Humans made fire 300,000 years ago. Before Homo Sapiens emerged. - Polidicks

Also other animals. It makes sense that we eat all these weird things since there are other animals doing the same. [editline]28th January 2014[/editline] Also it moves. Lets eat it!

Our ancestors were already more intelligent than every single animal on the planet, we're the first lineage to become extremely intelligent, and if it wasn't for our world domination, we might of not been the last.

[QUOTE=be;43700983]Our ancestors were already more intelligent than every single animal on the planet, we're the first lineage to become extremely intelligent, and if it wasn't for our world domination, we might of not been the last.[/QUOTE] Except for that race that let us live in peace until we killed them all.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43701397]Except for that race that let us live in peace until we killed them all.[/QUOTE] Damn straight, gotta assert our superiority. Humanity first and all that.

[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;43696851]I'm inclined to believe that past humans were way more intelligent than we give them credit for.[/QUOTE] People have always been as intelligent as they are now (well, Homo Sapiens has been), it's just that we now have a lot more information to build upon.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43701741]People have always been as intelligent as they are now (well, Homo Sapiens has been), it's just that we now have a lot more information to build upon.[/QUOTE] Tbh I think this society is a bit dumber than prehistoric times (for example the internet; no one can correctly spell, we use shorthand for a lot of our words, as well as do some very stupid things) We use computers, but I can bet not too many people even know how they work, or make one from scratch. And being hunters didn't necessarily mean they were stupid, it's just another form of survival. Maybe they couldn't grow food or maybe they just didn't want to. Who knows.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;43702042]Tbh I think this society is a bit dumber than prehistoric times (for example the internet; no one can correctly spell, we use shorthand for a lot of our words, as well as do some very stupid things) We use computers, but I can bet not too many people even know how they work, or make one from scratch. And being hunters didn't necessarily mean they were stupid, it's just another form of survival. Maybe they couldn't grow food or maybe they just didn't want to. Who knows.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm[/url] [quote]Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity![/quote] [quote]Publius Comicius Restitutus stood right here with his brother[/quote] You think an ancient roman citizen knew the science behind aqueducts? We haven't changed much at all just look at the stupid shit they wrote back then like we do today, as someone else said we just have much more information to expand and work upon and as such we're advancing faster and faster.

Early hominini were quite intelligent to what had gone on before, but weren't very comparable to us now. Homo habilis for instance, "invented" a tool which looked like a hand ax and was multipurpose (digging, cutting, chopping, stabbing, etc) but was considerably crude, not much of a great leap from using tools other mammals already used (stones to bash open nuts and shells, sticks to lift and poke things, etc). If you think these early chaps were very advanced, consider that the first hand axes appeared around 2.6 million years ago, and it took an immense period of time for them to change. They remained largely unchanged for around 2 million years, accruing changes on an evolutionary timescale. Rather than being a result of intelligent and inquiring minds actively going out to make tools, they were largely driven by instinct and more of a creation of evolution.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43697094]That sounds rather detailed for finding a pile of ashes. How do they know all those ashes came from one continuous fire and they didn't just relight it in the same place many times over?[/QUOTE] I have a couple of theories. One, maybe in the dig there's the firepit, some bowls or other basic cooking/eating tools...but no tools for [i]starting[/i] fires. So you find this firepit that evidence suggests was used over a long period of time but there's no evidence of how they started fires, that implies they didn't start fires but simply used them. The other thing is being able to start a fire leads to other things. For instance, why would you have rare finds of firepits from that era if they knew how to start fires? Logic says there should be firepits everywhere these cavemen went if they had that ability. Plus fire leads to things like melting down ore and forging metals. If the evidence from that era shows no real use of fire related tech that implies they didn't have reliable use of fire, therefore couldn't develop the tech. If the only fire they had was natural, it means they'd be using that for basic needs such as warmth, cooking, and light. It would be too valuable to risk it in experimentation.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;43702042]Tbh I think this society is a bit dumber than prehistoric times (for example the internet; no one can correctly spell, we use shorthand for a lot of our words, as well as do some very stupid things) We use computers, but I can bet not too many people even know how they work, or make one from scratch. And being hunters didn't necessarily mean they were stupid, it's just another form of survival. Maybe they couldn't grow food or maybe they just didn't want to. Who knows.[/QUOTE] I think people who stacked in large cities near the water were smarter, look at all small villages or cities in the world or perhaps even a tribe that lives somewhere, and then look at the biggest ones. We need others to learn faster, and more people means faster collaboration so new things pop up more often which then can be learned from and further experimented on. I feel this thread has a lot of potential

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43702388]Early hominini were quite intelligent to what had gone on before, but weren't very comparable to us now. Homo habilis for instance, "invented" a tool which looked like a hand ax and was multipurpose (digging, cutting, chopping, stabbing, etc) but was considerably crude, not much of a great leap from using tools other mammals already used (stones to bash open nuts and shells, sticks to lift and poke things, etc). If you think these early chaps were very advanced, consider that the first hand axes appeared around 2.6 million years ago, and it took an immense period of time for them to change. They remained largely unchanged for around 2 million years, accruing changes on an evolutionary timescale. Rather than being a result of intelligent and inquiring minds actively going out to make tools, they were largely driven by instinct and more of a creation of evolution.[/QUOTE] There's an actual, physical difference between Habilis and Sapiens, though. Of course they were dumber, they had smaller and less developed brains. However cavemen as they're traditionally perceived (which is to say, modern humans without technology) were exactly as intelligent as we are now. Progress was slow, but there were a lot of things that demanded people's attention on a day to day basis compared to now. You can't invent something if you're thinking about where your next meal is coming from.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;43702042]Tbh I think this society is a bit dumber than prehistoric times (for example the internet; no one can correctly spell, we use shorthand for a lot of our words, as well as do some very stupid things) We use computers, but I can bet not too many people even know how they work, or make one from scratch. And being hunters didn't necessarily mean they were stupid, it's just another form of survival. Maybe they couldn't grow food or maybe they just didn't want to. Who knows.[/QUOTE] Farming appeared largely due to push factors (declining food availability as big game was hunted to extinction, declining returns from hunter-gathering, etc) and pull factors (early grain harvesters unconsciously selected for bigger seeds, as these were more likely to germinate when buried, leading to increasing yields). Once farming lifestyles showed themselves to be better at producing food than the local method, farming was quickly adopted. (Farming took much longer to get established in places such as Japan, where abundant fishing resources helped push things later). Humans these days are largely similar (mentally at least) in many aspects to how we were around 10,000 years ago, but before that the differences start to really stack up. Some differences (particularly tolerance to certain diseases) did exist between some human populations since that time, but they are not very large ones.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43697063]To elaborate: The first fire known to cavemen did start from observing lightning strikes, but the main thing they did for a long time before they knew how to start fires on their own was to take natural fire, and keep it 'alive' for years by feeding it fuel which they knew it would consume. In fact, one bed of ashes they found in some cave in China was nearly 20 feet deep.[/QUOTE] Is that the same cave system (Zhoukoudian I think) where they found rocks used for heat and cooking? All of this doesn't particularly surprise me, ancient humans weren't too different from us. Hell, Heidelbergensis (progenitor of the Neanderthal) practiced ritualistic burial, and that was almost a million years ago.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43702460]There's an actual, physical difference between Habilis and Sapiens, though. Of course they were dumber, they had smaller and less developed brains. However cavemen as they're traditionally perceived (which is to say, modern humans without technology) were exactly as intelligent as we are now. Progress was slow, but there were a lot of things that demanded people's attention on a day to day basis compared to now. You can't invent something if you're thinking about where your next meal is coming from.[/QUOTE] Well yeah Homo Sapiens is pretty similar to us. However, early humans (even the ones who lived 300,000 years ago) weren't exactly doing things as intelligently as we were. You could go back maybe 100,000 years at most, and even then those humans would be different in many aspects compared to us (for one, they would be very very vulnerable to disease and probably unable to hold their drinks).

The main reason that it seemingly took so long for humans to modernize technology (relative to the last few millenia anyway) wasn't due to their intelligence, but instead because of their lack of adherence to easily preserved mediums. It's much easier for stone tools and weapons to last millenia without being destroyed by natural forces than others. For example, it is entirely possible that societies which used primarily a combination of wood, paper, cornstarch, rubber, silk, fur, shell, leather, bone, cotton and even possibly copper and aluminum (take your pick depending on location) could be 99% decayed in a few centuries, let alone millenia. Writing would be the primary method of preservation of information, but is not a necessity in a functional society (though it obviously has benefits). For everyday processes, almost everything was possible to teach via practice and observation, while barter costs could easily be displayed using easily decaying mediums, including paper with simple markings. Writing was only deemed necessary when people began to specialize in specific trades that can not just be discussed verbally in a reasonable amount of time, with preservation being a secondary bonus. Why would it take so long? It is entirely plausible that people first found finding the structure of an alphabet to be absurd and, considering how long it takes to teach youth linguistics, was most likely not what they felt would be a useful asset in an era where an illness or a venom can kill you in a week with almost no hope to have the necessary cure at hand. Similarly, farming and fur clothing would not be something easily preserved, nor would art based on wood carving or wood painting (hence why the majority of prehistoric paintings known are in caves where they adhere to non-decaying stone) Plus, we definitely have more to discover: the Antikythera mechanism is roughly 2000 years old, yet shows signs that it was what could be classified as an analog computer and that it was most likely not the first design of it's kind. (However, it was preserved at the bottom of the sea, whereas the others were most likely broken down for parts to scrap once they reached a level of dysfunction from non-maintenance.) Imagine what kind of technology we could have find if they weren't claimed by entropy!

[QUOTE=The Duke;43703240]The main reason that it seemingly took so long for humans to modernize technology (relative to the last few millenia anyway) wasn't due to their intelligence, but instead because of their lack of adherence to easily preserved mediums. It's much easier for stone tools and weapons to last millenia without being destroyed by natural forces than others. For example, it is entirely possible that societies which used primarily a combination of wood, paper, cornstarch, rubber, silk, fur, shell, leather, bone, cotton and even possibly copper and aluminum (take your pick depending on location) could be 99% decayed in a few centuries, let alone millenia. Writing would be the primary method of preservation of information, but is not a necessity in a functional society (though it obviously has benefits). For everyday processes, almost everything was possible to teach via practice and observation, while barter costs could easily be displayed using easily decaying mediums, including paper with simple markings. Writing was only deemed necessary when people began to specialize in specific trades that can not just be discussed verbally in a reasonable amount of time, with preservation being a secondary bonus. Why would it take so long? It is entirely plausible that people first found finding the structure of an alphabet to be absurd and, considering how long it takes to teach youth linguistics, was most likely not what they felt would be a useful asset in an era where an illness or a venom can kill you in a week with almost no hope to have the necessary cure aat hand. Similarly, farming and fur clothing would not be something easily preserved, nor would art based on wood carving or wood painting (hence why the majority of prehistoric paintings known are in caves where they adhere to non-decaying stone) Plus, we definitely have more to discover: the Antikythera mechanism is roughly 2000 years old, yet shows signs that it was what could be classified as an analog computer and that it was most likely not the first design of it's kind. (However, it was preserved at the bottom of the sea, whereas the others were most likely broken down for parts to scrap once they reached a level of dysfunction from non-maintenance.) Imagine what kind of technology we could have find if they weren't claimed by entropy![/QUOTE] If you are implying there were agrarian or literate societies before around 12kya, I am sorry to say that there weren't any. We have many methods of recording the past and looking at remains.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43703381]If you are implying there were agrarian or literate societies before around 12kya, I am sorry to say that there weren't any. We have many methods of recording the past and looking at remains.[/QUOTE] I was explaining why there would be an absence of literate societies, actually. However, I disagree about an absence of agrarian societies. They were most certainly not as viable as when the Agricultural Revolution occured, but must have been present in some form for at least a few centuries prior to the transition. With a significantly lower population, a hunter-gatherer society and "fortified towns" made primarily of wood (or even simply roaming with key campgrounds in a territory) could exist with more stationary members being relegated to maintenance of territory, property, children and a small reserve of grown food. (Please note that I am not claiming that farming has been existent for 1 mil+ years, I'm aware that is quite absurd)

I'd always read in school that we had use of fire 500,000 years ago, and now when I searched for that I found that some scholars believe that the hominid has had some control of fire for nearly 1.7 million years, though they say the evidence is less than clear.

[QUOTE=The Duke;43703533]I was explaining why there would be an absence of literate societies, actually. However, I disagree about an absence of agrarian societies. They were most certainly not as viable as when the Agricultural Revolution occured, but must have been present in some form for at least a few centuries prior to the transition. With a significantly lower population, a hunter-gatherer society and "fortified towns" made primarily of wood (or even simply roaming with key campgrounds in a territory) could exist with more stationary members being relegated to maintenance of territory, property, children and a small reserve of grown food. (Please note that I am not claiming that farming has been existent for 1 mil+ years, I'm aware that is quite absurd)[/QUOTE] By a few centuries? Try a few thousand years. Large semi-permanent settlements have existed for a good few thousand years before the rise of agriculture, and were largely dependent on existing resources nearby. In the Pacific Northwest of America and in Japan, the fishing opportunities were good enough that they could support large population for long periods of time, enough to the point they built structures they intended to live in for a good portion of their lives.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;43702042]Tbh I think this society is a bit dumber than prehistoric times (for example the internet; no one can correctly spell, we use shorthand for a lot of our words, as well as do some very stupid things) We use computers, but I can bet not too many people even know how they work, or make one from scratch. And being hunters didn't necessarily mean they were stupid, it's just another form of survival. Maybe they couldn't grow food or maybe they just didn't want to. Who knows.[/QUOTE] Cro magnon man had a larger brain cavity than modern humans. The constant building of abstractions is not something to be scoffed at though.

Bit of a misleading headline. We've suspected/known that homo erectus likely had the ability to use fire around 400,000 years ago, although it's suggested by some anthropologists that this occurred much earlier (up to about 1 million years ago). However, what this article actually suggests is that hominids were in the habit of making permanent firepits only 100,000 years later, which lends more credence to the actual development of fire control occurring earlier in that timeframe. It should actually say "Early humans built or maintained indoor fires 300,000 years ago." [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;43702414]I have a couple of theories. One, maybe in the dig there's the firepit, some bowls or other basic cooking/eating tools...but no tools for [i]starting[/i] fires. So you find this firepit that evidence suggests was used over a long period of time but there's no evidence of how they started fires, that implies they didn't start fires but simply used them. The other thing is being able to start a fire leads to other things. For instance, why would you have rare finds of firepits from that era if they knew how to start fires? Logic says there should be firepits everywhere these cavemen went if they had that ability. Plus fire leads to things like melting down ore and forging metals. If the evidence from that era shows no real use of fire related tech that implies they didn't have reliable use of fire, therefore couldn't develop the tech. If the only fire they had was natural, it means they'd be using that for basic needs such as warmth, cooking, and light. It would be too valuable to risk it in experimentation.[/QUOTE] Finding traces of campfires is harder than you think. It's hard enough to find it in more recent archaeological context, much earlier would be understandable much harder. Finding evidence of a firepit is a huge discovery and is often something that requires a bit of luck in excavation. You're right in that we can't say that everyone knew how to make fires, but this definitively shows that at least some hominids were capable of knowing how to maintain it for long periods of time, and most likely knew to keep throwing wood in to keep it burning. Essentially, we don't know if they had the ability to start the fire. The traditional tools used for [B]friction lighting[/B] are all wood and plant fiber and would not survive 300,000 years in the ground, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that [I]homo erectus[/I] might have been among the first to figure this out; again, we'll need more evidence for this one. Contrary to what most people think, flint as a fire-starter is newer method, because the hominids would have needed to have access to both a flaking rock and a rock containing a metal ore, which isn't necessarily common where these hominids were living. Us archaeologists are very careful to not make functionalist assumptions, as common sense to modern humans may not be the same between different cultures, let alone our predecessors.

[QUOTE=Appellation;43705488]Cro magnon man had a larger brain cavity than modern humans. The constant building of abstractions is not something to be scoffed at though.[/QUOTE] Wasn't it Neanderthal man who had a larger brain cavity, as such, but less means of organizing their thoughts?

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43709133]Wasn't it Neanderthal man who had a larger brain cavity, as such, but less means of organizing their thoughts?[/QUOTE] There's a lot of theories as to what held neanderthals back. One recent theory was that their larger eyes demanded more brain power to operate, so they had less 'spare' brain for higher functioning and such.