Monday, 9 April 2012

Do Apes play with fire? - Homo Erectus sure did!

By Robert John Langdon

This very important discovery I found in the latest 'New Scientist' magazine - which nicely follows up  my last blog on blood groups and American migration of the Cro-Magnons. Again the importance of such a find has been overlooked by the mass media, who fail to understand human psychology and it's importance in the 'Ascent of Man.

Homo Erectus
Stereotypical Homo Erectus 'Ape Man'

"You could call it the original baptism of fire: the moment hominins first began controlling flames. There is now evidence that moment came at least 1 million years ago, a finding that will reignite the debate over whether human anatomy was changed forever by cooking.

Fire is a tricky thing to pin down in the archaeological record. According to Michael Chazan at the University of Toronto, Canada, the oldest obvious hearths are just 400,000 years old – though the remains of burned wood, stones and food at an Israeli site suggests that hominins were using fire 790,000 years ago.

Some researchers claim that changes to early hominin anatomy hint that our forerunners began using fire to cook even earlier than this, though the evidence is hotly contested. Molars shrank and skulls grew around 1.9 million years ago, which according to Richard Wrangham at Harvard University reflects the moment that hominins developed a taste for cooked food. As this requires less chewing and digesting, the theory goes, it freed up energy to sustain a larger brain.

There is a huge discrepancy between the timing of these changes in hominin anatomy and the archaeological record of fire, says Chazan. "My heavy bias has always been that humans didn't control fire until much later – until now." In fact, he says, earlier evidence of fire does exist, you just have to look for it in the right way."

Homo Erectus
Homo Erectus around a 'non-existent' log fire!

So why is this finding so important?

Homo Erectus has a 'reputation' of being a primitive 'ape man' that left Africa some 1 million years ago.  But the fact that he 'left Africa' and now it is known that he used fire changes everything.  For wild 'Apes DO NOT play with fire' they run away (forget the circus freaks that are trained) to use fire shows intelligence, to migrate to better pastures also shows intelligence, for Apes seldom migrate halfway around the world!!

So what do we know about Homo Erectus? 

It is widely accepted that population similar to Homo Erectus was directly ancestral to the earliest members of living species Homo sapiens. The exact timing and mode of transformation are still controversial.

Homo erectus appears to have evolved in Africa about 1.8 million years ago. Migrations first to Asia and then to Europe. the species became extinct sometimes less than .5 million years ago. This timing places Homo erectus between Homo habilis and the earliest appearance of Homo sapiens. The time of migration out of Africa is unknown. Most scholars agreed migration occur about 1 million years ago but there is continue debate over how much earlier than this had begun.

Recently a Homo erectus lower jaw has been found in Georgia and said to be 1.6 million years ago. A number of important firsts were recorded during the Homo erectus’ existence.

  • The first appearance of hominids outside of Africa.
  • The first appearance of systematic hunting.
  • Tool making and use of fire.
  • First indication of extended childhood.
  • Homo Erectus was capable of a more complex life.
  • The brain size was increased over halibis ranging between 850 and 1100 cm cube.
  • Body size also increased. Reaching close to 1.8 meters in male and 1.55 meters in females.
  • The cranium is long and low and somewhat flattened at the front and back.
  • The cranial bone being thicker than in earlier hominids.
  • The face is short but wide and the nasal aperture projected forward, suggesting the first appearance of the typical human external nose with the nostril facing downward.
  • Pronounced brow ridges are present above the orbits.

So are these pictures a true representation of how Homo Erectus looked? 

Not long ago Homo Neanderthal had a similar appearance prior to the discovery of the species DNA and Haplogroup.

Old fashioned view of a Neanderthal
Then suddenly they found that this 'ape men' had red/blonde hair and blue eyes and overnight we were presented with a very different vision of a Neanderthal.

Modern view of a Neanderthal with Blue Eyes and Blonde hair

What are the chances that when we do eventually find a good DNA sample of Homo Erectus,  the look and view of this man will change just the same?

It is my opinion that Homo Erectus was the Hominid that spread to America (through multiple mutations) and carried the 'O' blood group we found in the indigenous species.  Remembering that Homo Neanderthal left Africa 200,000 years ago and was only able to spread by 'natural' migration by foot to Europe and Western Asia.  This also shows that Homo Sapiens (who left Africa 50,000 years ago) were only able to travel to the Middle East and the Caspian Sea in 15,000 years, in a similar fashion.  At this rate of migration they would have not reached Western Europe for another 15,000 years - but they did it in just 5,000 years.

The reason is because they used BOATS for the first time which accelerated they speed of immigration, not only to Europe but also to America which would according to Homo Erectus could have taken up to 1 million years if they had walked.

(by Robert John Langdon)


  1. Thanks for another interesting post.

    I was always fascinated in my time in China how many educated people thought the Chinese were directly descended from homo erectus. I have not had the opportunity to check this in the last 10 years but I wonder whether their opinion is still the same?

    The question also reminds why research into this issue has been on a back-burner for many years. I would hate to see "science" ignite a new type of racial prejudice, on the other hand I am very curious how it all happened. I think you are too.

  2. Chris

    That's interesting information and quite rewarding.

    Homo Erectus seems to have existed without becoming well studied. I am fascinated (as a Darwinian) in the possible mutations they could have become over this huge 1.8million years, trip they had 'out of Africa'.

    A quick look at the variations of Erectus shows the diversity of these humanoids such as:

    Homo erectus
    Homo erectus erectus
    Homo erectus yuanmouensis
    Homo erectus lantianensis
    Homo erectus wushanensis
    Homo erectus nankinensis
    Homo erectus pekinensis
    Homo erectus palaeojavanicus
    Homo erectus soloensis
    Homo erectus tautavelensis
    Homo erectus georgicus

    So much variation that its almost impossible to find a 'generalisation' of the species. What I'm interested is in the Cranial Capacity - therefore intelligence, so fire and tools are key, also build, as again these are six foot humanoids, which came before 5' 3" Neanderthals and 5' 8" Sapiens.

    If the Neanderthal DNA were not in 'Modern Man' then I would suspect that Neanderthals and Homo Erectus created Cro-Magnons. The interesting Anthropological aspect is that like Neanderthals they also 'disappeared' into history without trace - I can accept one of man's cousins doing so, but two??

    Something strange there - maybe your nano-particles again!!


    1. Further to this reply there is an article about Erectus/Sapiens cross breeding evidence:-

      "If all of the Y chromosomes inherited from Homo erectus were eliminated from the population because those with Homo erectus ancestors were swept from the population due to a disease to which they were especially susceptible, they would not appear in the sample.

      Also, if only Homo erectus women mated with Homo sapiens men, but no Homo sapiens women mated with Homo erectus men, then there would be no Y chromosomal evidence of the admixture"

      This reinforces the idea that - like the Neanderthal/Sapiens cross breeding, it may have been the result of the lack of Males for the Female Erectus family units - so they took Sapiens males (smaller and weaker, but can do the fertility job well?) - is this a disease inherited in the Homo gene? If so is this the reason that the proportion of Females outnumber males in 'modern man'??


    2. very interesting thanks. On this evidence it would seem a strong probability that Erectus became extinct.

  3. Robert

    The video reports 12 foot skeletons, surely this is a fabrication?

    Dr Stuart Love

    1. Stuart

      I initially believed so - as no evidence has been preserved. But looking at modern men today with ave height of 5' 10" how many 7'+ basket ball and other athletes do we see now days - these are 20% larger than the normal average height.

      So if Cro-Magnon was an average of 6' 3" then add 20% to the height and you will get 8' men that will look like 'giants' in skeletal frame.

      My recent post showing a Cro-Magnon against a human -

      Shows an 8' 435Lb modern human he is 40% lager than Mr Average - a 40% large Mr Cro-magnon average maybe about 10' - 12' proportionally.


    2. So Robert,

      We now have a cro-magnon race of giants!

      That's covering all bets! If your dreamboat theory takes in water and sinks under the weight of Stonehenge, you can always be rescued by 12 foot giants carrying stones (and you) on their shoulders! And if that fails, there are UFOs hovering beneath you!


    3. Kostas

      Just trying to help you (and all other 'historians') to distinguished the real truth from your perceived 'rational plausibility', which you call!

      Here is a list of living and past 'Giants' (no doubt planted by your aliens)

      I wonder do you take you children to a basketball game and shout 'look out giants - run' when the teams come on court? As I see quite a few have played in the NBA??

      Now you see how silly you are to term tall people 'giants' now consider that BOTH Homo Erectus and Cro-Magnon's were both taller on average than Homo Sapiens (that's us!!).

      Taking that into account, consider Geoffrey of Monmouth - a 11th Century Cleric who was the first to replicate in (that most sophisticated of techniques called) writing, the ancient myths of the Celts.

      "According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, the rocks of Stonehenge were healing rocks, called the Giant's dance, which giants brought from Ireland to Build Stonehenge"

      Giants building Stonehenge for healing purposes - surely that can't be true..... Sadly for you, my first two books have now proven it beyond doubt. Now you can see the Stonehenge connection!!

      Bet you can't wait to see what the third book tells us about the 'reality' of the known 'civilised' ancient world and their discoveries and science.


  4. Robert you write,

    "According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, the rocks of Stonehenge were healing rocks, called the Giant's dance, which giants brought from Ireland to Build Stonehenge"

    Giants building Stonehenge for healing purposes - surely that can't be true..... Sadly for you, my first two books have now proven it beyond doubt. Now you can see the Stonehenge connection!!

    So now you give us “Geoffrey of Monmouth” and “giants transport” and “circles of healing stones” to explain Stonehenge! Is this a silent admission your dreamboat theory has already sunk?

    Your honesty is so revealing! And so embarrassing of “the Naked Archeologist”!

    Myth becomes reality when reality becomes a mystery!

    You will need help getting this “truth” stick on people! May I suggest retaining the professional services of Chris Johnson? Loyalty has its rewards after all!


    1. Kostas

      Please don't be embarrassed my friend, many people more intelligent than you have shown that their knowledge of the past was born of conventional naive misrepresentation.

      "All the great legends are Templates for human behavior. I would define a myth as a story that has survived."
      John Boorman - Director of 'Excalibur'


  5. Robert you write,

    “their[more intelligent people than me] knowledge of the past was born of conventional naive misrepresentation.”

    With scant evidence from prehistory you can connect the points to make up any story! 'Truth' then becomes Belief! What I have been saying of your dreamboat theory!

    On Apr 6, 2012 05:54 AM you write of me 'I think therefore I'm right'.

    Actually, closer to that truth is “I think! Therefore you are wrong!”


  6. Kostas

    Scant evidence?

    The fact that I have two books full of scientific evidence and this web site that explores this evidence is not enough for you? The prehistory trilogy is the ONLY book to date, that has taken all these unanswered mysteries of history and placed them in the most coherent and scientific correlation ever, so much so, that rather being a 'unknown weird mystery', they have become an obvious evolutionary process, that the academic world has overlooked, because of their preconceived bias.

    Unlike self indulgent 'theorists' (like yourself) who take an 'idea' and proclaim it as the 'truth' with no evidence or scientific proof beyond 'because I say so'!

    If I'm wrong about Cro-Magnon's in America as shown in my last two blogs - then show me how this is wrong, not by just saying 'because I say so' but because of scientific fact, unlike the evidence you have shown previously that only add credibility to the facts I have already presented.

    So tell us Kostas how did Cro-Magnons get into America, why did the 'A' Rh- blood appear at the same time and why does the R Haplogroup appear in north America as well as in Europe. And if the answer is walking across the land bridge in Asia, where is the trail of Blood, skeletons and Haplogroup DNA?

    Or bore us with more negative rhetroric that neither informs or adds to the debate.


  7. Robert,

    If you include all the scientific evidence going back to The Big Bang, then clearly there is much evidence.

    But where is the evidence for that CIVILIZATION that you claim built Stonehenge? Oh! I forgot! All the wood got rotten and all the evidence disappeared!

    They only build Stonehenge with megaliths but could not use stones for any other purpose. Like the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Hindu and all other known civilizations from the past!

    Some direct posts from your blog:

    chris johnson Apr 4, 2012 06:47 AM

    Instinctively I believe is is plausible US was colonized west to east. Your blood type hypothesis may even support this but the more I look into it the more I am confronted by a dazzling array of mathematical possibilities.

    Can you help me out with some reliable scientific sources?

    Replying to Chris you write,

    Robert John Langdon Apr 4, 2012 11:21 AM

    There isn't any!!

    That's what I like about prehistory - still an open book.


    Your own duplicity and self-contradiction haunts you! Not my critical thinking which you characterize as 'negativity'!

    As for people with A- blood type in America. I've written in an earlier post that 'they flew over the Atlantic'!


  8. Kostas

    So its more rhetoric then!

    As to evidence over periods of time - you might benefit with an interesting insight about the crucifixion of Jesus - are you aware that of the known 100,000's of such executions there is not ONE piece of evidence from either post holes or wood surviving?

    This was just 2000 years ago - we are taking 10,000 years - the ONLY evidence of crucifixion is written (so did it ever happen?) using your 'plausible reasoning' Jesus was never put on a cross (as he has no evidence) so, clearly another fantasist in the 'world' of Kostas.

    You need to get a reality check, my friend!!


  9. Robert you write,

    “the ONLY evidence of crucifixion [of Jesus] is written”

    Could you then match, by your own low standards, this minimal evidence for your 'advanced' prehistoric Civilization? Where is the written evidence such 'advanced' Civilization left behind?

    Interesting that you should use the crucifixion of Jesus in your argument for Stonehenge. As I have been claiming all along, prehistoric 'human agency' for Stonehenge is a religion.


    1. Kostas

      Plato writings about Atlantis - simple!!

      If the bible is telling the truth, so is Plato - even your simplistic logic can understand that analogy.

      Moreover, both Jesus and Socrates did not write - how does your 'plausible reasoning' equate that fact with your view of Civilisations?


  10. Robert you write,

    “both Jesus and Socrates did not write - how does your 'plausible reasoning' equate that fact with your view of Civilisations?”

    I have already responded to this flawed reasoning before. But you persist with such sophistry! Written language is the product of Civilizations. You can have individuals that may not have written anything in their lives living in Civilizations where writing exists!

    In both of the instances you mention, Jesus and Socrates, they lived in civilizations where writing was well established and well documented. Where is such evidence for your Stonehenge Civilization?

    You are torturing logical thinking when you think as you do! Worst yet, you seem oblivious to your twisted logic as you keep making the same mistakes over and over again!

    As I keep straightening up your twisted thinking over and over again ... no longer!



    1. Kostas

      Clearly, you are now seeing the errors of your way of thinking!!

      Your ideas about civilisation does not stand up to scrutiny, for two of the greatest minds of our civilisation are not authors, for their message is delivered for a greater impact in person than by memo!

      The ancient knew this fundamental fact so the oral tradition was born which lasted over 20,000 years - as compared to writing which is just a recent invention.

      It is the reason we love theatre over books and why television has such an impact on our society - books and the written language have a place - but its NOT a test of Civilisation as without it, society can still blossom and grow.

      I hope your time on this blog site has 'opened' your mind to new realities that is our history, I will urge you to drop your preconceived ideas of history and the past and explore the true detail of history with a 'philosophers' mind for detail and always remember that your 'gut instinct' is probably wrong as you/we are all victims of propaganda that is commonly known as 'the education system' a history written by the Victors(establishment) to maintain the victors.


    2. I have always looked at Art as being the illustration of Civilisation and thinking.

      If we look at the renaissance period, in which the birth of science transformed society, it was in the Arts that this revolution can be clearly seen, although the written word had been around some 4,000 years prior to this monumental occurrence.

      Dr Stuart Love

    3. Stuart

      Your quite right.

      Dr Jacob Bronowski the mathematician, wrote the
      'Ascent of Man' based on those same findings.

      Pure Genus!


  11. I am with Dr Love.
    I studied ancient writing many years ago and got bored quickly because much of it was to with money lending - how many sheep did I borrow? It seemed to me then, and now, that writing was invented by book-keepers, at least in the western world. It is a leading indicator of civil society in the sense of accountants and people who have and people who have not. After accountancy came the glorification of power, often in the sense of military conquest. Closely followed by religion.

    Is this civilization? Personally I doubt it. For a long time British society developed around a concept of my word is my bond - even in my lifetime this is the way the game was played. In the meantime we had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Keats - art and poetry.

    I regularly note how FE people even today do not trust the written word. They see writing as sophistry, or trickery, or as art.

  12. Hi Robert,
    Not fire-related but thinking about your post on woodworking I thought you might be interested in

    Some interesting evidence on sophisticated wood working from 4000 BC found in Denmark in a submerged area. Much remains to be discovered under the waters.

    1. Chris

      Thanks for the link _ first saw it at: - which you may find an intriguing site.

      The paddle is interesting as it is made from a single piece of split wood that has been rounded for the handles and clearly from the smaller video piece 'sanded' down and painted.

      I would like to see the carbon dating results rather than the current layer sequencing date.