Ancient chemistry

Quote: Originally posted by karlos³

The maillard reaction for the preparation of food is surely a bit older than that, still, no? Not to offend your continent and country, ehm, so I don't say much. It could be from natural bushfires, thanks to eucalyptus those aren't something requiring artificial help? Hmm, we probably will never know... But if they were made artifical by people, then those people either knew how to make fire... or the did the sad, other way, where they kept a tiny glowing bit of wood or coal or so, even when travelling, as they did not had the knowledge to incite a fire. I honestly tend to the latter option. That was possibly a way how prehumans have carried fire(I doubt it though, they were smart enough to find out how to make it on their own quickly after that), And thats for me personally, the only realistic way that it could be older than cooking, or even firemaking itself. Nonetheless it is of course interesting.

Yeah well, the usual way, as it suspected is, that they carried a certain split of a bushfire and kept their fires going for as long as it was possible, never letting them go out.
If they moved to a different cave, someone had to carry a glimming splinter or such a thing, to preserve the fire.

The offending part in it was, that, since natural fire was quite easy to use, and the quite unnatural lack of flintstone in australia.
And that technique is suspected to have been used by even some of our quite early ancestors, Homo erectus

I just looked and flintstone is pretty scarce on that continent, so to me, personally, it made sense that they used that technique too.
Our species used that as well, likely, as is suspected.... but who knows.

I know flint isn't needed, but when its scarce, you just don't have the opportunity to watch its abilities to produce sparks and so on, leading to more elaborate, flint-free techniques for making fire, etc...

Also I'm not an anthropologist at all, and most of my knowledge about thats stems from well researched novels(at least, they seemed like that ).
But as far as I know, that technique is commonly accepted to have been used before the ability to start a fire from almost nothing on their own was developed, and a spark, or a still well-nourished glowing bit of piece of wood, was one of their most valuable possessions, and was carried with them, protected(maybe a hollowed out calebass pumpkin or such) until a new protected place to settle was found, where the fire could be started again and is protected from wind and rain.

Yeah.
The fires in caves were at first not started there, because they didn't know how, they simply carried the still glowing, or mildly burning, remains of whatever to their settlements, and I think it is safe to assume that this practice carried of for thousands of years.
I guess there must have been generations who haven't seen "their" own spark of fire(or of life, as it seemed to them) going out in their whole lifetime
And others, who must have felt impending doom when it happened to them accidentally... years without fire in the worst case maybe, imagine that!
Ok, on the other hand... when you live barely to 35, then thats something else of course.

So much for bushfires in caves

[Edited on 2-8-2021 by karlos³]