The Sahara Pump and the First Wave

The Sahara Pump and the First Wave

"No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes, or in silence passes by, as true today, may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rain on their fields."

_Henry David Thoreau

The human creature is a territorial one. It is my nation, my state, my city, my party, my status, my class, my community, my race, my tribe, my clan, my family, my beliefs - all bleeding into my idea of Self. All culture is inherited. Test any of these, and you offend. Whether that territory be mental or actual - we have evolved boundaries and compartments that divide and not unite - shredding ideas of common humanity, and replacing them with status and comparison. Nothing blocks honesty so aggressively. 

So science is proving to be an elixir peeling back masks of self-identifying ignore-ance. But every breathing human matters to me like the cooling winds in heat. Every forebear is a strengthening brick or I do not stand on this day. And tomorrow belongs to posterity - not to our yesterdays, or contemporary failures. 

Stretch, reach, and grasp.

Failure to experiment, to test, to try, to go where there is no path, has literally led to the extinction of every other hominin that walked this planet before, and with, us. The only difference is evolutionary. That is an honest excuse - as they had no, little, or limited, faculty and capacity for heritable culture. They could not learn enough to adjust - in time.

In our primate cousins (98%+ shared DNA), different communities display different cultures. Whereas, one community of localized chimpanzees may use twigs to dig for termites - another may use no tools at all for that purpose, but instead use crushed leaves as a sponge to filter and soak up drinking water. Even within the troop, such knowledge is difficult to pass on, unless offspring learns it from mother. So the capacity to learn it would be genetically transferred. Still, this skill set may not spread among the troop, and definitely not out of it. The block is mental capacity, status ranking (class systems in human society) and fierce territorial aggression (my identity, my space, my resources vs. the out-group). These territories are enforced by patrolling war bands of mature males. There is zero cultural exchange with the out-group. The only genetic exchange is female seeking mates or asylum, at their potential peril, with an out-group.

And we are separated from these primates by nearly 7 million years of concurrent but divergent evolution as we know it. But social status still limits access to knowledge and capital. (the Internet is changing this) On the average, in traditional cultures the married bride enters the husbands family, hence bride prices and dowries. We have borders bounding every nation, state, county, every neighborhood and every mind.

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires in the brain when one animal acts, and that act is observed and learned by another. In humans, I literally feel you, empathize, sympathize, and experience with you. In humans, these mirror neurons are highly coordinated with learning. We basically mimic our way to learning with more relative ease. This simplifies learning, so we don't have to discover each tedious step and build an entire mental architecture to execute one simple skill atop another one, ad infinitum. And this evolved learning architecture did not emerge in us - but in ancestors in between.

The similarities are apparent - as apparent as the differences. We are bipedal hunter-gatherers by nature. We are highly nomadic, with deeply and varying degrees of culture in its myriad inflections at every step of the way. And with each hominid line since our divergence from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, in successive steps, expanding our geographical range - we carried this sense of territorialism with us. 

This expansion mirrors our broadening of technology. More efficient tools evolved Australopithecus garhi into Homo habilis. More planning and design evolved Homo habilis into Homo erectus - from scavenger/small game hunters - to less scavenging/small game hunters/stealing big game from apex predators - to stealing big game/hunters-gatherers - to hunter-gatherer Apex predator like the world has never born before. So impressive, that fear of other apex predators was either suppressed or lost by courage and confidence in our abilities and tools, without a gun, but with sticks and stones, language and strategy. 

Expanded tool use would not be a reality if we lacked the capacity for heritable culture, as it is limited in our ape and primate cousins. What the modern human being is just beginning to understand is that culture is inherited, learned, and most importantly, environmentally influenced. Homo habilis was a forager, hunted small game, was a highly efficient scavenger - using stone tools as scrapers to cut remaining meat left over from big game predators, and using stones as hammers to crush bones where there was no meat, to get at the marrow within - rich in fatty acids and literally food for building a big brain. Yet, they themselves remained prey for apex predators. So what would turn a timid scavenger into a brave hunter? I would argue climate-induced starvation. 

During the axial precession (precession of equinoxes), every 26k years, the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun changes - causing climate change. Variations, or eccentricity, in this movement is called the Milankovitch cycle - in turn, causes climactic patterns. For example, what was once a woodland area would receive more sunlight and become grasslands, etc. This alters the entire ecological spectrum. Due to the Milankovitch cycles, lakes could appear, disappear and reappear, to varying degree over the span of a few thousand years. River would swell, shrink or dry up, then reappear. Dependent and competitive flora and fauna are deeply affected.  Food and water sources change. Animals must change with them or risk dying. So, migration routes are altered, along with the predators that follow them. These predators must stay diligent, or risk missing the opportunity to eat to stay alive. And the scavengers must follow the predators.

In your gut lives some of the same species of bacteria that resides in the saliva of lions. For sustenance, a smart scavenger should follow smart, bold predators, and lion packs take down the biggest game. Lions do not typically hunt during the midday heat as discussed in previous posts. They must give up the chase quickly or risk overheating in their pursuit. To preserve that energy, they hunt at dusk, dawn or night. Our hominin ancestors like Homo Habilis were diurnal (active in the day), just as we are. So these daylight hours would be employed for foraging, small game hunting, and scavenging.

During more than one of these dramatic climactic shifts, as migration routes/food sources changed and water sources were altered, game was certainly more scarce. The breakup of the ecological landscape would have scattered the hungry and thirsty to the four winds to search for nourishment. This scarcity undoubtedly forced lions, hyenas, cheetahs, leopards and scavengers like Homo habilis into confrontations. Predators, being strictly carnivores, being dependent on the meat, would fight fiercely for it - and fight off these daytime scavengers, who not only saw their meat sources become scarce, but their small game and plant sources of food altered. Starvation makes you bold - it is necessity that become the driver, not the aversion of risk. Recalling from a previous post - chimpanzees also hunt small game in bands. Homo habilis obviously did the same. So a cooperative hunting strategy would have been employed towards scavenging in this climate of scarce resources and confrontation. They gained courage out of necessity, and in a band equipped with stones and wooden spears, confronted the predators that would otherwise prey on them - and still did when chance permitted. They encroached not with the intention to hunt, but to scavenge on what was available in dire circumstances, and what they themselves could not take down. They no longer ran, but grouped together and cooperated for survival - boldly entering the lions camp, scaring them off, stealing their prey - and gaining/sharing experience. 

What is lost to the naked eye is the paleoclimate of these developmental, influential years. And, yet, due to science, the contemporary examination of flora fossils, ancient lake and river bed sediments, and isotopes found in soil samples, reveal these periodic climate shifts, at times rapid and other times more gradual. And the fauna records, of and around these same periods in time, reflect these breaking ups and subsequent recombinations of entire ecosystems. Our earliest bipedal ancestor found to date, Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumai), circa 7 million years old, was found in the deserts of Chad. Yet, in its lifetime, this was a wooded and wet, lake scattered ecosystem.

As we know, Homo erectus was the first of our genus to migrate out of Africa (keyword: migrate), perhaps as early as 1.9 million years ago. This was not a conscious exodus, but, instead, hunters following game. It was, up until recently, believed that they migrated up the Levantine Corridor (the western part of the Fertile Crescent) into Eurasia. During so, Homo erectus would have encountered, while in Africa, five different kinds of human beings:

Australopithecus sediba

Homo rudolfensis

Paranthropus robustus

Homo habilis

Paranthropus boisei

These early humans shared the African landscape with Homo erectus at the time of the first exodus from Africa 1.9 million years ago.

What would these first encounters have been like? There seems to be little evidence to support violent clashes between species of Homo, Australopiths and Paranthropus. After all, Homo habilis was used to scaring off predators at this time, and Homo erectus - evolving from Homo habilis - was an even more aggressive hunter. Some of the fossils of these species are found side-by-side at site and in the same geological time frame. The Paranthropus line had no technology, no tool-use, and was restricted to woodland areas with limited flexibility to a diet only containing grubs and plants. These gorilla-like hominids are found in the same areas of Homo erectus - whom, we know, was not restricted to any environment - like Homo sapiens afterward. Paranthropus also ate more plants, particularly leaves, more than any other human ancestor. It evolved from, and temporarily co-existed with, Australopithecines, like sediba above. Grasslands have proven to be home to Australopiths, yet their bone structure suggests that, though they were bipedal, tree climbing was still a prominent aspect of their lives. Examination of their dentition (micro-wear on the teeth) indicates that they ate fruits, vegetables and tubers. Being a frugivore (fruit eater) means, of course, that it would be highly dependent on the abundance of fruit - therefore trees. So this early bipedal human (think Lucy) held onto it climbing adaptation abilities as expressed in its anatomical structure. 

Here, the hominids in Africa are varied (pre-migration, pre Homo sapiens)

Thus, it would seem, there would be very little need for competition with Homo habilis and Homo erectus. And, Paranthropus and the Australopiths would be sensitive to climate affecting their habitats. And being closer to other apes than the genus Homo, also means heritable culture would have been at issue. Yet, to me, it is not a stretch to assume Homo erectus would have been, not only aggressive, but predatory. There is evidence that it hunted and ate giant baboons - as chimpanzees hunt and eat monkeys, as humans eat "bush meat," like monkeys and other apes.

In the geologic record (Pliocene Epoch) preceding the evolutionary emergence of Homo habilis, there was more climactic stability. Yet, around 2 million years ago, a rush of climate change and instability put pressure on these other hominins. A drying out of the woodland areas in the Great Rift Valley, and general eastern Africa for that matter, would've shrunk the canopy of which these frugivore australopiths, and the mostly herbivore paranthropus depended. This instability lasted for another 1.5 million years. Despite living alongside more technologically advance humans, with inherited and learned material culture, over the course of these unstable 1.5 million years, our early human relations died out. Heritable culture is what distinguishes and aids the survival of our genus Homo. But we can thank the australopithecines for acquiring stone tool use, and expanding mental capacity. So, rather abrupt environmental change seems to be the culprit - which we will examine further. They lived right alongside us. But, I believe this same climactic shift that began to put pressure on australopiths and paranthropus, also affected and scatters all other flora and fauna of this period.

And Homo erectus chased this game wherever it could - right into a green, wet Sahara of 1.9 million years ago, and eventually, out of Africa. And into a much wider geographic/ecological range - from Israel at 1.7 million years ago, Dmanisi, Georgia (Russia) at 1.8 million years ago, Pakistan at 1.9 mya, Spain of 1.7 mya, and China at 1.7 mya. 

The cyclical Milankovitch cycle effects are also observed in the soil samples from Pakistan. The oldest known humans outside of Africa are these Asians. Homo erectus in China is believed to be the earliest use of controlled fire on Earth (1.27mya). And once out of Africa, they had no other humans to displace - only game to encounter. And these encounters are not one-sided - they hunted, fought, and quite often lost. Circa 2/3rds of Homo erectus fossils in China have puncture wounds on the skull from predator canines - perhaps from giant hyenas, also chasing game out of Africa, as hyenas are known to go for the head first during the hunt. Yet, in India, a different story - fossilized remains details wounds on Homo erectus from hunting big game. So this first incursion into worlds outside of Africa were violent battlegrounds between competing apex predators - to which we were not quite yet at the top. So, buried in our genetic memory, is a real deep feeling of a need to conquer nature - to eat or be eaten (later expressed in religion as we shall see). Homo erectus was alone outside of Africa for nearly 1 million years. 

The driver of a green Sahara of 1.9 million years ago was the precession and Milankovitch cycles. And these cycles, once again, dried the Sahara not too long afterwards, blocking further migration for these 1 million years or so. Supporting this theory is evidence of evolving tool use in Africa by Homo erectus, and stagnated tool use outside of it. Whereas the Homo erectus in Africa, dubbed Homo ergaster at this time, continued to evolve their tools into Acheulean,

Homo erectus in Asia remained using Oldowan stone tools for these 1 million+ years, as evidenced in sites during this period in China, Dmanisi, India, Israel, and Pakistan:

Whilst the earliest appearance of the more evolved Acheulean stone stools in appear in Africa at 1.6mya, in India 1mya, and Europe some 800kya. 

We will revisit the Sahara Pump Theory - it plays a significant role in human history up until 6kya (when it's migrating culture founded the Egyptian culture) - and it will again in the future.

The Pleistocene Epoch is a geological period of time dating from 2.5mya up to 11kya. For humans, from the emergence of Homo habilis to the earliest known use of agriculture. It is characterized by repeated cycles of glaciation (Ice ages), and would have ended with the last Ice Age we are all so familiar with and associate with "cave men." It is the most significant period for the development of modern human beings. Our accepted species, Homo sapiens sapiens, was born in the Pleistocene. My proposal is that Homo techne is what we are currently, and still currently speciating (slowly changing into a new species) in the now present Holocene Epoch. But the Pleistocene is this remarkable time span when we evolved to become recognizably human - from Australopithecus garhi to the accepted widespread employment of sedentarism and agriculture by Homo sapiens. 

The Pliocene Epoch (5.3mya - 2.5mya) that preceded the Pleistocene was on average 2-3 degrees centigrade higher than today - with global sea levels 25m greater. The sudden cooling at the end of the Pliocene would have brought the disappearance of fragile forests and the spread of grasslands - beginning the Pleistocene and forcing Au. garhi and Homo habilis into environmental pressures that they had to adapt to or perish. It is believed the australopiths began to die out from failure to adjust and its dependence on a narrow ecology. Yet, I would suggest, Au. garhi may, itself, speciated, or evolved a sub-species - Homo habilis. Fossils of these two species have been found side-by-side for a geological period spanning 200-300ky. As evidenced by the relative youth of Homo sapiens (195ky), this is ample time to diverge and evolve. So those Au. garhi without adequate capacity of heritable culture perished. I suspect those that did not evolved into Homo habilis - the first in the genus Homo. 

The Pleistocene Epoch, at times of extreme Ice Ages, brought glaciers down to the 40th parallel. At most, 30% of the Earth's surface was frozen, in addition to permafrost on the edges of that glaciation. The temperature along these edges would have ranged from 21-35 degrees Fahrenheit. Sea levels would have dropped a dramatic 300ft. So, just as Siberians crossed the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia to evolve into Native Americans some 40kya+ - between these glacial periods of the Pleistocene, previous coastlines would have drowned. This stifles modern paleoarchaelogy - as most migration routes would be underwater during our current, warmer Holocene Epoch. 

But glaciers were not unfamiliar to our human ancestors in Africa. Mt. Kilimanjaro, Mt. Kenya, mountain ranges in Ethiopia, and in east/central Africa were covered by even larger glaciers during ice ages of Pleistocene. All glaciation, interglacials (periods in between - of which we are in one currently), periods of receding glacials, wind and ocean currents, climate and other weather factors, are all in correspondence with the precession and Milankovitch cycles. 

Now, imagine with the advancement of ice sheets - entire regions of migrating animals, populating new areas, and depopulating others. Those animals in the North, like in Europe, would be migrating South into the Levantine Corridor, the Middle East, Northern Africa, and the Green Sahara. 

"Greening" would increase and decrease depending on the degree of monsoonal rains (pluvials)

Animals affected by increased African glaciation would be migrating North into the Sahel (Arabic for "coast") - the Southern part of North Africa between the Sahara and the Sudanese savanna (east to west from the Atlantic to Ethiopia).

So what would make the Sahara turn green? 

Heat. Yes, more heat. More heat is more evaporation - evaporating ocean water is more rainfall - extended periods of rainfall are called pluvials. These "pluvials" feed into the West African monsoon seasons. These extreme monsoon seasons equals larger lakes and swelling rivers - cyclically reactivating a "green" Sahara. Later, this glacial excursion, inter-glacial warming and pluvial downpours would fuel the Natufian culture in the Levant to sedentarism and agriculture between 30-11kya. 

These Milankovitch fueled pluvials - from the monsoonal systems in subtropical regions - affected not only Saharan Africa, but desert Arabia, India and Pakistan. 

Thus animal migrations southward to escape glaciers and northward in Africa due to disrupted ecological communities - into the Sahel, then the Sahara, then into the Levantine Corridor (later, the "Garden of Eden" along with Mesopotamia), then Arabia, followed by India and Pakistan - were followed by the first hunter-gatherers Homo erectus.

Still, for a million years after the First Wave of human beings out of Africa - the Sahara desert returned, and stayed dry. In my view, the Pleistocene Ice Ages, monsoonal pluvials and the Sahara Pump Theory have more credence than the Levantine Corridor as a migration route out of Africa on its own. It explains, geologically, the stagnation of Oldowan technology outside of Africa - no cultural, heritable exchange for a million years - while Acheulean was sparked within Africa. These peoples were still capable of learning and evolving culturally. Recently, in 2013, stone tools found in India, of the Acheulean kind, were originally dated to between 1.1m - 800kya. Yet, a recent dating of these very same tools suggest a new time period of circa 1.5mya - a mere 100ky after known Acheulean emergence in Africa, and when the Sahara Pump would have been dry blocking further migration out, or back in. But glaciation does not necessarily correlate with monsoonal rains in tropical parallels. But it does correlate with lowered sea levels and land bridges further exposing the Levantine corridor. Or - these Homo erectus. were simply smart enough to continue to evolve, being culturally isolated - as it would seem. But, we do know, the First Wave, was a result of the Sahara Pump - and undeniable evidence comes from Homo sapiens rock art during the last known green Sahara:

Rock art depictions of cattle, camels, and people in the Sahara region of Chad offer evidence that humans and animals once occupied this area. At the time rock art was done—from the fifth to the second millennium B.C.—the area was an open savanna, which supported the animals represented in the rock art.

Despite recent conjecture, intelligent as they were, I doubt Homo erectus made use of rafts and/or boats to reach distant and isolated islands. At least not before their co-existence with later species of our genus Homo, like Homo sapiens, and further employing their capacity for heritable culture.

It only takes an Ice Age to lower the light blue sea levels and turn them into a Land Bridge - ask the Aborigines

Repeated glacials (ice ages), would have provided over 1 million years, ample time for Homo erectus to reach Java in Indonesia. Homo floresiensis (the Hobbit) is a dwarf sub-species of Homo erectus that survived on Indonesia as recently as 18kya. Stories of giants and dwarves are embedded in our ancestral memories - informing oral traditions with sights that early Homo sapiens encountered along the last major migration of our genus Homo. 

So paleoclimatology (the study of prehistoric climates) is vital in understanding, not only what shapes us, but what moves us. Literally.

During the time of Homo habilis, shelter was nest-like, atop a cliff, or under a fallen tree. A cave is widely considered too dangerous for a prey animal like Homo habilis, and the environment was considerably warmer in the Late Pliocene and early Pleistocene in Africa for the "Handy Man." Yet, as they had a tool-making industry, and employed in primitive (read early) human hunting strategy - they would undoubtedly and repeatedly make use of the same shelters. But, critical here - without the persistence hunting strategy employed by Homo erectus, they would have held onto their chimp-like body fur.

When Homo erectus migrates out of Africa, we have evidence of shelter construction. In northern Israel, at the site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, a Homo erectus encampment of 750kya has been unearthed. The camp was planned and laid out according to divisions of labor and utility. For example, a hut for butchering, a hut for processing gathered items, and another for processing fish. (Fish processing at this early site changes what we first thought about early humans fishing - it was widely believed Homo sapiens began to do so more seriously around 109kya in S. Africa.) Situated on a Pleistocene lake-shore, it would be the oldest example of fishing ever discovered. But I postulate, that shelter construction by Homo erectus had to evolve much earlier for them expand this shelter building skill set into building specialized camps nearly three-quarters of a million years ago. First, as it gradually lost it's fear of predators, and perhaps in tandem with refined and controlled fire use - they conquered their fear of caves. This is the first so-called, "cave man." A significant portion of fire hearth remains, butchered animal remains, and stone tools were found at, or around the mouths of caves. But, this was hardly a "cave man." Researchers believe these caves were more camps than homes. Also, where there are no caves - there's still Homo erectus. To better understand the evolution of the home and construction of shelters - we should revisit Homo habilis' fallen tree shelters; bearing in mind that, if Homo habilis could gather choice stones for tool construction, then, presumably, they can gather branches and sticks for shelter enhancement - perhaps, even, utilizing tools to cut, chop and shape them while doing so.

From a fallen tree with a few branches for blockage.

To a fallen tree with more branches and plant/mud debris for deliberate construction.

To deliberate construction with fully resourced materials

The first two hardly seem like a stretch for Homo habilis. And the last, though a modern day hunter's shelter, is not far off from what Homo erectus would have been capable of. Yet, since Homo erectus was not limited to just wooded environments, and was the first hunter-gatherer, their shelters in grassland areas would have utilized large game bones for support and hides for wind-breakage. They would've taken the Homo habilis technique a step further - for two identifiable reasons: refined tool use, and environment/material considerations. They gathered large branches, or bones, for structural support, instead of simple cover, like Homo habilis. They dug holes in the ground to set them in, and would arrange them in a circular, or oval, fashion, overlaying them with either leaves, or animal hides - and leaving a hole in the top for smoke to escape from the fire in the center ground, in the middle of a circle of stones - the fireplace.

So shelter's for Homo erectus were built around fires. Home is where the hearth is. Hearth, literally means "burning place," and its older than the home itself. The words "heart" and "hearth" both have an original meaning of "central spot." And, fire use is, more than likely, 1.27 million years old.

It most be noted, that migration out of Africa through an open corridor or Sahara Pump is not limited to an exodus - but also, of Homo erectus hunting game back into Africa. (We have, and will continue to discuss this introgression) And that this evolved form of shelter may have been an early ice-age necessity for a creature that evolved in the warmer East Africa and perhaps brought this advancement back into Africa with them. But, again an examination of climate is at hand. East Africa is less of an equatorial climate due to its higher elevation and monsoonal rainy seasons. Whereas, in other areas of East Africa, like Rwanda and eastern Ethiopia, it is more tropical. In certain places, it is drier and cooler than one might expect - places like Somalia and Ethiopia experience tremendous droughts to this day. The eastern coastal regions would be hot, but more inland, considerably milder. And though there are glaciers at higher altitudes atop mountains - it would not have compared to the glacials near the 40th parallel during an extreme Ice Age, which would force the disruption of flora and fauna nearly the world over - cyclically, repeatedly throughout the Pleistocene.

Thus, as we'll see with others of the genus Homo that evolved from Homo erectus -  Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisovans, and Homo sapiens - further research suggests that Pleistocene, ice-age humans, ancient and new, hunted big game against the ice sheets to limit escape routes. In whole regions of 27-35 degree temperatures, for a hominin that evolved in dry and/or wet, yet typically warmer Africa, perhaps even these animals skins were a necessity for bodily warmth. Yet, there is little evidence to suggest this. But, in my view, this is a glaring absence of culture in correlation with the environment they faced, and in which they had not evolved to survive. And, if persistence hunting brought upon the evolution of more sweat glands to cool in the midday heat, then shelter and clothing in multiple Ice Ages would further eliminate the need for fur. Without making use of these same animals hides for clothing - how could they not have perished in this new, icy and hostile frontier?

The most compelling argument against clothing at this time is the genetics of body lice associated with us humans. The head lice diverged from body lice circa 107kya, according to genetic studies - suggesting that clothing would be no more than 100K years old for Homo sapiens. Yet, we know, Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals both wore hides and fur in the drastic cold of their Ice Age environments. Neither were the first to face the severe cold of glacials. And if Homo sapiens has evolved superior capacity for heritable culture in comparison to all previous hominins - then, in my view, when our species was born - clothing was already utilized by others of our genus - if only in environments where necessary.

The Sahara would again turn green circa 1.1mya. And during the second wave of migration out of Africa brought on by the Sahara Pump, Homo heidelbergensis would follow its evolutionary parent, Homo erectus.

Heidelbergensis in Europe evolved into the Neanderthals in Europe and the Middle East, and into Homo denisova in eastern Europe, Asia, the islands of Micronesia, Indonesia and New Guinea. Heidelbergensis in Africa would evolve into...Homo sapiens.

Homo Techne- there is a detectable trajectory here. That there is a feedback between environment and response. That if you respond with invention - you can cope with environment. At every step along the way thus far, the population, and thus, the geographic range of our ancestors increased. With that population increase came inheritable culture. That culture brings a fertile ground for the birth and nurturing of shared ideas. Those ideas turn into invention. Those inventions turn into a milieu of technologies - begetting evermore.

But cultural isolation is generally not by choice, but external, climactic circumstance in these later lines of our ancestors. We will see with later additions to the genus Homo how and when isolated cultures, beliefs and even races, begin to develop into the myriad examples reflected today. We will see how environment influences all, how we've always used technology to cope, combat and endure - and how introgression is as cyclical as the earth's revolutions - hence, today's "globalization."