Neanderthal Predation Theory

Neanderthal Predation (NP) theory reveals that Neanderthals were 'apex' predators - who resided at the top of the food chain, and everything else - including humans - was their prey.

how would you feel upon learning that your cousin is preying on you?

NP theory reveals that Eurasian Neanderthals hunted, killed and cannibalised early humans for 50,000 years in an area of the Middle East known as the Mediterranean Levant.

Them and Us



Note: kindly move this to an appropriate forum if i've made a mistake by putting this here.

Very interesting! S&F.

You know I went to the site and looked at the pictures of what neanderthals looked like and maybe it's just me but they looked a lot like what Bigfoot and such. Still even taking that idea out It makes a certain sense!

reply to post by hangedman13


true, and it probably explains mankind's innate fear of the night. i mean, even though the night is quite beautiful, most people wouldn't feel comfortable being outdoors without a light.

Very interesting topic, thank you for posting.


Star and flag.


In addition to giving a rationale for mankinds fear of the dark, it would explain other seemingly odd behaviors as well. A species forged in fury would have many quirks for certain it seems.

Seems a little silly to me.

What killed them off then?

And only 50 humans in all the middle east? Please. Mitochondrial research has already put that one ot bed.

Good sci-fi, but hardly believable.

reply to post by apacheman


yep, and you probably hadn't heard of Mitochondrial Eve

Link 2

I'm intrigued for sure, but I'm a bit sceptical that 50 humans could have gone on to produce a genetically viable population. The degree of inbreeding would have surely ended us? Any geneticists on ATS?
I'm also troubled by generalisations such as being afraid of the dark or dark forests. I'm not. Actually, even tho my night vision isn't what it was 20yrs ago, I still prefer the night & have always chosen to work nights if possible. I'm far from alone in this or in enjoying the peace & otherworldly beauty of forests @night. Of course, you're stuffed in a dense forest, because not even enough starlight gets through to make out the shapes of trees, but camping out in such pitch darkness is a great relaxation.

Nothing changes.

Why should humans be the only species without predators?

Humans prey on so many species, it makes me sick to think how many.

So how come the Neanderthals didn't prevail against humans?

If neanderthals and humans were sexually compatible, then how could they look so different from each other??

Wouldn't there have been a fair amount of interbreeding? All the raping going on, probably both ways, should have resulted in some blurring of the distinctions, no?

Then again, perhaps all people back then were equally ugly.

reply to post by wayno


A lot of people are still hideous. But that doesn't stop them breeding.

The more everything changes, the more eveything stays the same.

Ahhhh, gotta love the pseudoscience.

Your first warning is this -

"Kardoorair Press is proud to present Them and Us by Danny Vendramini, the most revolutionary idea in human evolution since The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin"

Bold red text, making a promise of this being hte most revolutionary thing to happen since ever. Literally, that's what it's saying. all it needs to do now is flash enough to give someone epileptic seizures, and we're fast on our way to Time Cube material.

The worst part is, like most pseudoscience, Vendramini actually starts with actual science - the neanderthal presence in the middle east likely kept modern humans from migrating through the Sinai and Levant.

This is why modern humans never left Africa through hte Sinai - we island-hopped the red Sea into what is today Yemen, and spread along the Indian Ocean coastline from there in generational hops, away from the big burly dudes outcompeting us in the near east.

Since these island-hoppers were presumably few in number, and due to the process of genetic drift, thisis why modern humans have somewhere between fifty and 250 "root ancestors" - outside Africa. Africans have a much larger, more vast basket of ancestry and genetic diversity going. A Swede and an Inca have more in common genetically than a Kikuyu does with the Masaai next door, because of this Bottleneck at Yemen.

Vendramini then proceeds to declare absolutely everything learned in two hundred years of study of neanderthals completely wrong because, gosh darn it, he has a book to sell. he ignores existing fossils in order to turn Neanderthals into the "evil" gorilla clan in "Congo". Why?

If the bold red text with an outrageous claim didn't clue you in, because it's EXXXXXXTREME!"

While cannibalism either way wouldn't surprise me much (Modern humans ate each other often enough that we actually have genes to protect us from certain diseases that arise from cannibalism) this "evil monkeys eating people" thing is pure schlock.

I mean really, the images he's using to sell it? Snarling evil ape-people galore. it's like the cover of a Great White Hunter pulp story from the 30's.

My favorite? The image "proving" that a neanderthal skull perfectly fits a chimpanzee's profile... Nevermind that the chimpanzee has a skull that doesn't look much like a neanderthal one at all...

[edit on 13-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Ok I have to say that this theory while nice speculation, is not born out by the evidence.

50 Humans in the Middle east? As pointed out this has been squashed by the Mitochondrial DNA evidence. Furhter the ‘rape’ of human females is not supported via genetic archaeology! There has been no definate detection of any Neanderthal influence on the human Genome. Given where the buggers had their range (Eurasia) you’d expect a little difference between Say Australian Aborigionals and Europeans. But there is more genetic difference WITHIN a group than with out. Its’ one of the reasons the idea of “race” is a load of dingoes kidneys.

The graphics of “Neanderthals” are ridiculous as well. Seriously! Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) was not that different in appearance than us. So why put some rather dodgy photgraphic manipulations of a great ape with “cats eyes”? Seriously, if one wants to sell a book I am sure this sort of sensationalistic crap is expected, but to have a “all encompasing theory” use it? That makes me dount any research beyond some drinking has gone into this.

The section of neaderthal surrigates in movies makes me laugh the most. The author obviously has neither read “Eaters of the Dead” or seen it’s adaption “The 13th Warrior”.

Sorry but this book earns “epic fail”

When I read his site and the chapters he has online of his book his version of Neanderthals reminded me very much of the various "beast men" in Robert E. Howard's "Conan" and "Solomon Kane" stories.

That being said - I'm still of the opinion that his his ideas are likely as as factual as Howard's stories.

That isn't what they looked like.Neanderthal Reconstruction

Yeah, i'm not buying it...

The guy says that the images of the Neanderthals that scientists have produced until now are wrong.

He beleives they are anthropomorphic fantasies conceived by artists and unsupported by the scientific evidence

And now let's look at the image he produced. No amount of fantasy went into producing this gem of pure science eh?




(Sorry if that scares anyone It's not my intention)




[edit on 13-11-2009 by Wallachian]

Originally posted by Noinden


The graphics of “Neanderthals” are ridiculous as well. Seriously! Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) was not that different in appearance than us.

How do you know this? Do you have a time machine that can take you back to those days, perhaps even stopping at Gibraltar on the way?

I find it interesting to entertain outside the paradigm.

"Sometimes it takes an outsider to cut through the most intractable problems of 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."

Archaeologist, Iain Davidson, Emeritus Professor of Archaeology, University of New England, Australia. Visiting Professor of Australian Studies, Harvard University

Plus there is an epaper available which is worth checking out: themandus.org...

[edit on 13-11-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by aorAki]

reply to post by aorAki


You notice how the spear of the "Neanderthal" in the picture i posted appears to be out of shiny metal (kinda looks like stainless steel)?

OF COURSE the images are ridiculous.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Wallachian]

Originally posted by Wallachian
reply to post by aorAki

 

You notice how the spear of the "Neanderthal" in the picture i posted appears to be out of shiny metal (kinda looks like stainless steel)?

OF COURSE the images are ridiculous.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Wallachian]

Obsidian shines...there are other minerals/rocks that take on lustres as well...remember: "All that glisters is not gold".


Also, note the conchoidal fractures.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by aorAki]

glad to see so much emotion in here, personally i don't think we'll ever know what a neanderthal looks like unless a time machine gets built during our lifetimes. and OF COURSE, conventional science will say that a time machine is going to be impossible to build.

is science becoming dogmatic in its disregard for possibilities which are outside the accepted view? is this denying ignorance? and how is the human race going to move forward when we feel that we already know everything there is to know? are we just going to accept this premise that we're stuck as we are and there's nothing else out there for us to discover? is this what ats has become?

[edit on 11.13.09 by toreishi]