 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
    |
page 2
MAY 6th 2010- December 7th 2010
page 3
December 7th 2010 - 2011 - most recent
page 1
feedback, reviews and critiques
Email your comments, reviews, assessments and questions here.While we welcome constructive criticism and an open debate, we will not provide a
forum for creationist rhetoric.
To protect correspondents from spam, email addresses are not included.
If you don't want your email posted, just add 'don't post' somewhere on the email.
"Sometimes it takes an outsider to cut through the routines of interpretation in the most intractable problems in science. That is what Vendramini's approach offers the reader in his daring claims about the interactions between humans and their most famous evolutionary relatives, the Neanderthals. In doing so he provokes lots of new thoughts for
professional and lay reader alike."
Iain Davidson
Emeritus Professor of Archaeology, University of New England.
Visiting Professor of Australian Studies, Harvard University, Massachusetts
Don Burke
Radio 2UE interview with Danny Vendramini on Saturday 24th October.
A podcast of the interview is available on the 2UE website - Saturday 24th October. 2009
http://www.2ue.f2.com.au/Podcast/Feeds/101.xml
on
Burke. Rdio
2UE. 24th September. 2
"In Them and Us, Danny Vendramini presents a truly unique and innovative picture of the role of Neandertal predation in human evolution.
For more than 150 years, anthropologists have been studying Neandertals, their fossils, their archaeological remains, and most recently their DNA. It is surprising to see how little of what has been written about Neandertals lately is really new and exciting. Late 19th Century scientists viewed Neandertals as an extinct hominin species, one somewhat less intelligent, social, and technologically adept than us, and who were easily driven to extinction by expanding populations of Homo sapiens around 30,000 years ago. This is not much different from the consensus position today.
Vendramini pulls together countless different threads of scientific evidence to re-cast Neandertals as "apex predators", proverbial "wolves with knives" who were effective rivals with our ancestors. His thesis that many physical, social, and psychological characteristics now seen as uniquely human are direct results of Neandertal predation on our ancestors will be sure to ignite controversy in scientific meetings, university classrooms, and among any group of people genuinely interested in human evolution.
It has been a long time since I read a book about human evolution that I enjoyed so much."
John J. SheaAssociate Professor
Anthropology Department & Turkana Basin Institute
Stony Brook University, NY.
Tony McMichael
Professor of Population Health, NHMRC Australia Fellow
National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health
The Australian National University. Canberra
"a thought provoking outside-the-square theory which may or may not ruffle the feathers of the scientific establishment".
Palaeontologist, Dr Ben McHenry, South Australian Museum
"A fascinating and thought- provoking idea; the perfect basis for an epic Hollywood blockbuster."
Dr Gavin Prideaux, School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University.
"This book could, hopefully will, bring about revolutionary and productive changes in our understanding of human nature."
Dr. Andrew Bell, author of Creative Health
Professor Johan van der Dennen, author of The Origins of War
Neanderthals - the hairy carnivore that ate our ancestors
by Samela Harris."NEANDERTHAL man was not the hirsute simpleton history books have been portraying, an independent Sydney scholar believes.
Neanderthal man was a vicious rapist and cannibal – and ugly too..."
FULL STORY
At the last count there were over 50 comments about the article on the newspaper's website.
The
Daily Telegraph - Sydney Australia September 18, 2009
Neanderthal man was a brutal
carnivore who hunted and raped humans, claims Danny VendraminiBy Malcolm Holland
"THEY have long been painted by modern science as our placid cousins, living alongside early man until finally dying out.
But a new theory paints Neanderthal man as a brutal carnivore
who hunted and raped humans then ate his victims.
In
his controversial new book, Sydney "biological theorist" Danny
Vendramini claims Eurasian Neanderthals almost wiped out early humans,
called Cro-Magnons...."
Neanderthals Hunted, Raped And Ate Humans
I'm a layperson, not a scientist, but I would really like to see this theory taken up by a film-maker as either a feature film or doco.
Thanks for the nightmares!"
Paul Swan
Now to the positive. I thought Them and Us exceptionally well crafted, mercifully free of jargon and written like a detective story that sweeps you along on an exhilarating ride – to all sorts of exotic new intellectual locales. Part of his racy style is to dress up his chapter titles with journalistic flourishes, like “The lean mean killing machine”, “When mutants roamed the earth” and “Getting the psychopaths off the streets.” These titles give the flavour of his very readable style. As someone who relates strongly to visual information, I especially appreciated the copious illustrations. There is also a useful Glossary.
All this though is peripheral to Vendramini’s ideas which are the beating heart of this amazing book, and which elevate it to the very best science writing. His ideas and theories are a veritable scientific tour de force, reminiscent of Darwin, Mendel, Galileo and other radical scientific adventurers. He has applied his artistic imagination to speculate on an evolutionary scenario and then supported it with a great deal of archaeological and genetic evidence. Reading Them and Us reminded me of the first time I read The Origin of Species at university nearly twenty years ago, it has the same sense of inspired intellect, audacity and sheer brilliance."
Graig Peters
Carlton VIC
Nov 2nd 2009
Please let me begin by introducing myself as a very close friend of Sue Scott in Auckland, wife of Dick. She has just passed on to me and advanced reading copy of THEM + US, knowing of my passionate interest in physical anthropology and the fundamental questions of how we first became human and how we came to populate all corners of the planet as modern human beings.
I have only made a small start on your book, the preface and a few favourite topics via the index. And I am writing now (so early) as I know soon you will be far too busy to read everything that comes your way and this modest effort will be well and truly lost. However a year (or 2?) ago Sue also passed on to me a paper of yours that I realize now was an early outline of your Teem theory. It was largely over my head, and reminded to me Larmarck and the inheritance of acquired characteristics, of course largely discredited. But subsequent dabbling in reading about human genetics and evolution allowed me to make a connection between what you were saying and recent discoveries that new genetic changes arising from experience not mutation could somehow make their way into germ cells and thus be passed on immediately to the next generation. Out of my depth here. But I then became very keen to get hold of your promised book.
Back to THEM AND US (largely unread, I repeat) but the central theses: the link between our primal and mythic "stories" and our early experiences as humans seems so profoundly insightful and right that I feel very very excited about really getting into the detail in the coming weeks of close reading. Also lately I have been dwelling on the issue of our violent and homicidal nature, which is not seen in gorillas but is seemingly rooted in chimpanzee society but oddly not seen in bonobos. So again your work is a very exciting offering: an explanation of our warrior nature.
You as an outsider to the professional academic community are not automatically constrained by the need for orthodoxy in how you see things, plus you bring in a whole new realm of experience and expertise from the arts world. (It reminds me of Brian Boyd writing on the development of music/art and its evolutionary "purpose".) I have come across two other passionate enthusiasts in this field of anthropology, one especially who has not gained the recognition and support her ideas deserve. I hope you don't meet this fate: I do feel the academic community so jealously guards its patch that it cannot afford to acknowledge that an outsider can discover the "truth" that has eluded their "expert" investigation.
Barbara Darragh
(This email was edited for length)
Roger the Dodger, Hobart
Dec 2. 2009
[unsigned]
The huge span of subject matter integrated into the central thesis of Neandertal predation of Cro Magnon man provides an architecture of human development as fundamental as The Origin of the Species. Congratulations and thank you.
Jock Lee
MA Hons Rhodes Scholar
Hi,
I just found your interesting website and I have a question. Why, if the Neanderthals were such major carnivores, are they illustrated as having such apparently non-carnivore looking teeth?
I am not any kind of anthropologist, nor very knowledgeable about the kind of things your book appears to be about, but this did kind of jump out at me.
Thanks,
Michael Horn
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your question - and a good one it is too. Neanderthal teeth (right) were almost twice as large as human teeth and their jaws had considerably more bite force as well. However, they never acquired the long pointy canine teeth of lions or wolves and I think there's a good reason for this. These kind of long sharp teeth (usually two up and two down and curved backwards) evolved as lethal weapons to hold, incapacitate and kill prey. Neanderthals could grab their prey with their powerful arms and kill them with their flint tipped thrusting spears. They also used razor sharp flint knives to butcher their quarry and fires to cook the flesh. In other words, Neanderthal intelligence, group hunting techniques and superior weaponry made canine teeth obsolete.
I hope this answers your question.
Best wishes,
Danny
I studied prehistory @ Sydney uni. I admire the courage shown in publishing your conclusions. The potential significance of human/neanderthal interaction cannot be overstated. Whilst it is impossible to say exactly how accurate your model is of course, I believe it is a huge step in the right direction & a milestone in the evolution of our understanding of ourselves. As you would be aware, what we have been willing to accept about our past has always reflected attitudes in the present day. I think a lot of academics have quietly reached similar conclusion to your own, but now NPT has provided a single banner under which to muster ideas & debate. An example is megafauna question here in Australia. Evidence suggests aboriginal people made a sort of war on large, hairy animals from some point in the pleistocene. There have been mass megafauna graves discovered, that academics try to explain away as the result of drought. Dreamtime stories talk about relatively harmless animals like diprotodons as organised groups that abduct women & children. Where did such an archetype originate? Why did or do we see the natural world as a threat that we must strive against? Why is the particular threat of abduction a constant theme in such myths? Now perhaps, we are finally facing the answer.
One question I must ask you though, is are you certain all neanderthals were actually wiped out? I have long thought they are probably still around in the form of yowies, big foot & so on. I don't think it beyond the realms of possibility that a species so ancient, intelligent & adapted to extremes as neanderthals could survive as a remnant population to the present day without us realising. Perhaps in the end, they even evolved radically under the pressure of interaction just as we did.
All the best
Ian
Hi Ian,
Thanks for your comments, they're much appreciated.
As to whether a few solitary Neanderthals still survive in remote places, I personally think some hard evidence would have been found by now.
In the book, I argue that the reason humans all around the world still believe in the existence of forest dwelling, Neanderthal-like creatures (like Yetis) is because Neanderthals were hardwired into the human genome as teems (or emotional memories) during the 50,000 year period of predation. This is an adaptation that all prey species acquire - designed to help them to quickly and instinctively recognize predators and escape before it's too late. Today, when these teems are triggered, they produce the sensations of Neanderthals (what they felt like) which can then be expressed via myths, folklore, hoaxes and art. Because the emotions are real, they can even manifest as 'eyewitness' accounts of sightings, similar to the way 'false memory syndrome' works.
Danny
PS The book has two montages that illustrate these points - click on the images - (left and right) to download Page 298 and Page 300 from Them+Us.
RTR FM 92.1 Radio'A Look Back at Ourselves'
Monday 26th October
Presenter Bren McGurk
A new book by independent scholar Danny Vendramini is challenging previous beliefs about human evolution.
‘Them and Us: How Neanderthal Predation Created Modern Humans’, cites research that reveals Neanderthals as savage, cannibalistic carnivores, with humans included in their prey.
Previously thought to be docile omnivores, the predacious nature of the Neanderthal instigated the development of many characteristics that are intrinsically human.
Pulling together a number of different threads of scientific evidence, the book’s a unique look at evolution and the role of Neanderthals in human development.
Bren McGurk spoke to Author Danny Vendramini and took a closer look at where we came from...
Listen to the RTRFM Podcast of Bren McGuirk's interview with Danny Vendramini:
http://www.rtrfm.com.au/stories/type/interviews/category/humaninterest/1666
I write to express my appreciation for your work Them + Us. It delves beyond the current boundaries but yet not beyond sight of intuition. There is nothing surprising in your work which is to say that there are no leaps of logic or tenuous bridges of faith that ask us to suspend our understanding of the world as we see it. Just little footsteps of evidence and reason.
I do have one little question that I hope you can answer. It is to do with the period when humans and Neanderthals co-existed. This period which you have, I believe, estimated to be around 50,000 years and the subsequent period of indirect evolutionary impact saw a large amount of change in humans. My question is does this level of evolutionary change have a precedent? Have other species undergone this amount of evolutionary development in a similar amount of time? Perhaps there is nothing comparable or maybe it was but a small change in comparison to others that have occurred. This question is in no way to attack your work but merely a loose end my mind pulled at.
Intuitively I would guess that this period of evolution is not extraordinary but I can’t support this.
Thanks again. I haven’t found a book this thought-provoking since I first read Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael with which, now I think of it, has some strange parallels to your work. The idea that Neanderthals were not just brainless zombies as they have been so often dismissed but rather intelligent, predatory beings sits somewhere near Quinn’s idea that evolution draws all species towards self-aware, higher forms of what they were.
Regards,
Garth Hamilton
Hi Garth,
Thanks for your email and question about the length of time early humans and Neanderthal lived in the same area, and whether the evolutionary impact exerted during this time has a precedent.
The evidence suggests that Neanderthals and early humans may have occupied the same area for at least 50,000 years, (and possible much longer) but in the book, I argue that the indirect impact of Neanderthal predation continued right up to the Late Neolithic Period (a mere 2000 years ago). This adds another 45,000 years of evolutionary pressure. In other words, human evolution may have been impacted by Neanderthals (directly or indirectly) for a whopping 95,000 years.
95,000 years sounds a lot, and it is, but when tying to estimate how much time is needed for evolutionary modifications to occur, the number of years is less relevant than the number of generations. For example, a hundred generations of insects can live and die during one human life.
At 20 years per generation, it means that about 4750 generations of humans were subject to selective pressures generated by Neanderthal predation. Considering that only 100 generations have lived since the time of the ancient Romans, 4750 generations is more than enough time for a macroevolutionary event to occur.
Ultimately though, the speed of evolution is related to selection pressure. The greater the selection pressure, the faster and stronger natural selection works. In other words, if there's something in the organism's environment that is killing off individuals at an unusually high rate, it means that new mutations that stop or reduce the death rate tend to get selected very quickly.
For example, on the Galapagos
Islands, during a drought caused by El Nino, 85% of the finches on one
island died of starvation in one year because the small seeds they
normally ate died during the drought. The only birds to survive were
those born with unusually large beaks that could crack open the bigger
seeds that survived the drought. When the drought ended, all the new
hatchlings featured this larger, more robust beak. This change in beak
size happened in one generation. (Grant, PR & Grant,
BR. 2002, Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s
finches, Science 296, pp.707–711.)
As to whether other species have undergone this amount of evolutionary development, it's impossible to say for sure. I scoured the literature for any documented case of a prey species undergoing macroevolutonary modifications that reversed the predator-prey relationship with its predator but didn't find any. I guess the conclusions that emerge form this is that humans are a unique animal species because of unique environmental and ecological factors that occurred at just the time, and for long enough, to create this extraordinary one-off species.
I hope this answers your question.
Best wishes
Danny
I listened to an interview today on ABC radio which was unfortunately cut short due to the news.
The general subject of your book (how did modern humans appear) has for years been one of fascination for me. I have yet to get hold of your book but will do so at earliest opportunity.
Your contention that modern humans appeared some 50,000 years or so ago would appear to be held by many anthropologists as true.
My understanding is that discoveries at Lake Mungo in Australia suggest that humans were in Australia at least 50,000 years ago and perhaps as long ago as 100,000 years . This pre-dates much of what I have read about the appearance of modern humans on the planet.
If we accept that the humans present in Australia at the time of European discovery are modern humans (and I think the overwhelming evidence is that they are) how did they get there?
I understand Australia has been an island since the well before the appearance of early humans on the planet and therefore it appears a degree of seamanship far advanced from other humans was needed for them to arrive and settle the continent. A skill which was then abandoned.
Were the early humans in Australia a separate species that evolved independently into a species identical to the European (or African) species? Appears unlikely to me.
It appears to me that many publications and talks about the early history and migration of Homo sapiens seems to overlook or ignore the question of the origin of humans in Australia.
As I said, the subject is of fascination to me and I would be interested to hear your views.
Regards
Ray Williams
Hi Ray,
Thanks for your question about the colonisation of Australia by modern humans. It's a fascinating issue that has confounded anthropologists for ages.
Part of the reason for this is a huge variety of dates of the earliest sites that have been proposed. Many of the early dates have now shown to be grossly inflated. The earliest widely-accepted date for the arrival of modern humans in Australia is around 38,000 years ago, (Pearce, RH & Barbetti, M 1981, ‘A 38,000-year-old archaeological site at Upper Swan, Western Australia’, Archaeology in Oceania 16, pp.173–178.).
However, a recent review of the data suggests occupation possibly as early as 42,000–45,000 years ago. (O’Connella, JF & Allen, J 2004, ‘Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): a review of recent research’, Journal of Archaeological Science 31, pp.835–853.)
The latest and most reliable dates for Mungo Man (see picture left) in western New South Wales are about 40,000 years. (Bowler JM, Johnston H, Olley JM, Prescott JR, Roberts RG, Shawcross W, Spooner NA. (2003). "New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo, Australia.". Nature 421 (6925): 837-40.)
In other words, early reports that humans arrived here in Australia 60,000 years ago (or earlier) have now been shown to be incorrect.
The consensus view now is that modern humans crossed open water and arrived in Australia no later than 45,000 years ago, and probably closer to 40,000 years ago. This fits perfectly with NP theory, which asserts that fully modern humans left the Levant about 47,000 years ago on their global migration, and arrived on the northern shores of Australia a few thousand years later.
Hope this helps
Danny
I just finished reading your amazing book, Them + Us. One of the most stimulating books I ever read.
Many of my childhood (Indian) stories about man smelling, man eating, princess abducting, nocturnal, hairy monsters suddenly became real. They really existed; only 50 thousand years ago.
Hindus from eastern India worship a goddess called Durga every year. This is their biggest religious festival. Indian community here in Sydney celebrate it too. I would like to invite you to the celebration and see the goddess. I want you to see what the goddess does or did. I am sure you'll see a connection with NP theory. Unfortunately last celebration was in September. We'll have to wait for the next one in 2010.
Looking forward to hear from you.
Best Regards,
Anisur Rahman
Hi Ansur,
Thanks for your email and kind comments about the book, and thanks too for the invitation to the Durga celebrations next year. I'd love to come. I'm a great fan of India and a student of Indian mythology so this sounds very exciting. The recurring themes in Indian mythology you mention are in fact universal - once you look at world mythology and folklore through the lens of NP theory, it's surprising how many commonalties you find. Anyway, I look forward to discussing these with you at next year's festival.
All the best
Danny
I'll be alerting the readers of my blog to the website and book later today.
Quite interesting.
Richard Nikoley
http://freetheanimal.com/2009/11/did-neanderthals-hunt-rape-homo-sapiens.html
Ofer Bar-Yosef,
Harvard University
Sorry for my late reply. I did get the book but I was away in two conferences. I appreciate your efforts to overcome the difficulties and ambiguities of the current literature (say of the last two decades).
As originally non-English speaker I read until now the first part that deals mainly with the Levant. My impression is that you missed a few more recent publications that clearly state that the Neanderthals arrived around 70 Ka and were "gone" by 45 Ka (all dates
uncalibrated). There is yet no evidence for the co-existence of the two populations or Skhul-Qafzeh moderns and the Neanderthals who occupied all ecological habitat in the Levant. They are in Dederiyeh (north Syria to down Tor Faraj in southern Jordan and of course in Mt Carmel and Wadi Amud.
The famous Tabun C1 , according to Garrod could have been intrusive (she clearly stated it- see OBY and Jane Callander paper in JHE) and although a date of 125 Ka was obtained by ESR, I doubt the validity of the results because all ESR Tabun dates were off. The 171 Ka you cited, for example is based on lowermost samples from Tabun C (and are probably intrusive from layer D) and the industry is the same as Qafzeh. The differences in the stone tools are clear and you can also check Shea 2008 in QSR.
All this has nothing to do with your NP hypothesis, because Modern humans, on the basis of genetics , came from Africa and this is where their characteristics were shaped.
Yours
Ofer
PS Too bad you did not contact me earlier- we have been in Sydney last
summer (2008).
Dear Ofer,
Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate there must be many demands on your time.
While the chapters you read on the Levant outline salient aspects of the theory, they don't convey the hypothesis (nor the proofs to support it) in its entirety. For example, you mention the genetic evidence for the 'out of Africa' scenario, but this evidence is also wholly consistent with my 'back migration to Africa' theory (Chapter 19, 'Natural born killers'). This proposes that African MP hominids migrated to the Levant, underwent an abrupt transition to UP then dispersed back to Africa where admixture occurred with existing indigenous populations. This scenario finds support from Olivieri, A, et al. 2006, Science 314, based on measurements of genetic diversity in mtDNA and Y chromosome that concluded “the first Upper Palaeolithic cultures in North Africa (Dabban) and Europe (Aurignacian) had a common source in the Levant”, spreading by migration from a core area in the Levant.
Re "There is yet no evidence for the co-existence of the two populations or Skhul- Qafzeh moderns and the Neanderthals who occupied all ecological habitat in the Levant. They are in Dederiyeh (north Syria to down Tor Faraj in southern Jordan and of course in Mt Carmel and Wadi Amud" I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point. Mt. Carmel has long been recognised as providing evidence of Neanderthal-early human sympatry.
It's a pity I missed you in Sydney, I think talking face to face would remove the inevitable communication problems that creep into emails.
Putting aside the minutiae of the hypothesis for a moment (I'm sure it contains errors of both fact and theory) I feel the contribution of the book is in providing a new contextual framework - the 'big picture' if you like - for the study of the MP-UP transition of AMH, as well as explaining problematical aspects of modern human morphology and behaviour. The predation hypothesis may be entirely wrong but I find it difficult to envisage any other ecological scenario or any other confluence of environmental factors that could precipitate the emergence of fully modern humans in just a short period of time.
Again, many thanks for your valuable feedback,
Best wishes
Danny
Now, you religious nutters, what was that you were saying about satan and his demons…?
nopoetlaureate
I just got the book. and having looked at the web site think that I understand the premise. I have been looking for many years for a trigger for the genius explosion of 35kya. This fits.
However, I must tell you that your pictures of Homo N. must be wrong. If they lived on or around the ice for 350ky then they would have been white. See the work on vitamin D and birth. Black skin is an adaptation to reduce the absorption of UV to modulate foliate. Both too much and too little have effects on prenatal mortality, heavy evolution driver.
Hugh Smith
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for your email.
It’s not so much a matter of what colour Neanderthal skin was – we simply don’t know. It’s about whether their skin may have been covered with thick body fur, and if so, what colour was the fur?
The Europe that Neanderthals evolved in, while cold, was not polar, so it wasn’t blanketed all year round with snow. This meant that white fur (adopted by polar bears as camouflage) would not be adaptive.
If you apply simple Darwinian theory, it suggests that because all the other Late Pleistocene European animals – woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, Eurasian cave lion, musk oxen, European bison and cave bear (see image below - from the book) had pelts of thick dark fur, it seems likely that Neanderthals did to.
This is because long dark fur insulates the vital organs and retains body heat. Today, animals that live in similar climates to Neanderthals – like the Asiatic black bear, Kodiak bear, Himalayan black bear, Formosan black bear, brown bear and grizzly bear – all have thick dark body fur.
I discuss this topic in detail in Chapter 6 – ‘Out in the cold’ but basically I challenge the assumption that Neanderthals were ‘naked’ like us. I propose instead that a pelt of thick dark body fur would have been highly adaptive within the context of the Neanderthal’s periglacial environment.
All the best
Danny
HOW NEANDERTHAL PREDATION CREATED MODERN HUMANS
19th. November, 2009
Painting a grim picture of the Neanderthal
24 November 2009Kirsten Garratt interviews Danny Vendrmaini on ABC Radio National Book Show
Introduction by
Ramona KovalModern science has long painted Neanderthals as our placid cousins. But a new book claims that the Neanderthal was actually a brutal carnivore who hunted and raped humans and then ate them.
And it's written not by a scientist or anthropologist, but an Australian former filmmaker.
Danny Vendramini, who describes himself as a 'biological theorist', has spent years researching the topic to paint a new but highly unflattering and grim picture of Neanderthal man.
The book is controversial not
only because of its explosive theories but also because the author has
no formal scientific background...
First, let me say that this hypothesis casts the early 1980s film "Quest for Fire" into an entirely new light. I saw it for the first time just in the past year. I loved almost every bit of it, although I took issue with the ferocious and seemingly exaggerated depictions of neanderthals. Now I'm not so sure! I wonder if you were very familiar with this film, as it seems to be a prophetic film version of your hypothesis, including even the concept of sexual desire as a selective pressure that resulted in making early humans distinctly different from the neanderthals in both behavior and appearance. I'm not so sure about the helpful, neanderthal-hating mammoths!
Further, I know you address "bigfoot" ideas elsewhere, but please bear with me for a moment. I've seen ideas such as yours posited in the "cyptozoological literature" on the subject (aka "Bigfoot books"), primarily that the ubiquity of "wild man" memes in world culture has something to do with dim memories of our ancestors' interactions with predatory hominids. To me, that is a HIGHLY ethnocentric argument, and one very typical of a reductionist mindset. I have noticed that we Westerners often take for granted that non-Western cultures' views of reality are naive and fanciful. By declaring indigenous peoples' beliefs in wildmen as mythologically cast memories of ancient realities, we must necessarily ignore (or label "false memories") modern-era accounts of direct personal encounters with so-called wildmen, be they yeti, sasquatch, bigfoot, etc. Is it not possible, given the distinct similarities between what you describe as a neanderthal, and what folks in Asia and North America say that they have seen when they report archetypal "bigfoot sightings," that remnant populations of neanderthals (more accurately, their descendants, since they too would have been subject to selective pressures) have continued to survive into the present day? In light of the considerable visual similarities between your model and typical bigfoot descriptions, it seems to me that one would have to seriously entertain such a possibility. To me, the anecdotal information and sparse (but real) physical artifacts point towards the reality of large, hairy, powerfully-built hominids living in rural and forested areas of Asia and North America. No, we have no bones, but we have footprints with fleshy ridges typical of hand/foot padding, hair samples, numerous bits of never-debunked video footage, etc. I think it is a huge intellectual leap to suggest that one is experiencing a "false memory" or some half-remembered archetype, when, walking through the woods in a National Forest, one happens upon a likewise surprised man-ape. Even as eminent a primatologist as Jane Goodall has said "Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist," which she bases on consistent anecdotal data and active field research from around the planet. While this basic premise is largely secondary to the thrust of your book, it is sad to me that you (and many others) would summarily discount the reality of seemingly reliable informants, seemingly because the experiences they describe don't fit into a certain worldview, or simply because they uneducated brown people. Certainly indigenous groups never EVER described chimps, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans as "forest people," and we've certainly never affirmed the reality of these "forest people!"
Anyway, thanks for the forum, and triple thanks for spending the time to write your book and perhaps change the way we think about who we are and how we came to be that way!
Have you thought about how this stuff intersects with the parallels with Bonobo behaviour and the gracile skeletons found at lake mungo
Presumably the gracile skeletons were of a non violent hominid that may have used sex as a peace keeping tool like bonobos do
Hey I get the vision of these finely boned , sexy and intelligent little hominids
Fighting ugly and violent, stupid and canabalistic brutes
Could this be the source of the legends of the elves versus the trolls and the goblins?
Pete
Although the author is not trained in this field I was immediately intrigued by this novel theory. When the book arrived, my first impression was encouraging. The design of the book is excellent and the illustrations well chosen. The colour pictures of the Neanderthal were most effective. There is a glossary at the end which will be useful to some plus a index which is adequate. The book also arrived 2 days after I ordered it from the website which was welcome as I am eager for the books I order.
Now to the reading. The theory is certainly a revolution but not at all difficult to read. The author discusses the evidence then reaches conclusions I would logically expect, but always leaves the door open to alternative explanations. More than once, I thought of alternative explanations for what was described but then he covered these in the discussion. He has a theory to push but the book itself is not pushy. When I finished it, I immediately began a second reading to review the main propositions and could find no flaws. The np theory became more convincing with the second read.
The excitement of these ideas have since occupied my mind and have helped make sense of the way we humans sometimes behave to others. In my life I have not read a more stimulating theory of science. Mr Vendramini is as important a theorist as T.G Dobzhansky. Very recommended. Five stars.
G. Sokolov
Danny Vendramini offers us very feasible and thoroughly researched explanations for many aspects of the homo sapiens character, particularly our intelligence, our ferocity and our xenophobia, that have previously been inexplicable. He provides us with a new perspective on the murderous and paranoid aspects of human nature that can help to guide us in our efforts to live peacefully and happily on our lovely planet. We clearly have so much more potential than we have already realised, if only we can sort out our psychological foibles. I attended a talk by the Dalai Lama this weekend at which he not only made reference to the 200 million people who died at the hands of others in the 20th century (as does Vendramini), but he also expounded on Darwinism! I'll be sending him a copy of the book as I’m sure he’d be fascinated by it.
Deborah Yates
New Zealand
Musings of
Gnwmythr
INTERNET BLOG
05 January, 2010
The Neanderthal Predation theory - some thoughts
There are two, maybe three, books I would like every human to read. They are:
(1) Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene", which I especially recommend before having children – more so if one is strongly driven to have children;
(2) Danny Vendramini’s “Them and Us” (pub. Kardoorair Press, Glebe, 2009, ISBN 9780908244775 ), to be read especially by all would be alpha males/queen bees, but I would also recommend this for teenagers, law makers/enforcers and parents; and
(3) maybe Desmond Morris’ book “The Naked Ape” pub. 1967, hardback: ISBN 0070431744; reprint: ISBN 0-385-33430-3).
Why? Because these books help show us some of the biological imperatives which are built into our physical essences, the self same physical imperatives that we no longer "have" to follow – imperatives that, in fact, are possibly physically, socially, emotionally, ecologically and spiritually harmful to follow.
Read more...
thanking you Nancy Locke
JAY COLLINS NJ
Sanguine in Seattle
Inspired by the book Them & Us, by Danny Vendramini, about the great evoltion leap ~50000 years ago.
I haven't read the book yet but I am definitely going to. I have, however, read the comprehensive paper you wrote on Neandertal Predation Theory.
As a student in Paleoanthropology it certainly came from
left-field. These days there is much ethnocentric pressure to
"humanise" Neandertal; particularly by reconstructing their facial
features in what is virtually our own image. In the past few years we
have also ascribed to them art, speech and advanced cognition. It seems
very difficult for us to imagine a hominin species that is other than
"human". Having said that, if I was to approach your hypothesis from a
forensic stand-point I would be immediately struck by the lack of
taphonomic evidence to support it. Surely, NT sites would be full of
Cro Magnon bones showing signs of processing?
Any thoughts?
Tony Flewellen
Hi Tony,
Thanks for you email and question. My
review of the taphonomic evidence in the paper was
not comprehensive due of the space limitations imposed by journals.
Also, since the paper was written (in 2008) new taphonomic evidence has
emerged from Neanderthal and early human sites which support my theory
and predictions. The book includes this new evidence and I
devote several chapters to it - too much to go into it here.
May I suggest that if you still have questions after you've read the
book, drop me a line and I'll try to answer them.
best wishes
Danny
Steve J
Thanks Steve.
I wish I were on Oprah.
Danny
Dear Mr Vendramini,
I am no expert on the subject so am not confident to write a review, but I do want to tell you how inspired I have been byThem and Us. It has set me on the road to thinking about we human beings [ and myself] in a new condition. I have been writinga journal since reading it and keep noting down things that are connected to Neanderthal predation, suc h as our attitude to strangers and to foreigners too. A very interesting and thought provoking book
Denise Whitely
Thanks Denise,
Much appreciatred.
Danny
After just finishing your book (Them + Us) I felt compelled to write to you to say thank you. The book was so well written I just couldn't put it down and the scope of the study blew my mind. I may not personally agree with every argument you have put forward but your ideas have certainly shaken the cobwebs out of my cerebrum and opened my mind to new possibilities, many of my entrenched ideas about the origin of humanity are definitely altered. Anyway just a quick note to say that your work is greatly appreciated and not since Stephen Oppenheimer's 'Eden in the East' have I read such an excellent book that I believe could change the world.
Gavin
Hi Gavin,
Many thanks for your comments, I delighted you enjoyed the book.
Best wishes
Danny
feedback
I just finished reading your book and was very impressed. I would like to see a
TV documentary based on your book.
I won't attempt to review your book here because I think there would only by
minor points of criticisms that could be made against it, and it is not my
field of research anyway. However, I did think there was a discrepancy with the
dates. You suggest on page 216 that the Cro Magnon dispersion began about
46,000 to 40,000 years ago and went as far as Australia. Aborigines have
allegedly been in Australia for 60,000 years. Do you think there was a prior
dispersion (from Africa?) that must have started well before 60,000 years ago
if the Aboriginal dates are correct?
I have included here some errors and typos that need fixing to improve the
text. I hope you can edit these:
p. 65: "(cold stress) hypothermia" is incorrect -- I think you meant
hypothermia. Hyperthermia is temperature above normal (not below as you
suggest).
p. 82: "protrudng" should be protruding
P. 136 (caption): "a modern phenomena" should be: a modern phenomenon
p. 163: "fire lost is protectiveness" -- "is" should be: its
p. 177: any sensory stimuli or cue" should be: stimulus
p. 188: Risk taking become" -- "become" should be: became
p. 296 (caption): "an typical example" -- "an" should: a
Well done for publishing such a highly provocative and controversial book.
Regards.
Dr. Lance Storm
School of Psychology
University of Adelaide
Hi Lance,
Thanks for your comments. I'm especially grateful for the typos you picked up - amazing given the manuscript was proof-read by at least 6 different people.
Re the possible discrepancy with the dates of the human dispersal from the Levant, I appreciate your point but don't see a problem. The dispersal dates you cite (on page 216) refer to the Cro-Magnon westward dispersal towards Europe, which occurred between 46,000-40,000 years ago. However, in the next chapter (beginning on page 237) I cite evidence to show that the eastward dispersal (towards Asia and Australia) began earlier - between 50,000 - 45,000 years ago.
As to whether there may have been a prior dispersal to Australia by archaic humans, on page 254, I address this possibility: "When Cro-Magnons arrived, there appears to have been at least one other hominid species already living in Australia—in the south of the continent. Known as the Kow Swamp people, they had relatively large and robust bodies and thick skulls indicating they were related to Homo erectus. It’s thought the Kow Swamp people arrived when there was still a land bridge between Australia and Asia."
I hope this answers your question.
Best wishes
Danny
Subject: Deja vu
Danny
I read and enjoyed your book over Christmas so had a sense of deja vu this morning when I opened the NY Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html?emc=eta1
you were on the money, lots of what yuou wrote is in there.
PT-NY
Thanks PT
Much appreciated. I've just read the paper and it's amazing. More later.
Danny
May 6th 2010
page 2
MAY 6th 2010- December 7th 2010
page 3
December 7th 2010 - 2011 - most recent
