’s view, evolution or natural selection came to favor certain individuals with larger brains and better developed molars. Intelligence and biological changes made the use of fire advantageous, regardless of how this fire was obtained. But it is inappropriate to speculate that the contained use of fire existed before this.
Berna, in contrast, is willing to engage in more imaginative speculation, the kind that Shea views as fruitless. Shea asks: “How broadly can we generalize from single occurrences of fire? What does a hearth that burned at one site for a day or two imply about habitual fire use more broadly in time and space?” (Shea, 2013, p.4). But Berna views the fact that it is possible to have contained burning without leaving traces, if done on a small enough scale, as promising. Thus this may reveal as much about the two scholars’ divergent attitudes to archeology and anthropology as it does about early human life in general.




Reference
Berna, F. (2013). The taming of fire was a turning point in prehistory: When and where did it
begin? Retrieved from: http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/files/2013/04/Berna-Statement.pdf
Dialogue webcast. (2013). Boston University. Retrieved from:
http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/dialogues/prometheus/
Shea, J. (2013). Oh, for a muse of fire: An archaeological perspective on anthropogenic fire.
Retrieved from: http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/files/2013/04/Shea-BU-dialogues-statemt- revd.pdf