The Quest For Fire

It's a film quite unlike any other I've seen, though I have seen others dealing with early man, but none ever done this well. Though it takes place in the distant past, it's story is perhaps more truly ageless than any other as it reflects no influence of culture the way nearly any other story told in a more recent time would. It's universal to us all, because after all, this is everyone's past and even as early as 18,000 years ago we were all hunter gatherers though perhaps not necessarily dancing around fires and painting on walls. It's a story about a journey, it's an adventure, and it's even an epic in a strange sense of the word. That it takes place before many of the nobler virtues we like to note in men we admire doesn't detach us from being interested or caring for crude and simple as they are, we see in those on screen the same qualities of what we humans would someday become.

Please note: Entries about media reviewed in this blog are written from the perspective that the reader has already seen the work in question and desires further commentary or explanation. Plot twists and endings will sometimes be examined.

The movie opens with a very brief crawl of words explaining to the audience the time and situation.

"80,000 years ago, man's survival in a vast uncharted land depended on fire.

For those early humans, fire was an object of great mystery, since no one had mastered its creation. Fire had to be stolen from nature, it had to be kept alive-- sheltered from wind and rain, guarded from rival tribes.

Fire was symbol of power and a means of survival. The tribe who possessed fire, possessed life."

We then cut to a long shot of a solitary light in a canyon. We see close up that the fire is being tended by a thickly built man wrapped in furs eating next to the flames, which stand in front of the mouth of a cave, his home. The blaze keeps a pack of hungry wolves at bay and the man even throws a burning stick at them to chase them off.
The life of the tribe is much what one might expect of an animal in the same situation. Members pile on top of one another inside their den, huddled together asleep. When dawn comes, some of them head out to a nearby watering hole to drink and wash. They are all quite filthy, hairy and scruffy, worn down by living so closely with the earth. One of the men takes a woman from behind right in the middle of her bathing.

Around the tribe's encampment, we see some strange figures gathering and slowly creeping closer. They look strange, very hairy, and ape-like though their movements resemble humans more than apes. We're left to believe they are a Neanderthal-like group, and they are indeed hostile to the tribe we've been watching. The men of the tribe come out of the cave worried and alarmed, sniffing in the air with the inkling that something is wrong. The attack comes quickly, from above the mouth of the cave they push rocks and logs down on the tribe, and simultaneously close in upon the members at the watering hole as well. They look grotesque, ferocious, and inhumanly strong, though perhaps slower and more awkward than human as well. They beat and bite and claw at the members of the tribe and chase them away taking their home and their precious fire...

The tribe regroups in swampy marsh a ways away from their previous site. The wolves had already begun to fall upon them as some of them fled the camp devoid of fire's protection. One of the older men carries a small primitive looking lantern, though we can guess its purpose is to protect and transport the flames rather than to provide light. The grunts and moans and wails of the tribes members at this point have taken on a far more desperate and wounded tone as they frantically try to rekindle the embers of their slowly dying flames. We feel their desolation as it goes out. Three men of the group step up and make exclaimations we can only guess mean to announce they will take up the search to regain what was lost. And so the quest for fire begins.

It will take them far from where a band their size might at that time willingly venture. They encounter dangerous predators: prehistoric beasts like saber tooth cats who force them up into a tree for a whole night, mammoths they'll later feed and befriend in less than believable scene, and on several occasions, the most dangerous threat of all, other groups of humans.

In one scene they come across the remains of a camp, and with some disgust realize the former occupants had been cooking and eating members of another tribe they'd captured. They follow this group and set out to steal some of the fire of these more savage humans by splitting up and distracting them, while one sneaks in to the unguarded camp. As this happens, however, the captives are set free as well, captives, we see who come from yet another tribe and are covered with a gray-white ashy sort of paint as decoration. A girl from this tribe follows are protagonists and though we see they don't speak the same language at all, we understand as they do whats being communicated by observing their body language and tone of their voices and calls to one another.While it's obvious on appearance alone that this girl is quite different, what we don't see quite so quickly is just how much out main characters might be able to learn from her. She is much more animated than are our protagonists, more chatty despite the fact they can't entirely understand her, and well... other things as well. In an earlier scene, when something hits one of our main characters on the head, the other make no reaction, sitting around as if dumbfounded by everything, no response at all. When a similar thing happens while the girl is present however, she immediately begins giggling, and soon the others are laughing too as if it never occured to them that some things in the world are funny.

While on the topic of humor, I suppose now might also be a good time to mention just how comical the film can be at times. The world of the past isn't all serious, and it's strange how even beginning to describe this movie as being about a bunch of cavemen would elicit a smile or chuckle as a first reaction, as we tend to look towards such distant ancestors with amusement as much as seriousness. I suppose this is largely because man at that time lived more like an animal, and often we laugh while watching animals in their actions as long as they're not seriously fighting or hunting. Then comes another scene towards the later part of the film where one of the men tries taking the girl from behind in a very mechanical, animal-like fashion, only to have her turn him around, teaching him the face-to-face position if you will. It too, is humourous, and yet in its own way also warm and tender which one wouldn't expect at all from watching such a thing as two cavemen getting it on.There comes a point when the girl splits off from the men, though she does beckon them to come with her (they refuse and we shortly after find out where she wanted to take them regardless). Then as the group appears ready to move on, one of them begins to wander off and discovers the remains of a primitive house. Though I use the word primitive, it is up to this point the most advanced thing to be seen in he movie. It is shelter from the elements created where none was before, something none of the characters to this point have possessed. Inside it also are the shards of old pottery and broken tools.

Wandering even further from his companions, one of our protagonists spots more houses in a valley but gets stuck in an unseen marsh while approaching it (obviously a defense measure the inhabitants know about that helps stop intruders). The villagers appear and pull him out and we see immediately that these people are a bit more advanced than those we've been watching up till now. They have tools for throwing spears with more accuracy, they have houses as I mentioned before, some wear masks made of wood bundled together, and all paint themselves with the same ashy gray colors as the girl we met earlier. It is revealed shortly thereafter that the girl is, indeed, among their ranks, though she doesn't seem to have much sway amongst her people. They examine him first, looking at his teeth and under his skins, then lock him up in a hut that is somewhat open aired, and give him food and water. Then they begin sending their women in to see him.It's funny how the people react to his behavior. The women first woman to come in to be with him tries to entice him by spreading open while facing him. When that doesn't get his attention, she points her rear at him and only then does he get the point; the villagers (who have all gathered to watch) giggle at him as if he were unsophisticated to not yet understand say, the missionary position. We see the women sitting in queue outside the hut getting up and going in as he finishes. I also found it amusing the way most of the women they send in to him were well a bit chubby, leading me at first to believe they might have been the ones in their group who weren't already taken, although considering the large, full-bodied fertility dolls we see so often among ancient artifacts, it's also possible that they were chosen for this task because they were most likely to provide the tribe with healthy new infants. The girl watches with all with a look of worry upon her face. She later tries to sneak in to his hut to see him later at night when everyone else is asleep, but is caught.

Then comes by far the best scene in the movie, as some of the villagers take the man to a cave and begin to show him their secret: the secret of how to make fire. The movie takes it's time showing us this part, making sure we get to see every detail in the process they use, from how they hold and grind the sticks by spinning them, to each level of kindling used to slowly coax the flame from hiding place within the wood. It's the kind of thing that would be fascinating to watch even if it weren't in a movie, but the reaction we get makes it much more interesting. I love the look on our protagonist's face as the smoke appears and then the tongues of flame, the acting is all done with his face, the smile, the light coming into his eyes as we realize he is witnessing what amounts to a miracle, like the birth of hope and safety itself writing themselves into existence before his very eyes.


Our story continues as the man's two companions find themselves trapped in the same marsh as he once did and soon, going through the same sort of initiation as well. Judging by the look of the man, who is now painted up like the villagers somewhat, he is slowly becoming integrated to the tribe. He laughs along with all the others at the newcomers. This time, however, the captives are able to escape, knocking out their guards and then even the man to drag him back to their home village. The girl spots them as they leave and follows behind yet again.

On the road home, there's yet another encounter with one of the hostile tribes from before, but our heroes are more prepared for them this time, using the spear throwing devices they learned about from the villagers to easily fend off their aggressors. The four arrive at the swamp were the original tribe still holds out, and what follows is undoubtedly one of the most ironically funny moments I've seen in cinema. Rushing back, fire in hand, to the excited cries of their fellow tribesmen, one of the group stumbles in some of the deeper water in the marsh only to extinguish right in front of everyone what they'd worked so to obtain. Fortunately something infinitely more valuable have been brought back as well...

The man tries to make fire for everyone, but unpracticed as he is, finds himself unable. The girl steps in at this point to show him once more, and all the others in the tribe for the first time how to make fire. Their reaction nothing short of what the man's was earlier.

The movie ends with the man staring at the moon over the hills where the girl walks up from behind to join him. He puts his arms around her to hold her and also places a hand over her belly, grown fat with child. We realize that a cycle of sorts has been completed and that a new chapter is opening for those we've been watching from the biological imperative we all have to survive and to proliferate. The final shot of the film is a mirror of the one which opened it: a long shot of the canyon with a dot of light marking the blaze in the home of our main characters.

* * *

I suppose from a technical standpoint, the film is not entirely perfect and, because it is based upon a science that is constantly updating and correcting itself, perhaps even more so than other films it started to become dated from its inception at an even faster rate. Its inaccuracies aside, there are the problems of plotting and the unnecessary addition of the prehistoric mammals (perhaps put in to attract viewers or financiers for the film) but the movie is great in its own way, standing on the foundations it builds as a truly timeless story.

Stylistically as well the film is a success, I feel. We can see that a lot of care was taken in choosing the locations to shoot, making the characters and creatures look authentic. Though the over all quality of these costumes and effects can look a little outdated at times, overall it holds up exceptionally well, especially when comparing it to more recent movies like the horrible "10,000BC" with it's over wrought effects and ridiculously unbelievable story. In addition to this, special pre-modern languages had to be created, and the movements, body language and gestures had to be designed and taught to the actors as well. It's kind of funny to think about this latter point given the way we wouldn't entirely be aware of it. The way we're taught as children correct posture: to keep our backs upright, to not hunch or slouch, and to walk straight would all have to be unlearned by the actors in preparation for the film. And wether one recognizes it subconsciously or not, the lack of these aspects would certainly diminish the level of realism and chip away at the illusion on screen. With regard to the language, we don't understand exactly what the characters are saying, and there are no subtitles as well. It's a bit surreal the way the whole tale, for all intents and purposes, is told without words but instead with actions, sounds, and I suppose one even could say, emotions.

I mentioned earlier how the fact that man behaves much as an animal makes for some comedic moments. At some points in the film, this animalistic quality causes the fear to run higher too for we know that our heroes are not the great and skilled warriors of modern or even classic tales, but rather frightened creatures just like us who know they will die if they don't run or fight. We in the audience know also the horrors of what will happen should they be captured by predators like the cannibals they encounter.

There were no rules in the ancient past and though some men certainly found an advantage in being powerful and aggressive, we could still see how those with some level of warmth or kindness found strength by banding together. The girl teaches our heroes not only how to hunt and make fire, but also how to laugh and to love as well.

The simplistic story has a primitive sort of beauty to it, and though it takes place before the languages and beliefs we have today, it nonetheless shows the makings of the creature man would become in all his rythm and grace, despite the crudeness and savagery we normally infer when thinking of our distant ancestors. It's strange how looking at the way ancient man once lived can remind so easily of the Darwinian struggle to preserve our genes. For then the path of man was much more fraught with desperation when so many more dangers threatened to break the chain. Man did indeed live more as an animal then than he does now: closer to nature, surviving off foraging and hunting, and frequently in fear of predators (especially other men). There's a poetic sort of poignancy in the idea that the central object of the story is, like our genes, something that needed to be held on to and protected for the moment, but ultimately passed on and propagated in the future.

The First Genocide

Whatever happened to all the Neanderthals? The question is asked again and again by those who study or even have just a passing interest in those who simultaneously preceded and took a different path than the ancestors of modern humans. The ideas that we desecnded from them directly or interbreeded with them are slowly being eroded by newer evidence, both archealogical and genetic, and slowly a grim truth is being accepted as to why their disappearance coincides with a territorial expansion of our ancestors that enveloped land once theirs. I wrote earlier about the recent book, "Before the Dawn" by Nicholas Wade, but some thoughts have been lingering with me regarding a particularly unnerving mid-portion of that book which dealt with some of man's darker behaviors, as well as some thoughts on the final fate of the Neanderthals.

The Neanderthals

The Neanderthals were very much like us, but also very different. Based on skeletonal remains that have been found, they were generally between five and five and a half feet tall, slightly shorter than average by today's standards, but a bit taller than the anatomically modern humans (or cro-magnon) living at the time. It is believed they had low, sloping foreheads, no chins -same as chimps today- and a good deal more muscle, weight, and strength than even we do today, despite their stature being lower than our own is now. Dressing an ancient, anatomically modern human in the clothing we have today would allow them to blend into a crowd, but doing so for a Neanderthal wouldn't keep them from drawing stares, or so the saying goes.

The Neanderthals used stone tools about the same as those of our ancestors up until about 50,000 years ago. These included axes, cleavers, and other cutting implements made of flaked stone, and probably a good deal other tools made of more perishable materials like wood, and animal hides which haven't survived into modern times. On the topic of perishability, they also almost certainly built shelters, but because of this quality, little remains and mostly they have been associated as being "cavemen" due to this type of place being the most common residence their settements have been found intact.

They were able to control fire, a big technological advantage of the ancient world unique only man and his close cousins. Also, some primitive works of art have been found in their dwellings, though it is open to debate as to whether they themselves were the creators of it or not. Like many tribes living in foraging or limited farming societies today, it is possible that much of what they made would not survive the ravages of time leaving us with limited information in this regard, to say nothing of the immaterial artifacts; their culture, language, and knowledge of the plants and animals on the land they inhabited. All of this we lack true evidence of and can only infer. In a similar way, stone-age tribes living today would not leave much behind to be analyzed.

In terms of other qualities that we generally associate with humans, they appear to have lived in small groups, stored up food as a safeguard against lean times (though not to the extent of the cro-magnons living at the time), buried their dead, and cared for their injured. The burials are inferred from what seem to be grave sites dug in the earth, in some cases with flowers or even jewelry that appear to have been placed there purposely. Their caring for their injured comes from skeletons showing very bad injuries that would've crippled or likely meant death for their victim had they been alone, but have instead healed over, implying that other, healthy members took care of them while incapacitated.

One of the most important unknowns is what type of linguistic ability they had. Much conjecture has been made based on what skeletal remains have been found. Most believe their ability to make sounds would have been greater than that of modern day primates, but not of the same level as our own, though Neanderthal bones for specifically the purpose of creating many sounds have been discovered, and again new genetic tests have shown they possess some of the same genes for language that we do. If they had lacked even the ability to use a language as complex as our own, it most certainly would've been a detriment towards the interbreeding of the two species, being a large obstacle to effective communication between two groups who would've almost certainly already had different languages to begin with.

Judging from where their remains have been found, they lived mostly in Europe but also in parts of the middle east, Isreal and the like. The middle east sites even suggest Neanderthal populations "moving in" after earlier settlements of cro-magnon, which in turn hints at early conflicts between the two ending with the retreat and displacement of the cro-magnons back into northern Africa by about 100,000 years ago.

The Cro-magnons

Recent genetic testing has led many to believe that by about 50,000 years ago, the early forerunners of modern man, the cro-magnon, appear to have whithered to mere 5,000. From this small number, it seems all humans today emerged. That those alive today are desended from Neanderthals or a hybrid mixing of them and cro-magnon has also been more or less put to rest by genetic tests on Neanderthal DNA extracted from old samples revealing a distinctly different genetic signature. If Neanderthal and cro-magnon mixed at all, it certainly wasn't widespread.

Because they were using roughly the same set of tools, techniques, and technologies as the Neanderthals, and because they were smaller in size and strength, it appears they were at the time being boxed in by the Neaderthals, unable to get out of Africa. When they finally escaped Africa, their likely point of exit was the Gate of Grief in the southern part of the Red Sea which would've had a much lower water level at that time, thus allowing them a release from Africa without having to go through territory occupied by the Neanderthals.

This wandering of people into unknown land was no expedition out looking for adventure, but rather a slow expansion with people striking further into the unknown only as they managed to safely populate a new area not far away from land they already knew. After crossing the Gate of Grief, they appear to have spread along the southern part of the Arabian penninsula until they reached India, at which point different groups would've split ways, some going into Asia, some south into the areas of modern day Indonesia and Australia which were connected largely by a landbridge at the time, and some going back northwest towards Europe, once more re-igniting the the conflict with the Neanderthals.

If there's one thing which can be proven without much doubt, it's that Neanderthals did very little innovating to the set of technologies they had. Progress and improvement were almost non-existent. The cro-magnon, by contrast, began making better tools, including barbed arrowheads, fishhooks (implying advancing fishing techniques), sewing needles, and art that was unequivocally their own. Most of the Neanderthals would have had none of these things.

In addition to this, the cro-magnon were better able to adapt and exploit their environments, (as mentioned before) stored more food for lean seasons, and lived together in generally larger groups than did the Neanderthals. The latter of these is of particular importance, because it would now mean that the groups of cro-magnons would outnumber the Neanderthals they encountered.

Warfare on a "small and primitive" scale

In pondering how conflict between the two species went down, it's instructive to look for a second at how the so called "primitive" societies of today do so. Hunter gatherer groups such as the !Kung San of Africa, the Dani of New Guinea, and low-stage gardeners such as the Yanomamo who live in the jungles of South America all practice nearly constant warfare. Though in the past, the concept of the "noble savage" who lives at peace with himself, with nature, and with other tribes similar to his own was generally accepted, a more realistic portrait of such peoples has recently emerged. Tribal peoples can be very brutal, and some very often engage in warfare.

While what occurred between the cro-magnon and Neanderthals would've been a conflict between two different species, it strikes me that the territorial qualities of different animals tends to come when they have more to fear from their own kind than of others. In addition to the tribal societies that have remained into modern times, there is one other animal that practices a very similar style of warfare to tribal men; the chimpanzee.

Like the anthropologists who first observed many of the tribal societies after their first-contacts in the 20th century, those who first observed chimps thought them to be peaceful, unassuming, and non-violent. These preconceptions were shattered by the research of Jane Goodall who witnessed and recorded some chilling altercations between rival bands of chimps.

Though they often stick to their own territory, chimps occassionally will band together and move silently into that of opposing camps. Their behavior is described as being strange while they do it, different than normal, tense, nervous, very alert. They spend a lot of time listening for calls from individuals of the rival band, sniff around a lot, and otherwise pay very close attention for anything that might lead them to isolated members of the opposing camp. They generally only attack if they're able to find opponents whom they out-number by about three to one or more (two to hold down the opponent, one to bite, hit, smack, and otherwise beat as closely to death as possible before retreating).

Though many animals fight with one another, chimps and humans seem to be the only ones who have decided that it's smarter to annihilate your opponent rather than risk their recovery and retaliation, and consequently adopt this as a strategy. Tribal humans engage in warfare similar to chimps. They engage in raids into enemy territory, though the manner in which they do so certainly involves more organization. They generally do so at night, often times right before dawn perhaps so their opponents will not be able to retaliate while it still is dark. The goal in the end is roughly the same, kill only a few of the enemy and then escape before they can mount a counter attack. While tribal people do occassionally fight in the open at scheduled times, and some have pointed out that fighting can at times seem more like a sport which can get called off due to rain, the overall facts that they fight regularly, and fight specifically to kill, mean that even though the casualties might be low in given encounters, they add up. The end result is devastating. In some tribes, warfare accounts for 30% of all deaths in their population. Imagine putting numbers like that to our own civilizations of millions and billions and just how destructive constant and deadly such warfare is to peoples of such small numbers comes much more clearly into focus.

The First Genocide

So what exactly was it like when the cro-magnons met the Neanderthal in a conflict that ended with the latter's death? We'll never know for certain, but while it's not impossible that tribes of the time could've rallied others to fight with them against outside aggressors, it also isn't entirely likely either. Like modern day tribes who engage in warfare, it probably often took the form of silent raids conducted in the dark. It was most likely fought between primarily those on the furthest outposts of their respective groups.

In addition to the violent way some tribal groups resolve problems amongst themselves and rival groups, another common way to do so is to simply get up and leave, taking those along who want to go with you. As larger groups would've had more disputes, and the land and subsequent ability to live on it at the time could only sustain so many, people of given tribes probably had to split off and strike into the unknown whenever a group became too large and unmanageable, and the land no longer able to sustain such a large number. "Pioneers" so to speak, who were living on the fringes may not have been able to retreat back without facing hostility from their own kind. The first Neanderthals to encounter cro-magnon settlers might likely have been living in the same kind of situation.

Imagine going into unexplored territory only to discover that a group of Neanderthals is already living there. Afraid to go forward, but unable to go back because behind you, those of your own kind are a more formidable foe. Cro-magnons did in the end have better weapons and higher numbers. All in all, the conflict was probably very one-sided, just as is almost every conflict documented when one group of people which has superior numbers and technology encounters another group whose land they want. One thing it wasn't, was rapid. The process took about 15,000 years with the end result being no more Neanderthals in Europe only by 34,000 years ago. Considering how long it took europeans to completely spread into Australia and North America, 15,000 years is glacial-speed.

The size and strength of the Neanderthals served them well against the ancestors of modern man for quite some time, but in the end cro-magnon persisted. In addition to higher intelligence, and better technology, cro-magnon was able to out-live and out-breed the Neanderthal. That cro-magnon could live to the age of 60 years compared to Neanderthal's 40, meant a lot more accumulated knowledge to serve their kind. The Neanderthal's greater size in the end meant it required more food to survive when compared to cro-magnon who could subsist on less.

* * *

I remember a friend telling me once that he thought some Neanderthals might've managed to eck it out much longer, that some even made it to the middle ages, and that stories of beast-men and grendels killed by Beowulf weren't just fantastical tales, but might simply have been exaggerated ones of creatures that were real but whom they couldn't understand. While it's interesting, given the dates we know for certain, this doesn't seem too likely, and surviving the onslaught of primitive man only to be killed by the steel of medeval Europe doesn't sound too appetizing either. Another group of hominids representing a different branch from cro-magnon and Neanderthal managed to live safely in the remote isolation of an island called Flores in Indonesia up until about 13,000. Considering that this group only managed to survive so long by being far removed from our ancestors, some of whom were just beginning to domesticate crops and create agriculture at that time, and that Neanderthals in general were unable to even withstand people without this advancement, makes it seem a bit far-fetched to think they made it to the middle ages.

Depending in how human one considers them to be, the fate of the Neanderthals could very well be considered the first genocide, the intentional destruction of an entire species. Humankind destroyed its closest relatives long before we ever existed. In defense of ancient man, he probably did so out of some degree of survival, and perhaps lacked the ability or foresight to empathize with an intelligence such as the Neanderthals, however similar it was to his own. As for the Neanderthals, I'm sometimes left wondering how close to us they actually were. They almost certainly were aware of themselves and their existence, but I wonder if they knew what was happening to them as it did. Did they realize they were dying, and eventually would cease to exist? In another way, what happened to them represents a very grim portent of how human history would play out again and again as societies and civilizations would exterminate each other for future millenia to come.

Before the Dawn

Book Review: Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade

While not as all-encompassing as Jared Diamond's Third Chimpanzee or Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene, I must say that this book left a very deep impression on me. As someone who has been interested in the unrecorded prehistory of man for a long time, I found this book to be something of a welcome update of what was started by the two titles I mentioned earlier. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976, The Third Chimpanzee in 1991. Since the mapping of the human genome in 2003, the results of many new studies have been released, shedding light onto what were once murkier areas in the gaps of what we know of the gene's influence on man and man's prehistory respectively. I really recommend this book for anyone interested on the subject.

The first couple of chapters consist of an introduction and then quick summarization of what would be a basic anthropology course. A highly accurate visual system was needed to help judge distances between trees properly and safely make leaps, such that nearly all primates view the world more or less exactly as we do. Opposable thumbs for a good, strong grip on branches and boughs of many sizes and shapes. Bipedal movement allowing a farther, more commanding view, the ability to carry things while moving, and also just a more energy efficient way of getting around when compared to the knuckle walk which was the common mode of movement before.

It is the following chapters, however, where the book really separates itself from the others, and while it does draw on past disciplines like archeology and paleolinguistics -again Third Chimpanzee but also Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel- for some of its historical conclusions, the recent genetic findings are what really distinguish it. An early example, the approximate dating of when humans first began wearing clothes, demonstrates how we can learn what was never before possible, provided we ask the right questions.

Dating the Development of Several Uniquely Human Charateristics

The louse, a parasite which cannot survive more than six to eight hours away from the warmth of a human body, was once confined to the tiny island of hair on the human head for a period of time between when man lost his body hair and began wearing clothing. This advent, it seems, gave rise to the body louse which had adapted its claws specifically to grasp clothing. By comparing either the Y chromosomes on males -which are passed unchanged and directly from fathers to sons- or mitochondrial DNA -passed unchanged from mothers to daughters- geneticists can now to come up with an approximate date for when species split into new branches. In this particular case, DNA from the body louse and the regular louse were both analyzed, showing a split of the two branches about 72,000 years ago, thus giving scientists that approximate date for the adoption of wearing clothes.

There were several other interesting revelations as well. An obvious next question might be to ask about the loss of body hair. A few possible reasons are given as to why it might have happened -the need to sweat to cool down the body, ridding oneself of parasites, preferences in sexual selection- but one thing that might be a little more certain is that darker skin developed from this advent as protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays which destroy folic acid, an essential nutrient. While our forebears' skin was almost certainly pale originally, as it is in chimps, dark skin would have been necessary to survive in the African sun without body hair to protect oneself. The melanocortin receptor gene which regulates skin pigmentation provides the key. By dating the divergence of this gene towards darker skin, an approximate date of 1.2 million years ago seems to be when humans lost most of their body hair.

The original ancestral population of humans who left Africa would've almost certainly had black skin. Paler skin confers an advantage to colder climates because it lets in more sunlight and allows for better synthesis of Vitamin D. It appears to have come about much later, after humans had left Africa and some were living in far colder temperatures to the north which would become even colder during a glacial period 20,000 years ago. The emergence of lighter skin, which occurs in both Asians and Europeans, developed twice, each time independently of the other.

New Data on the Human Diaspora out of Africa

Genetics have also allowed scientists to estimate that the approximate size of the original human population in Africa when some finally began their exodus out of the continent was about only 5,000, and that this occured about 50,000 years ago. From that number all people on this planet have emerged. Unlike previously believed, humans appear not to have taken the northern route out of Africa past Egypt and through the Fretile Crescent, but rather to have gone across the lower portion of the Red Sea which would've been about 100 feet lower at the time. The reason for this, probably would've been that the Fertile Crescent was already inhabited by Neanderthals who would've provided fiercesome competition for the early ancestors of man, and consequently had boxed them in, unable to leave Africa until that point.

Testing the genetics of modern societies shows that people in general have had a tendancy to live, marry and raise children in about the same area, a trend that has continued to this day but was even more pronounced before 100 years ago and the advent of modern transportation. From this data, early man seems to have crossed the Red Sea, then the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula to India, then continued southward on landbridges existing at that time and primitive boats to Australia, populating on the way what are now some the Pacific Islands, the Phillipines, and New Guinea. The Australian Aborigines, New Guinea Highlanders and jungle dwelling Negritos of the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Adaman Islands appear to be the closest relatives of the Khoisan, who themselves represent one of the longest, most ancient branches of DNA amongst humans who stayed in Africa.

The primitive technology of early man was comparable with that of the Neanderthals, and due to that groups larger body size and stronger muscles, they would've made more than a formidable match. But the forebears of modern humans had a capacity for higher intellect, and perhaps coupled with their ability for more advanced language (a subject the book dwells on much more extensively), eventually were able to shape for themselves a more successful package of subsistence, environmental adaptation, weapons, and other artifacts. Thus the long struggle between the two began to turn against the Neanderthals as modern man began to slowly expand his territory, occupying more and more space that once belonged to Neanderthals until their extinction.

The question of whether humankind's early ancestors mixed and interbred with the Neanderthals has long vexed those who study them, but now at last seems to be finally getting put to rest. By extracting and examining a small sample of DNA from a Neanderthal specimen, a team from Munich managed to show that extremely little to no interbreeding occurred between the two species.

Some Final Considerations on Man's Evolution

In light of what new, genetic testing has taught us, the book makes many conclusions along the way to its destination. Of these, the most important is the thought that modern man has continued to evolve on the genetic level even since leaving Africa and all the way up to the present. It has long been generalized that the most important changes occurred before 50,000 years ago, at which point, man became "anatomically modern" and has remained in a state of genetic stasis ever since. This argument proceeded from the idea that man hasn't needed to adapt any further to his environment. But to assume this would be to assume that no other kind of strife plagued mankind up until today, and that no other accustomization was necessary.

The book delves further into the idea that mankind didn't just need to be "anatomically modern" to scale the heights of today, but also "behaviorally modern". In examining this, one has to consider that many aspects to the behavior of man had to be adjusted (the ability to trust others and consequently work with them, give up the individual freedom that a state of nature provides, adjust to sedentary life, etc...) One also has to begin considering how and what genes have an influence on these behaviors. Genes don't just determine physical characteristic like strength, height, skin, hair, and eye color, but also things like susceptibility to diseases, level of aggressive behavior, propensity to lie to others or cheat on one's partner, things some of which have traditionally been more associated with psychology than biology.

That mankind hasn't ceased to evolve on the genetic level might be most evident in the world of difference between how we lived 50,000 years ago and how we live now. How we shall proceed to evolve into the future might just depend on to what extent we are willing or able to harness genetic manipulation to further achieve our goals.