
Clues That Neanderthals Didn't Know How to Make Fire (2017) - pseudolus
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-first-fire/515427/
======
jjk166
This conclusion does not seem to be the simplest conclusion from the evidence.
Forest fires would be more rare in cold periods, but they would still occur -
if they happened 10 times less often you'd expect to see around 10% as much
fire usage, not 0%. While it is possible Neanderthals in the region abruptly
stopped using fire in the region for tens of thousands of years, another
possibility is that they started making a different style of hearth which did
not leave the same form of evidence. Perhaps they switched to making fires in
different parts of or outside the cave, or perhaps they built fires on raised
stones that provided better airflow but also meant buried artifacts recieved
less heat, or perhaps as sediment built up in the cave they started digging
pits for their hearths which would make them appear older, etc.

While none of this explicitly rules out the possibility that Neanderthals
lacked the ability to make fire, that a hominin so similar to us that we could
potentially crossbreed could survive in arctic climates without fire is an
extraordinary claim, and absence of evidence for fire at these locations is
not necessarily evidence of absence.

~~~
londons_explore
Any skill not used for ~100 years will probably be forgotten - it's not like
these people had libraries and books.

In cold climates, I wouldn't expect forest fires to happen in any given
location more than once per hundred years.

Hence, I can totally believe that once forest fires get below a certain
frequency, people lose the skill to contain it.

~~~
snapdangle
That is categorically untrue. Verbal cultures in Australia have kept an
accurate account of a coastline that existed over 10,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, the supposed collective knowledge in books is constantly second
guessed and taken with grains of salt ("bronze age army sizes couldn't
possibly be the size they write that they are", "the winner writes the
history", etc).

~~~
londons_explore
100 years might be the limit of how long knowledge can last and still be
useful enough though. 100 years is probably 6 generations.

Imagine explaining a complex process, like how to change the ink cartridge on
a printer, via a chain of chinese whispers. Now put 20 years between each step
of the chain, and remember all the intermediate people can't practice or try
the skill they are described - they simply have to imagine it, since they have
no fire to play with.

 _If_ the knowledge lasts that long, when a forest fire does happen, people
only have one chance to figure out how to keep it alive. Accidentally put wet
wood on it just once, and it's dead again for another 100 years.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It was often _not_ Chinese whispers though -- that's dismissive. Our being
"modern" there's a tendency to think because they didn't have ink cartridges
and internets they were stupid and all knowledge ephemeral. How about an
alternative that fits with aboriginal, and African oral culture:

Imagine explaining a complex process, using language carefully structured to
be memorable, to the next generation. Then spending hours repeating, testing
and checking their recollection over the coming days and years to ensure their
memory is as yours. Rather like rote learning of tables and other "modern"
learning. 2x2=4 doesn't become something else that way.

Each generation gets a complex story they may not see the applicability of,
but if it's evolved to be important in the culture to remember, maybe they
figured ways to remember until it is useful again. Africans did, pre-Medieval
Europeans did, and for the longest period known, aborigines did. Why not
these?

~~~
iguy
Agree that oral transmission was an important & practiced skill. But I do
wonder about how well it let you transmit "technological" knowledge, in a
manner that could be turned back into practice. Do we have any examples of
people doing this?

My counter-example is various failures to reproduce early industrial-
revolution processes... from memory, wasn't there a stage when the French were
pushing to catch up in iron-making, and sent spies to England, from whose
accounts they could not make the process work? Despite having not just words,
but materials and examples of the result. (The solution, eventually, was to
pay people who had the knack to move there.)

~~~
ColanR
I think you underestimate how much better a pre-literate culture is at
memorization, compared to a culture with the luxury of writing. It would be
more useful to find an example of a similar pre-literate culture to make your
point.

~~~
iguy
No, the point I was trying to make is that even with absolutely perfect
transmission (which is the best they could hope for) it can be very difficult
to translate words back into actions. It's also hard to learn golf or dancing
from a book (again, perfect error-free memorisation) because there's a lot of
knowledge which doesn't fit well into words. Muscle memory, once you've got
it.

I presume this was also true of the making of stone tools, or pottery. And of
the recognition of edible plants & mushrooms. All of these are skills which
I'd be surprised to see transmitted over a long time-lapse. (Without being at
all surprised by the memorisation of stories, at a level I could never match.)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
The most recent example might be the Australian aborigines fire rituals. After
this year's bush fires there have been many calls to use their fire ritual
burnings once again. I gather this has been done in the Northern Territories
for a few years, and is far more successful than advanced, technological and
knowledge filled approaches (Western arrogance that our way must be better)
that pushed the traditional out for decades. They seem to have kept more than
enough to be far better at it than those meant to know. How well they work in
a significantly changed climate is another question, but it appears to work
_better._

Speculating wildly here, we don't know the Neanderthals didn't ritualise the
activity into a dance or an act to retain some of the process as well as the
words. As we do with dancing, martial arts, even theatre or early stages of
ancient apprenticeships. That might transmit the muscle memory of golf or
stone tool making -- without the practised skill. How far that remains
applicable using a stick in place of a golf club, or pine cone in place of a
lump of flint is impossible to guess, but puts you closer than mere words.

I have to assume they wouldn't suffer the Wikipedia tendency to explain the
technical so technically perfect (including all obscure jargon) that it's
often bordering on impossible for an intelligent outsider, deeply skilled in
other technical fields, to follow. :)

~~~
iguy
What's the time-period for the firebreaks? I mean when these skills last used,
even if on a smallish scale?

OK, ritualising a "how to ride a bicycle dance" seems like it could be a way
to pass more information than a perfectly repeated poem / book. (Perhaps
thinking of oral tradition as meaning Homer not how to chip flint is a blind
spot in how we think about such things?) Would still be extremely curious to
know of any examples where this actually happened.

------
johnlbevan2
There seems to be an assumption that the skill of creating fire was discovered
once. Knowledge gets lost; and over a 250,000 year period it's pretty likely
that even something as important as this may be lost a few times / maybe only
to some groups at a time. If you prove that one group of Neanderthals didn't
make fire that's not the same as proving that no Neanderthals knew how to
create fire.

~~~
ddebernardy
Exactly this. And it's also worth pointing out that before matches were a
thing, the main way to start your fire when yours went out was to go to a
neighbor's place with some kind of combustible (torch, lantern) or a container
to bring back some ember.

~~~
kstenerud
This was actually the premise for the film "La Guerre de Feu" or "Quest for
Fire".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire_\(film\))

~~~
iguy
Which is precisely what the first sentence of TFA discusses.

------
Mikeb85
And there's (more recent) studies claiming they did:

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-suggests-
nea...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-suggests-neanderthals-
sparked-their-own-fire-180969714/)

[http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/neanderthals-start-
fire-...](http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/neanderthals-start-
fire-07742.html)

~~~
ptrott2017
and other findings that indicate they used it as part of tool fabrication
processes

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/neanderthal-glue-
was...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/neanderthal-glue-was-a-bigger-
deal-than-we-thought/)

------
Zenst
There are many examples of Neanderthal flint tools. With that in mind, I'm
wondering if they didn't discover fire by hitting a flint with another rock
with iron in it - producing sparks.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
Even when you _know_ how to make fire (and the most efficient way to make
fire) it's still super difficult. Try going outdoor and making a bonfire from
sparks.

I don't think it's far fetched to think of it as bleeding-edge technology that
only a few (of a certain species) had control over at the time. It would be
similar to us meeting humanoid aliens and watching them master nuclear fusion.

~~~
PeterisP
IDK, it's not _that_ difficult, I've seen all kinds of outdoorsy
organizations/events manage to teach preteen kids in less than an hour to
start a fire with flint&steel + items they themselves gather in the forest.
It's more difficult if it's been raining or everything is under snow, but I've
seen adults do that (with some guiding words, though, not discovering on their
own) quite quickly even if they've never done this before.

It takes some effort and patience (mostly in preparing a good environment for
a spark to light something small and dry on fire), and you need to know what
are good conditions for a fire to start (which may not be obvious if you've
never had fire), and you need a _desire_ to make a fire as opposed to fearing
it; so there's some barrier to overcome in inventing/attempting the process,
but once that's done and you see how others are using and maintaining fire
(even if the 'magic' initial process is obscured) then the technique would
spread out like literal fire.

~~~
asdff
Go watch a youtube video then try to go make a primitive fire. Collecting the
right fire starting material is not always a possibility, let alone the flint.
If it rained the day before you might not be able to make a fire even with the
right starting tools. If it's cold or windy it might not happen either.

Then if you do manage to get a fire, you have to have enough resources around
to fuel it and get some coals for your giant sloth sirloin. If you camp in an
area over time, eventually you will exhaust all the available firewood. Plus,
every time you light a fire you risk other groups of people and predators
poking around for that giant sloth sirloin of yours.

If I've been getting by ok eating sloth sushi fresh off the kill for millions
of years, why even risk it? Homo sapiens probably didn't have the gut
microbiota to manage. Food poisoning could be a death sentence back then.

~~~
PeterisP
Why should I watch a youtube video? I've done that in practice, and as I said
above, I've personally seen multiple preteen kids successfully taught to do
what you describe on the first day they tried it, and I've seen adults do that
(with guidance/advice) not "If it rained the day before" but when it's been
raining for a week and is still raining, again, having not done things like
that ever in their life.

Yes, it takes time and effort to collect the right fire starting material in
wet conditions - you might need a couple hours and a longer walk, but that's
what hunter-gatherers do much of their day anyway.

And yes, it takes some "wilderness lore" specific to your local environment to
recognize what's suitable and what's not, what's available and in what
locations. That can be transferred reasonably quickly (i.e. the very basics in
an hour or so) by showing stuff on-site but not easily over a ten minute
youtube video that's likely taken far away in a different environment; but
again, getting to know the local flora and fauna is a big part of young
hunter-gatherer 'education' no matter if they use fire or not.

------
throwaway_tech
>Fire would have allowed Neanderthals to cook those animals, making the meat
easier to chew and more nutritious.

I understand fire/cooking may make meat more bio available to humans (I
suppose it is also possible to make meat/food more nutritious, or at least
chemically alter certain enzymes making the food arguably more nutritious in
certain instances)...but can we really apply human digestion broadly to
neanderthals?

Is it not possible Neanderthals were better equipped to digest and/or absorb
calories/nutrients from uncooked meat/food generally? Anyone know of
differences in modern human and modern monkey/chimp/ape digestive systems?

------
SubiculumCode
Ancient clues of a null finding....seems like a hard argument to make
convincingly.

------
timeattack
I'm wondering about how common this knowledge nowadays? What is the chance
that if you take average Joe and put him into forest without any specific
tools, what is the chance that he will be able to start fire?

That's what feels inherently wrong to me about our knowledge system is our
common knowledge is so superficial and we're constantly loosing touch with
very basics about nature of things.

~~~
kstenerud
There are tons of things that the average person doesn't know in this age of
specialization:

* How to build a sturdy shelter

* How to hunt

* How to trap

* How to forage without poisoning yourself

* How to plow a field

* How to build a plow

* How to sharpen a knife

* How to forge a knife

* How to grow crops (planting seasons, pests, enclosures, blight, etc)

~~~
blaser-waffle
Shoot, it doesn't have to be neolithic.

How many people know how to do stuff like change their oil or brakepads
without watching YouTube?

How many HN readers need to search for specific commands for Makefiles -- I
still do sometimes -- or how to use an obscure part part of an API?

------
radford-neal
Regarding the opening... No, the heroes of Quest for Fire were not
Neanderthals. They were modern humans, though from a less technically advanced
tribe than the one from which they ultimately learned fire-making. At least
one other hominin species appears in the movie, though - possibly intended to
be Neanderthals...

~~~
nickserv
I remember it as a love story between a modern woman and a Neanderthal man.

~~~
ivanhoe
Quote from the movie summary: "In the prehistoric world, a Cro-Magnon tribe
depends on an ever-burning source of fire, which eventually extinguishes."

So they were all humans, just not all at the same technological/cultural
level.

------
Merrill
The notion that fire was used for warmth seems implausible.

First, it would take a lot of fuel, and harvesting enough fuel with stone axes
would seem to be a great deal of work. When the climate is really cold, as in
tundra, fuel is not readily available. Inuit do use fire in igloos. The fuel
is seal blubber. It's not clear that the Neanderthals would have had a source
of oil.

Second, to live successfully in the cold also required the ability to stay
warm while away from the cave for hunting, fishing, and gathering food. It's
also necessary to go out and gather more fuel. It's not likely that the
Neanderthals could store enough food and fuel in the cave to be able to hunker
down all winter. Thus, it seems more likely that the Neanderthals were more
cold adapted, may have had more body hair, and likely wore animal skins.

~~~
hutzlibu
You have not often made a fire in the woods (in winter) have you?

When you are camping when it is cold, you absolutely want a fire. Even a small
one is nice when you are wet and want to dry up.

And no, you don't use a axe to get green firewood, you collect dead wood.

In old forests there is plenty of it. So sure, after a winter the tribe would
have to walk a bit longer to gather it but totally worth it. I doubt wood was
ever a problem in a forest. Food was.

And yes, the ones hunting could not make fire ... but they were on the move
and strong. The children and pregnant women in the cave could not stand it so
much. Even though they were surely more tolerant to it than we are today.

~~~
Merrill
No, but as a child I lived in a house heated by wood in Minnesota, so I have
an idea of how much wood it takes. Dead wood small enough to break by hand is
unlikely to produce heat over night. You want fairly big chunks of hardwood
for that. An a cave would be harder to heat than a house when it is -25 F.

I'm aware of the old saying, build a small fire, sit close to stay warm; build
a big fire, chop wood to stay warm.

~~~
hutzlibu
"Dead wood small enough to break by hand is unlikely to produce heat over
night. "

It actually can, when you have someone to guard the fire. But yes, if there
are bigger pieces of deadwood, you take them. And there usually are. Like a
small dead tree.

Also no need to chop it. Just put it in the fire and push it further and
further when it burns down ..

(I made fire outside a lot with no tools around)

But even then they probably would not have heated the cave to house
temperatures. But no need to. When it is freezing outside, you are very happy
to get it some degrees above freezing. And the rest is indeed lots of animal
skin.

------
ada1981
I’d like to see a thread that is like “Clues 21st Century Humans Didn’t Know
How To ________”

------
symplee
Have any other animals ever discovered fire?

If humans vanished today, how long would it take for the next animal to
discover it? Which animal would it be? What about if we don't count primates?
(Also worth noting, dolphins unfortunately have an extremely unfair
disadvantage...)

~~~
rjvs
I don't think they know how to light a fire from scratch (yet?) but birds use
fire, starting new fires using existing embers and burning twigs.

[https://www.sciencealert.com/birds-intentionally-set-prey-
ab...](https://www.sciencealert.com/birds-intentionally-set-prey-ablaze-
rewriting-history-fire-use-firehawk-raptors)

~~~
catalogia
That's very far from confirmed. The basis of that article is interviews with
claimed witnesses and examination of oral history. That's 'cryptid' tier
evidence. A whole lot of people will swear until their face turns blue that
they've had brunch with bigfoot; that doesn't make it so.

------
onreact
Intriguing. I just recently realized that Neanderthals actually were wiped off
due to climate change.

Now I know exactly why. Without the ability to make fire they were pretty
helpless during cold periods.

~~~
catalogia
Did you intuit this?

~~~
onreact
No, I read about it.

------
axaxs
I did read the article, yet came away baffled by the headline. Of course
Neanderthal knew how to make fire...

~~~
pdonis
_> Of course Neanderthal knew how to make fire..._

How do you know? Saying "of course" implies a level of certainty that does not
seem warranted, given how much we don't know about the Neanderthals.

~~~
dboreham
They had a brain almost as large as homeo sapiens, and lived in an
interglacial climate with no access to tropical fruit, so they must have eaten
cooked food in order to metabolize sufficient calories to power their brains.
That requires cooking which requires fire.

Also the point of divergence is estimated at less than 800kya whereas use of
fire for cooking is estimated at 1.5mya. So Neanderthals would have to have
both lost the ability to make fire apparently possessed by their ancestors,
and somehow figured out how to survive in Europe without cooking.

~~~
ggm
_They had a brain almost as large as homeo sapiens, and lived in an
interglacial climate with no access to tropical fruit, so they must have eaten
cooked food in order to metabolize sufficient calories to power their brains.
That requires cooking which requires fire._

I'm not calling you wrong ab initio, but can you post something confirming to
this theory? You really strongly state that its not possible to feed a large
brain without cooked food. Raw blubber, brains, organ meat (liver) and freshly
killed muscle meat are routinely digested.

Nuts do not require cooking. Fruit does not require cooking and has
carbohydrates (plant sugers)

Whats the specific barrier to calorific intake which demands cooking?

------
briga
We're always looking for something to make humans seem more unique. Basically
every biological evolutionary adaptation that humans have is present in other
species of animal to some extent. Why is it so hard to believe that
Neaderthals could have used fire? They had larger brains on average than
humans, they had other signs of culture as well. They also weren't nearly as
genetically different from homo sapiens as chimpanzees. Seems likely to me
that humans and neanderthals were similar in many ways, which is why they were
able to survive for so long in the same habitat.

~~~
catalogia
The article seems to muddy the distinction between whether Neanderthals were
_mentally or physically incapable_ of making fire, or whether they were simply
ignorant. The article talks about chimps, who are incapable of making fire
even when modern humans try to teach them. Chimps aren't merely ignorant;
they're incapable.

In some parts of the world, homo sapiens and neanderthals lived alongside each
other for thousands of years, close enough to have hybrid offspring. If
earlier neanderthals were merely ignorant, they could have learned how to make
fire from homo sapiens. Fire making isn't an innate human behavior, it's
something that we teach each other. Since neanderthals obviously had the
dexterity and brainpower to nap tools out of flint, which chimps are incapable
of, the talk of chimps being unable to make fire doesn't seem particularly
relevant.

I don't doubt for an instant that _some_ homo sapiens and _some_ neanderthals
didn't know how to make fire. But that's a weaker claim than the blanket
statement about all neanderthals.

