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...

“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...…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.…