Ancient Man Was Stronger, Faster, Wittier and Better Looking
Who hasn't watched Gladiator and then wondered why you don't meet men like that down the local pub? The same goes for those bulging muscles of antiquity that we see in classical art galleries – they've often made me think that, well, they don't make 'em like they used to. Now it turns out that what we thought all along – that men in ancient times were a darn sight fitter than their modern descendants - is actually true. What's more, it seems that ancient man was also better looking and more intelligent. This is the controversial argument that Australian author Peter McAllister sets out to prove in his latest book: Manthropology - The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male.
Being a qualified archaeologist and palaeoanthropologist, McAllister has picked out some interesting examples to make his point. One is the prehistoric aboriginal people of Australia, who McAllister claims could probably have beaten Usain Bolt to the finishing line if they had still been around to compete in last year's Olympics.
By analysing 20,000 year-old hunters' footprints fossilized in clay, experts have established that one of the six hunters, who were chasing animals across a soft surface, would have reached a top speed of 37 km per hour. Usain Bolt ran at 42 km per hour during his 100m sprint – with all the advantages of modern training, a special running track and state-of-the-art shoes.
With modern training and techniques, McAllister believes that aboriginal man could probably outrun Bolt. He is quoted by Reuters as saying: "We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they are chasing an animal. 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.”
The List Goes On...
There are many other case studies in the book that all go to prove the point that ancient man was stronger, cleverer, quicker, more intelligent, more cunning and better looking that our modern specimens. Some of these examples include:
- A biomechanical analysis that concludes that a Neanderthal woman would have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm-wrestle. Fair enough, but I'm not sure why McAllister chose Arnie here. I know he used to be Mr Universe back in the day, but surely he's a bit past it now. Surely even I could beat Arnie in an arm wrestle these days?
- A philological investigation of why 50 Cent wouldn't have stood a chance in a battle-rap with the poet Homer. Yeah sure, but did Homer know who his homies were?
- A comparison of injury rates between today's Ultimate Fighting and ancient Greek Pankration.
- An examination of the ancient Tutsi male right of passage in Rwanda, where youths would need to jump their own height to become a man. Apparently this would put our modern men's high-jump record, set by Cuban Javier Sotomayor at 2.45m, in the shade.
- Why David Beckham wouldn't have cut it as a pin-up if he was judged by the standards of the ancient Fulani tribe. Sorry, did someone say he also plays football? We only have to look at the statues of Hadrian's Antinous to see that male beauty was highly considered in Roman times as well.
McAllister's arguments are convincing and engage with popular culture at the same time. They tap into the growing culture of magazines and media focusing on male health and beauty. But any men out there feeling worried that they might not compare so well with the ancients should take some consolation in remembering that what they've lost in hunter-gatherer speed and gladiatorial muscle tone, they gain in other areas. For one thing modern brewing techniques have come a long way, and you never saw a Greek pankratiast with an ipod.
Read 8 comments, or leave your own
videos
Comments
I wonder if a Neanderthal woman would have also been able to better manage California's finances had she had access to Arnie's high-tech bean counters...
Is this any surprise? Any hunter-gatherer of old is bound to be fitter than their modern sedentary counterpart crouched over a computer. Our hero is a Lake District legend called Millican Dalton who gave up life as a London accountant to become a "Professor of Adventure" in the Lakes, living in a local cave. He lived a good life, was fit, felt at one with his environment, and didn't feel the need to be a muscle-bound gladiator into the bargain.
Yes, it does seem that technology has hindered the physic of males in this time period. It's amazing how times have changed and the obsession with playing Play Station Three had turned our men into overweight couch potatoes, when instead they should be out catching some game for me to cook. lol
Ok, it makes sense that our sedentary lifestyles are not exactly breeding a nation of super-fit warriors. But it's a big claim to say that the ancients were better-looking - the culturally-agreed definition of 'better-looking' changes constantly. Having said that, after a quick scan outside the window at my fellow Glaswegians, followed by a google image search of the Fulani tribe, he does kinda have a point. I wonder how Darwinists will react to these findings?
Also, throughout the ages, 'sexual selection' in Europe could have been more thorough than in other parts of the world (especially as it cames to girls). Pretty moms lead to more pretty son (and more female looking females also lead to more female looking boys?) so we should be more hansom now?
In defence of modern men: we're not all couch potato lay abouts. Some of us would put the chiseled Greeks to shame. ;-)
Doesn't this revelation by Mr. McAllister defeat the entire argument for evolution?
If only the strong survive, and supposedly through random mutations all creatures evolve for the better, should'nt we be giants by now?
The biggest creatures aren't always the ones fittest for survival though are they? Lizards managed to out-live the dinosaurs and some animals adapt to island habitations by evolving to become smaller. It does seem that humans are physically degenerating the more advanced we get with technology - I guess Darwin didn't factor in fast food, cars and TV when he developed his theories.
It would have been great if McAllister could have devoted a few chapters in his book to women too though. I don't see why men should get all the flak, and it would be interesting to hear how modern woman compares to her ancient predecessors. I have a feeling that modern women would probably be outdone when it comes to physical things like giving birth, general fitness and beauty.
Post new comment