MovieChat Forums > La guerre du feu (1982) Discussion > Too many species of Homo' (man)

Too many species of Homo' (man)

posted 19 years ago by quena
14 replies | jump to latest

This movie I agree is one of the greatest potrails of how our ancient ancestors lived. I'v seen this movie since i was a kid and I thought it couldn't be any more realistic. The Ulam tribe living 80,000 years ago in Ice age Europe, some species of early man were more primitive than others seeking fire ect. Some repreasented apemen were similar to those from 2001: A space Odyssey.

Quest for fire seems to move forward in time towards the latest stages of modern man away from apes. There are several mistakes in this film which during the late 1980's people overlooked. If the Ulam tribe were neanderthals and there female companion was a modern Homo sapien then there should only be two species of man living together during that time. In the film there were at least 4 seperate species and tribes but the last died out before 250,000 years ago. This movie takes place 80,000 years ago when modern man was fully flourished evolving in Africa 150,000 or 200,000 years ago.

Whats going on? If you took the time to study only Neanderthals and modern humans should have co -existed not 4 different types. They could update this film into a new version.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] solongthanks 19 years ago

“In the film there were at least 4 seperate species and tribes but the last died out before 250,000 years ago. This movie takes place 80,000 years ago when modern man was fully flourished evolving in Africa 150,000 or 200,000 years ago.”

Well, that doesn’t actually have to be a flaw- but rather a portrayal of one of many possible scenarios.

First, our archaeological and fossil record will give us minimums not maximums. So for example, when we find fossils of H. heidelbergensis dating 130,000 years ago- we can say “H. heidelbergensis was present at least 130,000 years ago” not “H. heidelbergensis died out completely 130,000 ya” or even 80,000 ya- we just don’t know. The fossil record doesn’t give us that kind of information.

Also, H. erectus dates to this time period, but without finds in this area. So we know that at a *minimum*, there were two physically distinct populations of Homo living near each other at this time- and at least one other (erectus) in another area (and of course we do not know whether they were separate species). Thus, it isn’t actually unthinkable that there could have been more groups (or subspecies, or *races*) that are not yet represented in the fossil record.

“Whats going on? If you took the time to study only Neanderthals and modern humans should have co -existed not 4 different types. They could update this film into a new version.”

I think more importantly is their portrayal that the Neandertal group was more primitive behaviorally than the modern Homo group (which we call *modern* because of their morphology). They clearly portray the modern Homo group to be more *civilized* showing her use medicine, laughter, face to face sex, in ways that are supposed to be new to the Neandertals- and of course making fire. This is not an interpretation that is really logical IMO given the evidence we have about Neanderthal behavior.

[–] jax-28 18 years ago

We are making our hypotheses based on available evidence, we know what we've seen, but not what he haven't seen. We don't have that many bones, it is fairly likely there have been species around that we don't know of. While I don't think the apes or the cannibals were particularly believable, they weren't completely impossible either.

[–] CaptainSnort 17 years ago

Only two species in this film as far as I could tell but many different cultures

[–] tedeadite 17 years ago

i agree to some extent although i think it is possible that the Kzamms were neanderthal(they seemed to have a distinctive smell,but also used fire).i know all the packaging says the apes are neanderthal,but realisticly,it makes more sense if they are just predatory apes.

[–] CaptainSnort 17 years ago

According to Wikipedia neanderthals controlled fire, made sophisticated tools and buried them with the dead who they had probably just eaten for tea. So it looks like you're right about the Kzamms, tedeadite.

As to the apes I wonder if the filmakers were trying to present some kind of 'missing link' or whether the make-up department couldn't get past the man in a monkey suit problem?

Saw the film for the first time last night. The acting and dialogue was so good and natural looking it didn't get in the way of the plot. I was as gripped as an early human hiding up a tree from a sabre-tooth.

[–] tedeadite 17 years ago

back in 1981 even "experts" had not got past the killer ape theory proposed by DART.however any apelike missing link would have vanished millions of years earlier.there have been great advances since then.just look at the apes with this in mind and enjoy them.

[–] jax-28 17 years ago

And the book was written in prehistory as far as understanding of our predecessors are concerned. Among the more interesting displays in Neandert(h)al, Germany are 19th century views of what the Neanderthals looked like and behaved, but idea of them as brutish apes disappeared in the early 20th century, though they might not have been considered human beings until the 1960s.

To me it's all in the hair. If you want to present a species as ape-like you make sure it is covered in pelt, while a civilised ape would be clean-shaved, females as well as males, and a well-groomed head of hair.

[–] solongthanks 17 years ago

"To me it's all in the hair. If you want to present a species as ape-like you make sure it is covered in pelt, while a civilised ape would be clean-shaved, females as well as males, and a well-groomed head of hair."

Huh, clean-shaven? That's pretty ethnocentric, are you suggesting that human cultures where facial hair is valued are less-civilized than those where shaving is the norm?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick

[–] Noruh 17 years ago

Homo Sapiens did not begin to make their way into Europe (if you follow the "Out of Africa" model) until about 50,000 years ago. Yes, I know the science that "inspired" this film is woefully out of date; but if we are to try to take it seriously we'd have to assume that it would take place somewhere in between Asia, Europe, and Africa. Thus the Middle East (maybe Egypt in particular) would make the most sense?

Thus it could be possible that Homo Sapiens, Homo Neanderthalis, & Homo Erectus could have intermingled 80,000 years ago. Possible...but not likely.

[–] happycurl 17 years ago

50,000 is way too recent even for the Out of Africa model- what source are you using? Remember that you have to get modern humans all the way to Australia by the earliest date which is generally thought to be about 60,000 yrs ago.

[–] jax-28 16 years ago

I meant clean-shaven bodies, humans as the naked ape, rather than clean-shaven faces. But since you mention it, it is possible that facial hair or long hair cultures are less civilised than the ones that abhor hair. Civilised as in more city-oriented cultures opposed to cultures more anti-urban in nature. I would leave that topic to anthropologists to explore though.

[–] moviegeek71 17 years ago

In the film there were at least 4 seperate species ... Whats going on? If you took the time to study only Neanderthals and modern humans should have co -existed not 4 different types

The special features and commentary state that there are only 2 species in the movie, Homo sapiens and Neanderthal.

----------
"If I've never seen it before, it's a new release to me."

[–] zyggums 11 years ago

My feeling was that all the tribes shown in this film where Cro-Magnon humans living in Europe. From the most savage canabalistic tribe to the most fire-starting-weapon-wielding advanced tribes. Different in culture and apperance yes, but all humans.