[SunkenCiv]

Cueva Negra deep layer with thermally altered remains. Courtesy Michael Walker, et. al.

[Deaf Smith]

550-600C...too hot. Needed to learn temperature control.

Medium rare beats full char.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

“Scientists” cannot possibly “confirm” such a thing. Is the science settled?

[Inyo-Mono]

Over 850,000 years old? And I thought the Neanderthal hand axe in my collection from 70,000 years ago was old.

[Telepathic Intruder]

It’s probably just Neanderthals putting too many zeroes on the date stamps. They weren’t very good with dates or numbers. One factor for their extinction was getting home at night forgetting it was their wedding anniversary.

[arrogantsob]

First use of fire “outside Africa”.

[BobL]

“Researchers do not yet know what species of ancient human occupied the rockshelter during this early time period, but they suggest that they were pre-Neanderthal, possibly Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, or Homo erectus.”

Likely not Homo Erectus. They didn’t really enter the scene until the 1970s.

[Az Joe]

If fire was being used 900,000 years ago why did it take until 10,000 years ago or so to start cities and cultivation and the like? It seems they (Neanderthals/Humans) must have realized what was going on by the point.

[Verginius Rufus]

So when will 23andMe manage to get some H. heidelbergensis or H. erectus DNA so they can inform their clientele whether they have any heidelbergensis or erectus DNA? They do that now with Neanderthal DNA but the Neanderthals died out relatively recently.

[SunTzuWu]

Bookmark.

[SES1066]

'Firsts' in this field, are, at best, a contemporary guesstimate pending further research and discovery. When I recall my College Anthropology texts from the 1970s and their, ever so certain, dates of human migrations, I have to laugh! Like so many other items of scientific certainty, the proclaimers need to maintain a healthy sense of humility and avoiding hubris.

I refer one and all to the late, but still great, Arthur C. Clarke and his Three Laws, in particular for this case, Law #1: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Note please that I am NOT criticizing or disparaging these researchers or this article, just pointing out the habits of the media and others in assigning laudatory adjectives that the researchers would probably disclaim. Any mention of 'settled science' or other such wordage / concept should be at the reader's discretion!