Ice age humans built sophisticated fireplaces
Evidence from a prehistoric site at the shore of the Dnister river in modern-day Ukraine shows that people living during the most recent ice age built different types of hearths. Wood served as their primary source of fuel, but they may have used fat and bones as well. The findings were published April 1 in the journal Geoarchaeology.
Archaeologists believe that Homo sapiens in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period (between 45,000 and 10,000 years ago) used fire in several different ways.
'Fire was not just about keeping warm; it was also essential for cooking, making tools and for social gatherings,' Philip R. Nigst, a study co-author and archaeologist at the University of Vienna in Austria, said in a statement.
[ Related: Ancient rocks tie Roman Empire's collapse to a mini ice age. ]
Fire was likely a key part of survival for ice age hunter-gatherers in what is now Europe. Yet a lack of evidence from the coldest part of the ice age has prevented scientists from saying how.
'We know that fire was widespread before and after this period, but there is little evidence from the height of the Ice Age,' William Murphree, a study co-author and geoarchaeologist at the University of Algarve in Portugal, said in a statement.
In the new study, the team analyzed three hearths unearthed at a prehistoric site in Ukraine. Through microstratigraphic analysis, micromorphology and colorimetric analysis, the scientists identified three simple, flat, wood-fired hearths. Interestingly, the analysis shows that one of these fires reached over 1,112 degrees Fahrenheit (600 degrees Celsius). According to the team, this proves that whoever made these fires had a more sophisticated mastery of pyrotechnics, despite the harsh environments they lived in.
Humans used wood as their main fuel source during the peak of the ice age. The charcoal analysis indicates that it was specifically spruce wood. However, animal bones or fat may have also been used to keep fires burning.
'Some of the animal bones found at the site were burnt in a fire with a temperature of over 650 degrees Celsius [1,202 degrees Fahrenheit]. We are currently investigating whether they were used as fuel or just accidentally burned,' study co-author and University of Vienna zooarcheologist Marjolein D. Bosch said in a statement.
[ Related: Ice Age hunter-gatherers may have had cheek piercings, even as children. ]
All three fireplaces are open and flat. The team's analysis suggests that their use of fire was sophisticated, because the fireplaces were likely to have been constructed and used differently depending on the season. One fireplace is larger and thicker, suggesting that it could reach higher temperatures.
'People perfectly controlled the fire and knew how to use it in different ways, depending on the purpose of the fire. But our results also show that these hunter-gatherers used the same place at different times of the year during their annual migrations,' said Nigst.
Even with these new findings, numerous questions remain, particularly about why there is such scant evidence of fireplaces dating back to the last ice age.
'Was most of the evidence destroyed by the ice-age-typical, alternating freezing and thawing of the soil?' asks Murphree.
'Or did people not find enough fuel during the Last Glacial Maximum? Did they not use fire, but instead relied on other technological solutions?' adds Nigst.
The team hopes that understanding more about the role fire plays in human evolution will reveal how it helped our species become dominant.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bones in Norway Cave Reveal Chilling Fate of Ice Age Animals
For 75,000 years, the remnants of a diverse ecosystem of Ice Age animals have lain hidden in the shelter of Arne Qvam Cave in Norway. Scientists have only just begun to grasp the full scope of its contents, which are the oldest evidence we have describing the diversity of animals that flourished in one of the glacial period's warmer stints. This rare and remarkably extensive archive of ancient Arctic fauna covers a wide spectrum of vertebrates, from small mammals like the collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx torquatus) and voles (Alexandromys oeconomus) that scurried across the tundra, marine and freshwater fish, and more than 20 bird species, to the landscape's largest marine mammals, like whales, walruses, and even a polar bear. Related link: "We have very little evidence of what Arctic life was like in this period because of the lack of preserved remains over 10,000 years old," says evolutionary biologist Sanne Boessenkool of the University of Oslo. This find fills a "significant void in our understanding of biodiversity and the environment during a period of dramatic climate change," Boessenkool and team write in their paper describing the finds. The cave was concealed within a mountain until the 1990s, when a tunnel built for mining exposed the secret chamber. Even then, large excavations were not carried out until 2021 and 2022, when the animal remains emerged from the lower layers of sedimentary rock. The collared lemmings were a particularly exciting find: this species is now extinct in Europe, and until now, the only signs they had ever lived there were from Scandinavia. The remains of freshwater fish suggest there were lakes and rivers in the tundra environment, while bowhead whales and walruses would have required sea ice. This probably wasn't present year-round, however, because the harbour porpoises also found in the cave avoid waters that have frozen over. These animals were living in a period of global cooling. The entire ecosystem seems to have depended on melting glaciers that provided fresh water and exposed the ocean; once the landscape froze over once again, the biodiversity disappeared, suggesting the mix of animals were unable to migrate or adapt to the colder, drier environment. "This highlights how cold adapted species struggle to adapt to major climatic events. This has a direct link to the challenges they are facing in the Arctic today as the climate warms at a rapid pace," lead author and Bournemouth University zooarchaeologist Sam Walker says. "The habitats these animals in the region live in today are much more fractured than 75,000 years ago, so it is even harder for animal populations to move and adapt." While many of these kinds of animals can still be found in the Arctic today, they no longer live in the cave's vicinity. When the researchers compared the bones' mitochondrial DNA with those of extant populations, they found none of the ancient lineages had survived when the glaciers froze up again. But, as Boessenkool points out, "this was a shift to a colder [climate], not a period of warming that we are facing today. "And these are cold-adapted species – so if they struggled to cope with colder periods in the past, it will be even harder for these species to adapt to a warming climate," she says. This research was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Related News The DNA of Great White Sharks Defies Explanation. Here's Why. Meet The 'Genital King' Tarantula And Its Record-Breaking Sexual Organ Giant Stick Insect Found Hiding in Rainforest May Be Australia's Heaviest Solve the daily Crossword
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Who's Afraid of Peak Mineral?
In 1956, the American geologist M. King Hubbert made a startling prediction: In a matter of decades, the supply of fuel on which so much of modern society depended would dwindle. Dubbed the 'peak oil' theory, the concept held sway for decades as U.S. production of crude topped out in 1970, then declined. By 2009, however, the numbers started to turn, thanks to offshore drilling and new fracking technology, until U.S. crude oil output surpassed not just the country's 1970 peak but that of every other crude-pumping nation throughout all of history. Now, as the emissions spewed by burning all that crude help roast the planet, a new anxiety has started to grip energy policy: the possibility of peak mineral. The technologies the world is banking on to wean us off fossil fuels all depend on minerals, in various quantities: the so-called white gold of lithium and the bluish metal cobalt needed for batteries; the brittle metalloid tellurium used in solar cells and microchips; the tin for the soldering that forms a grid of cells on a panel; the soft, silvery cadmium and indium that formulate special kinds of thin-film photovoltaic equipment. Because renewables now make up the fastest-growing source of power generation worldwide, investors have been trying to bolster supplies of these minerals. A new study published Thursday in Nature Climate Change tried to look more comprehensively than any previous effort at the world's mineral future, considering 557 energy-transition scenarios that might keep the world from warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius, the target set as the maximum amount of allowable warming by the Paris climate accords. The researchers, a team of Chinese scientists led by the Beijing Institute of Technology, found that, even given moderate emission-reduction, the world would face shortages of up to 12 minerals by 2100 in every energy-transition scenario. In some regions of the world, such as the Middle East, twice as many minerals could be in shortfall. But clean-energy technologies are advancing rapidly enough that trying to imagine the industry's needs 75 years from now is a very theoretical exercise. Just as fears of peak oil were eventually mooted by technology, fears of peak mineral very well could be too. It's true that the world cannot currently meet humanity's growing need for energy while phasing out fossil fuels. As Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, a petroleum engineer who previously worked as the Department of Energy's deputy director for batteries and critical materials, put it to me bluntly: 'We need more mines.' Known mineral reserves are limited, but the financial gymnastics necessary to open a mine are also a major barrier to increasing supply. These projects take decades to go from conception to operational; investors want to mine minerals that are cheap enough to be widely available (and therefore used in mass-market products), but expensive enough to make the new venture profitable. If the price of a mineral remains too high, though, the market for it won't grow fast enough to make new mines worthwhile. That's what made the Trump administration's decision last month to buy a big stake in MP Materials, the only active rare-earths mining company in the United States, so notable. It's the first time since World War I, when the federal government nationalized the railroad system, that Washington has directly intervened in the private sector. The U.S. was certainly motivated by competition with China, which has gobbled up the world's market share for mining and processing minerals needed for batteries and microchips, and recently slapped trade restrictions on exports of key metals. But because the Department of Defense now sets the price at which it will buy MP Materials' minerals and is its largest shareholder, MP Materials is also insulated from the ups and downs of commodity trading. In this still-early stage of the world's clean-energy boom, though, mineral needs are shifting quickly and opening up opportunities for substitutes. Silver demand grew over the past two decades thanks to solar cells, which today make up nearly 14 percent of global usage of the precious metal. While demand is growing as more panels are produced, improvements in the technology have slashed silver usage per unit by more than half in the past 15 years, Seaver Wang, the director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute think tank in California, told me. Substitutes such as copper that has been electroplated are becoming more common. Alloys used in the control rods in nuclear reactors—such as indium and cadmium—are already substitutable too, he said: Boron-carbide rods are at no risk of shortages, and even available 'off the product catalog at Westinghouse.' (Wang served as a peer reviewer on the Nature Climate Change study.) Companies have rolled out alternatives to lithium too—most notably batteries that use the far more abundant sodium. And because cobalt, a key ingredient in batteries, is primarily extracted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where labor practices are difficult to trace and often include child workers and slaves, manufacturers have in recent years commercialized new chemistries that completely forgo that metal. Five years ago, the energy consultancy BloombergNEF forecast demand for cobalt to hit 300,000 metric tons a year by 2030, according to Kwasi Ampofo, the consultancy's head of metals and mining. 'Now it's 100,000,' he told me. 'Battery companies realized they don't need cobalt in large quantities anymore. They got smarter on the material composition of these technologies.' The speed of innovation occurring now only points to how hard it is to predict 'mineral requirements for global-warming scenarios out to 2100,' Cameron Perks, a director at the London-based battery-materials consultancy Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, told me. The Nature Climate Change study forecasts, for instance, that Africa will be a major source of lithium. 'While I don't claim to know what will happen in 75 years, I know this is not going to be true anytime soon,' Perks said. The study's authors recognize these limitations. 'These findings underscore the complex and interconnected nature of mineral demands in low-carbon transitions,' they wrote in an email. 'While shifting technologies may relieve certain resource pressures, they can intensify others.' One of the study's clear limits is that the researchers based their calculations on high future growth rates for thin-film solar panels, which depend heavily on indium, cadmium, tellurium, and tin. As a result, those minerals most frequently came up short in the findings. But thin-film panels are also outdated technology. They have the advantage of generating more power in the dawn or late evening than crystalline silicon panels, which also require more steps to manufacture. Still, silicon panels have benefited from the scale of the solar-panel industry in China, and require less complicated chemistry; they have dominated the market since the early 2000s. In the email, the researchers acknowledged that thin-film solar panels losing market share might ease some shortages, but noted that that shift increases demand for other metals, particularly tin. Their goal, they wrote, was to 'encourage systemic thinking in designing sustainable energy transitions.' Substitution is just part of that equation. Oil supplies went up in part because natural gas became a viable alternative once technology to super-chill the fuel into its liquid form became an option. Unconventional drilling technology entered the mix after oil prices surged to record highs in the 2000s, making new and more expensive up-front projects economically viable. If new types of traditional nuclear reactors take off in the 2030s, that could radically alter the world's forecasted mineral needs. If nuclear fusion finally becomes a reality, that could upend all the projections. Artificial intelligence could achieve breakthroughs in material science; mining asteroids may become a source of minerals. If the old adage proves true that change is the only certainty in an more unpredictable future, that bodes well for adaptation.
Atlantic
a day ago
- Atlantic
Give the Moon a Big, Beautiful Base
No one can say that the Trump administration is entirely against alternative energy. In his first bold policy stroke as NASA's interim head, Sean Duffy has directed the agency to put a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by decade's end. This is not a lark. If humanity means to establish a permanent settlement on the moon, nuclear power will almost certainly be essential to its operation. And a lunar base may well be the most wondrous achievement in space exploration that people reading this will see during their lifetime. The moon has gone unvisited, except by robots, for more than 50 years, and as of several months ago, it seemed as though Americans would be staying away from it for a good while longer. President Donald Trump was taking cues from Elon Musk, who seemed inclined to shelve the plan to put Americans back on the lunar surface and focus instead on an all-out sprint to Mars. But Musk has since fallen out of favor, and last month, congressional Republicans secured a funding boost for the moon program. NASA astronauts are now scheduled to return to the moon in 2027, and if all goes well, they will be landing on it regularly, starting in the early 2030s. Each crew will carry parts of a small base that can grow piece by piece into a living space for a few people. The astronauts will also take a pair of vehicles for expeditions—a little rover that they can use for local jaunts in their space suits, and a larger, pressurized one that will allow them to go on 500-mile regolith road trips in street clothes. A base on the moon would be more democratic than those that Musk and his acolytes have advocated building on Mars. Given shorter travel times, a greater number of people would be able to experience its otherworldly ashen plains. Their homesick calls to Earth would have only second-long delays, as opposed to minutes for a call from Mars. But even a small encampment on the lunar surface is going to require considerable energy. Temperatures dip to –410 degrees Fahrenheit in the shade, and human bodies will need to keep cozy amid that deep chill. The International Space Station runs on solar power, but that won't be enough on most of the moon, where nights last for 14 days. Some of the agency's other off-world projects are powered by raw plutonium. Hunks of it sit inside the Mars rovers, for instance, radiating heat that the wheeled robots convert into electricity. These hot rocks are also encased inside NASA's probes to the outer planets and their moons. Without plutonium, the two Voyager spacecrafts couldn't continue to send data back to Earth as they recede from the solar system. The moon base will need more than a radioactive rock. It will need a reactor that actually splits atoms, like the one that Duffy has proposed this week. Even if that reactor were to fail, the resulting meltdown wouldn't present the same risks to humans that it would on Earth. The moon is already a radiation-rich environment, and it has no wind to blow the reactor's most dangerous effluvia around; the material would simply fall to the ground. Duffy framed his push to get the reactor in place as a matter of national security. NASA's program to return to the moon, called Artemis, will be an international effort, with several countries contributing pieces of the final base. (Japan's space agency has tapped Toyota to design the large, pressurized lunar vehicle.) But when the United States invited Russia to join, Vladimir Putin declined. He has instead opted to help out with a larger Chinese lunar base, which is supposed to include a nuclear reactor 10 times as powerful as the one that Duffy announced. Last month, Bhavya Lal, who served as an associate administrator at NASA during the Biden administration and is now a professor at RAND, and her fellow aerospace expert Roger Myers released a report arguing that a county could sneakily establish a sovereign zone on the moon in defiance of the Outer Space Treaty just by building a reactor. For instance, the Chinese could insist on a buffer around theirs for the sake of nuclear safety, and use that to keep Americans away from desirable ice-rich craters nearby. Lal and Myers seem to have captured the new administration's attention: Duffy's new directive ordering the development of the reactor specifically mentioned this risk. If worry over Chinese lunar land grabs is the motivation for a moon base, so much the better. Space exploration often requires a geopolitical spur. And if NASA can build this first small lunar settlement, something grander could follow close behind. Once the agency has mastered the construction of a 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear reactor, it should have little trouble scaling up to larger ones that can support tens, or even hundreds, of people—in bases of the size that now exist on Antarctica. Some space agencies have reportedly discussed building hydroponic greenhouses and other elaborate structures inside the voluminous caves that run beneath the moon's Sea of Tranquility. All of this infrastructure could enable some serious lunar dystopias. The moon's surface could become an industrial hellscape, pocked with mining operations where robots and human serfs extract platinum and titanium for use in advanced electronics back on Earth. Or the Outer Space Treaty could break down and the moon could become a heavily militarized zone—even a staging ground for nuclear weapons. But an inhabited moon could also be a global commons for research. Both the U.S. and China have developed designs for large radio telescopes on the lunar dark side, where they'd be shielded from Earth's radio noise and would greatly aid the search for signals from distant civilizations. In one design, robots would spread a metal mesh from a crater's center to its rim, turning its concave surface into a natural radio dish. One can imagine an astronomer at a lunar base, peering out from a porthole, seeing the Earth shining in the sky, picking out its individual oceans and continents, and knowing that on the moon's opposite side, a giant ear would be listening for messages from other Earths and other moons, all across the Milky Way and far beyond.
