Response to Who Started the First Fire

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/neanderthal-fire/

In the article, “Who Started the First Fire”, by Dennis Sandgathe and Harold Dibble, it examines the origins of human’s ability to control fire. Since it is one of the most important technological advances in human history, it is interesting to understand who were the first to control and create fire.

Conventional theories thought that Neanderthals were not capable of making fire. As referenced in the 1981 film, “Quest for Fire”, it also illustrates how Neanderthals struggled to keep an ember burning and that they have no idea how to make a fire of their own. In contradiction to this, recent projects in Africa have found fire evidence from over 1 million years ago (Neanderthals came about 250,000 years ago).

An interesting question raised in the article asks how could have our ancestors survived and colonized in more northern areas in Asia and Europe, where the climate gets extremely cold, without being able to control fire? This idea leads me to believe that Neanderthals must have had some knowledge of fire as I do not know how they would be able to stay warm or cook any game that they had hunted, as vegetation in colder times were extremely limited. During this time, there would have been herds of reindeer, horses, and woolly mammoths as food sources, so how would Neanderthals be able to chew such meats without a way to make it more palatable and nutritious?

Research that had been done by Jill Pruetz, a primatologist at Iowa State University, showed the interactions between chimps and fire. Her foundings showed that the chimps were very aware of the behaviors of the fire and did not seem scared of it as other animals would. She also found that chimps would monitor the fires and scavenge the burnt out areas, thus using the wildfires to their advantage.

This article then switches to another set of findings where they had excavated two Middle Paleolithic sites, Pech de l’Azé IV and Roc de Marsal, in the Périgord region of southwestern France. At this site had found evidence of fire from warmer eras but no traces of these Neanderthals using fire during the colder periods where glaciers were widespread among Europe (70,000 – 40,000 years ago). This then leads to the questions of why did they only use fire in warmer times and not colder?

I believe that this study was approached in a behavioral theoretical perspective. I think this because the studies focused on the relationships between our early ancestors and their artifacts, which included hearths and tools, and the role that these artifacts had on the life of Neanderthals. These objects were viewed as active agents to behavior and these actions were analyzed in terms of making, using and control over fire. I think that these researchers may have been influenced to use this theoretical framework because, there is little evidence on who made the first fire in regards to specific artifacts, painting, scripts, etc. By having little data to work with, I think that approaching this study in a behavioral perspective was necessary because the relationships of Neanderthals to artifacts of fire is currently the best way to try and understand the behavior of our ancestors. therefore, since there is little data to support who made the first fire, trying to understand the behaviors of Neanderthals is the best way we can try to understand this technological advancement.

Lastly, I would also use this same theoretical approach because of the same influences that I had believed the researchers had faced when doing their own studies. unless there were more artifacts on past uses of fire, I think that focusing on behavior more than on materials is the best/only way to analyze uses of fire for the time being.

Can archaeology shed light on future societies?

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/fifth-beginning/

Can archaeology shed light on future societies? Is using what we have learned (or theorized about) through archaeology to predict the future of our world always viable? Robert L. Kelly argues that “hunter-gatherers didn’t intend to become farmers; they were simply trying to be the best hunter-gatherers they could be. Such transformations have nothing to do with progress. The same is true today. In trying to be the most-industrialized, best-armed, most successful capitalist nation-states we can be, we should expect to become something completely new.” I am uncertain as to why Kelly claims that transformations in human societies have nothing to do with progress, or why he seems to suggest that there has only been four to five “beginnings” of society and humanity. I think this is an incorrect assumption; everything has to do with progress, and progress isn’t as simple as specific “beginnings”. It is possible that hunter-gatherers, thousands of years ago, didn’t directly intend to become farmers, but they at least recognized that they were capable of domesticating both edible plants and animals. Whether you believe that these hunter-gatherers farmed because of a need for easily accessible food sources, or because they recognized the significance of ownership of property, is entirely up for debate. Nonetheless, there was recognition of the possibility of progress or change, regardless of the reasoning behind it all. Kelly seems to take a behavioral approach, as he only considers the outcomes of human action, rather than attempting to understand imagination or intention of people.

The difference between the societies of hunter-gatherer turned farmers, and our contemporary world is that our ancestors likely did not have the means to predict or theorize about the future. They likely couldn’t guess at the results of their efforts at farming thousands of years into the future. They didn’t have an extensive recorded history of the world to refer to. But in our world today, we can predict the outcomes of human “progress” in our world. We can predict the outcomes of climate change, or the effects of an overpopulated globe, for example. Kelly argues that “we are now citizens of the world… the fifth beginning will usher in a world generally at peace, one marked by new forms of cooperation in trade, defense, education, entertainment, sports, medicine, and science.” But, if we have learned anything from archaeology or even history, it is that there has likely never been a period of peace in the world. We do have an extensive recorded history to refer to. Yes, the world is always changing, although I do think it is realistic to consider that it is human nature to be non-peaceful, selfish, and destructive.

While Kelly claims “transformations have nothing to do with progress. The same is true today,” this cannot be true if we live in an age where progress is recognized more than ever. I argue that progress and transformation are even desired today. It is true that we can refer to archaeological data to show how transformations take place, but the current world is very different from the world of 12,000 years ago. We can know what will happen if we take certain progressive steps. We are different from the earliest farming societies because we are able to plan our impacts on the world. It is also better to theorize about past societies through agency theory, by arguing that individuals can comprehend the limits of their repetitive behaviors, and break away from these limits. However, I am unsure that the various archaeological data that we have today can shed light on the future of human society simply because we have entered an age of globalization, and inevitably cultural homogenization.

 

Spam prevention powered by Akismet