Use it or lose it: A model-based assessment of the hypothesis that European Neanderthals relied on wildfires to create their campfires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There remains debate about the pyrotechnical capabilities of Neanderthals. Evidence of fire has been found at many Middle Palaeolithic sites, widely accepted to be associated with Neanderthals. However, multiple Neanderthal sites show a marked decrease in evidence for fire use during colder periods. This counterintuitive pattern was explained by the possibility that some Neanderthal groups were unable to create fire at will and relied on wildfire. Here, we evaluate the plausibility of this "wildfire hypothesis" through formal modeling. Methods: We computed the probability of a group of Neanderthals losing campfire-making skills due to cultural loss. The EMBERS model codes four empirically motivated mechanisms of skill loss: variability in use, period in between uses, memory decay and number of experts. Results: Our results indicate that losing the ability to use wildfire was more likely than retaining it for most of our parameter values within reasonable ranges. Significantly, demography, in the form of expert numbers, was the least significant mechanism of loss. The rate of memory loss at group level, and intervals between uses were markedly more important than demography. Variability in time between uses was by far the strongest driver of loss. These results, linked with the estimated climatic, mnemonic, and demographic conditions for the Neanderthals' occupation of Europe in cold periods, support the plausibility of the wildfire hypothesis. Our results also highlight the need to pay more attention to cultural loss as a factor in cultural evolution. Teaser: Our modeling demonstrates the feasibility of the controversial hypothesis that some European Neanderthal groups were unable to create fire at will and instead relied on wildfire to start their campfires.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".