 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
    |
page 1
Sept 2009 - May 2010
page 2
MAY 6th 2010- April, 2011
page 3
December 2010 - June 2011If you don't want your feedback posted here, please indicate
December 6th 2010
Danny Vendramini's 15 minute video of Neanderthals released on YouTube.
NEANDERTHAL: PROFILE OF A SUPER-PREDATOR
Author Danny Vendramini draws on the latest archaeological, forensic and
genetic evidence to reveal the amazing truth about Neanderthals. They
were ferocious ape-like creatures who hunted and raped early humans to
the brink of extinction before the humans fought back and eradicated the
Neanderthals.
Mr Vendramini,
I watched your video last night with your theory
regarding neanderthals and absolutely loved it! This theory is much more
logical then the traditional view of neanderthals. Very, very
cool!
Question: what do you think happened to the Neanderthal
diet once they reached the middle east? As I understand, this region was lush
and fertile at the time. Since there would be a much bigger surplus of food,
is it possible they succumbed to the same problems that modern man sees now
because of excessive food- diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc. Maybe this
contributed to the neanderthals demise?
I got a degree in anthropology in 2002, and I've decided
to return to my academic roots and peruse a master and phd in 'nutritional
anthropology', starting sometime next year.
I've spent my years after university first in the army
(was a captain), then at a finical job where I traded metal.. Was good money
but I recently quit this job after I realized my heart is in the field of
Anthropology. I am particularly interested in prehistoric diet, and I think this
is very important in understanding modern dietary problems.
Again, great video!
Take care,
Ryan
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the Neanderthal diet, as a rule, species don't arbitrarily change their dietary preferences. Look at gorillas - they've remained vegetarian despite the availability of small prey species.
Judging by isotope analysis of the enamel in Neanderthal's teeth, their diet never changed - it remained totally meat based.
Danny
Very interesting video and information. It looks like you guys got the
morphology correct. I do wonder if the coloring is a bit off however. All
animals, including humans become much lighter in both skin tone and hair when
moving away from the equator for better Vitamin D processing. Note that the
Japanese arctic monkeys and other monkeys living in cold climates have pink skin
and light fur. Perhaps the Neanderthals were dark pink skinned or had reddish
hair, which would make sense as to why red is a danger color for us. It really
doesn't make any sense why Neanderthals would be the only creatures to stay so
dark in Arctic Europe. They would have not been able to synthethize enough
Vitamin D. Is there anything in the works to correct this? Or is there a reason
as to why they stayed so dark?
YubiThanks Yubi,
The video shows various reconstructions of Neanderthals, some with dark fur, and at least one (right) with reddish-brown fur.
While some modern cold climate animals have opted for dark fur (the black bear, brown bear etc) others have lighter coloured fur. Personally I think that sexual selection may be a more important arbiter of fur colour than climate. All it would take is for females to develop an emotional preference for a particular colour fur and that woUld eventually result in that colour spreading to fixation - simply because females would only mate with males displaying that colour.
Danny
7th December 2010
As an avid student of the history of science, I’m aware that scholars with
long and distinguished careers often get personal when radical new
scientific theories challenge their cherished paradigms. So I guess your
response was to be expected. But you need to remember that I’m extrapolating my theories from the same sound Darwinian principles you draw on. Just because my interpretation of Neanderthal behavioural ecology is different from yours doesn’t mean I deserve to be insulted. Attacking the man rather than the theory not only reduces your credibility as a scientist, it also hampers our common objective - the advancement of science.
I’m not interested in getting into a slanging match with you. I’m interested
in testing and improving my theory of human evolution and that means not
only ruthlessly culling any dead wood, but ditching the whole thing if the
evidence suggests it’s wrong. So what I would welcome from you is a
constructive, criticism of my work. In other words, don’t just say it’s
“rubbish from the uninformed” – explain why it’s rubbish, and cite your
references. That way, you get a chance to demolish an uninformed interloper
(who you feel threatened by) and I get my theory given the acid test by a
world class scientist – something I welcome wholeheartedly.
What have you got to lose?
If you would like the latest copy of the book, with its 800 references, let
me know and I’ll post it ASAP.
Best wishes,
Danny
December 7
6th December
Hi Stephen,
The Neanderthals didn't migrate as a fully formed species from Africa to Europe. It was one of their ancestors - probably Homo heidelbergensis - who left Africa and settled in Europe. As the climate deteriorated, these people gradually morphed into a new cold climate adapted species - Neanderthals. Once they were adapted to that environment, they would have no need to leave.
regards
Danny
The range of Neanderthals across Europe and Eurasia
12 December 2010
I saw your video on Youtube which I think is amazing but I didn't believe that Neandertals would rape humans. I learned at college they were intelligent beings who buried their dead. So I checked out the Neandertal Genome study on the net to see for myself.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
On page 718 I came across this - 'DIRECTION OF GENE FLOW' It says and I quote "all or almost all of the gene flow detected was from Neanderthals into modern humans." Can you explain, does this really mean that Neandertal men were having sex with human girls but human men were not having sex with Neandertal girls?
Dick
Hi Dick,
Yes, that is exactly what it means. The direction of gene flow is tremendously important. The genetic data shows convincingly that Neanderthal males copulated with human females - but that human males didn't copulate with Neanderthal females - which is exactly what my sexual predation theory predicts. Coerced copulation - or rape - is the only scenario that explains this direction of gene flow.
I might add that no other theory of human evolution comes close to explaining this extraordinary genetic data.
best wishes
Danny
Thank you for replying so quickly. The genome paper also said that the gene flow from Neandertals to humans happened between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago. This is when you say it did.
Dick
Thanks again Dick. Actually, in my book I estimated Neanderthal sexual predation of early humans occurred between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. Pretty damn close.
Danny
December 16th 2010
I have eighteen books on biology/anthropology in my library, all authored or coauthored by full professors or associate professors. It seems incredulous that the one I rate highest-Them and Us-is allegedly by a man with no scientific background and no university qualifications in anthropology. If this is true then it is a remarkable achievement, but the fact that Mr Vendramini has not included academic qualifications in his CV does not mean he does not possess them. Is he concealing something, and if so, why?
JRB Parkville
Hi JRB,
I've heard of people accusing scholars of claiming false degrees but this is the first time I've heard of a scholar being accused of denying his academic qualifications. I guess it's a compliment - of sorts.
May I suggest that cutting edge science is not the sole preserve of university trained practitioners.
Merry Christmas
24th December 2010
loved the ideas..Finally, an explanation for man's inhumanity to man. Ive ordered the pb.
VIC from VIC
Many thanks Vic.
Merry Christmas,
Danny
24 December 2010
I too suspect that some non-coding DNA has a function, but I disagree with your theory that such DNA can be created as a result of environmental stressors – which I think is your contention. In my view your paper has failed to propose a credible mechanism by which this might happen, as it has also failed to demonstrate where and how this may have happened in shaping the behaviours of other species.
A more plausible explanation is as follows:
· Some non-coding DNA may have a behavioural function.
· In any event, coding DNA has a huge role to play in brain size, structure, chemistry and behavioural predilections.
· DNA related to brain development (either non-coding or coding – it doesn’t matter too much) mutates, from time to time, and in some rare instances and circumstances this confers a net evolutionary advantage via natural or sexual selection.
. In terms of natural selection, the advantage may be conferred on either the individual, or the group (of which many will likely share the mutation); OR
. In terms of sexual selection, the advantage would offer higher changes of reproductive success (e.g. as an indicator of fitness).
Re the powerful capacity of sexual selection to drive rapid changes in the evolution of the human brain , I suggest you read The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller.
What I think needs further development in your work is how sexual selection in humans, combined with the more obvious natural selection pressures, could have been shaped by the very peculiar environmental stressors of Neanderthal predation in the Levant.
In your NP evolutionary arms race, both human and Neanderthal populations would have been adapting under natural selection pressures – presumably at around the same pace. However, perhaps sexual selection in humans proved to be a deciding factor in humans winning the arms race in the end. Perhaps the developing male and female brains in humans reached a point where they not only selected for non-neanderthal physical attributes, but were also smart enough to identify those intellectual capabilities (such as language; strategic capability; morality), that might confer specific advantages in responding to the threat of NP. And by selecting for these indicators of fitness, sexual selection accelerated dramatically the development of the human mind to the point where Neanderthals could be resoundingly out-smarted
This, to me, makes much more sense than teem theory.
Cheers – Tim
Hi Tim,
Please accept my apologies for taking so long to respond, I've been very busy of late.
Thanks for your thoughts on teem theory. The chapter on teem theory in Them and Us is only a very potted version of the theory, as was the paper published in Medical Hypothesis in 2005.
Some of the issues you raise are too complex to deal with here, but are all comprehensively covered in my forthcoming book, "The Second Evolution" out next year. This book is entirely about teem theory and how it drives the evolution of biological complexity on earth.
As to whether there is any solid scientific proof for teem theory, a reader recently sent me a link to a paper in an American journal with the subject line, "Here's your proof."
The journal was The American Naturalist (March 2010 issue) and it featured a remarkable paper by Professor Jonathan Storm of the University of South Carolina Upstate and Professor Steven Lima of Indiana State University. They reported that crickets traumatized by predatory wolf spiders passed their newly acquired fears to their offspring.
The researchers blunted the fangs of wolf spiders with wax then put them in an enclosure with pregnant crickets. The spiders hunted and attacked the crickets but could not kill them. When the traumatized crickets laid eggs, their offspring were 113% more likely to try to evade wolf spiders than control crickets that had not been exposed. As a result they had higher survival rates.
The researchers said that 'forewarned' crickets were also more likely to freeze when they encountered spider silk or feces, which also helped them avoid detection.
Professors Storm and Lima reported, “Transfer of information from mother to offspring about predation risk, in the absence of any parental care, may be more common than one might think.”
The researchers said they could not explain how the intergenerational transfer of environmental information occurred, but my from perspective, this is undoubtedly a simple anti-predator teem created by the teemosis evolutionary process.
To my knowledge, this is the first teem to be created in the laboratory. It provides the strongest evidence yet for the existence of the teemosis process. It additionally demonstrates how teems are adaptive. The offspring had learned to escape and evade a predator they had never actually seen. Very exciting.
best wishes
Danny
28 December 2010
December 13, 2010
I still have a question about the DNA or genome or whatever you want to call it. We know that when a horse copulates with a donkey you can end up with a mule. But a mule is sterile and can't pass down any genes. However, Neanderthal DNA has been found in some humans which indicates that they were so genetically similar to us (I think we were once called Cro Magnon), that an offspring from such a union would be fertile. But it seems to me that since the two "races" were so apparently different, then the offspring would look like a freak and would probably be clubbed to death. Especially considering the trauma of sexual predation. I mean, xenophobia is rife today, imagine what it was like back then. I know this isn't your main argument, but I'm still interested in your opinion.
Regards - Stephen
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your question about DNA and interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans.
The scenario you outline: that early humans and Neanderthals were sibling species and could produce fertile offspring, that Neanderthals had sex with humans, that the ‘mutant’ children looked like ‘freaks and were ‘clubbed to death,’ and that xenophobia is still part of human nature are all core elements of NP theory and covered in detail in the book. All these claims were recently verified by the Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome.
regards
Danny
29the December
DANNY VENDRAMINI BLOG ON
THE QUESTION OF NEANDERTHAL DIET
THE QUESTION OF NEANDERTHAL DIET
A friend phoned my this morning to say he'd seen a report on CNN
that Neanderthals cooked and ate vegetables. He asked if this
contradicted my theory that Neanderthal were carnivorous predators?Not at all. Firstly, CNN misreported that Neanderthals ate vegetables. The paper only asserts the sample Neanderthals consumed several kinds of grass seeds, possibly parts of the water lily plant, and palm dates. They also report that some of the grains show damage consistent with cooking.
None of this is really new. A 2005 paper reported finding thousands of microscopic grains and seeds in the Neanderthal cave at Kebara in Israel. They also found evidence of charring suggesting that some seeds had been cooked.
Clearly, when prey were in short supply and the prospect of starvation loomed, any edible food would be on the menu, especially seasonal fruits like palm dates and even hard seeds that were practically indigestible unless cooked.
However the fact that no mill stones (required to grind grains to extract nutrients) or storage pits have ever been found at Neanderthal sites suggests that grasses and grains were not a major part of their diet.
As for the cooking, it's been known for decades that Neanderthals were fire makers, and some bones at their sites reveal signs of cooking. It makes sense that as well as using fires to keep warm, they also used them to cook and heat food.
Ultimately, what's important is the percentage of their diet that was deprived from vegetative matter - and we know the answer from microscopic isotope analysis of Neanderthal dental enamel. Approximately 1% of their diet came from plants. The remaining 99% came from meat.
DV
4 Jan 2011
9th Jan 2011
9th Jan 2011
FT- St James, Bristol
I agree with the post by FT. I live in Houston and when I tell friends about it, they can't find it at Borders or even on Amazon. If it was available here, colleges would start teaching it. You have a duty to get this amazing stuff out there
Jeremy White
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for that. Yeah, I think I have been slack. It's partly that all my energies go into the science and there's not a lot left over for marketing. But you're right, and I will try to put some time aside to get the book published overseas.
regards
Danny
4th Feb 2011
5th Feb 2011
18th. Feb 2011
Dear
Sir
I am puzzled about one aspect of your theory. The fact that Europeans have a 1-4% presence of Neanderthal DNA suggests that the major locus of contact between Neanderthals and modern humans was indeed Europe (and the Levant). Africans have no Neanderthal genes, but share some of the phenotype adaptations that evolved to differentiate between Neanderthals and modern humans. Could it simply be the case that bipedal locomotion is more efficent over long distances and varied terrain? San Africans can walk/run down antelope by relentless pursuit for this reason.
I'm not raising this point to nit pick, but just to alert you to something that may need tidying up (that's pretty arrogant of me LOL). Your theory corresponds far more rigidly to the reality of inter-species, inter-ethnic and natural relations in the animal kingdom as we all know them through history and experience, than the New Age Traveller, aquarian, Neanderthal of the PC establishment.
It would be interesting to know if Africans have the same ancestral myths of trolls and goblins that Europeans do.
Your book excerpts are brilliant. I'm going to order it and look forward greatly to reading it.
Cheers!
Blair
I am puzzled about one aspect of your theory. The fact that Europeans have a 1-4% presence of Neanderthal DNA suggests that the major locus of contact between Neanderthals and modern humans was indeed Europe (and the Levant). Africans have no Neanderthal genes, but share some of the phenotype adaptations that evolved to differentiate between Neanderthals and modern humans. Could it simply be the case that bipedal locomotion is more efficent over long distances and varied terrain? San Africans can walk/run down antelope by relentless pursuit for this reason.
I'm not raising this point to nit pick, but just to alert you to something that may need tidying up (that's pretty arrogant of me LOL). Your theory corresponds far more rigidly to the reality of inter-species, inter-ethnic and natural relations in the animal kingdom as we all know them through history and experience, than the New Age Traveller, aquarian, Neanderthal of the PC establishment.
It would be interesting to know if Africans have the same ancestral myths of trolls and goblins that Europeans do.
Your book excerpts are brilliant. I'm going to order it and look forward greatly to reading it.
Cheers!
Blair
Hi Blair,
Thanks for your email. Sorry, I’m afraid I’m not sure what your question
is. Is it about bipedal location?
Danny
Hi
Danny
Very kind of you to reply, I'm surprised that you took the time to answer. I'm not qualified to be asking you questions really so please don't go to any trouble to reply again. I'm sure you're far too busy to be emailing curious fans. If I can clarify, I was just wondering why Africans with no Neanderthal DNA, whose ancestors I'm assuming, had less, or no contact with the Neanderthals, seem to have many of the adaptations that seem to be adaptions to conflict with Neanderthals. This is probably a moot point, because your portrayal of the Neanderthals as apex predators stands on its own regardless of human adaptions impeled by inter-species conflict. I'm going to read the book first though, LOL! Very kind of you to reply to my badly worded email.. I've told several people about your book and they have all been interested and enthusiastic about your research. I'm sure you'll achieve pariah status within your profession very soon (only kidding).
Regards!
Blair
Very kind of you to reply, I'm surprised that you took the time to answer. I'm not qualified to be asking you questions really so please don't go to any trouble to reply again. I'm sure you're far too busy to be emailing curious fans. If I can clarify, I was just wondering why Africans with no Neanderthal DNA, whose ancestors I'm assuming, had less, or no contact with the Neanderthals, seem to have many of the adaptations that seem to be adaptions to conflict with Neanderthals. This is probably a moot point, because your portrayal of the Neanderthals as apex predators stands on its own regardless of human adaptions impeled by inter-species conflict. I'm going to read the book first though, LOL! Very kind of you to reply to my badly worded email.. I've told several people about your book and they have all been interested and enthusiastic about your research. I'm sure you'll achieve pariah status within your profession very soon (only kidding).
Regards!
Blair
Hi Blair,
Sorry to take so long getting back.
It’s an interesting question and gets to the heart
of one of the mysteries of human evolution – why humans all around the world
look and behave pretty much the same. And why, if nonAfrican humans have
approximately 2% Neanderthals genome, do modern Africans have practically
none?
I argue that during the period of Neanderthal
sexual predation of early humans in the Middle East, the human population became
riddled with half Neanderthal-half human ‘hybrids.’ When the tables were turned
and Cro-Magnons started killing the Neanderthals, they also killed off all the
‘mutant’ humans with overt Neanderthal features. This is what I call “Evolution
by death squad.” It got rid of all but 2% of the Neanderthal genes, and I
believe these genes escaped because they didn’t code for obvious Neanderthal
features.
When these super aggressive Cro-Magnons spread out
to colonise the world, they killed off ancestral human populations - as well as
other modern humans - they considered too different, which further unified human
appearance and behaviour.
But in Africa, the indigenous Africans, while
archaic by Cro-Magnon standards, didn’t look like cold-adapted Neanderthals.
They had evolved in the same equatorial, tropical and savannah environment as
had the Cro-Magnons’ own ancestors. And, while behaviourally some of them would
be very primate-like, others would have been recognisably hominid and would even
have used primitive stone tools. But as well as these populations, we know from
the archaeology that a few Initial Upper Palaeolithic hominids also existed and
that these people made complex tools and used red ochre to decorate themselves.
I argue that Cro-Magnons interbred with some of
these African populations, passing on their dominant anti-Neanderthal genes. But
because only about 2% of the Cro-Magnons’s genes were Neanderthal, by the time
they spread to the Africans, they were diluted below the level that genetic
techniques can detect.
Hope this helps – but best to read the
book
regards
Danny
24th. Feb 2011
14th. March 2011
Danny,
Fascinating if controversial theory!
One or two questions and comments come to mind.
If the 'human' populace were so traumatized by this predation; why would
they allow the progeny of such assaults to live?
Or did the Predators raise such children?
Second, should this model of the Neanderthal prove accurate, it would NOT
rule out their taking care of their own
IE burying their dead with reverance or taking care of their injured
relatives.
Third and last, I rather like the reconstruction you have done save for
the sneer/snarl. Most predators have a certain grace in the form follows
function way.
However I know you were trying to push some deeply buried buttons
here.
Lili
Hi Lili,
Sorry for taking so long to respond, I’m writing a new book and have been
so obsessed, I’ve neglected other things.
In Them and Us, I deal with with the questions you raise in details, but
basically, it is not difficult to imagine what happened to the progeny of
Neanderthal sexual predation. These were the hybridised offspring of a much
dreaded and hated natural enemy, who not only displayed Neanderthal physical
features, but also some Neanderthal behaviours as well. They would have been a
potent daily reminder of subjugation and adulteration. In the early days of
predation, these hybrids spread throughout the early human population and were
tolerated as part of the landscape and there is evidence of this in the fossil
record of the MIddle East. But as the Levantine humans became smarter, more
aggressive and began to turn the tables on their natural enemy, these hybrids
were gradually exterminated. In the end, anyone who looked or behaved even
remotely like a Neanderthal was killed.
There is evidence of Neanderthal burying their dead, but there is no solid
evidence of these burials being associated with symbolic activity – ie.
flowers, religious ceremonies, etc. While Neanderthals clearly had affections
for deceased family members, burial may have been more utilitarian than
reverential.
Re the snarl, that’s an embellishment of our computer designer which I felt
was appropriate given their predatory nature.
Hope this helps, and again my apologies for this tardy response,
Best wishes
Danny
I myself have been long convinced that Neanderthals looked very little like the common reconstruction, and your reconstruction provides a quite interesting perspective on that issue.
In fact the only problems I have with it is that it differs too much from a typical nocturnal or cold adapted primate. The Tarsier which is nocturnal lacks the reflective part of its eye for instance, nor are its pupils slitted or irises red (Yellow may be a better color for that.) It's features could also be a bit more derived from the Japanese macaque since it is the only cold-adapted primate I know of.
Also the snarl gets in the way of a good look at its face, I would really like a clearer idea of its appearance.
I hope you do well,
Martin.
P.S Forgot to mention that I think your video has some pretty good points. Neanderthal reconstructions are far too humanized, often their hairlines are even set high to provide the illusion of a normal forehead.
So much effort really seems to go into making them as human as possible, to the point where they almost resemble certain humans more then actual humans do. None of the typical reconstructions actually seem entirely human to me, but that's probably only because I am familiar with how faces are supposed to be structured.
P.P.S Also I believe you take your Neanderthal predation theory too far. Too far being the point to where you try to pin the human fear of cat-like eyes and the dark on Neanderthals.
Large cats were eating hominids for quite some time and still do occasionally, and many predators are out at night, which is hard for humans to see during. This explains those fears perfectly for me.
Neanderthals may have been nocturnal but I doubt their eyes were cat-like.
But still I love seeing a Neanderthal that isn't the result of someone trying to twist it into a human. Most reconstructions of them give them a hairline set higher then many humans.
But one thing I find interesting about your reconstruction is that even with it's typical primate features I can still see its relation to humans in its face. In a way it is still more human then existing apes, even without our soft tissue features.
Greetings Danny,
First I would like to say how much I love your theory, it does what a good
theory is supposed to do which is get people thinking. I love to see a
Neanderthal actually made to look something other then a perfectly ordinary,
often European human. To me this has never made sense, there is little reason
for their features to be so human or especially European, they were not
physically or genetically particularly like modern Europeans or anyone else for
that matter.
Whatever features they had were probably very different from any population
of modern humans, many of these features probably similar to ordinary primates.
Anyways there is something a bit more natural about your reconstruction, with
most of its appearance feeling a bit less forced then most.
To me it looks much like a hominid should, it looks very much like a human
with the differences one could expect from a not entirely identical genome. But
I am probably one of the rare people who can look at your reconstruction and see
something more human then ape. I have a suggestion though, the snarl is
distracting and a reconstruction should be made without one.
And however, as much as I like it a few things about your theory seem a bit
off.
Theorizing that they were nocturnal seems rational enough to me, but the
cat eyes? The cat eyes make very little sense.
Examples exist of nocturnal primates, but more importantly examples exist
of nocturnal primates that apparently went through a diurnal phase in their
evolution.
Apparently they lost their tapetum lucidum(reflective area of eyes) and
never regained it when they returned to being nocturnal. The primate in question
is the Tarsier, and it strikes me as a perfect example for how a diurnal turned
nocturnal primates eyes would develop.
You suggested the cat-like eyes for them because people fear them which you
assumed was part of Neanderthal predations effects. I have my own
suggestion.
Large cats have long been one of the prime predators of primates, including
hominids. It is likely even Neanderthals found cat-like eyes frightening.
Coloration is anyones guess. I would assume it would be related to
what blends in the most and their skin color perhaps related to how much vitamin
D was in their diet. This isn't really a point of disagreement for me, but if I
had to guess I would say their skin was probably like the paler chimps and not
the black of gorillas.
Anyways your theory raises a lot of good ideas, even if I disagree with you
about the extent that Neanderthal predation affected humans.
Also did you notice the amount of skin effecting genes found in the
Neanderthal genome that differ from humans? That seems a point in your favor as
it suggests their skin may've been more ape-like then human.
Have you read the full article on the Neanderthal genome yet? Interesting
stuff is there. I would like to hear your theories on it.
Also have you heard what the Neanderthl voice sounded like?
Regards,
Martin.
P.S You have heard the theory that humans have faces similar to infant
apes I assume. Have you ever noticed that we are the only hominid that does?
I've noticed that the faces of hominids all seem to have been rather unchanging
in "maturity" of features relative to other apes, except of course for modern
humans. Seriously compare various hominids from the side, while brain size
increases the facial shape barely changes(At least from the side), unless you
consider the Neanderthal nasal region. Now compare them to practically any
modern human and you will see the difference.
Our high, steep foreheads are one of these baby ape features and I've
noticed while comparing skull shapes that we really are the only hominid where
the forehead has really risen, all the rest have it at the same height
mostly.
I realize that the author obviously has political feelings just as I and most people do but making this claim about the former president in the same context as the European and Rwanda genocides, which are both known and well documented and beyond doubt, seemed to be unfair in my mind. It's obvious that the author is an expert in his material but making a claim about this without relevant quotes or examples of policies targeted against the "them" by president Bush detracts slightly from the seriousness and rigorous methods the author used elsewhere in this fascinating work to validate his points. Please understand that I'm not asking the author to change his mind regarding his politics or to avoid speaking his mind only that I was suprised to such a serious claim made regarding a post internet public figure without any references to specific policies and quotes. It's Mr. Vendramini's book and I understand and respect that he will write it as he sees fit.
I hope I have not worn out my welcome by my opinion above as a suggestion and question to Mr. Vendramini follows. I believe that your descriptions of the teems and how they impart to us an ancestral fear/aggression response to Neanderthals, or more accurately those that fit the Neanderthal look, could explain why humanity continues to "see" hairy hominids in the forests of the world. Do certain environmental conditions, auditory and visual phenomena, and emotional states cause more sensitive individuals to believe they've seen or experienced an encounter with a Yeti/Sasquatch/Yowie/Alma? With a TV special in the works regarding the main theory could this also be potential subject matter for a skeptical position that explains the continuation of Bigfoot reports as a stand alone TV special in opposition to the normal pro-cryptozoology fare that normally is shown? I wonder if the predator avoidance teems could trigger a sort of a PTSD-like episode under the right conditions for certain people where they interpret what happened as being an encounter with a hairy non-human (non homo sapiens sapiens) primate.
Thank you for writing this very interesting book which challenges long held dogma in the study of human evolution. I especially like how this crushes the wishful thinking about Neanderthals being a perfected peace loving hapless victim of humanity. I wish you much success and look forward to buying and reading your future books.
Rob Furlong
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your comments and questions.
I take your point and am suitably chastened for straying beyond science into politics – but you have to allow yourself some respite from all those tortuous facts.
Re your cluster of interesting questions, the answer to all of them - in my view – is ‘yes.’ The beast still lives within us.
best wishes
Danny
3rd. May 2011
greetings from China.
i am much impressed with your NP theory. It seems very plausible and it explains quite a lot.
my own research led me to believe that a thick coat of hair must have been developed (adaptation the the cold), even if one accepts the theory that they were initially lacking it. the use of fire would be insufficient, as they were active hunters (practically ate only meat), so they would go out long distances to hunt, away fro mthe fire. besides, as ambush predators, they had little use for fire when hunting (would give them away).
have you heard of the Denisovans? these human-like hominds, were neither sapiens nor neandertthals. not enough fossils found yet, but there could have been quite a few other types of hominds, besides erectus and flores in asia.
I wanted to ask if you intend to write more about the cro-magnon expansion and conquest of africa, australia and asia.
also, if the humans did not move out of africa, do you think the neanderthals would still be around? could they have gone on and colonise asia? (siberia and beyond, perhaps crossing into north america?)
thanks you.
Chang
Hi Chang,
Thanks for your email and please accept my apologies for the late reply –
it’s the same excuse – new book, too much work, etc.
Thanks for your comment on the Denisovans. The single tooth found in
Denisova Cave in 2009 was very exciting. It offered solid support for the
premise that I put forward in Them and Us, that there were a great many
different hominid species roaming around both Africa and Asia and that the newly
evolved hyper-aggressive Cro-Magnons wiped them all out – with the exception of
a few Upper Palaeolithic tribes in Africa that they interbred with. When you
think about it, there are at least 6 species of giraffe, over 80 species of
antelope, and over 20 species of crocodiles, so why wouldn’t there be more than
one or two species of ancient hominid, particularly when the physical
environment and ecology of both Africa and Asia were so variable? My ‘evolution
by genocide hypothesis’ provides one answer to the big question – what happened
to all those other species – including the Denisovans? We exist as one unified
single species today because our ancestors were seriously into the genocide of
every other hominid species.
Re your question about the Cro-Magnon expansion and conquest of Africa,
Australia and Asia, it’s all in the book.
Re you last question - no I don’t think the Neanderthals are still around.
Not only did we kill every Neanderthal, we killed anyone who even remotely
looked like one.
Best wishes
Danny
great book with a lot of compelling arguments! I always felt that it was
unfounded to speculate of neanderthal's extinction due to some mysterious
illness or unfitnees after they ruled europe for so long.
Like others said before, I believe you exagerated the neanderthal's eyes a
bit, as well in shape (usually nocturnal primates have rounder eyes) as in
size.
And after all, from antic art until today we adore women with big eyes(but
generally do not like somebody with a eye distance too large like
neanderthals had).
That said, I think you gave too little credit to our girls in regards to
sexual selection, especially in the realm of romantic love as the main model
for succesful breading.
And that today(and probably then) they're less hairy then men on average is
mainly a function of lesser androgenes during/after puberty (evidenced by
the virilisation that happens to female bodybuilders when they abuse
steroids).
In any case Them and Us is a must read!
Best,
Franco
|
Dear Sir You seem to be trying to explain away sightings of unknown primates such as the yeti, yeren, mande-burung, sasquatch, yowie, orang-pendek and so on as imagination triggered by fossil memories of aggressive Neanderthals.. This s a gross insult to the thousands of people worldwide that have seen these creatures, including respected scientists. Imagination does not, as far as I’m aware, leave huge footprints with dermal ridges, leave hair that has been classified as from ‘an unknown primate’ by several laboratories (such as the yeren hair from Hubi Province, China), throw rocks so large it take two men to even lift them, kill livestock, steal food or kill guard dogs with clubs. In 209 I saw the footprints of an orang-pendek in Kerinci National Park, West Sumatra. I have worked with all the known great apes and are familiar with their tracks in all kinds of medium. The orang-pendek’s tracks are totally different to any know species. I have also heard the animal’s call on a number of occasions. On the same expedition one of my friends, Dave Archer and our native Guide Sahar Dimus saw the creature in a tree. It climbed down and walked away on two legs like a man. Sahar has lived in the jungle all his life and he knew what he saw was not a gibbon, orang-utan (unknown in West Sumatra any how) or sunbear. The hair samples we brought back were tested at the University of Copenhagen who concluded it was from ‘a new species of primate’. In 2010, in the Garo Hills of North East India my colleagues and I found massive, man-like tracks in damp earth. In the same are the mande-burung or Indian Yeti has been reported. I weigh 18 some and my prints hardly impacted into the earth at all. The ones we found were around two inches deep. Respected Ukrainian biologist Gregory Panchinko has seen the Russian almasty on several occasions, once from a distance of only ten feet. In fact none of the creatures mentioned above has much in common with the Neanderthals aside from being hairy. The orang-penndek is much smaller with longer arms, the other are larger and have sagittal crests on the head that were totally lacking in the Neanderthal. None of them use fire and none make tools to the level that Neanderthals did. The whole idea is a none starter. It seems pretty obvious that we are dealing with several unknown species not over active imaginations. Yours Richard Freeman
Hi Richard,
|
23/5/2011
May I ask you a question that you very likely heard several times before?
What is you viewpoint abuout the idea that reports of so-called bigfoot, yeti & co are the results of surviving neanderthals?
Andreas Muller
Hi Andrea,
I've just replied to an email regarding Yetis and co which you can check
out at
http://www.themandus.org/feedback3.html
regards
Danny
25/5/2011
Thank you so much for the very prompt delivery up of the download for your fascinating book. The UK/GBP/£ price was very reasonable for a work that has clearly involved a great deal of rigorous investigation and not a little craft in composing.
A quick read of some chapters I was very keen to read has already hooked my interest - I think I am going to enjoy this read enormously!
I have a pet evolutionary theory that I have been threatening to write up for upwards of 10 years now - it has been peer reviewed in private by some very elevated scientist friends of mine and they think its a real prospect for a publishing success - this year was going to be my year for getting off my procrastination pony and getting into the swing of actually crafting it - your book has inspired me to crack on even more!
My own background is in intellectual property law, so I find myself a little torn - I could embed the theory in a PhD proposal (I have had extensive correspondence with the leading lights in the field and it certainly would stand up as content suitable) but then I might miss out on the revenue that would attach to any more popular publishing venture . . . this has pinned me for some years, torn between the offer of the doctorate and the promise of some financial reward . . . I was teetering with putting the theory into the hands of a character in a screenplay I have also had long in the planning and which is threatening to fruit soon . . . decisions, decisions . .. !!
I wish I'd come across your book earlier this year - I would have suggested I do something to promote it at the Hay festival - maybe a man in a monkey suit handing out flyers? Anyway - thanks again - look forwards to reading it soon.
[Poor Elaine Morgan btw!! I spoke to her recently about my own theory . . . have you sent her your paper?]
Very kindest regards
Lawrence Toms, BA, LLM, Dip. EIPIN
Wales
Hi Lawrence,
Great to get your email. Thanks.
Don’t procrastinate – you’ll regret it. And don’t be put off because you’re
not a scientist. For high level theoretical science – the kind of science that
ventures beyond the known, there can only be one real qualification- and that’s
Imagination. As Einstein said,
“Imagination is more important than
knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire
world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly
speaking, a real factor in scientific research.”
So get your idea out there before someone else does.
cheers
Danny
PS – No, haven’t sent the book to Elaine Morgan
26/5/11page 1 feedback
Sept 2009 - May 2010
Sept 2009 - May 2010
