Modern man 'a wimp', says anthropologist
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."
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
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...
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.
Read some more books.
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.
Q E D
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.
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.
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
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.
They aren't even the same species as us, so it's a bit rich to include them in the comparison.
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?