In Them+Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more so. Vendramini argues that given the cold temperatures of ice-age Europe, that neanderthal bodies were covered in thick hair, making them resemble Big Foot more so than brutish early humans. In contrast, Levant-dwelling early humans lost their body hair as a result of neanderthal predation. Vendramini’s argument is that in an effort to differentiate themselves from their predators, early humans favored less hairy mates, thereby selecting for hairless bodies over time.

It’s an interesting theory, but we can’t help but raise the possibility that just because evidence of threaded needles hasn’t yet cropped up among neanderthal sites, that neanderthals didn’t utilize animal fur to supplement their body heat at all. A sizable piece of leather/fur could easily have been draped over the shoulders, for example, or a hole cut out for the head, and then the skin worn like a poncho, perhaps even fastened with a leather strip for a belt. We already know that neanderthals were intelligent, so why should we assume that they would not have thought of such a simple solution to a problem, when they were known to implement other tools and even fire. When we look at Vendramini’s estimates for neanderthal’s capability to live in certain temperature zones, alongside the possibility that they wore simple garments, we can envision a mostly hairless creature still getting by in colder regions. Or, if they were not hairless, their settlement range could have expanded further.

A problem with Vendramini’s “evidence” for supporting neanderthal predation (NP) theory is that he conveniently offers up explanations for things we know by using the NP theory, even though there’s no adequate evidence for causation. That’s not to say that it’s wrong, merely that we should remain skeptical without further evidence.

Take, for example, the hybridization argument, in which Vendramini argues that human-neanderthal hybrids would ultimately have been selected against, and hybrids killed or exiled from Levant encampments on the basis that anything neanderthal was bad. Simply, we don’t find the xenophobia argument convincing; perhaps Levant-dwelling early humans may have hated neanderthals if NP theory is true, but the lengths that early humans would have gone merely to generate a preference in non-neanderthal traits seems nonsensical. Since we know neanderthals were physically superior to early humans, then neanderthal physical traits would have been preferable to Levant-dwelling humans. So if hybridization did occur because of neanderthals raping human women as Vendramini contests, then any such hybrids born and raised by Levant-dwelling humans would have been better able to defend against future neanderthal raiders.

Vendramini does mention physical attributes that early humans would have had to select for in order to evade neanderthal raids, but the obvious isn’t mentioned: hybrids would have stood a better chance of surviving neanderthal attacks, and so genetically, hybrid seeds would have been beneficial for human survivability. This isn’t necessarily in opposition of NP theory, as we can argue two possible scenarios:

1. Sexual predation on-site was not a focal point of neanderthal raids, so the number of hybrid children born among Levant-dwelling humans was minimal, and an exception to the rule. This would make sense if the primary purpose of neanderthal raids was to obtain food. A hunting party would not needlessly risk injury by isolating its members if early humans were at least willing to fight back. If anything, sexual predation would have involved kidnapping of human women¹, but not typically involve on-site rape. The small number of hybrid children born in early human society meant that those who survived into adulthood would have been in a position to pass on their beneficial physical traits. Since they grew up among early humans, these hybrids would have generally acted like their human half-brothers, and defended against neanderthal raiders accordingly.

2. Neanderthal-human interbreeding was less a function of sexual predation as it was a function of trade or “intermarriage,” in which a neanderthal or early human joined the opposite group for some reason. NP theory may be correct, but its extent could be exaggerated. For example, periods of “peace” between neanderthal-human camps could have been brokered by the exchange of individuals and/or resources, with neanderthal raids again becoming common some time later. At the very least, the idea that neanderthals would kidnap human women, keep them alive long enough for them to give birth to hybrids, and then raise those hybrids in neanderthal society is a curious notion if NP theory is true: why raise the hybrid child if it’s physically weak compared to full-blooded neanderthal children? And further, why would a neanderthal take on a hybrid mate if it’s considered “weak,” without the context of simple politics?

Vendramini also argues that sexual control was asserted over Levant-dwelling early human women because of the fear of neanderthal predation. That answer doesn’t seem to follow from Vendramini’s belief that neanderthals raped human women, because no amount of control over human women by their male counterparts would have necessarily protected the women from neanderthal sexual predation. That is, unless human women prefered neanderthal mates, and would actively seek out a neanderthal male to copulate with.

Of all the arguments Vendramini makes, the ones involving sex are the most disappointing, because they don’t seem to hold up to proper scrutiny. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is why neanderthals would bother to prey on early humans sexually in the first place? Why do we assume that there was a shortage of neanderthal females? And if there’s no such shortage, then why would a neanderthal male rape a female sapien when the victim is a sub-par example of neanderthal physical prowess? If NP theory is based on the idea that neanderthals gave in to primal desires for survival, then they would choose to mate with partners that would ensure survival of their offspring. To a neanderthal predator, this means copulating with another neanderthal, not a weak human.

Similar Posts:

• Violence is human. – The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight introduced us to Thom Hartmann’s concept of Older and Younger Cul…


• Thoughts from the 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium. – Over at Naturally Engineered, David Csonka gave a brief rundown of important [take-aways](http://nat…


• Baseline blood tests. – Over the past couple months, we talked to several people about blood tests, and what exactly to test…

Historians believe that at the end of World War II, the Third Reich managed to hide considerable gold stores before succumbing to the Allied invasion. Some of these gold stores were discovered shortly after the war ended, but others may still lay undiscovered, as though some sort of Nazi-pirate treasure.

Nazi archives show that battalions of Organisation Todt – the Third Reich’s main labour organisation – were shipped into the Leinawald in 1944 on the orders of Hitler’s armaments minister Albert Speer.

According to the working theory, the Germans buried what today amounts to $800 million in gold in an underground complex, marking it with sand workings in the shape of a human skull¹. Aerial photography and historical accounts confirm the general location of the gold stash, which remains hidden despite earlier attempts by treasure-seekers and the German government to find it.

There are a couple questions we have with the scenario, however. One, why did Albert Speer not mention any of this in his memoirs, particularly after coming to realize the details of the Holocaust and the likely source of some of that gold? And two, why would the German government seek out the gold in 1961, knowing that if it was found, the government would likely have to give it up anyway? If there were individuals alive at the end of the war who were aware of this cache, why wouldn’t they have invested considerable time by now to discover the lode and pilfer the riches?

The tale is a good one, and though there are probably several instances of hidden Nazi stashes still left to be discovered, stashes of this size are likely the stuff of legend rather than fact. We’ll know for sure in a month or so.

Similar Posts:

• Who to trust less: governments, or corporations? – When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies lik…


• Neanderthals, body hair, and sex. – In Them+Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more …


• DaVinci did it again. – Leonardo Da Vinci was a fascinating fellow, considering not only his vast number of artistic works, …

When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies like PayPal require seemingly irrelevant banking information just to handle money already in the account, something occurred to us: in general, Europeans are very sensitive about privacy issues as far as commercial entities go. That is to say, they prefer corporations to have minimal information on people, while they are generally okay with their governments having this same information. Considering that Europe is a land that has had plenty of authoritarian rulers, particularly those who had no qualms with repeatedly ignoring the idea of a citizen’s right to privacy, the Europeans remains alright with the idea that their governments may, from time to time, ignore privacy in the course of, say, national security matters. At minimum, this suggests that Europeans have a strong degree of faith in their governments and investigative authorities. However, Europeans don’t seem to trust corporations as much; corporations are seen as much more likely to abuse information collected in the pursuit of profit.

On the flip-side, we have the United States, where citizens pretty freely give up private information to corporations as part of the cost of going about their lives (e.g. Facebook, Mint, PayPal.) However, the idea that their government might try to obtain some of this information is distasteful, despite the fact that the United States does not have the same history as European governments for blatantly disrespecting its citizen’s privacy; the United States government has never been as corrupt as, say, the Third Reich, European monarchies, etc. Why do Americans have so little faith in their government when it comes to national security matters, while seemingly more “progressive” countries don’t consider this nearly as large an issue? Meanwhile, Americans pass an enormous amount of private information to companies they believe they can trust, who naturally tend to sell this information for money.

Who has the right idea?

Similar Posts:

• Big Brother can’t hang with iOS. – The Washington Post [reports](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-government-loos…


• A Farm Corps? – In The New York Times, Nicolette Hahn Niman proposes [five things](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeb…


• A misguided philosophy for WikiLeaks? – Much is being written about the philosophy of WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, and naturally, mos…

The 2011 autumn lineup for Vibram’s FiveFinger’s line looks good. Birthday Shoes, the de facto outlet for Vibram FiveFingers news, reports on several intriguing new models which are much more fashion-friendly than previous designs (at least, as fashion-friendly as toe-shoes can be). Previously, the most covert FiveFingers model was the original Trek, sporting a one-colour leather exterior in either dark brown or black. This autumn, men will also have the option of sporting the Bormio, which is an ankle-height leather “boot,” as well as the Trek LS which is basically a lace-up version of the Trek with, presumably, more leather and less elastic. We can easily see our original Trek becoming a pure hiking shoe, and using a Trek LS for most casual outings. The Bormio could fill this same role in cooler months, and if it ends up being mostly water resistant, we can finally get rid of our hiking books that we keep around purely for when it’s raining hard or snowing.

The bit about lace-ups is also interesting, because frankly, lace-up FiveFingers are awesome; we own a pair of Speeds that we ordered from the UK, and they’re quickly becoming our favorite shoe. The sizing wasn’t obvious for us, but the fit is fantastic with the laces, and so we have high hopes for the Trek LS. The only thing we would have preferred is for the Trek LS to have a non-Trek sole (necessitating a name-change, obviously) because we find the thickness of the Trek sole unnecessary for day-to-day use. The Trek sole makes more sense in the Bormio (as it’s a boot), and here it’s gladly welcomed. Of course, the Speeds are also coming to US shores, so that means that North Americans will be able to pick a pair up for much cheaper than ordering from Europe.

We’re not too enthused about the rest of the lineup, though admit, amusingly, that if we were of the female persuasion, we’d be giddy to pick up a pair of high, furry-topped Kangas. Birthday Shoes has pics of all these models, and more.

Similar Posts:

• Fivefingers: beyond the first week. – Our first week wearing Vibram Fivefingers made for an interesting experience, and while we intended …


• A Five Fingers journal. – We randomly came across mention of Vibram Five Fingers over at the Mnmlist blog, where author Leo bo…


• Keeping Nike’s grubby paws off my $29. – I hate running. It’s a boring, uncomfortable routine that months of practicing didn’t make any more …

After slowly making our way through the available episodes of Showtimes’s Tudors, and nearing the end of the second season, we decided to take a brief break and watch The Other Boleyn Girl. How could a movie starring both Natalie Portman and Scarlet Johansson fail? Well, epically.

At least compared to the story told in Tudors. While the movie has some great, arguably more historically accurate costumes, that’s about where the movie’s merits end. Casting in Tudors is much better, and the story itself is far more historically accurate than what we see in the The Other Boleyn Girl. Hell, even the Natalie in Tudors plays the role of Anne Boleyn better than Portman, as Dormer comes across as not only more conniving, but is sexier to boot (and that’s saying a lot, since we’re Portman fans).

While the near soft-porn from Tudors’ first season may not be expected by new viewers, it certainly depicts King Henry in the proper light. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers may look younger, but he seems to fit the role of the King much better than the almost-too-creepy King played by Eric Bana in The Other Boleyn Girl. Maybe that’s because Rhys-Meyers is great at playing somewhat twisted characters, and the real King Henry was no doubt somewhat twisted.

Sure, Tudors presents itself in a way that is more appealing to a television audience: the actors are generally good-looking by today’s standards, and the costumes are more minimalist, but the script is solid, accurate, and really makes one wonder how the Tudor dynasty wasn’t torn apart by critical observers. In the end, Tudors is an exemplary television series that should make Hollywood embarrassed. And, thankfully it’s on Showtime, because god knows HBO would have cancelled it by now seeing as it’s just so damn good.

Similar Posts:

• The King of the Hill is dead. – In what can only be blamed on the retardation that is FOX, King of the Hill somehow managed to last…


• Apple TV disappoints. Again. – When Apple TV first hit shelves, I had a couple things to say, the gist of which involved the device…


• The one time “authentic” means “lame”. – Why wouldn’t a child of the 80s find a modern G.I. Joe movie fantastic? Given the veritable success …

After Apple’s lawyers presumably spent many nights awake looking for looholes, they finally gave in and recognized that Apple needs to sell an unlocked version of the iPhone in France, because in Frenchland, carrier exclusivity is a no-no. Apparently, Apple’s lawyers did not find the same to be true in Germany, where Deutsche Telekom (i.e. T-Mobile) was awarded the iPhone exclusivity contract. Now, rival carrier Vodaphone has taken T-Mobile to court, receiving a temporary injunction to prevent sales of the iPhone.

Naturally, T-Mobile is appealing, but I’m keen on the drama coming out of the carrier exclusivity decision Apple has made, because they only people it’s helping are those with the big wallets at Apple and the respective exclusivity carriers. Consumers and rival carriers, meanwhile, don’t get to base their decisions on what really matters: who has the best rate and feature plans”.

Similar Posts:

• Non-AT&T iPhone not likely until a 4G roll-out. – A lot of people dislike AT&T. Granted, that number pales in comparison to the number of people who l…


• What if Apple’s deal with AT&T is a sham? – When news first hit that Apple was making the iPhone a device to be exclusively used on AT&T’s shabb…


• Getting an iPhone 3G sans contract: the costs. – In what should be illegal, AT&T is charging $700 for a 16GB iPhone that’s not contracted to them…