Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Modern man 'a wimp', says anthropologist

Reuters

Neanderthal man, as reconstructed by French scientists

Getty

Neanderthal man, as reconstructed by French scientists

Many prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have outrun world 100 and 200 metres record holder Usain Bolt in modern conditions.

Some Tutsi men in Rwanda exceeded the current world high jump record of 2.45 meters during initiation ceremonies in which they had to jump at least their own height to progress to manhood.

Any Neanderthal woman could have beaten former bodybuilder and current California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle.

These and other eye-catching claims are detailed in a book by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister entitled "Manthropology" and provocatively sub-titled "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."

McAllister sets out his stall in the opening sentence of the prologue.

"If you're reading this then you - or the male you have bought it for - are the worst man in history.

"No ifs, no buts -- the worst man, period...As a class we are in fact the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."

Delving into a wide range of source material McAllister finds evidence he believes proves that modern man is inferior to his predecessors in, among other fields, the basic Olympic athletics disciplines of running and jumping.

His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved in a fossilized claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey.

An analysis of the footsteps of one of the men, dubbed T8, shows he reached speeds of 37 kph on a soft, muddy lake edge. Bolt, by comparison, reached a top speed of 42 kph during his then world 100 meters record of 9.69 seconds at last year's Beijing Olympics.

In an interview in the English university town of Cambridge where he was temporarily resident, McAllister said that, with modern training, spiked shoes and rubberized tracks, aboriginal hunters might have reached speeds of 45 kph.

"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they are chasing an animal," he said.

"But if they can do that speed of 37 kph on very soft ground I suspect there is a strong chance they would have outdone Usain Bolt if they had all the advantages that he does.

"We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."

McAllister said it was probable that any number of T8's contemporaries could have run as fast.

"We have to remember too how incredibly rare these fossilizations are," he said. "What are the odds that you would get the fastest runner in Australia at that particular time in that particular place in such a way that was going to be preserved?"

Turning to the high jump, McAllister said photographs taken by a German anthropologist showed young men jumping heights of up to 2.52 meters in the early years of last century.

"It was an initiation ritual, everybody had to do it. They had to be able to jump their own height to progress to manhood," he said.

"It was something they did all the time and they lived very active lives from a very early age. They developed very phenomenal abilities in jumping. They were jumping from boyhood onwards to prove themselves."

McAllister said a Neanderthal woman had 10 percent more muscle bulk than modern European man. Trained to capacity she would have reached 90 percent of Schwarzenegger's bulk at his peak in the 1970s.

"But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem," he said.

Manthropology abounds with other examples:

* Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day carrying more than half their body weight in equipment.

* Athens employed 30,000 rowers who could all exceed the achievements of modern oarsmen.

* Australian aboriginals threw a hardwood spear 110 meters or more (the current world javelin record is 98.48).

McAllister said it was difficult to equate the ancient spear with the modern javelin but added: "Given other evidence of Aboriginal man's superb athleticism you'd have to wonder whether they couldn't have taken out every modern javelin event they entered."

Why the decline?

"We are so inactive these days and have been since the industrial revolution really kicked into gear," McAllister replied. "These people were much more robust than we were.

"We don't see that because we convert to what things were like about 30 years ago. There's been such a stark improvement in times, technique has improved out of sight, times and heights have all improved vastly since then but if you go back further it's a different story.

"At the start of the industrial revolution there are statistics about how much harder people worked then.

"The human body is very plastic and it responds to stress. We have lost 40 percent of the shafts of our long bones because we have much less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.

"We are simply not exposed to the same loads or challenges that people were in the ancient past and even in the recent past so our bodies haven't developed. Even the level of training that we do, our elite athletes, doesn't come close to replicating that.

"We wouldn't want to go back to the brutality of those days but there are some things we would do well to profit from."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
"Look at those thumbs man."
[info]contrastcolour wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:53 pm (UTC)
Reminds me of the film, The Beach: Leonardo Di Caprio's character is told, "look at those thumbs man, they're well defined. You play a lot of videogames, don't you?"

I guess we as a species have adapted physically to our less physical way of life.

Though I'm not saying it's a good thing...
Brains than brawn
[info]ruby_88 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 03:11 pm (UTC)
Modern man lives by his brains than brawn. Nerdy looking guys who may not be tough but a whizz at computers occupy high status positions. Unless this changes (very unlikely) we may look towards man becoming more soft and gentle which is no bad thing.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 03:47 pm (UTC)
Right. So one human is superior to another because s/he can run faster, jump higher or win an arm wrestle?

Reminds me of when I was 5 years old in the playground.

All that's happened is that we've adapted. The body won't plough resources into something (strength, load bearing capacity etc.) unless it's needed. Those resources get used elsewhere.

These days we have all sorts of things that tax our minds in ways that out forebears would no doubt struggle with: there's an endless parade of celebrity gossip to keep up with, the complexity of the benefits system, keeping up with Twitter updates from all our 'Friends', the excitement of the Big Brother household, comparing 3-for-2 offers on a named brand with the supermarket's own, choosing a mobile phone tariff...

Makes me wonder what we'd be capable of if the education system concentrated on learning and knowledge rather than box-ticking, teaching to the test/curriculum and league tables, and also what we'd be capable of if we just lived more 'natural' lives (though what that means is probably well open to debate).

I do believe we all have huge potential, however I haven't the foggiest how we could best tap into it. Maybe getting down the gym and reading a bit more might be a start.
(no subject) - [info]lucykate1999 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 04:56 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]jiujitsutony wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 05:14 pm (UTC)
So I guess all these ancients were in terrific physical condition when they died of extreme old age at, what, 35?
erroneous
[info]pinhut wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:02 pm (UTC)
Hannah Arendt picks up on this, noting that we tend to compare modern life spans with the time they were at their lowest in Europe, the Dark Ages. There is no evidence to suggest that the low lifespans of those times were exemplary of the past as a whole, and people may have outlived us also.

Read some more books.
[info]jolyrigg wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 06:27 pm (UTC)
Of course the race was stronger in those days, today a man who can't outrun a lion or follow a wounded prey for hundreds of miles can still reproduce and have weak offspring... Darwin illustrated this a few years ago. But the skills man need today is intelligence and he ability to multitask... I'm pretty sure you put a Neaderthal man in a position where he needs to explain theoretical concepts to an interlocutor wich isn't phisically present (i.e. on the phone) whilst keeping a chunk of a few tons of metal from colliding with other chunks of the same size at roughly 90 miles an hour with less than 3 feet of leeway (i.e. driving a car on the highway) and all that at the same time as visualizing his itinerary several miles in advance (i.e. remembering his way from a roadmap he looked at before leaving)... and your strongman is going to be overwhelmed by the data he needs to process... that would be like trying to render a film like Toy Story with a comodore 64...
[info]aussieemmo wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:26 pm (UTC)
I would like to see more evidence for these claims. A few fossils with suspect claims of equating speed from and some pictures of men jumping high last century hardly tells us much. By the way Arnold Schwarzenegger was all muscle, he trained hypertrophy which is the building of muscle which is not the same as training for strength, so why use him as an example of strength?
(no subject) - [info]corporeal_v001 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 09:32 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]twellian057 - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]corporeal_v001 - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 03:54 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]maggie300 - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 01:48 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]corporeal_v001 - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 02:38 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]maggie300 - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 03:04 am (UTC) Expand
More shock-jock nonesense.
[info]ojoojo wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 12:10 am (UTC)
To judge modern males as the ''worst in history'' solely because we are physically weaker (and thereby indirectly mean that the weaker men are physically = the worse) is nothing but an opinion, keep it to the facts please. Cliché NO IF, BUTS one-liners really don't hold any water.
More shock-jock nonesense.
[info]ojoojo wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 12:31 am (UTC)
To judge modern males as the ''worst in history'' solely because we are physically weaker (and thereby indirectly mean that the weaker men are physically = the worse) is nothing but an opinion, keep it to the facts please.

Also interesting how he speaks against the brutality of those days while (logically) projecting the attitude of that the weaker humans are, the more ''worthless''. Unless you'd do good at the Olympics, you're a sorry excuse for a human.
After working
[info]genghisken wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 03:12 am (UTC)
As a kitchenhand for 3 years the changes I have experienced to my body are amazing yet the people I work with are still mostly fat. Not to mention Lazy and as for the comparison between car driving and hunting(to actually kill and feed your family the adrenaline and the planning). get real dude because survival meant you had to be fast and swift and it really only takes a day to learn to drive but survival is day by day try throwing a spear with the accuracy to kill or make and shoot a bow then you realize they were far more talented than you give them credit for in the world they lived in. lets face it without electricity 90% of the people alive today would not survive what our ancestors did for generations it would create a much tougher person physically.better pray we don't have to become what we were once:)
Top Gear
[info]comradekaff wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:40 am (UTC)

Q E D
And maybe brighter
[info]akisdad wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 05:36 am (UTC)
Jared Diamond makes a good case in Guns, Germs and Steel for the arguement that kids raised in an environment where survival is a struggle would be inclinded to be brighter. They have to know what they can eat, where to find it, what to avoid and how not to get killed by it. Modern populations have evolved to live through epidemic deseases like smallpox and to rely on organised society to provide most of what they would have had to obtain themselves in the ancestral environment. This point about fitness is almost certainly true, but it ignores the fact that we got this successful by being able to work things out from first principles - our ancestors were sharp, as well as strong.
Javelin/Spear throwing
[info]mikeyboynz wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 06:20 am (UTC)
I am sure if modern javelin throwers were also allowed to use spear throwing implements, such as the woomera, they would exceed the 110m attained by the Australian Aborigines.
Re: Javelin/Spear throwing
[info]bluegringo1234 wrote:
Friday, 16 October 2009 at 02:21 am (UTC)
Nice catch I tried to catch a few errors, but I didn't think of attalatles.
[info]awakenyaself wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 06:31 am (UTC)
A diet including fresh water, fresh local and seasonal uncultivated produce, flesh foods from animals [when they themselves were avoiding being prey!] that actually get to use their muscles and were free from injections/additives, fresh air, sunshine [they were not silly enough to labour in the heat of the day or use chemical lotions on skin, an organ of importance akin to the liver], and excellent mental poise [the near starvation myth was just that ...], no bills to pay, a pathway to manhood/womanhood, a non corrupted belief system, no conforming to the burden of working to make it more comfortable for the few at the top [economic unequality has consequences] and a general feeling/attitude of sharing and caring, things amiss now from 90+% of "civilised" humans. They knew they were a part of nature, not different from it.
Love how people can be insulted by this
[info]wolfstan wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
Straight away people rush in and take umbridge at the article, saying how stupid it is to compare the two, that it's imbalanced due to their limited life span or that we were brutes back then. All that is pointless, unless the article was saying we were "better" humans then.

All I can see is that if you took a human of say 18 years old, from these various periods and matched them to an 18 year old of today you'd find that on a physical level they would wipe the floor with them. The fact that they may be dead by 19, or can't work a PC is not the point.

I would also say to scoff at these past races as being brutish or thick and to praise the nerd is slightly childish and over the top. Everything has it's place in history. I for one understand how messed up the gene pool has become, as I'd loved to of followed my father into the Royal Marines or made use of my physical size. However mother nature decided to give me very bad short sightedness, compounded with astigmatism and a weak back.
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this
[info]xcentra wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 02:51 pm (UTC)
I'd like those those Neanderthals build a large hadron collider! Then we'll talk!
Was this article written by Captain Obvious? This is Anthropology 101. Humans are less physically taxed these days. We are more mentally stimulated. The measuring stick of superiority is subjective. Evolution is not goal oriented. If we had a meltdown of civilization, returning to tribal war and hunting for prey in the wild, we'd develop brute physical strength again. This wouldn't be a "de-evolution" because no such thing is possible. Evolution is uni-directional and without an endgame. We just respond to changes in the environment and pass what we learn to offspring.
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]johnadavison - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 03:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]xcentra - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 03:36 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]vmartin1 - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 07:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]xcentra - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 08:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]johnadavison - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 10:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]xcentra - Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 11:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]xcentra - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 12:18 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]johnadavison - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 12:28 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Love how people can be insulted by this - [info]xcentra - Friday, 16 October 2009 at 12:33 am (UTC) Expand
Also remember life expectancy
[info]sinceregenesis wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 02:59 pm (UTC)
What was the life expectancy 60 years, 1000 years ago? half of present?
McAllister as Lamarckian
[info]johnadavison wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 03:03 pm (UTC)
McAllister is a flaming Lamarckian mystic making absurd claims that he knows cannot be either verified or discredited. I don't believe a word he utters.

http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
Neanderthal man
[info]patricia0022 wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:01 pm (UTC)

I think there are some very similar men on the planet today. Look to Cyprus.
The strong hair on the head. The slight body and height weight ratio and long upper body.
Do U wanna find your special one easier and more effective??
[info]lucykate94 wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC)
Do U wanna find your special one easier and more effective?? Please check out ___http://WealthySeeker.COM___ where you can meet the wealthy singles, sexy beauties and even hot celebs. What are you waiting for? Find your sexy partner NOW!
Neanderthals?
[info]clickety6 wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:13 pm (UTC)


They aren't even the same species as us, so it's a bit rich to include them in the comparison.

Where's the balance?
[info]jmotenorissimo wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 04:18 pm (UTC)
Some posts call B.S. on this idea because of man's developing intellect.
Some call his work necessary and insightful.
It escapes me how we can't see the correlation between physical prowess and intellectual capacity. The theories of multiple intelligences alone could have mountains to say about this. In light of the increased brain function that arises from extremely precise large and fine muscle movements at near-reflex speeds, we see an overwhelming case for vastly improved body-kinesthetic, naturalistic, and visual-spatial intelligences. Not to mention the psychological and physiological benefits of being in such fantastic shape - more efficient sleep patters, increased blood flow, less risk of health issues, lower stress levels. We have no idea how to properly take care of ourselves these days, because we worship exclusively at the altar of knowledge.
So, why does our healthy understanding of modern science NOT point us toward more emphasis on physical health? Oh wait, it does - hello America the Obese. Countless studies have shown how better physical health translates directly to better brain function and the psychological health of the individual.
So, can we please find others who are willing to strike a balance among these viewpoints? Can we stop using our testosterone-driven two-cents for the defense of our own vices and shortcomings? Can we begin to understand that human beings are whole, integrated persons, whose individual attributes cannot be ignored?
What?
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 05:24 pm (UTC)
The construct (picture above) of N man doesn't indicate....well....strength...does it? Given they were considerably shorter than yer modern athlete (stride length etc)...is the article...well....a major bollocks 'construct'?
Agriculture
[info]1010100 wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 06:09 pm (UTC)
Hypothesis: Our wimpiness is the result of agriculture and epigenetics. Over 10,000 years it has caused a reduction in stature along with an increase in disease. As a counter phenomenon professional athletes are getting larger on average, even where you wouldn't expect it to be an advantage. Usain Bolt is the perfect example of this phenomenon. I suspect the ancients were more intelligent as well - only lacking the knowledge that we have today.

so what?
[info]elabbar wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 07:07 pm (UTC)
Why would i worry about spear-throwing if i can carry an M4 Rifle and shoot prey from much further away....or catch up with it with just a Ford Escort! not even a Ferrari!

Scara Brae
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 08:26 pm (UTC)
When I visited Scara Brae in the Orkneys, I was told that most people who lived there over 5000 years ago died at the age of 23 and they all had arthritus. But then that's the Orkneys for you!
[info]veeneemoo wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 08:54 pm (UTC)
As our brains get bigger we have less need for physical strength no?
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular