What are we? Various approaches to this question come to mind. One is to investigate, through the numerous fossils of now-extinct hominids, how those hominids lived their lives. This should afford us some understanding of the paths by which we have come to be who we are today. Among those fossil hominids, there is much to be learned from the Neanderthals in particular, since they were the last humanoid species on Earth before modern man took over. We cannot discuss what we are today without taking the Neanderthals' existence into consideration.

In any discussion of the relationship between the Neanderthals and us modern humans, we must not forget the drama of replacement: in the distant past the future of the two populations was decided. In the end, the Neanderthals disappeared as an independent archaic species, while our ancestors, modern Homo sapiens, survived, eventually dominating the entire Earth. What actually took place in that relatively recent replacement drama, and what was it that in the end decided the fates of the two populations? These are the greatest mysteries remaining in the discussion of the origin of modern humans.

In this research, we set out to interpret Neanderthal-homo sapiens replacement drama as the replacement of a society which failed to resolve issues of strategic importance to their existence by a society which succeeded in doing so. To that end, we will investigate the differences between these two societies from the perspectives of learning capacity and learned behaviors. We will then work to empirically validate the working hypothesis (referred to here as the "learning hypothesis") that the truth behind the replacement drama lies in the difference in learning capacity between the archaic humans and the modern.

Specifically, we will empirically test the learning hypothesis by organizing a collaborative research project involving experts from a wide spectrum of disciplines: the humanities, biology, and science and engineering, for the pursuit of the following goals: (1) to establish that differences existed in learning capacity and learned behaviors between archaic and modern humans; (2) to establish that these differences were the result of human evolution; and (3) to demonstrate that the presence of those differences is a reflection of the observable difference in the configurations of the neural basis in the brains of the two populations. Comprehensively, we aim to construct a new learning capacity oriented empirical model that reveals the forms of existence experienced by mankind in our evolutionary process.

   Objective of the Research

In this research, we set out to interpret the replacement drama, which began in Africa with the emergence of modern Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and progressively advanced throughout the world, as the replacement of a society that failed to resolve issues of strategic importance to their existence by a society that succeeded in doing so. We will investigate the differences between the two societies from the perspective of learning capacity and learned behaviors, and will then work to empirically validate the working hypothesis (referred to here as the "learning hypothesis") that the replacement occurred as a result of the difference in learning capacity between archaic and modern humans, and that the social and cultural divides caused by this difference determined the outcome.


The learning hypothesis is significant in that that it seeks the truth concerning the replacement in qualitative differences in learning capacity, and not in quantitative differences in the capacity to adapt to changes in external conditions. This qualitative difference is reflected in the prehistoric record: the archaic Neanderthal society protected their traditional culture, while the modern Homo sapiens society created new cultures in response to the same changes in external conditions. The two societies came into conflict , and the wide social and cultural divide ultimately determined the outcome.

The central goal of this research is to verify the learning hypothesis. Specifically, we will conduct the following studies within an interdisciplinary research framework based on new perspectives and methods brought forward by researchers from the humanities, biology, and science and engineering. The overarching aim of the research is to interconnect the results of research foci (1) to (3) above, and to comprehensively test the learning hypothesis through organic connections amongst the findings. We will furthermore attempt to discern, from the perspective of learning capacity, how and under what circumstances modern Homo sapiens acquired their unique high intelligence and modern behavioral patterns. We aim to establish a new empirical evolution model that will afford a broad view of the kinds of existence mankind went through during its evolution.

   Academic Background of the Research

Knowledge about the paths of human evolution has expanded dramatically as a result of advancements in genetic studies in the latter half of the 20th century. One excellent example of this advancement is the settlement of the issue of the origin of modern humans, which had been a highly controversial issue throughout scientific history, along with the issue of the origin of man. As a result, the idea that modern Homo Sapiens are direct related genealogically to archaic humans (i.e., that modern humans evolved from archaic humans) was rejected, and the "Out of Africa" theory (Cann et al. 1987; Krings et al. 1997, 2000), which is now the accepted evolutionary model, was born. According to this model, all modern humans have a single common origin in Africa 200,000 years ago. However, this resolution only gave rise to a flurry of new questions, one of which is the issue of the drama of the replacement of the archaic Neanderthals by modern Homo sapiens. What determined their fates? This question has been hotly debated among archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists around the world, and is currently seen as the greatest remaining mystery in the discussion of the origin of modern man.

In recent years, a number of hypothetical models of the causes of the replacement were published,　and are now being put to empirical test. They include the following: The "Environment Theory," which attributes the replacement to inter-population differences in the ability to adapt to the surrounding natural and social conditions during the replacement period(200,000 years ago in Africa, 100,000 years ago in the Middle East, and 40,000 years ago in Europe) (van Andel, Davies eds. 2003; van Andel, Davies, Weninger 2003; Finlayson, Carrion 2008; Stringeret al. 2008); the "Survival Strategy Theory," which regards the inter-population differences in technical, economic, social and other systems as causes of the replacement (Adler et al. 2008; Joris, Adler 2008; Shea 2007, 2008); the "Livelihood Theory," which emphasizes the difference between the livelihood strategies of the two populations (Bocherens et al. 2001, 2005; Pettitt et al. 2000, 2003; Richards, Trinkaus 2009); the "Nerve Theory," which focuses on the language function, or the lack thereof, as the cause of the replacement (Klein 1998; Klein, Edgar 2002); and the "Mixed Blood Theory," which assumes that interbreeding took place between the two populations (Duarte et al. 1999; Zihao, d'Errico 1999).

The above theories and the studies which generated them all contributed to the steady accumulation of data supporting the occurrence of the replacement. They determined when, where, and how the replacement progressed, and from diverse angles provided an outline of the mutual influences between the archaic society and the modern society. Indeed, the description of the replacement drama has grown ever more articulate. However, almost all past studies examined cases from the Eurasian continent, and as yet no global-scale universal explanatory model has appeared. This research therefore aims to describe the entire replacement process, which began in Africa and progressed throughout the Eurasian continent, in a comprehensive manner, and to clarify the causes from an overarching perspective.

   Characteristics of the Research