|
|
|
|
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
|
 |
|
"I
couldn't put it down once I'd started
reading it... I don't think I've enjoyed a
book more than 'Them and Us' in my life... one of the best books you'll
ever read."
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. Shea
Associate Professor
Anthropology Department &
Turkana Basin Institute
Stony Brook University, NY.
|
|
|
"We've been called the 'third
chimpanzee'. Instead, Vendramini asks: Why
are we such a distinctively odd primate species -- anatomically,
behaviourally, and beset by dark atavistic fears? His thesis that
intensive predation by Neanderthals enforced rapid, protective,
evolutionary changes offers innovative insight into the many things
about 'us' that we might otherwise take for granted. A well-argued case
to be answered."
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
|
|
|
"A darling, possibly
revolutionizing theory, well-reasoned and well researched."
Professor Johan van der Dennen, author of The Origins of War
|
|
|
|
Adelaide Advertiser. September
18, 2009
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 Vendramini
By 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...."
FULL
STORY
|
|
|
Scoop - Independent News - New Zealand
Friday, 18 September 2009, 12:58 pm
FULL
STORY
|
|
|
"Great theory, explains a lot.
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
|
|
|
|
"Okay! I will get my minor
grumble out of the way first. I don’t think
the book’s extensive bibliography is necessary – nor appropriate for
book that is aimed at the popular science market. Publishers frown on
too many citations as they make the book too academic and ‘high
brow.’ If this puts readers off this book it would be a pity .
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
|
|
|
Hello Danny
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
"10 our of 10. I couldn't put it
down. Amazing!!!"
Roger the Dodger, Hobart
Dec 2. 2009
|
|
|
The comfort you take from your
deterministic Darwinian view of the universe is illusionary. Your
mechanistic world lacks meaning. It lacks beauty. And most important
it lacks redemption. That's a fact. Real comfort lies in a higher
ideal. You will see that one day. Game over.
[unsigned]
|
|
|
Them + Us is stunning
intellectual step towards understanding the
behaviour and disposition of "modern man", especially homo sapiens'
inability as a species to yet surmount the deep habits of fearful,
aggressive and xenophobic behaviour.
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
|
|
|
|
Hi 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
|
|
 |
Mr Vendramini,
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
|
|
|
Hi,
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
|
|
|
Hello,
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
|
|
|
Thank you. Just found your interesting site this morning via a
comment on Art de Vany's private blog, a proponent of "evolutionary
fitness," a sort of approach to nutrition and exercise informed
by
evolutionary principles.
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
|
|
Professor
Ofer Bar-Yosef,
Harvard University
|
Dear Danny,
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 it all makes sense…so
simple, so neat, so obvious – one of those things that I wish I’d
thought of!
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.
The only reason Neanderthals would lose their fur is if they tailored
insulating garments. But as no sewing needles have ever been discovered
at Neanderthal sites, this doesn’t seem likely.
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
|
 |
 |
24 November 2009
Kirsten Garratt interviews Danny Vendrmaini on ABC Radio National Book
Show
 Introduction by
Ramona Koval
Modern 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...
download audio
|
|
|
I have read a bit of the book,
and I'm curious about a number of ideas.
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!
|
|
|
Fascinating stuff
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
|
|
|
Herein my review of your book
which you may use on your website.
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...
|
|
|
Have
just finished reading Them and Us. It kept me entralled, one of
the best books i have ever read. My congratulations to Danny, now i can
understand evolution perfectly.
thanking you Nancy Locke
|
|
|
COULD NOT PUT IT
DOWN COULD NOT STOP THINKING ABOUT IT.BEST SCIENCE BOOK
EVER
JAY COLLINS NJ
|
|
|
we need this book here in the
states as an alternative tothe advance of creationist ideasof how we
got got be human.GREAT BOOK
Sanguine in Seattle
|
|
|
Us
And Them (ThemAndUs50K) on Twitter
Inspired by the book Them & Us, by Danny Vendramini, about
the great evoltion leap ~50000 years ago.
|
|
|
Hi Danny,
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
|
|
|
Great to see ebook online at
last. definitely worth the wait. sitting on laguna beach reading
it now. mindblowing stuff. why arent you on oprah?
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
|
|
|
Hello
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
|
|
|
Hi Danny,
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
|
|
KARDOORAIR PRESS
MEDIA RELEASE
Thursday,
May 6, 2010
|
Neanderthal Genome study supports
predation theory
A major new study of the Neanderthal genome published last week in the prestigious
journal, Science has provided dramatic evidence
supporting an Australian author's theory that Neanderthals hunted and
raped early humans.
'The Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome' is one of
the largest genetics studies ever undertaken involving almost 60
authors and hundreds of technicians around the world. Among its
findings are that Neanderthals mated with early humans in the Middle
East before setting off on their global expansion.
The study, led by Svante Pääbo from the Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany report the
interbreeding occurred between
100,000 to 60,000 years ago..
These findings were predicted in Australian evolutionary detective,
Danny Vendramini's 2009 book, Them and Us: how Neanderthal predation
created modern humans released last year.
At the time, Vendramini's theory that Neanderthals were 'apex
predators' who hunted, cannibalized and raped early humans in the
Middle East between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago was criticized by
several anthropologists. The new genetic study confirms his
evolutionary scenario, revealing that between 1- 4% of human genes come
from Neanderthals.
Vendramini says the genes were acquired in the Middle East during the 50,000 years when Eurasian
Neanderthals hunted and raped early humans. This resulted in thousands
of half human - half Neanderthal hybrids.
According to
Vendramini, the only humans to survive were those born with modern
traits like high intelligence, creativity, aggression, language and
guile. These fully modern humans turned the tables on their former
predators and eventually wiped them out.
"They also killed most
of the hybrids because they considered them mutants." He adds, "It was
evolution by infanticide."
"When the modern humans left the Middle East to colonize Europe and the
rest of the world, they inevitably took a few recessive Neanderthal
genes with them."
Commenting on the Draft Neanderthal Genome Sequence today from his home in Sydney, Danny Vendramini said, "I'm absolutely
delighted. The best possible proof for a scientific theory is for its
predictions to be confirmed by scientific observations, and that's
what's happened here. The new data supports the view that the Middle
East was the real cradle of humanity. Neanderthal predation of archaic humans is the only
scenario that explains the Genome Sequence data."
Hey Danny,
Just
a quick hello from Alaska. Just wondering if you've soaking up the
glory of being right! (probably worth adding a few quotes to your
site" See here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com
I've
downloaded a few of your chapters and find your ideas fascinating and
totally logical, besides very good writing.
Cheers,
Calvin
Thanks
Calvin,
I
think it's too early to say I'm right,
but yes, I
couldn't be happier. As
I told a reporter today, it's very satisfying if one
of your theory's predictions get confirmed by scientific observation,
but today, I've had a whole raft of predictions and hypotheses (if not
confirmed) then substantially strengthened.
Best
wishes
Danny
May 6th 2010
Forget
about the 'HUNG PARLIAMENT' headline on the front page of today's Mirror.
Check out Mike Swain's piece inside about the Neanderthal gene study.
YOU WILL LOVE IT.
Adrian
Thanks Adrian,
I DID LOVE IT.
Danny
Mat 6th 2010
Hello
Danny,
We
have not met, but I am a flatmate of Carl who very much enjoyed meeting
you in Istanbul last month.I am studying anthropology in Berlin and he
told me of your website and Ebook which I buy online.I very much
enjoyed the ideas you propose which have been very helpful in my study
of Neolithic warfare. I finish reading the book only last night then
today the German news is about the study by Svante Pääbo of
tthe Neandertals genome, and I could see immediately that many of the
items he determined in his analysis were in your book already.
I am happy too that it was a Swede (Pääbo was born in
Stockholm that played a part in showing your theory to be correct.
my
best regards
Oscar
Hi Oscar,
Lovely to hear from you, Carl told me about you and said you'd be
interested in the book. I'm delighted to hear you enjoyed it.
I should
point out that Dr. Paabo (despite being Swedish and brilliant) had a
bit of help in writing the Draft Sequence
of the Neanderthal Genome. Apart from the 60
other authors who werealso credited, hundreds of other
laboratory technicians over the world also played a
part in teasing that data from billions of fragments of chopped
spaghetti-like DNA.
Thanks again and all the best to Carl.
Ah! Istanbul!
Danny
So what does the Neandertal Draft Sequence mean for 'Out-of-Africa?' Is
it dead in the water?
Lance
Hi Lance,
Good question.
There's no doubt the 'out-of-Africa' theory has been shaken by the
Draft Sequence. The New York Times article says:
"The Leipzig group’s
interbreeding theory would undercut the present belief that all human
populations today draw from the same gene pool that existed a mere
50,000 years ago. “What we falsify here is the strong out-of-Africa
hypothesis that everyone comes from the same population,” Dr. Paabo
said."
But then the Draft Sequence paper itself was more tempered:
"while the Neandertal
genome presents a challenge to the simplest version of an
"out-of-Africa" model for modern human origins, it continues to support
the view that the vast majority of genetic variants that exist at
appreciable frequencies outside Africa came from Africa with the spread
of anatomically modern humans."
I think this correctly says that 'out-of-Africa' needs to be tweaked.
Yes, all ancestral humans originally came from Africa. But according to
the Draft Sequence, it was only one population (living outside Africa
in the Middle East) who recieved the Neanderthal genes and then carried
then around the world.
A central tenet of NP theory is that humans didn't become fully human
in Africa. That happened in the Levant. That's where archaic humans
encountered predatory Neanderthals and were changed forever. In some
it's all semantics and my 'out-of-the-Levant' scenario is simply a
fine-tuning of out-of-Africa.
Regards
Danny
|
Three Neanderthal bones from which
researchers extracted DNA
Svante
Pääbo
lead author of the Draft Neanderthal Sequence paper
|
Half Sigma Blog
|
The new politics of common
sense. Neither Republican, Democratic, nor Libertarian.
From the Economist
article:
Previous genetic analysis, which examined DNA passed from
mother to child in cellular structures called mitochondria, had
suggested no interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. The
new, more extensive examination, which looks at DNA in the cell
nucleus, shows this conclusion is wrong. By comparing the DNA of
Africans (whose ancestors could not have crossbred with Neanderthals,
since they did not overlap with them) and various Eurasians (whose
ancestors could have crossbred with Neanderthals), Dr Paabo has shown
that Eurasians are between 1% and 4% Neanderthal.
That is intriguing. It shows that even after several hundred
thousand years of separation, the two species were interfertile. It is
curious, though, that no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has turned up in
modern humans, since the usual pattern of invasion, in historical times
anyway, is for the invaders’ males to mate with the invaded’s females.
Duh. The Neanderthals were way stronger than us, and a
Neanderthal
female would kill a Homo sapien male who tried to rape her, and
literally eat
him for lunch.
According to Rosas, there is evidence of cannibalism in
Neanderthal remains from other European sites.
"I would say this practice... was general among Neanderthal
populations," he said.
If Neanderthals ate other Neanderthals, then they would
certainly eat
Homo sapiens.
Despite being as intelligent as Homo sapiens (up until around
45,000 years ago when Homo sapiens surpassed them, known as the Great Leap
Forward), they were brutal beasts who would rape and kill Homo
sapiens they came in contact with. This explains why no Homo sapiens
existed in Europe until about 45,000 years ago. But when Homo sapiens
learned how to use throwing weapons, and became smart enough to use
smarter tactics against the Neanderthals, then they conquered Europe
and over the course of the next 10,000 years wiped the Neanderthals out
of existence.
|
|
|
© 2009, themandus.org |
Yawn. Old news.
Anyone interested in this should check out ThemandUs.org. Danny Vendramini is miles ahead of the MSM on this stuff.