the time； it was believed that humans had been inaustralia for no more than 8；000 years； but mungo had been dry for 12；000 years。 so whatwas anyone doing in such an inhospitable place？
the answer； provided by carbon dating； was that the bones鈥櫋wner had lived there whenlake mungo was a much more agreeable habitat； a dozen miles long； full of water and fish；fringed by pleasant groves of casuarina trees。 to everyone鈥檚 astonishment； the bones turnedout to be 23；000 years old。 other bones found nearby were dated to as much as 60；000 years。
this was unexpected to the point of seeming practically impossible。 at no time sincehominids first arose on earth has australia not been an island。 any human beings who arrivedthere must have e by sea； in large enough numbers to start a breeding population； aftercrossing sixty miles or more of open water without having any way of knowing that aconvenient landfall awaited them。 having landed； the mungo people had then found their waymore than two thousand miles inland from australia鈥檚 north coast鈥攖he presumed point ofentry鈥攚hich suggests； according to a report in the proceedings of the national academy ofsciences； 鈥渢hat people may have first arrived substantially earlier than 60；000 years ago。鈥�
how they got there and why they came are questions that can鈥檛 be answered。 according tomost anthropology texts； there鈥檚 no evidence that people could even speak 60；000 years ago；much less engage in the sorts of cooperative efforts necessary to build ocean…worthy craft andcolonize island continents。
鈥渢here鈥檚 just a whole lot we don鈥檛 know about the movements of people before recordedhistory；鈥潯lan thorne told me when i met him in canberra。 鈥渄o you know that whennineteenth…century anthropologists first got to papua new guinea； they found people in thehighlands of the interior； in some of the most inaccessible terrain on earth； growing sweetpotatoes。 sweet potatoes are native to south america。 so how did they get to papua newguinea？ we don鈥檛 know。 don鈥檛 have the faintest idea。 but what is certain is that people havebeen moving around with considerable assuredness for longer than traditionally thought； andalmost certainly sharing genes as well as information。鈥�
the problem； as ever； is the fossil record。 鈥渧ery few parts of the world are even vaguelyamenable to the long…term preservation of human remains；鈥潯ays thorne； a sharp…eyed manwith a white goatee and an intent but friendly manner。 鈥渋f it weren鈥檛 for a few productiveareas like hadar and olduvai in east africa we鈥檇 know frighteningly little。 and when youlook elsewhere； often wedo know frighteningly little。 the whole of india has yielded just oneancient human fossil； from about 300；000 years ago。 between iraq and vietnam鈥攖hat鈥檚 adistance of some 5；000 kilometers鈥攖here have been just two： the one in india and aneandertal in uzbekistan。鈥潯e grinned。 鈥渢hat鈥檚 not a whole hell of a lot to work with。 you鈥檙eleft with the position that you鈥檝e got a few productive areas for human fossils； like the greatrift valley in africa and mungo here in australia； and very little in between。 it鈥檚 notsurprising that paleontologists have trouble connecting the dots。鈥�
the traditional theory to explain human movements鈥攁nd the one still accepted by themajority of people in the field鈥攊s that humans dispersed across eurasia in two waves。 thefirst wave consisted of homo erectus； who left africa remarkably quickly鈥攁lmost as soon asthey emerged as a species鈥攂eginning nearly two million years ago。 over time； as they settledin different regions； these early erects further evolved into distinctive types鈥攊nto java manand peking man in asia； and homo heidelbergensis and finally homo neanderthalensis ineurope。
then； something over a hundred thousand years ago； a smarter； lither species of creature鈥攖he ancestors of every one of us alive today鈥攁rose on the african plains and began radiatingoutward in a second wave。 wherever they went； according to this theory； these new homosapiens displaced their duller； less adept predecessors。 quite how they did this has alwaysbeen a matter of disputation。 no signs of slaughter have ever been found； so most authoritiesbelieve the newer hominids simply outpeted the older ones； though other factors may alsohave contributed。 鈥減erhaps we gave them smallpox；鈥潯uggests tattersall。 鈥渢here鈥檚 no real wayof telling。 the one certainty is that we are here now and they aren鈥檛。鈥�
these first modern humans are surprisingly shadowy。 we know less about ourselves；curiously enough； than about almost any other line of hominids。 it is odd indeed； as tattersallnotes； 鈥渢hat the most recent major event in human evolution鈥攖he emergence of our ownspecies鈥攊s perhaps the most obscure of all。鈥潯obody can even quite agree where trulymodern humans first appear in the fossil record。 many books place their debut at about120；000 years ago in the form of remains found at the klasies river mouth in south africa；but not everyone accepts that these were fully modern people。 tattersall and schwartzmaintain that 鈥渨hether any or all of them actually represent our species still awaits definitiveclarification。鈥�
the first undisputed appearance of homo sapiens is in the eastern mediterranean； aroundmodern…day israel； where they begin to show up about 100；000 years ago鈥攂ut even therethey are described （by trinkaus and shipman） as 鈥渙dd； difficult…to…classify and poorlyknown。鈥潯eandertals were already well established in the region and had a type of tool kitknown as mousterian； which the modern humans evidently found worthy enough to borrow。
no neandertal remains have ever been found in north africa； but their tool kits turn up allover the place。 somebody must have taken them there： modern humans are the onlycandidate。 it is also known that neandertals and modern humans coexisted in some fashionfor tens of thousands of years in the middle east。 鈥渨e don鈥檛 know if they time…shared thesame space or actually lived side by side；鈥潯attersall says； but the moderns continued happilyto use neandertal tools鈥攈ardly convincing evidence of overwhelming superiority。 no lesscuriously； acheulean tools are found in the middle east well over a million years ago； but scarcely exist in europe until just 300；000 years ago。 again； why people who had thetechnology didn鈥檛 take the tools with them is a mystery。
for a long time； it was believed that the cro…magnons； as modern humans in europebecame known； drove the neandertals before them as they advanced across the continent；eventually forcing them to its western margins； where essentially they had no choice but tofall in the sea or go extinct。 in fact； it is now known that cro…magnons were in the far west ofeurope at about the same time they were also ing in from the east。 鈥渆urope was a prettyempty place in those days；鈥潯attersall says。 鈥渢hey may not have encountered each other allthat often； even with all their ings and goings。鈥潯ne curiosity of the cro…magnons鈥櫋rrivalis that it came at a time known to paleoclimatology as the boutellier interval； when europewas plunging from a period of relative mildness into yet another long spell of punishing cold。
whatever it was that drew them to europe； it wasn鈥檛 the glorious weather。
in any case； the idea that neandertals crumpled in the face of petition from newlyarrived cro…magnons strains against the evidence at least a little。 neandertals were nothing ifnot tough。 for tens of thousands of years they lived through conditions that no modern humanoutside a few polar scientists and explorers has experienced。 during the worst of the ice ages；blizzards with hurricane…force winds were mon。 temperatures routinely fell to 50 degreesbelow zero fahrenheit。 polar bears padded across the snowy vales of southern england。
neandertals naturally retreated from the worst of it； but even so they will have experiencedweather that was at least as bad as a modern siberian winter。 they suffered； to be sure鈥攁neandertal who lived much past thirty was lucky indeed鈥攂ut as a species they weremagnificently resilient and practically indestructible。 they survived for at least a hundredthousand years； and perhaps twice that； over an area stretching from gibraltar to uzbekistan；which is a pretty successful run for any species of being。
quite who they were and what they were like remain matters of disagreement anduncertainty。 right up until the middle of the twentieth century the accepted anthropologicalview of the neandertal was that he was dim； stooped； shuffling； and simian鈥攖hequintessential caveman。 it was only a painful accident that prodded scientists to reconsiderthis view。 in 1947； while doing fieldwork in the sahara； a franco…algerian paleontologistnamed camille arambourg took refuge from the midday sun under the wing of his lightairplane。 as he sat there； a tire burst from the heat； and the plane tipped suddenly； striking hima painful blow on the upper body。 later in paris he went for an x…ray of his neck； and noticedthat his own vertebrae were aligned exactly like those of the stooped and hulking neandertal。
either he was physiologically primitive or neandertal鈥檚 posture had been misdescribed。 infact； it was the latter。 neandertal vertebrae were not simian at all。 it changed utterly how weviewed neandertals鈥攂ut only some of the time； it appears。
it is still monly held that neandertals lacked the intelligence or fiber to pete onequal terms with the continent鈥檚 slender and more cerebrally nimble newers； homosapiens。 here is a typical ment from a recent book： 鈥渕odern humans neutralized thisadvantage ＇the neandertal鈥檚 considerably heartier physique＇ with better clothing； better firesand better shelter； meanwhile the neandertals were stuck with an oversize body that requiredmore food to sustain。鈥潯n other words； the very factors that had allowed them to survivesuccessfully for a hundred thousand years suddenly became an insuperable handicap。
above all the issue that is almost never addressed is that neandertals had brains that weresignificantly larger than those of modern people鈥�1。8 liters for neandertals versus 1。4 formodern people； according to one calculation。 this is more t