The Origins of Human Fire Use: Berna vs. Shea Debate

Introduction: Fire as a Human Turning Point

The ability to control fire was clearly a turning point in human history, although the conditions that enabled humans to master fire remain controversial among anthropologists. The significance of fire as a milestone is evident even in myth: the god Prometheus is depicted as offering fire to the first humans, thereby granting them godlike power. Fire is a source of warmth, enabling human beings to better survive harsh cold conditions, and also a source of light, extending the productive hours of the human day.

The Cooking Hypothesis and Human Evolution

The beginnings of human fire use are often framed by what is called the cooking hypothesis. As anyone who has ever cooked knows, food broken down through the application of heat is considerably easier to digest. When humans were able to regularly cook their food, they could digest it more efficiently, process its nutrients more effectively, and thus spend less time focused on gathering nutrition and more energy on other activities—including making productive contributions to culture.

Because fossil remains are incomplete, and because early humans were scattered widely across the globe even during the early stages of their evolution from primates, anthropologists continue to debate exactly when and how fire was first used. This question forms the central focus of the debate between Dr. Francesco Berna and Dr. John Shea.

Berna's Case for Homo Erectus and Early Fire Use

Anthropologist Francesco Berna argues that the evidence for early Homo erectus fire use is "scant and inconclusive," but that the hypothesis is not entirely without merit (Berna, 2013, p. 1). Based on recovered primate remains, Berna notes that Homo erectus's body mass, likely feeding time, and molar size suggest that a cooked diet likely formed part of daily sustenance in some manner (Berna, 2013). The fact that early humans may have consumed fire-charred remains does not by itself prove that they used fire in an intelligent and controlled way. As Berna explains, "a well-controlled fire, such as a small ephemeral campfire, will produce very limited amounts of ash, charcoal, and burnt bones and sediments" (Berna, 2013, p. 1). In other words, while forest fires and other naturally occurring sources may have produced fire, this does not mean that early humans could rely upon it in a sustained, reliable fashion. Conversely, because controlled fire use by definition involves contained burning and produces limited debris and sediment, its absence in the archaeological record does not necessarily mean controlled fire did not exist—many methods of starting a fire leave no lasting traces at all.

Based on biological evidence and "upon reviewing the archaeological record," Berna ultimately argues 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 interpretation suggests that even before humans achieved distinction as a species in their current form, they may have been using fire as a source of nutrition, as a social and cultural organizer, and perhaps even as a form of very primitive land management through controlled burning. Fire, in this view, was an important part of how humans became human—not merely a tool adopted by humans who had already evolved.

For Berna, Homo erectus is indeed the first Prometheus. He does, however, acknowledge that this remains a hypothesis requiring considerable reconstruction and supposition about early human life that predates a complete archaeological 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" when assessing the conclusive evidence of early fire use (Berna, 2013, p. 2). Berna points to recently unearthed examples of controlled burning in caves as further support, but characterizes his position as a promising hypothesis rather than a definitive conclusion.

Conclusion: Methodology and Interpretation in Prehistory

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). Berna, however, finds promise in the very fact that controlled burning on a small enough scale may leave no traces at all, which means its absence from the record cannot be taken as evidence of its non-existence. Ultimately, the debate may reveal as much about the two scholars' divergent approaches to archaeology and anthropology as it does about the realities of early human life.

References

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). Retrieved from

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