Fluctuations in worldwide weather temperatures marked the beginning of a series of glacier advancements called Ice Ages, followed by periods of warmth called Interglacial Periods. A typical glacial and interglacial period may persist for thousands of years.

During the last 1.6 million years since the present time, glaciers and ice sheets have advanced at least five times — the last of which occurred 11,000 years ago. In the last Ice Age, sheets of ice unfolded over Canada and northern parts of the United States, Europe and Russia, creating temperatures as low as -19°C at night in the winter and perhaps not much higher than 10°C during the day in the warmer months (in places like Germany and other areas with a similar geographic latitude). (1)

As a result of the Ice Age, many animals migrated to the tropics for greater warmth. However certain species adapted to the cold, such as Wolly Mammoths and humans.

During the beginning of the first glacial advancement nearly 1.6 million years ago, many extinctions occurred. Fortunately for us the road to our evolutionary existence continued.

NOTE: This kind of oscillatory behaviour in the world climate is natural since plants and animals affect the chemistry of the air and with it world temperatures. Earth with its lifeforms are a balancing system. Certain things may disrupt the climate such as volcanoes, asteroid impacts, large plant populations, and even the seemingly insignificant actions of emitting dust and soot into the atmosphere from man-made fires, but the Earth has a way of balancing the effects up to a certain point. If humans had no impact on the environment, then Earth at the present time would be half-way through the current interglacial period. Another 10,000 years and Earth could be heading for the next Ice Age. However, our technology and activity in the 20th and 21st century will no longer see these natural oscillations continue. Our dominance on this planet now seems unchallenged if not at our own peril should we not heed the warning signs. Because so far there is less and less of the healthy plants in tropical regions to help balance the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Soon methane gas will come out of the permafrosts and deep in the oceans to raise world temperatures dramatically. And with many short-term thinking humans still desiring profit above long-term survival by selling natural plant resources as well as minerals underground to other humans who need or want to buy it without sufficient replenishing of plant stocks and preserving the native animals that plant life depend for reproduction and the supply of natural fertilisers and we are facing a great disaster for human kind. Will our brains be big enough to realise what we are doing?

Early humans have now evolved (or appeared side-by-side with Homo Augasta) to the level of Homo Erectus. The name is rather unfortunate for it conjures up images of sexually promiscuous male hominids marauding the countryside. Although there may be some truth to this, the term Homo Erectus was devised to highlight the fact that these creatures had definitely walked upright!

Were these creatures the first to walk upright? Probably not. Earliest evidence of upright-walking hominids date back to 6 million years ago. The name Homo Erectus has been kept for posterity sake as it reminds people that this hominid was the first to be discovered by scientists to have walked upright. And if there was any evidence the knees of these creatures were designed like horses to allow them to stand up while sleeping at night, then the name would probably be more appropriate. Until then, somehow the scientists think not.

At any rate, we find on this particular evolutionary branch how these upright-walking creatures had larger brains than their predecessors (but still smaller than those of modern humans). A noticeable jutting ledge of bones over their eye sockets were still apparent. However they had smaller canine teeth, and their jaws were receding suggesting mastication of foods was easier and perhaps quicker to digest. Does this mean these hominids had mastered the art of building fires and cooking their food (probably mostly meat scavenged from dead animals)?

Homo Erectus is known to inhabit caves for its protection and warmth, especially during the glacial periods.

Is Homo Erectus a direct link to modern humans? Most probably on the grounds that its facial features looked more human than any previous homind. As Professor Travis Pickering at the University of Wisconsin said:

'It's the first early human that has really modern human characteristics, really big brain and indications that it was a big game hunter.'

Homo Erectus is believed to have migrated to Asia between 1.7 and 1.5 million years ago. One theory for the migration is because, during interglacial periods when the planet warmed up, geological corridors of greener pastures allowed some groups to move out of Africa and away from the intense competition for food by other hominids. Another theory is that a group of Homo Erectus individuals developed a gene mutation that resulted in more whiter skin. The mutants then had to migrate from the continent to preserve their differences from the darker-skin groups that may have thought the mutants were unnormal or a curse to have around.

 
The consensus among Western scientists is that modern humans emerged from Africa around 200,000 years ago to populate the world known as the Eve theory in memory of the classic Western religious story of Adam and Eve to explain the origins of humans. However, Asian scientists, notably the Chinese, argue their fossils of early humans existed over 300,000 years ago to around 1.1 million years ago as if other hominids existed and evolved into Homo Sapiens. One supporter of this "we already existed in Asia" theory is paleontologist Wu Xinzhi. Interestingly the findings of skulls in Asia dating back to this time do appear to suggest hominids in Asia were evolving and becoming more and more like Homo Sapiens.

Were there a single region in the world for the origin of all modern humans? Or were there several cradles for modern mankind within Europe and Asia and not just Africa?

Considerable debate still remains as to who exactly existed where and when and whether early hominids had already populated much of the world at this time to evolve independently into modern humans. But if we are to accept latest DNA analysis of modern humans and tracing back the genes to the common ancestor, it is clear at least one hominid with a direct link to modern humans had definitely come from Africa. Thereafter it becomes a question as to whether several of these migrating hominids had filled the presumably empty void of other continents to populate them with their own kind, or had intermingled to some extent with the already existing hominids who were probably evolving in their own ways.

Maybe we had a situation where the slightly darker-skinned and larger-brained Africans living on the coast and feeding on mussels saw the attractiveness of whiter skin hominids in Asia and elsewhere and a hybrid form of the humans developed? Clearly more work needs to be done in this field to determine the truth.

 
Scientists believe another reversal of the Earth's magnetic poles occurred during this time when the north pole was over Antarctica again. But this one lasted for around 200,000 years — a mere blink of an eye in geological terms! (2)

Mammals living at this time were not as big as the great dinosaurs of the Jurassic Period or even the giant mammals of nearly 5 million years ago, but were still considered much larger than animals of today. Only the elephants of our times could possibly compete with some of the animals of this time such as the giant ground sloth (now extinct).

It was also the time when the sabre-toothed cats made their mark on the world stage as the most dangerous known predator. Weighing as much as 300 kilograms for a fully-grown adult, the sabre-toothed cat was a formidable opponent. So fierce was this animal that it would eventually see the demise of the flightless terror birds.

However, the sabre-toothed cats would have a couple of disadvantages: the two long teeth emerging from the mouth were only useful to eat the fleshier parts of a prey leaving behind a lot of wasted meat and bone. Also these predators were short range runners despite their explosive power of acceleration. The amount of energy required to chase prey would see the sabre-toothed cats catching large prey every few days just to recouperate their energy and prepare for the next kill.

Then the climate would get colder and drier. Less vegetation on the ground would see many of the larger herbivores become extinct due to limited food, leaving behind a number of smaller animals to thrive in the harsher environment. Only a few large herbivores with the right tools (eg. fur and a long tusk to scrap snow off the grass) would have a better chance of surviving the colder conditions.

As temperatures went down for the next ice age, sabre-toothed cats would suffer under the conditions by not finding enough food (and perhaps with another force to contend with — humans).

In fact, the colder things got, the less plant food available, and the smaller the plant-eating animals have to be to survive on the remaining food supply. But as soon as the big plant eaters died, the big predators soon become extinct.

Assuming human did not contribute in some negative way, we must assume this is how the sabre-toothed cats became extinct.

NOTE: The largest Australian marsupial flesh-eating lion known to scientists as tharlac oleo lived in the tree-filled Nullabor region of Australia at this time. This is a lion rising to half the height of a human while standing on four legs. A stabbing incisor at the front of the jaw and powerful claws gave this ferocious creature the power to hold prey and puncture terrible holes in the skull or cut the spinal cord and back teeth capable of shearing off huge chunks of flesh. It can balance itself on two legs on its long tail and stand taller than a human. The animal could climb trees and jump down on its prey. This is a big, robust muscular predator. It survived until the first humans arrived in Australia.

 
Latest research in 2010 suggests the oldest known fires used for cooking food date to around this time although there is every indication cooking may have taken place as early as 1.6 million years ago based on analysis of the teeth of Homo Erectus.

Some scientists believe cooking became the next important milestone in the history of humankind because with cooking came the opportunity to release more energy by way of carbohydrates in some plant foods and to make digestion of proteins in meats much easier and quicker. It meant early humans with their smaller and sharper teeth and lighter jaw structure did not have to masticulate on raw plant foods for long periods of time and then have to sit around in the safety of trees for many hours to conserve energy to allow the digestion process to complete as did the australopithecines with their much larger and flatter teeth. There is also another greater benefit cooking brought to the early humans: the brain could rely on more energy in the food to power the evolving functions needed for longer concentration and other problem-solving abilities. So long as early humans used their extra time to think about how to do things better, which clearly they did at some point when they made their own fire and started cooking food, then there is no reason why the brain would not have evolved more sophisticated higher functions to permit more effective problem-solving skills.

Among the supporters of this theory is Professor Richard Wrangham of Harvard University. As he remarked:

'Do you know what chimpanzees spend most of their time doing? They spend most of their time just chewing. And Australapithecus would undoubtably have done the same thing. Probably more than half the day, they would have spent their time just moving their jaw up and down because they are eating a relatively low quality food compared to us. They spend most of their time doing nothing other than eating.

'The Australopithecene brain size remained stable. Then meat eating came in, and then the brains got bigger. And that set everything off in the direction of modern humans.'

And when cooking become integral to the meat eating diet, the quality of the food's nutritional value would dramatically increase. As Professor Wrangham believes:

'Cooking is huge. I think it's arguable the biggest increase in the quality of the diet in the whole of the history of life.'

But what if early humans discovered how cooking soya beans would provide enough proteins and energy? Would it be necessary to eat meat in order to develop a bigger brain? Given the environment of Africa and the increasing dry conditions, it is unlikely hominids in Africa would have discovered this possibility. In fact, there is no evidence soya beans ever grew in Africa. That was something the hominids in Asia would discover. In Africa, meat become the principal diet for early humans who needed more time to solve problems, to move on to greener pastures, and/or to fend off competing hominids in certain territories.

In a harsher environment, hominids had to rely on meat for its survival. And with it came the advantage of a bigger brain for developing good communication within a social group, as well as long-term planning and the ability to visualise or experiment directly in the environment with new tools when finding better solutions.

As humans discovered or made better use of fire to cook food and build a bigger brain, a new island would form in the Pacific Ocean. Formed by an exceptionally hot spot in the magma below a thin crust, a massive volcano erupted from the sea floor nearly 1 million years ago. As the Pacific tectonic plate moves, new volcanoes would erupt from time-to-time from the same hot spot forming the eight main islands and a total of 19 volcanoes we know today as Hawaii.

 
With another modest increase in brain capacity in such areas as muscle coordination (ie. the cerebellum and the motor control strip running along the top part of the cerebrum) and ability to concentrate a little more on complex tasks (ie. an expansion of the frontal lobes), as well as favourable interglacial periods that allowed the great African continent to open up to a whole new world in Europe and the Middle East in the north, Homo Erectus eventually moved to the furthest parts of the world including India, China and Java (and soon to Australia), where they may have learned to intermingle with other similar people or kept to themselves and continued to master the use of fire for warmth, protection and for cooking. (3)

Scientists at the London Institute of Brain Chemistry have recently proposed a new theory for why the brain size has increased. The suggestion has been that early humans were able to develop bigger brains because they chose to eat more fish.

There may be some truth to this since it is now known that fish contains a valuable proteins, fats (eg. Omega 3 DHA) and minerals important for building and powering the human brain, or as one anonymous individual has remarked, "Fish is the rocket fuel for the brain."

Then there is the veritable fact that fishing is still a major part of modern human life. With nearly 90 percent of the human population choosing to live in or near the oceans or major waterways probably because of the relative ease in obtaining seafood in vast quantities (this may explain how we moved out-of-Africa nearly 160,000 years go to populate the world), it would seem natural to suggest that fish may have played an important role in early human brain development for at least 500,000 and possibly as far back as 5 million years ago.

However fish is not enough. Or as they say, "Man cannot live on fish alone" (or was that bread?). To make the brain bigger, humans must learn to absorb and process information in order to extract or create new patterns (both visible and invisible) relevant to survival and/or to improve one's social status in a group of other humans.

One way of doing this is to remember the large number of dangerous predators existent at this time. The other way, is to develop a communicative language. Beyond that are bigger and more invisible patterns in the Universe which help to give a clue about the meaning and purpose of life and the Universe. Whatever patterns we acquire, it is a question of whether the individual learns to make the choice of using the brain to solve problems and remember a number of essential patterns needed to survive a harsh and difficult environment, and not just eat fish, which determines exactly how large the brain needs to be to handle the situation. Like the old saying goes, "Use it, or lose it." Otherwise, there would be no evolutionary advantage in growing a big brain by eating lots of fish.

If you think about it, the human brain to perform these tasks has to take away a huge amount of energy from the human body (scientists have estimated 20 per cent of the total energy consumed in modern humans). It requires the body to be at rest for extended periods of time to allow humans to think and solve problems. But at the same time, it is a well-known fact of chemistry and in biology that systems would prefer to minimise the amount of energy it needs to achieve a certain result. That in itself is a good enough reason why evolution would not favour a large brain irrespective of how much fish we eat unless there is something else making us use the brain to make it bigger. We call this the application of our brain to acquiring and creating new patterns known as learning.

Depending on how we survive, humans either learn to use their bodies or brains, or a combination of the two to achieve great things for themselves and society. Where the brain is involved, it can only get bigger and or more organised to allow future generations to apply more effective problem-solving skills.

Okay. So from Homo Erectus eventually emerged two hominid groups. One group would migrate and rely on the body for survival in the great cold of Europe known as Neanderthal Man. The other group would live in Africa relying increasingly more on the brain to survive by sifting out important patterns in the environment for survival while developing a sophisticated language for communicating with fellow hominids.

This latter group would lead to modern humans.

 
The world's oldest DNA was uncovered in 2007 under a kilometre of ice in southern Greenland showing much of the land was indeed green during the summer as the name implies with a temperate forest consisting of spruce, alder, pine and yew. Before ice covered all of Greenland as we see today, the lushes forest was also teeming with butterflies, moths and the ancestors of beetles, flies and spiders.

As researcher Professor Eske Willerslev said:

'We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland, which is currently hidden under more than two kilometres of ice, was once very different to the Greenland [of] today.

'Back then it was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects.' (Smith, Deborah. Greenland really was green, world's oldest DNA reveals: The Sydney Morning Herald. 7-8 July 2007, p.7. & Jha, Alok. Greenland really was green once: The Canberra Times. 7 July 2007, p.19.)

The DNA to support these plants and animals was uncovered from cores drilled into the ice cap and into the muddy bottom. Through careful analysis of this material, the DNA of the ancient insect variety has been estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old. An Australian researcher who joined the Danish-led team to help extract and analyse the ancient DNA, Michael Bunce, said:

'Preserved DNA from plants, animals, insects and bacteria that died hundreds of thousands of years ago can aid in our understanding of how the earth's environment has changed.' (Smith, Deborah. Greenland really was green, world's oldest DNA reveals: The Sydney Morning Herald. 7-8 July 2007, p.7.)

For example, Bunce has now realised how the ice did not melt during the last interglacial period of 116,000 to 130,000 years ago when temperatures were believed to be 5 degrees higher than today. For if it did, the ancient trees and insects would have been replaced by new varieties of flora and fauna. Instead, life of half a million years ago was preserved in Greenland's giant natural freezer.

The implications of this simple yet important discovery is that it may take longer for the ice sheets in Greenland to melt under present-day global warming conditions. So does this mean there will be no sea level rises today? Not necessarily so. The last interglacial period may not have seen ice on Greenland melt, but somehow the ocean levels did rise by 5 to 6 metres higher than today. Clearly this rise had to come from other sources, possibly from Antarctica. More research is taking place to figure out precisely where.

As Willerslev stated:

'As the Earth warms from man-made climate change, these sources would still contribute to a rise in sea levels.' (Smith, Deborah. Greenland really was green, world's oldest DNA reveals: The Sydney Morning Herald. 7-8 July 2007, p.7.)

Scientists have estimated that Greenland of 500,000 years ago had a summer temperature of 10 degrees celsius and -17 degrees celsius in the winter.

More details can be found in the journal Science published on 6 July 2007.

NOTE: Where there is ice over the oceans, the melting will occur more quickly than on land.

 
Perhaps with all that intermingling with other previously isolated groups, a new species called Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus (or Homo Augasta) around 400,000 years ago until mostly these hominids walked around some 200,000 years ago. These new hominids had an expanded skull to accommodate a larger-volumed brain, and the entire skull structure became lighter and delicate. No longer are thick brow ridges visible.

The jaw structure of Homo Sapiens reduced noticeably in size and appeared less protruding, resulting in a smaller more modern human face. It is as if the foods they consumed were softer (eg. more fruits and berries) or were prepared in such a way as to make mastication easier (ie. they had used fire as a means of cooking their food).

NOTE: Some scientists have placed the origins of Home Sapiens at around 160,000 years ago during a time when significant changes had allegedly taken place within the brain after studying the skull structures dated to around this time.

 
After studying the fossil skulls of our ancestors, many scientists believe the larynx or voice box was at one time positioned much higher up in the throat. As with the apes, this higher position prevented speech from taking place. The most the apes and our early ancestors could do is grunt and point a finger or two to help communicate. However, by 200,000 years ago, biological evolution (ie. the physical changes to the body over time through mutations and regular application of the body for specific tasks) led to a lowering of the voice box, increasing the frequency range in the sound and producing a range of new sound patterns. The advantage is clear. If humans could not communicate with their fingers at long range distances (even waving the arms can have its limitations), humans quickly learned to use the voice box to send specific sounds over greater distances to communicate a range of different and more richer information about the environment.

As with such changes leading up to the generation of more complex sounds and ultimately a language for describing everything, this essentially means a bigger brain for remembering the sounds and associated symbols. Thus it is possible a larger and more complex brain may have appeared for the earliest ancestors of modern humans at around the time the voice box had changed. Certainly greater evidence to support these brain changes would come for skulls dated to 160,000 years ago.

All these changes would also coincide with results obtained through mitochondrial DNA analysis showing the DNA of every modern human race emanated from a single female that lived in central Africa around 195,000 years ago. This remarkable feat was achieved by analysing the DNA inside numerous energy producing structures for powering every living cell called a mitochondria and compared this mitochondrial DNA to the different human races found in different parts of the world today. It is in the African people where scientists have managed to trace back the majority of gene sequences of every race on the planet and this gave scientists the first clue to the origin of modern humans. The second clue would come after estimating the time it takes for such genetic changes to take place, which put modern humans as originating in Africa around 195,000 years ago.

 
The brain structure of early humans (ie. our direct ancestors) had definitely advanced to a complex and enlarged level around this time. As French paleontologist Anne Dambricourt Malassé stated:

'The brain grew much more complex. It had a better blood supply. So, naturally, after this biological evolution a cultural evolution came very quickly. Homo Sapiens was born' (Homo Futurus, a documentary film by Thomas Johnson and produced by Hind Saih in 2005, televised on SBS 6 May 2007)

Those changes to the brain are primarily in the region where abstract thinking takes place, which is the frontal cortex combined with a larger corpus callosum for helping to transfer information between the cerebral hemispheres. As a consequence, humans would develop improved memory, and better visualisation skills (possibly achieved more easily by taking hallucinatory drugs from plants).

Since the brain became more than just a powerful pattern-recognition tool but also a powerful pattern-creation tool, the extra visualisation and creativity skills provided by the right side of the brain were helping early humans to indirectly observe more abstract and hidden patterns from the environment. Before this time, the use of the L-brain for recognising known patterns stored in memory with what was directly observed through the eyes were the most sought after skill for recognising prey during hunting. The only problem with this approach is that humans had to take each day as it comes, hoping the food they need to hunt would be available when humans got hungry. Now humans simplified the food gathering and hunting process and began to realise there existed large-scale hidden patterns in the environment which indicated when food was likely to be abundant in which location. As soon as humans discovered mussels (a valuable source of omega-3 fatty acids needed to build a healthy brain) growing along the southern and eastern African shores, it made sense for humans to stop chasing prey via the persistence hunting method and instead they could plan ahead and time the moment when to walk down to the shores to collect mussels when the tides are low.

This meant learning the pattern of the ocean tides.

Early humans were getting cleverer. In fact, they were getting so good at this, possibly allowing the leaders to not only plan ahead but also to delegate specific tasks of gathering food at the right times by selected members of the group, that they were learning to find ways to relax and creatively think about things.

Or it could simply be the fact that humans were having trouble finding enough prey on land and shell fish was the only easy source of food to eat at around this time.

From this abstract thinking came not just improved memory but also the emergence of the worldwide human phenomenon known as rock art — considered by scientists as the first signs of a cultural revolution — as well as religion and language as people began to acknowledge and give special sounds and symbols to the things that were important to them for their survival as well as contemplate the purpose of life and death and the nature of the Universe.

Rock art would also form the beginnings of recording all human knowledge lasting many thousands of years.

Initially the creative outpourings on rocks and cave walls showed the shapes of various animals early humans learned to hunt including evidence of spears being thrown through the air. Sometimes more dangerous animals may be recorded in a more frightening way with the aim of revealing to future generations the evil spirits residing in these creatures. Some other images would reveal an acknowledgment or a primitive form of identification to other tribes that other humans either own the territory or knowledge by leaving an outline of a human hand on the wall. While other forms of art showed a more creative streak by their human creators.

These rock art had the benefit of teaching new generations of which animals to hunt and how to hunt them so long as humans returned to the same area.

Yet these smarter early humans weren't totally satisfied. The creative mind was looking for ways to make life easier.

The problem with rock art is that sometimes you do need to have this knowledge with you all the time, either to draw upon for time-to-time or to rely on it as a source of knowledge for the next generation. And sometimes the caves you inhabitated might get taken over and the knowledge passed on to other competitive groups. Or occasionally the knowledge is lost forever by some destructive force of nature. There had to be a way to hide and preserve the knowledge within the group, and at the same time have it recorded onto some kind of a compact and portable surface for the knowledge to be easily carried and transferred to future generations within the group. Likewise the drawings had to be small enough and yet recognisable to allow other patterns to be recorded on the same surface.

Generally it is wasteful and too much to carry around if the drawings are too large on a given surface.

Even the weight of the material for recording the knowledge was something people had to consider very carefully. For example, the last thing people want to do is carry a whole bunch of stone tablets containing all the knowledge while they are being chased by a predator. It is just not on in a harsh and difficult environment. Therefore it had to be critical for people to discover the right medium for recording knowledge that is extremely lightweight and not just compact.

Then the drawings themselves had to be more refined and structured better so people can get the full picture in their minds.

Eventually as each successive generation passed on the drawings to the next with the occasional smart and highly creative individual learning to re-draw and simplify the drawings into more basic and smaller symbols in order to save space and time on drawing them using a coloured pigment, a piece of stick and a suitable surface to record the drawings, it wasn't long before humans decided to get really abstract in their drawings and started stringing together a group of these symbols to form what we might call a basic sentence. The sentence was more than an association of commonly accepted and relatively easy to recognise symbols (or names) linked to various observable things in the environment. As some clever people at the time would have asked, what should you do if you see something? Should you run, or pick up a spear and chase it, or don't do anything and stand still? Again language had to evolve further to describe all the actions we had to perform to be successful. Therefore further symbols had to be developed and shown their connection to specific actions people had to perform so that others can clearly visualise and ultimately know what to do in order to survive more easily. As soon as the actions were included in a sentence, from this moment on, the beginnings of a written and sophisticated language would develop.

Further evolution of the language would come when a symbolic system of measuring how much of something existed at any particular time and place was incorporated. We call this the rudimentary beginnings of mathematics. Naturally an important additional when people needed to know how many of something in the environment there were.

Other members of the group (probably the females) would also learn about the primitive language, adding their own symbols and sounds to help describe other things such as our emotions. Once emotions was incorporated into language and could be communicated with other humans, for the first time humans could develop some understanding of empathy with other humans (especially within a group and among family members) as a powerful means of developing deeper and more meaningful relationships within the group and so better understand how our actions affect emotions.

And when different groups of people in a certain locality developed their own unique symbols and sounds for the same observable things, actions, emotions and numbers, different languages developed. Soon there were groups of people speaking different sounds for essentially the same things. The advantage of doing this is that highly prized knowledge gathered by one group could be kept within the group and used to the advantage of the group above all others when applied.

But as with any knowledge, time and enough thinking by other people will eventually discover the same knowledge.

Indeed there would be times when you need to be able to communicate with others even if they do not speak your specific language. This was the main issue for a group of people who wanted to set up a form of trade in order to exchange, barter, buy or sell items to benefit all the groups. So the first important standardisation that had to take place was in the numbering system for counting how many things there were. Once an accepted means of counting was found, the language barrier could begin to be broken down between seemingly different groups.

NOTE: Today, human language is favouring three types: Spanish, English and Chinese. Spanish is considered the most widely-spoken partly from the shear numbers of people living in Spanish-speaking countries, but also because it is easier to learn and speak compared to say English or Chinese. English is the next popular language and is fast growing to become possibly the preferred international language. Chinese remains a major language mainly for the shear numbers of people living in China who must speak the language. All other minor languages such as French, German and so on are kept for cultural and historical reasons and so maintain a sense of unique identity and of belonging to a specific group.

 
The end of another great Ice Age around 150,000 years ago (4) had encouraged another major migration of hominids from central and southern Africa to other parts of the world.

Why the migration? It seems the great food bowl of Africa was diminishing over time due to the warmer conditions followed by an increasing rain shadow formed by the growing Himalayan mountains which reduced the amount of rain falling on the continent, as well as the impact of early humans and other hominids on the environment. Or perhaps populations of the two-legged humanoid kind were increasing and competition for food became more intense?

Were there other migrations taking place around this time? It is not clear, for instance, whether there was a migration from Asia back to Europe and Africa. We know hominids did exist in south-east Asia before the start of this interglacial period. Maybe the Asian people found it too comfortable and safe living near the equator in relative isolation from the rest of the world. And with the extra food supply, Asian people could meditate and perform more elaborate religious rituals to help them understand the true meaning of life and the universe? Or maybe some hominids did migrate, but not to Europe or Africa? Perhaps some may have traveled onwards from Asia and northern Russia into North America through the land bridge (or used boats to travel along the coast) created during the Ice Age between Russia and Alaska and eventually to South America.

At any rate, we do know a number of hominids did migrate to Europe.

One can understand how modern European settlers have much in common with the Africans in terms of the highly competitive nature in getting things of a survival nature and more likely to engage in warfare (an expected consequence of applying excessive spontaneous L-brain skills combined with a large enough brain to store patterns of how to deal with other hominids) compared to Asians who were probably safer and living in a more food abundant environment and preferred a more cooperative and creative approach to life (in what scientists call a more R-brain and frontal cortex "thinking" skill)? Maybe the population levels and food supplies became of increasing concern to people in Africa and Europe and fighting was seen as the only immediate solution to reducing the competition from other humans.

But around 150,000 years ago, the need to fight other hominids became less important in Europe. Either there were too few or no hominids at all in Europe. Maybe the previous Ice Age was too cold for other hominids to make the continent their home? However, as soon as the interglacial period returned, there was an opportunity for migrating hominids to move into Europe. These hominds could relax to a certain extent and focus on the task of gathering food while living in caves.

When the next Ice Age returned, these European hominids would rely significantly on animals for food in this harsh and unforgiving environment. While some other hominids probably moved back into Africa to experience warmer conditions.

Known as the Neanderthals, these early European settlers were a great survivor for more than 100,000 years. However, their time was coming to an end mainly because they continued to live either on their own or in very small groups and found it difficult to quickly learn new ideas and ways of surviving in a harsh environment. Humans, on the other hand, were more organised and better adapters of the changing world (or could change the world in certain ways to adapt to their needs), especially in harsher and tougher environments among other humans.

 
According to an analysis of pollen and carbon-dating techniques of charcoal found in the Lake George basin of the southern tablelands in New South Wales, Australia was occupied by humans that have migrated from south-east Asia and Papua New Guinea. With the existence of charcoal, this proves humans were already using fire as a powerful tool to clear the land.

The analysis suggests this was around 2,000 years after the time of another interglacial period when ice sheets retreated around 120,000 years ago. So what probably happened was that during the last Ice Age, oceans were low enough for humans to travel in canoes across various islands and eventually discovered the Australian continent. With its abundant supply of unique flora and fauna, the people took it upon themselves to become the new permanent settlers of a new land.

Oldest known personal adornment pieces shows evidence of symbolic thinking at around this time. The pieces were excavated from archaeological sites at Skhul in Israel and Qued Djebbana in Algeria. These are shells known as Nassarius gibbosulus of 1 centimetre diameter with holes pierced into them by humans to allow a natural fibre string to pass through them to form a necklace or something similar. The discovery was made by Marian Vanhaeren at University College London and her colleagues while searching the world museum collections.

As co-author of the study, Francesco d'Errico of the National Center for Scientific Research in Talence, France, said:

'Our paper supports the scenario that modern humans in Africa developed behaviors that are considered modern quite early in time, so that in fact these people were probably not just biologically modern but also culturally and cognitively modern, at least to some degree.'

Vanhaeren added:

'Symbolically mediated behaviour is one of the few unchallenged and universally accepted markers of modernity. A key characteristic of all symbols is that their meaning is assigned by arbitrary, socially constructed conventions and it permits the storage and display of information.'

The finding is based on three shells analysed. Two of the shells from Skhul in Israel were 100,000 years old and the third shell excavated in the 1940s from Algeria was 90,000 years old.

Further details of the finding can be read in the 23 June issue of the research journal Science.

 
The biggest volcanic explosion of the last 25 million years (an eruption classified as category 8) occurred on the northern island of Sumatra in Indonesia. Known as the Toba volcano, it created the loudest noise heard by man sending ash and sulfur dioxide high into the stratosphere and spreading around the world (in the direction of Malysia, India and eventually Africa and Europe). A 6-year global winter followed (world temperatures dropped by 3 to 5 degrees celsius) affecting all the continents (Antactica received the least amount of ash).

In Africa, drought and famine caused millions of animals to die. Population of Homo Sapiens were thought to be 80,000 at the time. But as the drought worsened, humans dwindled to between 10,000 to 1,000 (or perhaps as little as 600 according to some claims). This is probably the closest humans ever got to becoming extinct by this one single event in Earth's geological history. Fortunately only the smartest humans made the decision to migrate and find better pastures, most likely cooperating with each other through regular communication, rather than enduring the famine and fighting other humans for food.

The theory of humans bottlenecking in its population by this catastrophic event and nearly becoming extinct in Africa and leading to only two human species surviving known as Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and modern humans (Homo sapiens) is known today as the Toba catastrophe theory first proposed in 1998 by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

 
Australia is still a relatively wet country with large areas of lushes vegetation. Although Australia would never experience the same wet and lushes rainforest-like conditions as had occurred during the Jurassic and Triassic period, it was still wet enough to support a large inland sea.

This inland sea benefited many relatively large Australian animals, from the bizarre to the more familiar varieties.

Firstly, the inland sea was a large body of freshwater helping the animals with an adundant supply of fresh drinking water. And secondly, it helped to maintain extra moisture in the air as needed to create extensive rainfalls along the Blue Mountains and in northern Australia. As the rains fell heavily and regularly during the warmer summer months, a myriad of rivers on the Western-side of the Blue Mountains would replenish the inland sea.

Thanks to these wetter conditions prevalent throughout much of Australia, large docile mammals and many fire-sensitive plants had once roamed the continent at this time until they all became extinct by around 60,000 years ago. The extinctions probably occurred either because:

1. there was already a change in climate over Australia during the Pleistocene epoch due to natural events (eg. the relatively inactive Blue Mountains were being weathered away to hills thereby reducing the likelihood of rain to replenish the inland sea));
2. this was the time for the arrival of the first Australian aborigines (6) migrating from the food-bowl of south-east Asia and Papua New Guinea. They would bring with them the technology of fire (a feat which could have affected the Australian climate as the Aborigines used fire to gather food and so inadvertently helped the more fire-resistant vegetation to dominate the landscape); or
3. a combination of both.

## UPDATE ##
May 2003
Some scientists would prefer to blame nature for the cause of Australia's increasingly drier and more fire-prone landscape. Perhaps, as the scientists suggest, the ancient Australian animals had increased in numbers and slowly eaten their way through the vegetation, exposing the ground water to greater evaporation. Then, as the great inland sea located near Lake Eyre had less fresh water coming from the Western side of the Blue Mountains because of reduced rainfall and less moisture in the air, a time came around 60,000 years ago (coincidentally when humans arrived) when regular lightning strikes during the monsoon season created increasingly bigger bush fires. A nice explanation if you didn't want to blame humans for anything. But can we really ignore the impact of the aborigines on the Australian environment? Are humans really that innocent of the great climate change occurring in Australia over a long period of time not to mention the potential for other continents of the world? Are humans really that caring for the environment?

 
Some geneticists have recently argued that around 59,000 years ago, the Y-chromosome of the male hominid had evolved to a super-successful version allowing an increase in certain "male characteristics". The latest research indicates the Y-chromosome is believed to be linked to a variety of important "male characteristics" like aggression, bigger muscles (should scientists call this male hominid the super Homo Erectus?), a higher sperm production and so on. Since genes is a reflection of its adaptation to an environment, what happened in the environment to allow the genes to change and be maintained by successive breeding?

While this male trait in the Y-chromosome was being transmitted across future generations of early humans, it suggests the possibility that conflict was becoming an integral part of the survival of the human species within its own kind and perhaps with other animals (mainly the predators). Certainly a number of hominid groups have appeared and disappeared over many thousands of years. Natural forces may contribute to the demise of some groups. But what about the humans themselves?

Focussing on the letter aspect, we can imagine how the meeting between hominid groups may lead to assimilation if there are expected benefits from doing so; or more often than not, conflict (especially among the male species — probably from Europe and Africa) would be the likely scenario. Why? Because humans are highly territorial. They don't like to share the resources in a prescribed region if there is a risk the resources might be depleted and people may be forced to fight again to survive. People like to know they will be able to survive easily in a specified territory knowing they have all the resources they need.

You see, conflict would probably arise among humans because food is well understood to be a valuable commodity and any unnecessary loss in food might be detrimental to the survival of one, the other, or both groups. For some groups, the easiest way to maintain food supplies in a prescribed territory was to use their L-brain social and spontaneous action-based skills to fight off or, in some cases, kill others (known as the demonic primate theory). Those groups not adapted to warfare were either wiped-out or migrated to various parts of the world like China, America and Australia, or became specialists in gathering scant food in desolate regions like the sandy or icy deserts of the world.

Actually, this link between food supply and aggressive behaviours in a number of early male hominids right up to the appearance of modern humans in the early 21st century could dictate where human society will progress in the next 50 to 100 years. Already, scientific studies of gorillas and chimpanzees in the African rainforests of Congo with its vast natural food supply are revealing a much more peaceful and gentle species compared to their more aggressive gorilla and chimpanzee counterparts in the drier and harsher lands of the African interior.

The same is true for humans. We can see this from the archaeological finds of ancient civilisations in Peru. Due to the El Nino effect, severe and long-term droughts along the Western coast of South America such as the one that occurred 600AD have forced civilisations in Peru to practice the religious ritual of human sacrifices simply because the hungry people wanted a relationship with their gods in the hope rain would return. People need rain for the survival of the civilisations but didn't realise the need for trees to reduce water evaporation and keeping the soils healthy. Certain leaders in this part of the world were too greedy. Too much of the land was cleared of the trees for growing food. And not enough recycling and regenerating the environment was taking place. Instead humans thought a mysterious God would help solve all their woes in an incresingly harsh land.

As the stresses on the people continued, aggressive and violent L-brain human behaviours worsen. The economies of civilisations in Peru had to collapse causing people to turn on each other and fight for the best agricultural lands, fishing spots and so on. Should the aggressive L-brain behaviours persist and conditions in the environment worsen, it will eventually cause the end of any human civilisation no matter how strong, religiously devoted or rich the people of the civilisation, or reliance on the military to maintain law and order may have been.

NOTE: No civilisation can afford to destroy its environment if it wishes to survive for eternity.

Will we continue to follow the same aggressive tendencies of our ancestors (and other primates) protecting and hoarding all the food on this planet for our own selfish wants or needs because of how little there is left for everyone? Or can we use our brain in a different way to solve the food problems and improve our environment — perhaps through a more R-brain approach with ideas of "recycling" etc?

While it is quite possible for some early humans to be getting more aggressive as food supplies began to dwindle in certain parts of the world as well as to deal with the numerous predators at this time (including other two-legged early humans), they did get increasingly more smarter as the increasing brain size of early humans would indicate. And with it a change in the Y chromosome of human males would have helped to adapt to this tougher environment.

But it isn't just a dwindling of resources to affect the survival of some humans that can drive people to fight (or die). There is the issue of greed. In other words, once you have what you need, the reality of death for everyone means some individuals will be driven to find ways to acquire additional resources beyond what they need which they think is needed to live longer or helps them and their future offsprings to enjoy life to the fullest. Anything certain human leaders like to have may drive them to do anything to get it, even to the point of resorting to sending other men to fight wars and conquer nations.

Again it doesn't matter if it is a food issue or the greed of some crazy leaders. The fighting that comes from either of these scenarios would simply support the view that any improvements to the Y chromosome and the size of the brain to help manage these problems in the environment would be a necessity so long as there is enough time and a long enough line of successful breeding that eventually allows the genes to make the necessary changes to adapt to a given environment.

 
Latest DNA analysis of thousands of people around the world to determine their genetic variability (or degree of mutations) and so mathematically reconstruct the evolutionary tree of humans suggest the timeframe for humans to migrate to various parts of the world from Africa (the accepted origin for modern humans) was between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago. While hominids may have already existed throughout Europe and Asia (which may support the multi-regional theory in earlier times), the first direct descendants leading to modern humans emerged from Africa and migrated to Europe and the Middle East (about 55,000 years ago), Asia and Australia (about 50,000 years ago) and eventually to North America and South America.

Why did humans move out of Africa? It was probably a question of finding a reliable food supply, moving away from the increasing competition and finding a place (or territory) to call your own where you can develop a unique culture, language and arts.

You see, the climate and environment of Africa had already begun to get drier. It meant food was already on the decline and finding it was getting harder. Humans had to get smarter to find ways of gathering food and defending themselves from predators and other hominids that were all looking for food to survive. Fortunately, one of the easiest solutions would be to migrate to the coast where the ocean provided a reasonably stable supply of seafood to keep the early humans alive. Adapting to one type of environment next to the ocean (eg. a relatively constant temperature throughout the year) would have been relatively easy.

As a member of the international research team studying the mitochrondrial DNA of isolated and native people in the Malaysian peninsula known as Orang Asli and those on the Andaman Island off India's east coast, Australian National University's David Bulbeck said:

'It's much easier to move quickly along a coast.' (Smith, Deborah. Earth's first beachcombers ended up in Australia: The Sydney Morning Herald. 14-15 May 2005, p.13.)

Once humans reached the coast, they had to make the decision of moving out of the African continent. Why? To minimise the competition from other hominds and possibly to search for a new territory people can call their own (ie. the origin of countries).

Scientists believe as competition for food and territory increased, early humans learned to travel along the coasts around the Indian Ocean starting from East Africa at a rate of 700 metres to 4 kilometres per year until they reached Australia. Another group did went off in a different direction towards Europe from around the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan region nearly 46,000 to 55,000 years ago.

The technique used by scientists to make this claim is based on the degree of variation or mutations that have taken place on the mitochondrial DNA of seemingly isolated and/or different groups. Generally the more variation there is in this type of DNA the longer the group has been away from the main common group. Combine this with the location of the original groups still alive today in isolated communities and scientists can now piece together the path where humans have migrated.

As Dr Peter Forster, an archaeogeneticist at Anglia Ruskin University, said:

'You can take a look at modern DNA from people alive today and mathematically reconstruct what our ancestors would have had in terms of types and variance of genes.

'We found out that all humans outside Africa are derived from a single migrant group leaving Africa. So they weren't separate migrations. We dated this migration out of Africa to about 50 or 60,000 years ago. So [it is] very recent.

'We know with 95 per cent confidence they must have taken less than 5,500 years to cross from Africa into Australia.' (Catalyst. ABC TV Science Program. 21 February 2008.)

The Multi-Regional Theory (as opposed to the Out-of-Africa theory) only becomes valid when we talk about the origins of humans on the scale of tens of millions of years ago and especially when the continents were much closer together.

Humans were definitely getting smarter. Despite their lighter skeletal frames and faster bodies compared to the Neanderthals, the humans were growing a bigger brain. Now new survival techniques and tools were helping humans to better protect themselves from the predators, fight off other human-like species (or did we systematically exterminate other human-like creatures to maximise our own survival?), and gather food more efficiently.

Among some of the survival techniques employed by our human ancestors at this time include:

1. building a fence around human-made huts or near the entrance of caves;
2. using fire to keep predators away at night;
3. staying in a group, as size and the level of closeness to certain individuals provides greater protection against predators. As Louise Barrett, a primatologist from Liverpool University once said:

   "[Being eaten by a predator] is the driving force for our social lives" (7);

   Although one could equally say humans can be a predator as well should they decide to fight for resources, whether by need or greed.

4. developing more sophisticated tools to better defend against predators and possibly use them to hunt other animals; and
5. delegating specialised tasks to certain hominid members of the group.

With vastly improved and efficient ways to gather food and to protect other valuable resources, there would have to be a time when early humans would learn to relax and dream nearly 60,000 years ago. And with this great dream time came the practising art of religion and hunting rituals as indicated by elaborate cave paintings and burial grounds of numerous modern hominid groups.

In fact, a large number of people throughout the world would practice similar rituals as well.

At the same time as this was occurring, the brain size of human beings seemed to have peaked at around 50,000 years ago. Instead of getting larger, the brain improved its internal organisation. Could it be that humans were getting so efficient in gathering food and in protecting themselves from various other predators that the use of the brain as a purely L-brain tool for quickly acquiring patterns and implementing skills in hunting, gathering, communicating and fighting was no longer required?

It is known that the brain does certainly increase in size. This is due primarily to the neurons making countless new connections to other neurons as it learns to cope with its environment and, in so doing, is creating and storing numerous and very specific patterns for survival. And certainly, if you could remember and regurgitate patterns (whether or not you undertand them), you were likely to be highly respected and even given the role of leading the group to better pastures. Yet something happened nearly 50,000 years ago to stop the brain from getting considerably larger and instead opt for a reorganising of itself.

Because it is known by the scientists that the brain needs a huge amount of energy to perform its work, perhaps in times of famine the brain of early humans had forced improvements to its internal structure. In that way, the brain could avoid extracting more energy from the human body when developing a larger brain.

Or could it be that people at this time had discovered how much knowledge was being gathered from previous generations and needed a new way to remember (let alone apply) all these bits and pieces of seemingly unrelated information quickly?

And what about the possibility that people in this era were finding an increasing amount of free time to think about things and not have to worry about their survival situation, which may have seen more and more people learning to use their brain in a slightly different, holistic and more creative way, perhaps taking on a more R-brain approach to life as psychologists would call it? Could humans, while sitting down and learning to relax, thought about things more carefully, visualised their patterns, and so eventually have discovered something else about the brain and their environment?

Let us assume some humans did have the time to apply more R-brain skills, what would be the benefit?

R-brain skills is all about applying the power of creative visualisation to help paint the big picture in our minds of what life is about as well as simplifying and linking all our seemingly unrelated and essential patterns into a single unified pattern. Now remembering just one main unified pattern linking all things together is certainly much easier for us to remember than storing a whole bunch of seemingly unrelated patterns in the brain. So could this have been the next big discovery for humans at this time?

If humans did discover the ease in remembering one main pattern rather than many individual unrelated patterns of life, it is possible that many humans at this time had developed and refined certain R-brain techniques to assist in the formulation and recording of this unifying pattern for the benefit of future generations. For example, talking about our dreams with elders, meditation, dancing and chanting at night around a fire, taking natural hallucinatory drugs, drawing pictures on rocks and cave walls and so on could all be examples of techniques to help humans enter this spiritual world of the R-brain needed to develop this single, unifying pattern learned from the balanced leaders.

Could this help to explain why the brain size of humans at this time had not significantly increased?

Well, certainly it is known throughout human history how many of the great life cycles of ancient civilisations would start with a dramatic period of great creativity and diversification (ie. R-brain skills), and later undergo an equally dramatic period in the reduction of diversity and into the more specialised areas (ie. L-brain skills) as needed for people to not only survive, but also have what they want while fending off outsiders who also want the same things.

During these transitions from diversification to specialisation, some of the more creative people in the civilisations may have moved on, died out, or learned to think in a more specialised way. But those who were able to become specialised in the right areas tended to flourish particularly well within the group for a long time. However, a too strong reliance on L-brain skills could cause the people of the civilisations to lose sight of where they are going, become too highly structured, highly populated, too complicated, become too focused on having what they want, be unable to solve increasingly complex social and environmental problems in an original and creative way, and eventually become extinct after exhausting their food supply or battling with other similar civilisations having their own specialised belief systems.

Unless there is a way to rekindle this R-brain approach to life and so help save the L-brain civilisations from eventual self-destruction, it seems likely that the only people who can survive the best are those small groups of individuals who can apply a balance of R-brain and L-brain skills throughout life.

Could a strong creative and visual R-brain approach to life have contributed to a better organised and more efficient brain in the history of humankind? Only further research can tell if this is true. (8)

 
The famous Arizona crater in the United States is formed by a small 50 metres long meteorite travelling at 25 metres per second. The energy generated by the impact is equivalent to a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb being detonated on the ground. However, the energy was not big enough to cause problems to life on Earth. (9)

This is also the time for a major Ice Age. During the Ice Age, sea levels were lower and ice sheets would have extended from the polar regions to much of the temperate regions. During the big freeze, humans would hunt the large social mammals known as Wolly Mammoths. The flesh of Wolly Mammoths then became a valuable source of food, the fur for warmth, and the long and large white tusks of the animals were a useful material for building huts.

There has been almost 50 Ice Ages since it began nearly 2.5 million years ago. The Ice Age of 50,000 to 49,000 years ago is considered to be the coldest according to the scientists.

 
Europe under the grip of another Ice Age.

 
Modern humans were beginning to migrate from Africa into Europe to etch a living together with the Neanderthals. Neanderthals seemed happy to live in Europe for the previous 120,000 years despite a number of Ice Ages.

It seems migrations coincided with the end of the glacial periods.

But not everything was rosy during the inter-glacial periods. We now understand from Dr Urs Ruth of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven how German scientists analysing the ice cores in Greenland revealed a massive volcanic eruption in Europe nearly 40,000 years ago, plunging the continent in relative darkness for several months with much of the volcanic ash eventually settling to the ground within 2 years. Neanderthals continued to survive the cold as did modern humans. But when conditions warmed up again, was the encounter between the two hominid species a favourable one, or an opportunity for modern humans to reduce the competition?

 
While further migrations from Africa may have taken place at this time, it should be noted that Europe was already scantily populated by a two-legged mammal with a brain large enough to carve out its own existence. This species was known as Neanderthal Man (the scientific term is Homo neanderthalensis) (5). A mostly meat-eating cave dweller of stocky and muscular build with a sloping forehead structure and a brow above the eyes that jutted out significantly living mainly in northern Europe (eg. in the Neander Valley of Germany) since 200,000 years ago, Neanderthal Man was known to have hunted Wolly Mammoths and other animals in the north for its survival during the great Ice Ages.

Despite being a relatively successful hominid living off the animals of Europe, Neanderthals still hadn't found the time to be sufficiently creative to develop new and more powerful weapons and methods of gathering food and solving other problems quickly enough. Life was difficult during the Ice Age in Europe. Spending the least amount of energy except when hunting, eating food, keeping warm and reproducing seemed sufficient for the life of a neanderthal. While these people did understand the power of socialising in terms of hunting large animals and allowing other members of the group to set up a fire, cook food and keep the caves relatively clean and habitable, and even occasionally practicing rituals for handling their loved ones at death, their ability to solve problems in a more creative way and perhaps adapt to the environment more easily had become a major weakness. It was a weakness that would be exploited by a new group of humans.

NOTE: The rituals for handling the dead by neanderthals were a little more primitive (although some humans would practice in a similar way in places like Malta). The dead would often by placed inside caves where their spirits would hopefully protect the group living inside the caves from maurauding bears, or in another cave where animals would quickly consume the body. On the odd occasion, especially during very intense cold periods, these hominids would sometimes resort to eating the flesh of their dead relatives as a matter of survival as well as a belief that the strength and power of their relatives would somehow reside within them.

Indeed the neanderthals would eventually be pushed to extinction by modern humans that emerged from Africa. If it weren't for the neaderthals cunning skill and knowledge of certain secret locations for caves to protect themselves from the humans, these hominids would probably have died out earlier than the fossils indicate today.

Latest scientific research by Clive Finlayson of the Gibraltar Museum and his colleagues revealed an interesting find. Published through the online research journal Nature on 13 September 2006 titled Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of Europe Finlayson and his team believe the Neanderthals would not disappear from Europe until 28,000 years ago and possibly as recently as 24,000 years ago when the last members of the species died on the coast of Portugal and Spain. They figured the species were probably pushed to the harsher and drier Mediterranean Coast by modern humans and eventually dealt the final blow towards the end either by modern humans and/or the extreme cold.

The timing for Neanderthals likely last stand is significant.

Research by the Finlayson team involved no less than 30 radiocarbon datings of animal bones; charcoal samples from artificial fires found dotted in and around Gorham's Cave in the British territory of Gibraltar; classic Levallois blade-like flakes often used by Neanderthals and other materials within the lower portions of the Pleistocene deposits called pure Mousterian (the name given to a lithic industry in Europe said to be always associated with Neanderthals) strongly suggesting Neanderthal's occupation in and around the cave site. Radiocarbon dates have put these occupations in the lower levels between 23,000 and 33,000 years ago.

This latest finding pushes the presence of Neanderthals in the cave at least 2,000 years later than previously documented by other scientists. As Clive Finlayson said:

'Maybe these are the last ones.' (Ritter, Malcolm. Neanderthals survived thousands of years longer than scientists thought: USA Today. 13 September 2006.)

One contentious aspect of the research is how no Neanderthal bones were found in the cave to help give the Finlayson team conclusive evidence. Without this evidence, It leaves open to the possibility that anatomically modern humans could have inhabited this isolated cave around 24,000 to 28,000 years ago. Also Paul Mellars, a professor of prehistory and human evolution at Cambridge University, believes the radiocarbon dating evidence for the charcoal could have been contaminated by younger material in which case the age is more like 31,000 or 32,000 years old.

But given the large number of samples at the right level within the Pleistocene deposits and how there is no evidence of artifacts from modern humans at this level, Finlayson is confident Neanderthals could have existed up to around 24,000 years ago or, to be conservative as Finlayson puts it, around 28,000 years ago.

Further insights into the life and mind of the neanderthals have recently emerged thanks to the efforts of German scientists.

In 2007, German scientists found extra skull fragments for Neanderthal man in the archaeologically-important Neander Valley. This was enough to reconstruct the skull of the hominid using 3D virtual reconstruction software and with it the first look at this species. Further details can be found in the documentary The Real Neanderthal Man by Ruth Omphalius. While it is not possible to determine precisely how hairy this species was, a slightly more human-like look of Neanderthal Man based on the skull and some best educated guesses for the facial features such as colour of eyes can be seen in the picture below taken from the documentary.

Looking almost human enough, perhaps the most significant difference is in the sloping nature of the forehead suggesting less need for planning and concentration. So he was not likely to change the landscape and develop innovative and more powerful tools to suit a new vision of how he wished to live in order to make it less harsh and provide adequate food. These species tended to migrate with the seasons and rely on whatever they could find in the environment.

Other details about Neanderthal Man included the making and use of some basic stone tools, a rudimentary communicative language, and a social network of family members working together to survive the often extreme conditions in Europe at this time.

## UPDATE ##
February 2010
In another documentary titled Neanderthal Code produced by National Geographic, it has been suggested by some scientists that some interbreeding could have taken place in Europe and that we, as humans today, may possess the remnants of the neanderthal DNA within us.

Could early humans in Europe have got along and possibly mated with the neanderthals?

It is interesting to hear of bizarre stories where some modern humans today can have a fascination and even a fantasy for chickens and sheep given the endless sexual jokes one hears about among the more desperate New Zealand farmers. Whether or not it is true, if one were faced with having sex with a chicken or sheep, or sex with a young female neanderthal, most males would probably have a crack at the latter. But just as it is rare for modern humans to have sex with certain animals, it is likely sex between humans and neanderthals would have been kept to a minimum. There is something about the way the neanderthals were pushed from around 40,000 years ago in eastern Europe to the coastal fringes of Spain and Portugal around 28,000 years ago while still living in caves (and not in huts or stone buildings as the modern humans would have developed) which is suggesting the new inhabitants of Europe weren't too keen about the idea of interbreeding and didn't want neanderthals living among them under the same roof.

Perhaps this is a question of how attractive the neanderthals were in the eyes of humans?

On closer inspection of the neanderthal bones, we see evidence of a physically strong race and a brain at least if not larger than humans. Certainly these traits might be considered useful to humans. But then again, humans tend to rely on first impressions by looking at superficial features such as the face in order to make certain judgments about another similar-looking human-like species and this may dictate how our direct ancestors would have behaved towards the neanderthals over the long term. With this in mind, one thing does appear certain: at the moment humans and neanderthals met, neanderthals were not seen as sufficiently attractive creatures irrespective of other potentially useful traits. Rather, greater social intelligence, more sophisticated tools, an effective communicative language, the ability to learn quickly, and a more attractive face and noticeable expansion of the forehead suggesting higher intelligence as well as a thinner and more delicate appearance may have kept the humans among their own kind.

This may be true for the majority of encounters between humans and neanderthals. Yet, as they say, all it takes is just one sexual encounter for the two species to form a new hybrid offspring.

Perhaps the answer to how extensive mating may have occurred is not restricted to just how attractive the neanderthals looked to modern humans at this time, but also how desperate some human males were to finding a female companion, especially if they were loners or kept to themselves, and perhaps in a similar way for the young female neanderthals. Or maybe a decision was made by some neanderthals to try to mate with a male human as they felt this was the only way to survive?

Or perhaps a female neanderthal was banished from her tribe and was looking for a place to stay?

Who knows? At a time of 150,000 years ago, we do know humans looked more like the neanderthals. So any mating would not be uncommon. But the time is less than 40,000 years ago and humans have changed their appearance significantly. We find the consumption of more Omega 3 fish oils from a diet of mostly mussels near the coast, access to a greater abundance of ocean water and plants to keep clean and obtain essential vitamins and minerals, greater protection from predators while living inside caves hidden high up on cliffs and perhaps carrying a formidable array of weapons, more time to think about the problems of the day by men (and perhaps women too), more time for women to help each other learn ways to become more attractive with the extra time, and greater communication could all have played a significant role in the development of a larger-brained and more attractive-looking two-legged humanoid creature. Whereas the neanderthals weren't too concerned about their appearance and relied on red meat to keep themselves alive. Combined this with the extremely cold environment of Europe and people would be more preoccupied with survival-based activities such as finding shelter, keeping warm and hunting. As a result, the ancient facial features of a jutting set of bones for the brow above the eyes and a sloping forehead among the neanderthals were not seen as endearing qualities to have in the children of more modern humans arriving in Europe. Therefore it seems unlikely sex between humans and neanderthals would have taken place. But this is not to say it is impossible.

The hard life in Europe and/or the complicated social structures within a human society could see some male humans living on their own. In which case, if you just happened to be a desperate male human in the countryside surviving comfortably but looking for a companion and all you got greeted was the sight of a young female neanderthal from behind (ie. a question of "nice ass, pity about the face" scenario for the human), well who knows? From the perspective of a female neanderthal, a male human could have looked like the finest specimen she has ever seen. And nice large brain, clearly intelligent in how he manages the land and protects himself. So mating from her perspective would be like experiencing the greatest porn of her entire life. And, of course, an opportunity to protect her offsprings with the help of the man. And to the male human, it is better than relying on some sheep for company. And at some point he may need to pass on his genes.

But even if it is possible, the hybrids will have too many characteristics to remind other humans of their origin with the previous inhabitants. The facial structure is likely to reveal those characteristics and make their lives difficult in a human society. Thus it is likely certain social rules were established within various groups of humans at the time to stop this kind of frisky behaviour, perhaps with dire consequences attached for the humans and/or the neanderthals should the rules be ever broken. All it takes is just some neanderthal characteristics on the face of a hybrid species such as a brow still jutting slightly above the eyes to be enough of a give away. Then the humans could have the hybrids wiped out in a form of ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is certainly not an unheard of event in Europe.

Could neanderthals fight back against the humans?

One can imagine how the neanderthals would probably try to fight back. But their shorter limbs and stocky build was designed for close range attacks against large animals. Humans, on the other hand, were cleverer. Humans could move faster for longer periods of time, throw weapons such as a spear at a much greater distance using a longer arm, analyse the landcape as a strategic means for maximising damage to the neanderthals (eg. underground traps, climb trees or stand on small hills and use the advantage of height to throw the weapons), and in working in large numbers in a highly coordinated and organised manner (eg. by attacking from multiple directions).

Something is telling us the genes of the neanderthals were not widely spread among the humans. Even the way the neanderthals kept living in caves at the very coastal edges of Spain and Portugal suggested they did or could not assimilate within human society. And most scientists are of this opinion so far. As anthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History remarked:

'I would certainly not deny that some hanky panky might well have gone on. What obviously did not happen was any major biologically significant exchange of genes.' (Source: National Geographic's documentary film titled Neanderthal Code, 2008.)

But, then again. All it takes is for one hybrid individual to somehow survive long enough to breed again with another human and after several generations have past for the hybrids to look no different from a human. All it was needed is sufficient protection and hiding the offspring from the sight of other humans or to live in relative isolation in another part of Europe and there would be enough time for the offspring to pass on the genes to the next human until several generations later it would be hard to discern the difference. It is a probable scenario worth investigating. And as such, scientists are considering the possibility.

Currently there is a manhunt (or should that be a neanderthal hunt) as we speak to find the set of gene sequences that can be described as part of the neanderthal tribe which when compared to modern humans would also exist identically. If the genes exist, scientists may have enough evidence to support such a theory.

Already scientists have found an unusually well-preserved piece of bone with higher quality snippets of DNA from a male meanderthal found in a cave in Croatia. And assuming our technology can sift out the neanderthal genes from bacteria, insects and modern humans (just touching the bone is enough to contaminate the sample) we need to see many gene sequences in common between neanderthals and modern humans. Even if they do find a few similar genes (already there is talk of the language gene and the gene for controlling the red hair colour in humans being essentially the same), it may well indicate that neanderthals were once part of the human race with their improved voice box already evolved around 200,000 to 150,000 years ago before a small renegade group migrated to Europe to become the neanderthals we know of today. Then the cold conditions and low lighting from a sun hidden behind clouds may have brought out the red hair colour.

The entire genome of the neanderthal species (ie. all 3 billion of the gene sequences) will need to be uncovered first and analysed carefully before a final conclusion can be made. The number of genes found to be in common between the two species will decide whether the interbreeding was widespread or limited to perhaps a very few individuals (probably the ones carrying the red hair gene), or maybe none at all.

The answer is likely to arrive sometime in 2012 using the latest and fastest gene sequencing technology available at the US company 454 Life Sciences (founded by Jonathan Rothberg) based in Connecticut.

 
The interglacial period of 30,000 years ago looked to be a rather warm one. Scientists believe the ice covering the North Pole had disappeared at this time.

Just before things began to warm up again, true modern man such as Cro-Magnon in Europe appeared.

Cave paintings certainly flourished at this time. It is almost like there was too much food and not enough conflict to keep early humans preoccupied during this time. Were people becoming now more creative during the warmer interglacial periods?

 
The last Ice Age begins. The coldest period occurs between 18,000 and 20,000 years ago. It was so cold that the waters in the Mediterranean Sea receded and enough time for tundra and some forested vegetation to grow and reindeer to graze where the sea floor exists today.

Humans learn to move away from caves and use stones and rocks in a local area to build long-lasting huts. This allowed humans to create their own durable shelter without interfering with other hominids and some predators wanting to inhabit caves.

Neanderthals by this time were already extinct. Either they had the last stand against the humans in some cave along the coast of Spain or Portugal, or the extreme cold pushed the species over the edge and would never recover from it.

 
On 28 October 2004, archaeological digs in the inner sanctum of a large Limestone Cave on the remote Indonesian island of Flores by a research team — led by Mike Morwood of the University of New England, Radien Soejono of the Indonesian Centre for Archaeology, and Richard Roberts of the University of Wollongong — found the remains of a pygmy-sized or 91cm tall female hominid nicknamed "the Hobbit" (a specimen labelled LB1) together with another six other hominids of roughly the same size.

Known to the scientists as Homo floresiensis (although there is still considerable scientific debate as to whether it should be given a new scientific name as if it is a new species of hominids), the small female hominid died only a mere 18,000 years ago at age 30 years.

Standing no higher than a metre tall, it would appear as if the female and the rest of her community of hobbits were living in the cave in relative isolation for over 74,000 years. Now there is good evidence to suggest these hominids may have lived much longer on the island and possibly living with the original Homo Erectus people with the discovery by archaeologist Mike Morwood and his team in 1998 of 840,000 year old stone tools on the island.

And that's not the only thing. As Homo Sapiens continued to develop a bigger brain, by 18,000 years ago, the brain of Homo floresiensis didn't seem to get much bigger, if anything, it may have reduced in size compared to Homo Erectus. Was life getting easier on the island thst the small hominids didn't need to use their brains to solve complicated problems?

A closer inspection of these ancient hominids revealed one significant difference. Pygmies of the modern era tend to have head sizes disproportionately larger compared to their bodies. In contrast, these ancient hominids had a more natural size head in proportion to their bodies. Although scientists would describe the brain as less than half a modern human (and certainly less than a modern pygmy), it didn't meant these hominids were dumb. A closer analysis of the inside of the skulls of the hominids using computer technology in an attempt to create virtual endocasts of what the brain probably looked like showed the brain was remarkably sophisticated for its size. This seems to be reflected in the stone tools they made and how they used fire to improve their survival.

As chairman of anthropology at Florida State University and a specialist Dean Falk said on 4 March 2005:

'This discovery of this species has flummoxed the field.' (Gorner, Peter. Feuding scientists go head to head: The Canberra Times. 5 March 2005, p.18.)

After reviewing the latest radiological tests and virtual endocasts on the small hominids' brain and compared them with virtual endocasts for Homo Erectus, modern pygmies, modern humans and modern humans suffering from microcephaly, Dr Falk remarked:

'The scaling of the brain to body isn't at all what we'd expect to find in pygmies, and the shape is all wrong to be a microcephalic. This is something new.

'The brain is the size of a chimp's, and that's what I thought we'd be looking at. But instead there were fancier things on the Hobbit's brain. It was much more like the brains of advanced creatures. I've never seen that in anything this size.' (Gorner, Peter. Feuding scientists go head to head: The Canberra Times. 5 March 2005, p.18.)

The areas of the brain containing unusually high convolutions and size are in (i) the frontal cortex where higher thinking skills take place; and (ii) the temporal lobes where memory, emotions, speech and hearing are processed. These areas are considered important for cooperative and communicative behaviour in a group situation, and independent behaviour such as tool-making and the ability to plan and take one's own initiative.

Based on this information, Dr Falk is confident the hobbits are a new species and not as an Indonesian palaeoanthropologist Professor Teuku Jacob claimed were modern humans with microcephaly.

Other scientists are not too sure. By ignoring the enlargements and sophistication in those areas of the brain suggesting possible advanced functions, some scientists think the brain is far too small to have the ability to create stone tools or do anything else very much, let alone communicate with other members of the group. As anthropologist Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan said:

'It's a teeny brain. It didn't make those tools. Your dog would have had a better chance of making those tools.' (Gorner, Peter. Feuding scientists go head to head: The Canberra Times. 5 March 2005, p.18.)

Yes, but dogs don't have hands like these little hominids did. And when you have proper hands to use for manipulating the environment and oneself, different parts of the brain develop differently. We cannot discount the possibility these hominids could have achieved complex tasks such as tool-making.

Actually, the size of the brain does not necessarily prove whether it can or cannot do something. As we have seen in evolutionary history, modern human brains have not grown significantly larger after 50,000 years ago despite the wealth of tasks we are now required to perform. Rather the brain has improved its internal structure making it more efficient in how it performs its tasks. The same appears to be true for these tiny hominids.

Who knows? Maybe future palaeoanthropologists in a million years time might look back at our own brains of the 21st century and see them as unusually small compared to the sorts of tasks we were expected to perform.

Apart from this brain debate among the scientists, one thing is certain. For some inexplicable reason, these previously successful hominids (or should we describe them as "hobbits") died out at around 13,000 years ago, just a mere 2,000 years before the end of the last Ice Age.

Why?

Well, the island of Flores isn't exactly the place one would feel the cold from the Ice Age. We are talking about the tropics not far from the equator where the temperature is moist and hot virtually all the time. So the weather couldn't be what killed these little hominids. Foodwise, there seemed to be a hell of a lot to be found on the tropical island especially if they kept their numbers and/or body size to a reasonably small and manageable level. Clearly the hominids weren't starving for food. And there is no evidence that a volcano had destroyed the island. The only closest volcano to be possibly active at the time would have affected the area around Liang Bua, but no where else, making scientists think Homo floresiensis should have survived on other parts of the island including the Limestone Cave.

One reporter suggested in a newspaper article that "With a brain capacity of less than 400 cubic centimetres, they eventually went extinct."

We can safely say the brain was not the cause for the hominids extinction. The brain capacity of these hominids, although admittedly four-fifths the size of an adult chimpanzee (roughly 350 cubic centimetres, or 50cc less than the Australopicithines), was more than adequate to survive the tropical island of Flores as they searched and hunted for food such as rodents, bats and baby elephants (and why not some of the tropical fruits as well?). One doesn't need a big brain to survive in this part of the world.

Actually some experts believe the brain was possibly big enough to permit these people to develop a communicative language as American scientist Dr Falk noticed in his computer image of the hominids' brain. So clearly something else must have wiped them out.

Now an interesting theory has emerged suggesting that it could have been our ancestors known as Homo Sapiens (especially among the more communicative and socially-adept L-brain types with a desire to hoard and/or protect the natural resources to themselves for the sake of power and greed; or have a fear of anything looking different) with an allegedly massive brain capacity of 1,400 cubic centimetres, which may have had a direct or indirect influence on the future of these small hominids.

It is possible some Homo Sapiens may have thought in their own minds how smart it would be to get rid of the competition. Or maybe they were frightened by legends of monster leprechauns coming to steal human children and eat them alive. So the adult humans decided to put an end to their fears by destroying the hobbits once they were tracked down. If this is true, the decision to conquer the rest of the island by the more war-faring and communicative L-brain Homo Sapiens must have put these small and unusual hominids in a rather precarious position.

Yes, so who is the smarter one now? Homo Sapiens or Homo floresiensis? Perhaps some Homo Sapiens should have evolved a smaller brain to reduce their tendency to use it as a tool for fighting, conquering and using the resources in any way they pleased and with absolutely no thinking about the long-term consequences of such actions. It would have at least given Homo floresiensis a better fighting chance to stop the invaders.

However the cause for the extinction is pure conjecture. For all we know a disease could have easily wiped out the hominids leaving behind the Homo Sapiens to take over the island. More work needs to be done to determine the likely cause of the extinction which somehow hasn't affected the Homo Sapiens at this time.

Even the idea that perhaps poisonous gases and hot ash from the island's volcano could have wiped out the small hominids nearly 12,000 years ago, although plausible, seems a bit far-fetched considering how the Homo Sapiens continued to thrive on the island. There are areas on the island where the hobbits could have survived and escaped the gases. So why did the hobbits disappear?

## UPDATE ##
27 February 2005
Bones of contention (a brilliant term used by Australian 60 Minutes reporter Mike Woolley) have emerged when co-leader of the team responsible for unearthing the hobbits named Professor Soejono insisted in having an Indonesian palaeoanthropologist named Professor Teuku Jacob of Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta analyse the remains in early December 2004 against Morwood's wishes, which was meant to be sent to an Australian expert in Jakarta, Indonesia.

January 2005 came and passed and scientists were impatiently waiting for Professor Jacob to relinquish the bones for the rest of the scientific community to analyse. Jacob signed an agreement to return the bones by 1 January 2005. When it was finally returned in March 2005, scientists discovered crucial bones needed to explain the shape and size of the hobbits and how they walked were severely damaged (ie. the pelvic and jaw bones) presumably during the transportation of the valuable items to and from Jacob's laboratory.

Before the bones were returned, Professor Jacob and a couple of Australian researchers — Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide and Alan Thorne of the Australian National University — made the claim on 6 November 2004 that these dwarf hominids were suffering a brain degeneration disease called microcephaly. In other words, these small people were no different from modern humans.

However, the entire skeleton of the hominids does not indicate degeneration of the rest of the body from the same disease (which one must assume targets the brain and ultimately the skull, not the entire body). Perhaps the Indonesian scientist was trying to say these people were ordinary Homo Erectus people having a genetic mutation allowing them to grow to a small size so they can better adapt to the tiny islands. Or was he hoping other scientists would not see the importance of the find because of the damage done to the bones?

Seriously the genetic explanation might turn out to be closer to the truth. If one looks at the bigger picture instead of focussing on just the brain size of the hominids, it would appear the hominids weren't the only animals to have become smaller creatures. Possibly because the island of Flores is not large enough to support big animals because of its limited food supplies, it would appear other animals such as elephants shrunk in size through microevolution and selective breeding in order to become more sustainable on the island.

Does this mean all the animals suffered the same brain degeneration disease as did the hominids assuming the Indonesian scientist is correct in his assumption? Highly unlikely.

## UPDATE ##
29 April 2005
Another scientist contending the hobbit find does not represent a new species is Maciej Henneberg, a biological anthropologist and anatomy expert from the University of Adelaide in Australia. He claims the dwarf-size remains represent a modern human being, Homo Sapiens, suffering from microcephaly. From his definition of the term, microcephaly means a condition in which the head is abnormally small. Well, according to a reference book, microcephaly is an "abnormal smallness of the head". But it also adds, "...often associated with pathological mental conditions".

Computer images of the brain of this creature seems to go against the idea of any "pathological mental condition". US scientists are of the view the creature was very intelligent.

Perhaps the skeleton does represent a normal human being naturally-adapted to the island through mutations to live as small people.

Now Indonesian scientists claim they have found during an 18-24 April 2005 expedition 77 pygmy families in a village situated on the eastern side of the island of Flores. Apparently the community was never discovered until now. The people were living in the village of Rampapasa, about 1 kilometre from the village of Liang Bua where the skeleton was originally found.

Could these be the descendents of the dwarf-sized skeleton? The only slight problem is in the use of the term pygmies to describe these people. Pygmies are described as having small bodies with oversized heads. The skeleton found near Liang Bua suggest the body is small and the head is undersized. Yet the brain structures suggest it did not suffer from "pathological mental conditions".

So which is it? A human pygmy or a new species?

The only way to settle this dispute is to make comparisons of the skull, jaw and teeth structure of the old female dwarf creature and the pygmies discovered alive on the island. And what could DNA testing reveal?

## UPDATE ##
26 May 2005
One scientist has suggested the skull and jaw of the female hobbit looks more like Homo Habilis — a more primitive hominid than Homo Erectus. Homo Habilis could have travelled to Flores to become the Hobbits.

## UPDATE ##
13 October 2005
The latest findings on the Hobbit bones suggest the creatures were highly muscular and quite strong, more so than modern humans. Another interesting thing is how some scientists studying the bones are suggesting the creatures could be the last remnants of Australopithecus. If this is true, it would rewrite the history books. Currently it is believed Australopithecus had died out over 1.5 million years ago and never moved out of Africa (why shouldn't it?). Now we are facing a new possibility.

A total of eight individuals, all of roughly the same size (if not smaller), have been found in the area, putting in serious doubt the sceptics view that the creatures had suffered from microcephaly.

## UPDATE ##
18 May 2006
Primatologist Robert D. Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago is of the view the "Hobbit" is probably an ordinary person suffering microcephaly. He supports this by saying the shrinking of animals on the island should cause only a moderate reduction in brain size. However, Martin is worried the brain size of this "Hobbit" is much smaller than expected. For the law to follow, the Hobbit should have been no taller than 30cm, not 91cm.

Martin also thinks the tools found near the site of the Hobbits were too sophisticated to be created by these creatures. They had to be formed by the hands of Homo Sapiens. Perhaps Martin is suggesting the Hobbits were smart enough to come down from the cave and steal the items from Homo Sapiens?

Martin also adds that the single modern skull of a 10-year-old child suffering microcephaly as used by Dean Falk of Florida State University for comparison purposes where she concluded the Hobbit's brain had features associated with advanced thinking and therefore had to be a new species was a poor choice. For a start, the child's skull was unusually small to make any comparisons. He believes microcephaly can appear in dozens of forms. And why a child? More skulls should have been used to make the comparisons before Faulk and the hobbit discovery team can claim the Hobbit is a new species.

For example, Martin claims his team found the skull of a 32-year-old microcephalic woman and noticed similarities in the brain casts of both the Hobbit and the woman.

Other scientists — including Professor Mike Morwood, co-leader of the Australian and Indonesian team that discovered the remains — are not entirely convinced of Martin's argument. The first report may have suggested a miniaturization of Homo Erectus. However the second report suggested the possibility both species of humans living at the time could have descended from a common ancestor.

Nearly all modern individuals with microcephaly never live to become adults and, anyway, the scientists needed the cast of a brain of roughly the same size as the Hobbit's — thus explaining the use of a child's skull for comparison.

And just to make it harder for Martin to produce a counter argument, other scientists said the line drawings made by Martin's team lacked detail about the "transverse sinuses, cerebellum and cerebral poles" considered important structures for understanding whether the Hobbit did suffer a brain-stunting disorder or is a genuine new species.

Scientists believe actual photographs and more detailed sketches would have helped to "draw meaningful conclusions".

Professor Morwood also adds that Martin ignored the archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that generations of the individuals appeared to have lived in the cave for 90,000 years. Given the short lifespan of microcephalic people, it is unlikely "the Hobbits" could have survived for such a long time.

Finally, Professor William Jungers of the Natural History Museum examined the lower limbs of the other 8 hobbits found near the 30-year-old female Hobbit and noticed not only were they smaller than the female, but their feet were big as if implying a long period of adaptation to walking on the island.

It seems unlikely microcephalic people could survive long enough and produce offsprings that can carry on adaptations such as these.

## UPDATE ##
November 2008
The latest studies suggest these small hominids are indeed a new species. It is neither a branch from Homo Erectus that shrunk in size on the island or from a group of Homo Sapiens suffering pathological dwarfism. It is an independent species possibly from an even older hominid group.

 
An alliance is formed between humans and one or more wolves (probably starting with a female) as a form of companionship and protection against predators including other humans. Over many generations, those wolves would become domesticated animals called dogs.