I’m curious about this statement: “They would have needed control of a light source like fire.” Why is that? By that I mean, why would it have been impossible for H. naledi to have navigated to the excavation chamber (or at least to the top of the chute leading to it) without an artificial light source? Granted it seems unlikely, but is it more unlikely than a much earlier use of fire than previously believed? Has that question been discussed much so far? Thanks!
They would have needed control of a light source because the
chamber and the route to it is pitch dark. Without a light, there is no way to
navigate in that environment, let alone to the extent that H. naledi must have done to reach the chamber that they did. Once
you move past the entrance of the system about 5m, there is no light and the
terrain is treacherous. Remember, it looks as though the path into the chamber
has changed very little geologically/topographically over the intervening
period of time (no skylights). I think the idea that they would have navigated the path into
the system without a light source
like fire much more difficult to believe than the scenario in which they were
using it. Plus, we have no dates for H.
naledi yet. We don’t know how early or late they are! There is evidence to
suggest that the lineage might be fairly old but this isn’t to say that the
fossil are as old as the lineage. They could be younger or they could be as old
as their brain size and parts of their postcranial anatomy suggest. If H. naledi does obliquely provide
evidence for an early use of fire, then that’s pretty cool I think! I mean, the
evidence already suggests that they were participating in some pretty complex
behaviours. What’s fire use after that?
Reposted from http://ift.tt/1FWPpIS.
Tags: that time actual science-boundary-pushing hero, answered my ask, poli sci major who's always had a soft spot for archaeology swoons.
