modern man vs. ancient man

[uki]

one of my favorite arguments on these boards is the one that measures up modern man and ancient man as far as physical capability and strength... i am one of those who believes that ancient man was and is superb in comparison to the common man in the 21st century - limitless technological distractions, propagation of useless pharmecuticals, which help expedite the deterioration of ones physical/mental/spiritual bodies, watered down and doctored histories, and outright apathetical laziness embraced on national levels - these are all contributing factors in mankinds descent from greatness... this argument pops up periodically and seemingly out of non-coincidence, i found this news article (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=11604) today from reuters... LOL


LONDON (Reuters) - Many prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have outrun world 100 and 200 meters 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 **** 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.

FLEET-FOOTED ABORIGINALS

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.

STARK DECLINE

"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."

let the battle begin... :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dude, seriously ?
Stop.
Did you even read that article ??
Pre-historic man ??

[uki]

Pre-historic man ??ancient. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets compare orangutangs to ****-sapiens why don't we.

[sanjuro_ronin]

ancient. :)

Many prehistoric Australian...
Any Neanderthal woman ...
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...

As for the rest, context my friend, context.
McAllister assumes and contemplates many things it seems.

[uki]

McAllister assumes and contemplates many things it seems.as do you... what about the roman soldier examples?? greek rowers in athens?? aborigines are still around... the point is that modern man is infact much more lazy in nature. the demands and rigors of society are insignificant compared to before the "modern age". we fly, take trains, and drive cars when we travel, we don't walk over mountains or over thousands of miles to get to where we are going... face it, mankind has become slothful in most aspects of life. fast food as opposed to hunting and preparing your own food yourself and all the phyiscal labour it entails... the list of comparisons are too numerous to list.

[sanjuro_ronin]

as do you... what about the roman soldier examples?? greek rowers in athens?? aborigines are still around... the point is that modern man is infact much more lazy in nature. the demands and rigors of society are insignificant compared to before the "modern age". we fly, take trains, and drive cars when we travel, we don't walk over mountains or over thousands of miles to get to where we are going... face it, mankind has become slothful in most aspects of life. fast food as opposed to hunting and preparing your own food yourself and all the phyiscal labour it entails... the list of comparisons are too numerous to list.

You really need to read a history book, and I am not saying that to be cruel or mean, just an honest suggestion.
Aboriginals ARE still around and how many made the Australian Olympic team ??
Australia pumped millions into their athletic program and searched all over Australia to find the best potential athlete before the Sidney games, they did that for YEARS before the games.

Is the average modern man lazier and more out of shape than the average "ancient" man?
Probably, but we are far healthier too, don't forget that.
Life expectancy is at an all time high.
As for the roman soldiers and rowers, McAllister has no idea what he is talking about sorry.
Compare a roman solider and what he had to do with what a modern day soldier CAN do, it doesn't even compare dude.

[uki]

Life expectancy is at an all time high.LMAO!!! sure it is... :rolleyes:

Compare a roman solider and what he had to do with what a modern day soldier CAN do, it doesn't even compare dude.LOL... modern soldiers fight with guns, from a dishonorable ranges.

my understanding of history is a bit different than yours. :)

[Lucas]

did moses really live for hundreds of years? ive read accounts where its 900, then ive read more realistic accounts that he lived to 120 years of age.

[sanjuro_ronin]

LMAO!!! sure it is... :rolleyes:
LOL... modern soldiers fight with guns, from a dishonorable ranges.

my understanding of history is a bit different than yours. :)

If you are not even going to TRY to have a serious discussion then fine.



Lucas : did moses really live for hundreds of years?

Don't know, I wasn't there.
Take what you read in the Bible when it comes to things like that, with a grain of salt.

[sanjuro_ronin]

An example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

In 1896 we have the record of 2:58:50 and a shorter distance on top of that.
In 2008 we have a record of 2:03.59 at a LONGER distance, with LESS cleaner air according to most !

[uki]

did moses really live for hundreds of years? ive read accounts where its 900, then ive read more realistic accounts that he lived to 120 years of age.mankind lived well past 900 years before we p!ssed off the "gods" who then genetically altered the species causing us to age much faster.

the current healthcare crisis is ironically the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

mankind lived well past 900 years before we p!ssed off the "gods" who then genetically altered the species causing us to age much faster.

the current healthcare crisis is ironically the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. :)

When did that happen muffin?

[uki]

In 1896 we have the record of 2:58:50 and a shorter distance on top of that.woohoo!!! 1896... now THAT is ancient baby!! yeah!!


When did that happen muffin?not to be mean or anything but, perhaps you should read a history book. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

woohoo!!! 1896... now THAT is ancient baby!! yeah!!

not to be mean or anything but, perhaps you should read a history book. :)

There is a history book that shows the gods altered our species?
Please, do tell !!

[uki]

There is a history book that shows the gods altered our species?i'm shocked you never heard...

Please, do tell !!when the student is ready, the messenger will appear. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

And hear I thought that we were gonna have a serious discussion about an interesting topic.
You'd think I should know better by now.

[uki]

And hear I thought that we were gonna have a serious discussion about an interesting topic.i am being serious... this is what i believe. what's really to discuss between you and i?? you are set in your ways and i am set in mine... i believe mankind is at a nadir in it's progressive cycle of evolution, you believe otherwise...


You'd think I should know better by now.perhaps you are still denying who you are dealing with...

[sanjuro_ronin]

i am being serious... this is what i believe. what's really to discuss between you and i?? you are set in your ways and i am set in mine... i believe mankind is at a nadir in it's progressive cycle of evolution, you believe otherwise...
perhaps you are still denying who you are dealing with...

Dude, first off you don't have any idea what I believe and according to your own posts, you don't believe in evlotuon, or at least have a very skewed view of it.
Second off, perhaps I am in denial of who I am dealing with, LOL !

[uki]

Dude, first off you don't have any idea what I believeaccording to a post in another thread, you said it is absurd to think that ancient man is superiour to our current state of the species in question.


and according to your own posts, you don't believe in evlotuon, or at least have a very skewed view of it.all things evolve, it's the way of nature to continually spiral outward and change... as for genetic manipulation, it's just that, a manipulation of the evolutionary process - much like bending space/time with a hyperdrive or using wormholes to travel between two points, in a seemingly infinite amount of space... or perhaps you'd prefer a more laymans example of the concept such as: using steroids to build muscle faster than normal..

Second off, perhaps I am in denial of who I am dealing with, LOL !nah, i don't think so.

[Lucas]

this seems to me more of a; Developed Hardiness vs Application of skill and use of advanced sciences and practices.

modern training equipment and sciences aside, its pretty much common sense that man adapts to his environment. the rougher and tougher the environment, the rougher and tougher the man. thats just how nature works.

a man who sleeps on hard ground, runs, hunts, kills and survives every single day, will likely have an environment to produce a very hardy individual indeed. even our modern high level athletes are not on the go 100% of the time. and rarely is their life ever going to be part of the training equation. the difference being the intention of the training, so there is of course some basic common sense evidence that based on daily actions prehistoric and ancient man was often forced into a lifestyle situation that would not permit any amount of softness or laziness, simply because that often meant death.

of course in todays modern world our practices and sciences are far advanced, however i do believe that our evolutionary state of hardiness on average had been broken by modern amenities compared to the tribal states of man where there were none available.


however i do also believe that ancient man would be hardier only in certain aspects that are directly related to his life of survival. not all would be good runners, as not all would neccessarily need to run to survive. not all would be of mass muscle bulk as the lifestyle not permitting such a physical state for survival. in other words i believe that the hardiness and toughness of prehistoric/ancient man would be specific to his region and requirements for survival, and would encompass only specific aspects of their physical body, again, directly related to the requirements of survival.

that cavewoman may beat arnold in an arm wrestling match, but she would probably not be able to best michael phelps in the water.

as todays world our athletes also, on average, have a pin pointed, focused physical prowess. not all encompassing. someone who is a master on the uneven bars probably isnt going to do well in the 100 meter, by modern standards.

its my opinion that this is how humans have always been. simply adapting to our environments and producing appropriate results to the circumstances presented in life.

summary of my jumbled gargle:

i believe modern man has the capabilites at his disposal to reach as high of a state of physical being as our current evolutionary state can reach. ancient/prehistoric mans advantage in the physical realm came from his lifestyle and livelihood. a type of lifestyle and required survival state, something of which has rarely if at all been seen in many, many generations.

life is not long enough to become the best of the best in all areas. we must focus on certain aspects of life to achieve high levels of physical prowess/skillfull mastery in certain areas. the whole jack of all trades master of none mindset.

this applies to physical conditioning as well. sports are a great example of this. it would be difficult to have high level iron palm, be the best swimmer, the best power lifter, the best runner, the best javelin thrower, etc.

its my opinion that ancient/prehistoric man was indeed, on average, of a hardier stock, and did possess some greater aspects of a physical state, but that also todays modern man does best ancient/prehistoric man in certain aspects and areas that are our current focus.

we have traded our required physical conditioning through survival for the ability to train ourselves through modern methods to reach high states of physical prowess and conditioning.

[sanjuro_ronin]

according to a post in another thread, you said it is absurd to think that ancient man is superiour to our current state of the species in question.
all things evolve, it's the way of nature to continually spiral outward and change... as for genetic manipulation, it's just that, a manipulation of the evolutionary process - much like bending space/time with a hyperdrive or using wormholes to travel between two points, in a seemingly infinite amount of space... or perhaps you'd prefer a more laymans example of the concept such as: using steroids to build muscle faster than normal..
nah, i don't think so.

Steroids do NOT build muscles, they allow for greater training frequency and recovery rates.

Do I think that modern man is superiour to ancient man in terms of our physical state?
On a whole? Yes, we live longer, we are smarter and we have the internet ! LOL !
On certain things like elite level physical performance, yes, science has shown us that.
Comparing us to pre-historic man or a diffent species like neandrathals is irrelevant.

[uki]

Steroids do NOT build muscles, they alfor great training frequency and recovery rates.my POINT is that it(steroids) is something that helps skip or accelerate the natural process - just like genetic manipulation in our evolutionary process...

nice effing post lucas!!

[Lucas]

i guess i should say im kind of on the fence, i believe both, but each are unique in their circumstances. modern vs ancient man.

each had their strengths and weaknesses

[sanjuro_ronin]

Modern sports tend to be sport specific, we have found that the best way to excel in a physical endevour is to specialize in it.
That said, there are sports that are general ones too: Triathalon, decathalon, pentahalon, etc.

[taai gihk yahn]

my POINT is that it(steroids) is something that helps skip or accelerate the natural process - just like genetic manipulation in our evolutionary process...

nice effing post lucas!!
what is natural? seeing as we are a product of nature, there is nothing unnatural that mankind can do...

[uki]

the reality of the entire concept is that you become what you do. which provides better quality exercise: running thru uneven terrain(as in hunting) or running on a level track?? walking to you families house 100 miles away or driving there?? shooting people with guns - blowing up people with remote controlled bombs or engaging in hand to hand combat?? building your house and your families house from earth and stone or hiring some sleazy contractor to do it for you??

by this analogy using oppositional and dualistic examples, it is evident that our modern society is LESS physically demanding than our ancient fore-running civilizations less physical demands, less physical strength... we may have a few better inven tions, but ironically most of them take away from our physical activity. if modern man is superiour to ancient man in anything, i would have to say it would be ignorance.

what is natural? seeing as we are a product of nature, there is nothing unnatural that mankind can do...and primordial chaos has appeared!!! i understand this, everything is natural, yet some things can speed up or hinder the normal cycles of evolution(change).

[sanjuro_ronin]

the reality of the entire concept is that you become what you do. which provides better quality exercise: running thru uneven terrain(as in hunting) or running on a level track?? walking to you families house 100 miles away or driving there?? shooting people with guns - blowing up people with remote controlled bombs or engaging in hand to hand combat?? building your house and your families house from earth and stone or hiring some sleazy contractor to do it for you??

by this analogy using oppositional and dualistic examples, it is evident that our modern society is LESS physically demanding than our ancient fore-running civilizations less physical demands, less physical strength... we may have a few better inven tions, but ironically most of them take away from our physical activity. if modern man is superiour to ancient man in anything, i would have to say it would be ignorance.
and primordial chaos has appeared!!! i understand this, everything is natural, yet some things can speed up or hinder the normal cycles of evolution(change).

You need to get out more.

[uki]

You need to get out more.out as in meaning what?? standing in muddied holes laying block or playing on scaffolding isn't enough?? last time i went out after dark to a bar by myself i ended up in jail... i like to stay within the comfort of my home zone. :D

[SanHeChuan]

when the student is ready, the messenger will appear.

uki's messenger is probably david Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke) :rolleyes:

The greek who ran the first marathon died from the effort. Real men run the Ultramarathon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon). :p

[uki]

uki's messenger is probably david Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)actually it would be zecharia sitchin (http://www.sitchin.com/). :D


The greek who ran the first marathon died from the effort. alot of people die from their efforts...

Real men run the Ultramarathon. real men don't join the marines... HO HA! :p

[dimethylsea]

Uki,

Straight up... do I really care than a typical Roman legionnaire could outhump, out-thrust, and out-slash me?

No.

Why?

Because I can do things they can't.. and in a war against a Roman soldier chances are very good I'd kick the crap out of him. Vegetius aside the typical member of the legions weren't exactly bright. Barely numerate (though their numbering system didn't help), illiterate. Most of them were bloody idiots by modern standards.

If I didn't get thrust through with the pilum on the initial clash chances are very good I'd win.

Without even being a specialist in such endeavors I could survive injuries that would leave a Roman dead (field surgery is a whole different animal with germ theory in your pocket), and as soon as I could steal a horse I'd have the mobility advantage (stirrups anyone?). I've got enough of Wiki stashed in my cortex to completely murder their weapons technology, and that's without using gunpowder and "hot" weapons. And I'm also stronger and faster than I was at 15. Most Roman soldiers would be DEAD (illness, injury etc.) by the time they hit my age.

If you want a good read in this vein try googling "Conrad Stargrad".

Take a Neanderthal. Strong as all... quite possibly. How's that going to go over once I start smelting bronze? I'm not sure of the timeline off the top of my head.. but you get my point..

A herd animal is faster and stronger than a human.. but they don't use the Aechulian "hand axe" (actually a drop weighted aerial "discus of death" thingie) on the lions.

So what if an aborigine can run fast. I can ride a horse.

Technology is not bad. If it had to be assigned a polar quality it would be very very good.

Have you ever read anything by the Stoics? There is a reason they were "stoic". Life was really horrible back then.

[dimethylsea]

real men don't join the marines... HO HA! :p

I agree. Real men spit in a recruiter's face and dare them to say a word.

[uki]

i am merely pointing out that physically, modern man is somewhat inferiour to his anscestors because of the way society has been established. nothing more, nothing less... it's just something to tickle ones mind is all. :)

[David Jamieson]

This thread makes me laugh. :p

[David Jamieson]

i am merely pointing out that physically, modern man is somewhat inferiour to his anscestors because of the way society has been established. nothing more, nothing less... it's just something to tickle ones mind is all. :)

You're pointing at a fallacy.

physically, modern men live longer and healthier lives, have a far higher level of education and fun****etal understanding of their world, better access to a wider variety of foods, is technologically superior in each and every way.

why on earth would any one want to return to subsistance living.

even you? YOu would have no time to do any stone work because you'd be hunting all the time to feed yourself.

You have a really weird and uneducated view of history and reality Uki.
Plus you seem to hate it when people point out what folly you allign yourself with.

I just want to point out that you are dealing in fantasies, guesses and whimsical calls to romantic views of what was a pretty crappy existence compared to what is now.

[uki]

This thread makes me laugh.glad i can help give you your daily dose of the most perfect medicine. :D

[taai gihk yahn]

it makes one look at one's assumptions about life in general; what it comes down to is that, given a choice of life versus death, without any conditionals, who would pick death? and that is why, from the get go, "man" has continued to improve his / her ability to survive in a way that demands the least amount of energy expenditure in order to do so; so why did aboriginal man have to be a better runner? because he had a much smaller margin of error for survival! while he might be able to outrun his animal prey, he also had to do it with an astounding degree of consistency, because the one day he didn't might be the last day he had the chance to; and if while doing so he happened to strain his ankle just a little bit? buh-bye...

so, this margin of error being what it was, one day, Grog and his mates sat down and said, "you know all this running about chasing out dinner - it sucks! there has got to be a better way..."; and so they came up with some clever idea, like setting a pit-trap, which they would chase the animal into; meaning that they still had to run, but not nearly as fast or as far; and not only did they start expending less energy, they took it in more and more consistently; of course, the other big revolution came when Grog's wife was like, "you know al this foraging around really blows; I wonder what would happen if we took a bunch of these seeds and put them in a bunch of holes a in the same place..."; relative consistency and predictability is what increases survival, plain and simple;

now, when Grog Jr. came up with this novel idea, did Grog Sr. complain about "well, in my day, we didn't have your fancy 'pits', we ran down our prey with our own bare hairy feet!", or "****erectus today? bah! 1,000,000,000,000 years ago, we were anaerobic bacteria, living at the bottom of the ocean on the backsides of these red tube-like things stuck onto volcanic vents into the earth's crust! it was like a gagillion degrees on your face and minus bogdilion on your asz - don't talk to ME about survival!"...

thus, looking at ancient man's alleged superior attributes is fine, but one has to look at the overall context within which those attributes were necessary; and don't get me wrong - I think that we are in quite a pickle as a species right now, but it's an entirely different sort, which is that we have, in a way, learned to survive too well! so one has to wonder, what's next for us noble parasites?

[N.B. - thanks Scot_, I'm feeing MUCH better now...]

[uki]

You're pointing at a fallacy.perhaps the fallacy is in your perception of my pointing?


physically, modern men live longer and healthier lives, have a far higher level of education and fun****etal understanding of their world, better access to a wider variety of foods, is technologically superior in each and every way.highly subjective to ones own personal beliefs...


why on earth would any one want to return to subsistance living.why take for granted the system we live in today?


even you? YOu would have no time to do any stone work because you'd be hunting all the time to feed yourself.one man hunts and grows crops, another man builds with stones... same concepts has we follow today, only manifested in a different way.


You have a really weird and uneducated view of history and reality Uki. again, this is highly subjective based on your own assumption based on your perception of what reality is.


Plus you seem to hate it when people point out what folly you allign yourself with.everyone squirms a little when an open wound is touched... no? some folks just have bigger wounds than others. :D


I just want to point out that you are dealing in fantasies, guesses and whimsical calls to romantic views of what was a pretty crappy existence compared to what is now.the rooster crows!!! three times you have denied my perception of what is reality based on the subjectivity of your own perceptions. :p


so one has to wonder, what's next for us noble parasites?we will become aware of our inferiour status within the star systems of intelligent life. :)

[David Jamieson]

perhaps the fallacy is in your perception of my pointing?
highly subjective to ones own personal beliefs...
why take for granted the system we live in today?
one man hunts and grows crops, another man builds with stones... same concepts has we follow today, only manifested in a different way.
again, this is highly subjective based on your own assumption based on your perception of what reality is.
everyone squirms a little when an open wound is touched... no? some folks just have bigger wounds than others. :D
the rooster crows!!! three times you have denied my perception of what is reality based on the subjectivity of your own perceptions. :p

we will become aware of our inferiour status within the star systems of intelligent life. :)


lol, you really have firmly entrenched yourself in this idiocy you spout haven't you.

yes uki, it's EVERYONE elses perception that is faulty. :rolleyes:

If you ever decide to read something that isn't lazy minded whimsical musings of pseudo-new-age-fruitcakery you might find yourself somewhere.

for instance, If you had half a brain and could read you wouldn't make such an idiot of yourself so often.

Sitchin has been trashed by actual academics in the field of linguistics on several occasion now. Enough so to entirely diminish all the stuff he puts in his L Ron Hubbard like assessments of Sumeria.

yeah, he was neat back in the 70's, but nowadays? he's seen for what he is, a kook who doesn't actually have any understanding of ancient languages outside of his own minimal training in Hebrew due to the fact he's a jew and attended Hebrew school and therefore learned how to read some Hebrew. his interpretation of cuneiform have been pretty much trashed by actual scholars in the form.


Maybe it is you who has the difficulty with perception? You discount the capabilities of man and then you flip flop and talk about how great the ancients were and then you're quickly hopping off onto some other tangent.

why don't you crack a real anthropological studies book? Why not some real academic work? Say some Joseph Campbell? Or John Huston? there are plenty of people who have dedicated their academic lives to the study of social structures, humanity, religion etc you name it. They are all accessible and as technology gets better, even more so! One can even self study with these great minds!

But instead, you choose to linger in the Shirley McLean aisle seeking answers in metaphysics and looking backwards for answers in advancement and in your folly you continue to fail to see just how atrociously backwards that is.

I can't help you, so I point out you folly that you may decide to one day perhaps help yourself.

My perceptions? lol, examine your own.

[uki]

yes uki, it's EVERYONE elses perception that is faulty.i never said mine was any less faulty than anyone elses, merely pointing out an obvious line of reasoning.


Sitchin has been trashed by actual academics in the field of linguistics on several occasion now. hmmm... so because he has critics, he's a fraud? perhaps his critics have a flawed understanding?? see how this can go on forever in a dualistic universe?? LOL... there is always an opposition.


yeah, he was neat back in the 70's, but nowadays? he's seen for what he is, a kook who doesn't actually have any understanding of ancient languages outside of his own minimal training in Hebrew due to the fact he's a jew and attended Hebrew school and therefore learned how to read some Hebrew. his interpretation of cuneiform have been pretty much trashed by actual scholars in the form.again... highly subjective. whose to say the universities are not teaching watered down facts to keep the people dumb?



Maybe it is you who has the difficulty with perception? You discount the capabilities of man and then you flip flop and talk about how great the ancients were and then you're quickly hopping off onto some other tangent.it's all related... you have to learn to step back and observe the bigger picture of why things are the way they are.


why don't you crack a real anthropological studies book? Why not some real academic work? Say some Joseph Campbell? Or John Huston? there are plenty of people who have dedicated their academic lives to the study of social structures, humanity, religion etc you name it. They are all accessible and as technology gets better, even more so! One can even self study with these great minds!who you believe to have a great mind and who i believe to have a great mind is once again, highly subjective.


But instead, you choose to linger in the Shirley McLean aisle seeking answers in metaphysics and looking backwards for answers in advancement and in your folly you continue to fail to see just how atrociously backwards that is.what is backward?? what is forward?? highly subjective to which direction one is facing...


I can't help you, so I point out you folly that you may decide to one day perhaps help yourself.hmmm... how do you know i am in folly?? another highly subjective assumption based on you're own perceptions of reality.


My perceptions? lol, examine your own.actually my own are all i ever have to examine. :)

[taai gihk yahn]

we will become aware of our inferiour status within the star systems of intelligent life. :)
have you been wearing the tin-foil hat again? I thought you were going to stop doing that...:p

[uki]

have you been wearing the tin-foil hat again? I thought you were going to stop doing that...are you kidding me?? i don't where them stupid things... they don't work anyway. :D

[SPJ]

one of my favorite arguments on these boards is the one that measures up modern man and ancient man as far as physical capability and strength--

let the battle begin... :p

believe it or not, we still fight the same way. b/c our anatomy is the same despite some "size" and "strength" variations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A7PdChTPZE

me love kelly kelly. I believe her grand----grand ma fought the same way.

:)

[uki]

believe it or not, we still fight the same way. b/c our anatomy is the same despite some "size" and "strength" variations.of course... but we just aren't as hardy as a species as we were before this "modern age" we live in and take for granted - turn the clock back atleast one age(2,160 years or so) and you'll discover that mankind was much sturdier physically.

[David Jamieson]

i never said mine was any less faulty than anyone elses, merely pointing out an obvious line of reasoning.

hmmm... so because he has critics, he's a fraud? perhaps his critics have a flawed understanding?? see how this can go on forever in a dualistic universe?? LOL... there is always an opposition.
again... highly subjective. whose to say the universities are not teaching watered down facts to keep the people dumb?

it's all related... you have to learn to step back and observe the bigger picture of why things are the way they are.
who you believe to have a great mind and who i believe to have a great mind is once again, highly subjective.
what is backward?? what is forward?? highly subjective to which direction one is facing...
hmmm... how do you know i am in folly?? another highly subjective assumption based on you're own perceptions of reality.
actually my own are all i ever have to examine. :)

If you are incapable of grasping some simple realities, then really you aren't discussing anything, you are iterating without cause or purpose.

Sitchin's critics are likened to the child who points out the emperor has no clothes, except taht they all hold doctorates in languages, ancient languages, archaeology, anthropology et al. He is a fraud and has been shown to be one for some time. That you are ignorant of it is inconsequential except to you and anyone else who is still paying for his fictional accounts.

It has been demonstrated quite clearly that his linguistic qualifications are non-existent , but if you choose to want to have a monkey for your surgeon, then by all means. I am sorry that the operation will not turn out well for you despite what you want to believe about that monkey having surgical skill.

It is the forwarding of ideas that to keep an open mind in regards to ideas that have been demonstratively proven erroneous that holds you in your inability to move forward.

yes, each and every book is a perception of the author presented. Nevertheless, it is also elementary logic that each and any of us, through deduction, reason and applied logic can find truths.

In the area of languages, we have physical examples, we have physical methods and measurable ways of achieving results in deciphering and interpreting languages. So, as a for instance, Mr.Sitchin does not have these skills and that has been pointed out by scholars who DO have those skills.

You choose not to accept that for whatever reason. Which only sprouts the age old addage:

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You actually run the risk of making yourself and others dumber with your postulations. Of that, you should have some concern seeing as you are all in knots about obfuscation of truth.

but then, another saying springs to mind as well.

Milk for babies, meat for the strong.

Enjoy your milk and when your teeth come in and you want to delve into horrifying reality, you will no doubt find a way.

I am open to these subjects myself, truth be told, and after a while, you get tired of being told that a screwdriver makes a great hammer and that is it's intended use. Especially after someone shows you a hammer and how to use it.

[Jimbo]

the reality of the entire concept is that you become what you do. which provides better quality exercise: running thru uneven terrain(as in hunting) or running on a level track?? walking to you families house 100 miles away or driving there?? shooting people with guns - blowing up people with remote controlled bombs or engaging in hand to hand combat?? building your house and your families house from earth and stone or hiring some sleazy contractor to do it for you??

by this analogy using oppositional and dualistic examples, it is evident that our modern society is LESS physically demanding than our ancient fore-running civilizations less physical demands, less physical strength... we may have a few better inven tions, but ironically most of them take away from our physical activity. if modern man is superiour to ancient man in anything, i would have to say it would be ignorance.
and primordial chaos has appeared!!! i understand this, everything is natural, yet some things can speed up or hinder the normal cycles of evolution(change).

In everything, there's always a tradeoff. I'm certain that in many ways, neanderthal man had physical assets that were superior to modern man. As for if neanderthal were in general any happier overall, that's impossible to know. They still had to use survival intelligence, not only brute force, because the animals they had to avoid (and even most that they hunted) were physically bigger, stronger and faster than they were.

But compare the average lifespan. The typical neanderthal lived to what, 25, 30 years old? It was a hard life. Would I want to trade places with one for the possibility of his probable greater physical strength and heightened physical senses? Not a chance.

There are still peoples whose lifestyles haven't changed for centuries, in places like Papua New Guinea, the Amazon, and elsewhere. Though I'm not saying they're the same as neanderthal man or his conditions, such groups would be the closest study of ancient ways of living off the land preserved in modern times.

[uki]

blah, blah-blah, blah, blah... bla-blah blah...you run the risk of wasting your time with me. :)

thanks for you input jimbo, but you too are missing the point...

[David Jamieson]

you run the risk of wasting your time with me. :)

thanks for you input jimbo, but you too are missing the point...

run the risk?

I am not doing it for your benefit.

You're lost, until you're found. :)

[Scott R. Brown]

Fitness Has Fallen Since The Days Of Ancient Greece

ScienceDaily (Feb. 8, 2007) — We may not be as fit as the people of ancient Athens, despite all that modern diet and training can provide, according to research by University of Leeds exercise physiologist, Dr Harry Rossiter.

Dr Rossiter measured the metabolic rates of modern athletes rowing a reconstruction of an Athenian trireme, a 37m long warship powered by 170 rowers seated in three tiers. Using portable metabolic analysers, he measured the energy consumption of a sample of the athletes powering the ship over a range of different speeds to estimate the efficiency of the human engine of the warship. The research is published in New Scientist today (February 8).

By comparing these findings to classical texts that record details of their endurance, he realised that the rowers of ancient Athens – around 500BC – would had to have been highly elite athletes, even by modern day standards.

Says Dr Rossiter: “Ancient Athens had up to 200 triremes at any one time, and with 170 rowers in each ship, the rowers were clearly not a small elite. Yet this large group, it seems, would match up well with the best of modern athletes. Either ancient Athenians had a more efficient way of rowing the trireme or they would have to be an extremely fit group. Our data raise the interesting notion that these ancient athletes were genetically better adapted to endurance exercise than we are today.”

Dr Rossiter worked closely with Professor Boris Rankov, Professor of Classics at Royal Holloway, University of London to interpret the details of the endurance of the ancient rowers from classical texts. Many of these texts were originally collected and used to estimate sustainable ship speeds in The Athenian Trireme (CUP, 2rd edition 2000), which Professor Rankov co-authored.

For example, one account talks of the Athenians quelling a revolt in Mytilene on the island of *****s [Le$bo$] in the eastern Aegean. The Athenian assembly ordered all Mytiline’s men to death, and despatched a trireme to carry out this command. The next day, the assembly relented and sent a second trireme to halt the massacre. According to the records of Thucydides, this second trireme would have made the journey in about 24 hours, rowing in shifts and eating while they rowed, so the ship could travel non-stop.

Says Dr Rossiter: “From these details we can estimate the average sustainable ship speeds. Then, using the reconstruction we measured the metabolic demands of the human engine required to sustain these speeds. If the historians are correct, we would struggle to find enough people at that level of fitness today to power the ships at those speeds.”

Triremes were a huge technological advance, allowing Athens to dominate the seas. They had a strong keel, taken forward into a huge spike covered in bronze plates, which meant they could ram and hole enemy ships – a new technique in naval warfare. To ensure sufficient impact to cause damage, the triremes had to reach great speeds – so were designed with more than three times more rowers than earlier warships. By placing the rowers on three tiers, the ship could remain a manoeuvrable length and weight.

The trireme used in Dr Rossiter’s research, Olympias, was built in the 1980s and was used to carry the Olympic flame to Piraeus, the port near Athens, at the start of the last Olympic Games. It is now housed in a museum in Piraeus.

[uki]

thanks scott... everyone seems to be stuck on the "caveman" in the argument. :D

run the risk?as much as i run the risk of making people dumber...


I am not doing it for your benefit.i know... you're just part of the zombie population that believes everything from "mainstream" sources...


You're lost, until you're found.highly subjective... one is never lost if they understand where they are going. :)

[David Jamieson]

thanks scott... everyone seems to be stuck on the "caveman" in the argument. :D
as much as i run the risk of making people dumber...
i know... you're just part of the zombie population that believes everything from "mainstream" sources...
highly subjective... one is never lost if they understand where they are going. :)

the village called...

*sigh*

[uki]

the village called...and i told them where to find you...

you sigh as if it really effing matters to you - grow up little boy. :)

[David Jamieson]

and i told them where to find you...

you sigh as if it really effing matters to you - grow up little boy. :)

:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Fitness Has Fallen Since The Days Of Ancient Greece

ScienceDaily (Feb. 8, 2007) — We may not be as fit as the people of ancient Athens, despite all that modern diet and training can provide, according to research by University of Leeds exercise physiologist, Dr Harry Rossiter.

Dr Rossiter measured the metabolic rates of modern athletes rowing a reconstruction of an Athenian trireme, a 37m long warship powered by 170 rowers seated in three tiers. Using portable metabolic analysers, he measured the energy consumption of a sample of the athletes powering the ship over a range of different speeds to estimate the efficiency of the human engine of the warship. The research is published in New Scientist today (February 8).

By comparing these findings to classical texts that record details of their endurance, he realised that the rowers of ancient Athens – around 500BC – would had to have been highly elite athletes, even by modern day standards.

Says Dr Rossiter: “Ancient Athens had up to 200 triremes at any one time, and with 170 rowers in each ship, the rowers were clearly not a small elite. Yet this large group, it seems, would match up well with the best of modern athletes. Either ancient Athenians had a more efficient way of rowing the trireme or they would have to be an extremely fit group. Our data raise the interesting notion that these ancient athletes were genetically better adapted to endurance exercise than we are today.”

Dr Rossiter worked closely with Professor Boris Rankov, Professor of Classics at Royal Holloway, University of London to interpret the details of the endurance of the ancient rowers from classical texts. Many of these texts were originally collected and used to estimate sustainable ship speeds in The Athenian Trireme (CUP, 2rd edition 2000), which Professor Rankov co-authored.

For example, one account talks of the Athenians quelling a revolt in Mytilene on the island of *****s [Le$bo$] in the eastern Aegean. The Athenian assembly ordered all Mytiline’s men to death, and despatched a trireme to carry out this command. The next day, the assembly relented and sent a second trireme to halt the massacre. According to the records of Thucydides, this second trireme would have made the journey in about 24 hours, rowing in shifts and eating while they rowed, so the ship could travel non-stop.

Says Dr Rossiter: “From these details we can estimate the average sustainable ship speeds. Then, using the reconstruction we measured the metabolic demands of the human engine required to sustain these speeds. If the historians are correct, we would struggle to find enough people at that level of fitness today to power the ships at those speeds.”

Triremes were a huge technological advance, allowing Athens to dominate the seas. They had a strong keel, taken forward into a huge spike covered in bronze plates, which meant they could ram and hole enemy ships – a new technique in naval warfare. To ensure sufficient impact to cause damage, the triremes had to reach great speeds – so were designed with more than three times more rowers than earlier warships. By placing the rowers on three tiers, the ship could remain a manoeuvrable length and weight.

The trireme used in Dr Rossiter’s research, Olympias, was built in the 1980s and was used to carry the Olympic flame to Piraeus, the port near Athens, at the start of the last Olympic Games. It is now housed in a museum in Piraeus.

Ok, what the rower research showed was that ancient rowers would be comparable to modern day elite level rowers.
But lets look at what that means:
According to that article, the greek rowers were professional rowers, that was their job, all the time.
As any rower will tell you, that is NOT the case with even elilte level rower in today's day and age, they have jobs, there is not enough money in rowing, it is an amature sport.
So in proper context what that research showed was that modern man, with less training and less "time on the job" was comparable to ancient man that spend all his time "on the job".

[David Jamieson]

Ok, what the rower research showed was that ancient rowers would be comparable to modern day elite level rowers.
But lets look at what that means:
According to that article, the greek rowers were professional rowers, that was their job, all the time.
As any rower will tell you, that is NOT the case with even elilte level rower in today's day and age, they have jobs, there is not enough money in rowing, it is an amature sport.
So in proper context what that research showed was that modern man, with less training and less "time on the job" was comparable to ancient man that spend all his time "on the job".

It's also worthy of note that the doctor did not have access to any of the ancient rowers, could not measure their bodily functions in any way and draws his theory based on what amounts to fragments of historical documents Which talk about time to distance even though there was no accurate measure of it at the time not to mention any writings in regards to actual military power and capability in those days could have been strongly embellished.

Not saying those guys weren't fit, I'll bet they were really totally fit. But could they beat an athlete today? Maybe, maybe not, I'm inclined to say "not".

[taai gihk yahn]

Ok, what the rower research showed was that ancient rowers would be comparable to modern day elite level rowers.
But lets look at what that means:
According to that article, the greek rowers were professional rowers, that was their job, all the time.
As any rower will tell you, that is NOT the case with even elilte level rower in today's day and age, they have jobs, there is not enough money in rowing, it is an amature sport.
So in proper context what that research showed was that modern man, with less training and less "time on the job" was comparable to ancient man that spend all his time "on the job".

exactly; more than that, there may have been some incentives to the rowers that created a real desire on their part to to be "all that they could be" - such as whipping, and who knows what else; what it also doesn't indicate is the shelf-life of the average rower - he may have spent 5 years, maybe less, burning the candle at both ends, and then simply discarded - collective bargaining for what was basically slave-level work probably didn't go over big back then, and I'm guessing that these guys were pushed for all that they were worth; and when they couldn't keep up any more, buh-bye...

[sanjuro_ronin]

exactly; more than that, there may have been some incentives to the rowers that created a real desire on their part to to be "all that they could be" - such as whipping, and who knows what else; what it also doesn't indicate is the shelf-life of the average rower - he may have spent 5 years, maybe less, burning the candle at both ends, and then simply discarded - collective bargaining for what was basically slave-level work probably didn't go over big back then, and I'm guessing that these guys were pushed for all that they were worth; and when they couldn't keep up any more, buh-bye...

Quite correct.

What modern sport performance science has shown us is that we are getting closer to the peak of human performance, not further away.
Sure the average man isn't in the same physical condition as someone 2000 years ago, how can he be? why would he be?
He doesn't HAVE to, but what we see is, IF modern man CHOOSES to, he not only can be in the same physical condition, he can be better, A LOT better as those Marathon times I posted earlier show.

[Lucas]

this of course is just my opinion, yet:

i bet i could take a baby from 1000 years ago and raise it in the modern world or the old world and it would produce results accordingly.

i could put it on a galley at come of age, whip it, and make it row like a mad devil. or i could put it into a modern olympic training program and produce a wonderful world class gymnist.

as anything with nature, our environment will be a guide in our development.

as to education vs. intelligence. very different things.

an un educated individual is not necessarily un intelligent. some of the brightest people i have known have been under educated.

[David Jamieson]

this of course is just my opinion, yet:

i bet i could take a baby from 1000 years ago and raise it in the modern world or the old world and it would produce results accordingly.

i could put it on a galley at come of age, whip it, and make it row like a mad devil. or i could put it into a modern olympic training program and produce a wonderful world class gymnist.

as anything with nature, our environment will be a guide in our development.

as to education vs. intelligence. very different things.

an un educated individual is not necessarily un intelligent. some of the brightest people i have known have been under educated.

whipping babies on galleys is not permitted.

also, it is in bad taste to refer to a human being as "it".

:p

[Scott R. Brown]

Ok, what the rower research showed was that ancient rowers would be comparable to modern day elite level rowers.
But lets look at what that means:
According to that article, the greek rowers were professional rowers, that was their job, all the time.
As any rower will tell you, that is NOT the case with even elilte level rower in today's day and age, they have jobs, there is not enough money in rowing, it is an amature sport.
So in proper context what that research showed was that modern man, with less training and less "time on the job" was comparable to ancient man that spend all his time "on the job".

I am sorry, but if you are an elite athlete today...you are a professional! They are all pros now. This amateur thing is a myth!

[Scott R. Brown]

exactly; more than that, there may have been some incentives to the rowers that created a real desire on their part to to be "all that they could be" - such as whipping, and who knows what else; what it also doesn't indicate is the shelf-life of the average rower - he may have spent 5 years, maybe less, burning the candle at both ends, and then simply discarded - collective bargaining for what was basically slave-level work probably didn't go over big back then, and I'm guessing that these guys were pushed for all that they were worth; and when they couldn't keep up any more, buh-bye...

Greek rowers were not slaves, they were free men. Roman rowers, some of them, were slaves!

[Scott R. Brown]

Someone above mentioned that Roman legionnaires were ignorant, this also was not true. They were engineers, and skilled crafts men such as masons, smiths, tanners, carpenters, coopers, etc.. The auxiliaries however were most likely uneducated.

[Scott R. Brown]

Greek Triremes (http://www4.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~schulz/triremes.html)

"The top speed is usually estimated at 11.5 knots, although there are some speculations about ancient galleys actually entering the glide phase, which would defeat most of the wave resistance and allow speeds of up to 18 or 20 knots for very short bursts (wave resistance is the major factor in determining the top speed for a floating hull of a given length). There is convincing historical evidence that at least on one occasion a trireme with a crack crew managed to maintain 9 knots for 24 hours.

An interesting point is that the Greek trireme with 170 rowers was manned by only 14 to 20 marines. It had to rely on the ram - boarding maneuvers were seldom performed. The trireme was probably the most formidable ship ever designed for fighting with a ram. However, it had a number of drawbacks. It required a carefully trained and large crew. A single rower who couldn't maintain the stroke could cripple the ship for minutes. Therefore, only free men were used on triremes. If, in times of an emergency, slaves had to be used, they were freed before the combat. A whip or lash was not used (and wouldn't have worked)."

Modern Rowing Facts (http://www.crewclassic.org/about-us/rowing-facts/)

The fastest boat in the 2007 Crew Classic was the Cal men’s team [8 man team] in the Copley Cup where they traveled 2000 meters in 5 min, 55.80 seconds.

That works out to 12.57 miles/hr or 20.24 km/hr.

12.57 miles per hour = 10.92 knots

[Drake]

All our modern athletes have to worry about is being the fastest, strongest, and the most agile. Before society, they were physically fit simply because that was what was necessary to survive until their early to mid 20's. They certainly were unable to tailor their fitness plan, fine tuning it to perfection, because their primary concern was where the next meal would come from. This would result in lopsided fitness, with very strong abilities in one area while lacking in many others.

And FYI, no neanderthal would reach Arnie's level of fitness during the Governator's prime. The facilities did not exist in order to attain such muscular perfection, and no, tossing boulders isn't enough to match what he did.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am sorry, but if you are an elite athlete today...you are a professional! They are all pros now. This amateur thing is a myth!

Professional rowers?
Dude.
Seriously?
I know two that compete for Canada in the olympics, they BOTH have full time jobs.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Greek Triremes (http://www4.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~schulz/triremes.html)

"The top speed is usually estimated at 11.5 knots, although there are some speculations about ancient galleys actually entering the glide phase, which would defeat most of the wave resistance and allow speeds of up to 18 or 20 knots for very short bursts (wave resistance is the major factor in determining the top speed for a floating hull of a given length). There is convincing historical evidence that at least on one occasion a trireme with a crack crew managed to maintain 9 knots for 24 hours.

An interesting point is that the Greek trireme with 170 rowers was manned by only 14 to 20 marines. It had to rely on the ram - boarding maneuvers were seldom performed. The trireme was probably the most formidable ship ever designed for fighting with a ram. However, it had a number of drawbacks. It required a carefully trained and large crew. A single rower who couldn't maintain the stroke could cripple the ship for minutes. Therefore, only free men were used on triremes. If, in times of an emergency, slaves had to be used, they were freed before the combat. A whip or lash was not used (and wouldn't have worked)."

Modern Rowing Facts (http://www.crewclassic.org/about-us/rowing-facts/)

The fastest boat in the 2007 Crew Classic was the Cal men’s team [8 man team] in the Copley Cup where they traveled 2000 meters in 5 min, 55.80 seconds.

That works out to 12.57 miles/hr or 20.24 km/hr.

12.57 miles per hour = 10.92 knots

That is awesome, but are you suggesting that modern man COULDN'T do that? and what are you basing that on?

[Scott R. Brown]

Professional rowers?
Dude.
Seriously?
I know two that compete for Canada in the olympics, they BOTH have full time jobs.

So you know two people in one country that have full time jobs and that means they all do huh?

[Scott R. Brown]

That is awesome, but are you suggesting that modern man COULDN'T do that? and what are you basing that on?

You noted my earlier article and they didn't.

"We may not be as fit as the people of ancient Athens, despite all that modern diet and training can provide, according to research by University of Leeds exercise physiologist, Dr Harry Rossiter."

The point of this thread, I thought, was that modern man is not more fit than the ancients who had less science, medical and nutritional science behind them.

I am still looking for the TV programs, one of which states Neanderthals could easily carry 600 lbs. (I may have found this one. I have to watch it first.) and one that examined the bones of an ancient Olympic, either pentathlete or decathlete, and he was at least as fit as today's athletes.

[Lucas]

whipping babies on galleys is not permitted.

also, it is in bad taste to refer to a human being as "it".

:p

who died and made you galley master?!? :eek:


and that depends on who the human is ...

[sanjuro_ronin]

So you know two people in one country that have full time jobs and that means they all do huh?

There is NO professional league in rowing and how many endorsements for rowers do you see?
Dude, seriously now.
The two people happen to be olympic medal winners, by the way.
There is NO professionalism in weight lifiting either by the way.
Now, getting to track, you have nice endorsements for the "glory" sports, but the rest?
Nope.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You noted my earlier article and they didn't.

"We may not be as fit as the people of ancient Athens, despite all that modern diet and training can provide, according to research by University of Leeds exercise physiologist, Dr Harry Rossiter."

The point of this thread, I thought, was that modern man is not more fit than the ancients who had less science, medical and nutritional science behind them.

I am still looking for the TV programs, one of which states Neanderthals could easily carry 600 lbs. (I may have found this one. I have to watch it first.) and one that examined the bones of an ancient Olympic, either pentathlete or decathlete, and he was at least as fit as today's athletes.

I don't think anyone is arguing that ancient man was in better shape, typically, than modern man, that is a given (typically), what we are currently debating is the potential of modern man.
remember, I am sure that the average greek citizen was not as in shape as the average greek warrior and certainly the average roman citizen, with slaves and such, was NOT as in shape as a roman legionaire.

[David Jamieson]

Health-wise, longevity-wise, education-wise and so on. Ancient humans were in almost all ways inferior to moderns.

for god's sake, they didn't even have cars! lol

but seriously, why not just join the society for creative anachronism already?

arguing about whether or not the ancients had an upper hand is folly and a waste of time.

Why?

Because it doesn't fecking matter and has nothing to do with how we go about our day to day drudgery.

[TAO YIN]

Thanks for cars. Now we can go to work at the other end of town and start at the crack of dawn, still! Work is great and milk prices are up too!

What's great is progression forgetting time. Used to people went to work early. Now people go to work early. What's great is night shifts. ha ha ha...

Go humans, go!

[Lucas]

The only thing that matters is that women are way more hot now. PLUS we have access to all nationalities of women now.

priorities.....

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ancient african woman:
http://www.ralphmag.org/DH/african-woman367x485.gif

Modern african woman:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3490/3293468111_349e6d4c3a.jpg?v=0

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not much of a difference eh?

[TAO YIN]

Yes that does matter Lucas. And what is great about that also is that we can work more to provide for more people. GO CARS! And, we can work more to pay for more useless shiot for those hot womens! So, go cars, go womens, go milk, go taxes, go for doing the same thing for 30 years, go showers, go talking about haircuts, clothes, who did what, and kung fu karate. Go humans, GO!!

[Lucas]

Not much of a difference eh?

ya there is ! one has metal rings all about her and she looks ready to kill me. The other is way more attractive. were i to choose mating between those two, the choice to me is obvious.

on average our women have way better hygiene, less diseases (excepting all the STDs), live longer, shave (much of them anyway), less hard labor promoting a more attractive consistancy in complexion/softness.

i could go on! :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

ya there is ! one has metal rings all about her and she looks ready to kill me. The other is way more attractive. were i to choose mating between those two, the choice to me is obvious.

on average our women have way better hygiene, less diseases (excepting all the STDs), live longer, shave (much of them anyway), less hard labor promoting a more attractive consistancy in complexion/softness.

i could go on! :p

Actually, there are less STD'd now than in the past, better medication and all that.
I agree about the Hygene issue and the shaving, though ancient egyptian woman already waxed/shaved even back then.

[Lucas]

Actually, there are less STD'd now than in the past, better medication and all that.
I agree about the Hygene issue and the shaving, though ancient egyptian woman already waxed/shaved even back then.

true that. and we cannot discount the always prevelant sexual skill of the Japanese! Ancient or modern!

i didnt know that about the STD's, i always assumed that more just 'popped' up at some point.

[sanjuro_ronin]

true that. and we cannot discount the always prevelant sexual skill of the Japanese! Ancient or modern!

i didnt know that about the STD's, i always assumed that more just 'popped' up at some point.

Well, as with all things, we now have NAMES for all of them, LOL !

[Lucas]

Well, as with all things, we now have NAMES for all of them, LOL !

rofl, true true. i can only imagine the amount of std's being passed around before forms of protection were developed. besides abstanence of course....hmm maybe thats why religious people tended to have the longer life spans in times past, less screwing around so to speak.

just imagine how many times people died of things they had no idea that they had, and just thought 40 was 'old age'

[sanjuro_ronin]

rofl, true true. i can only imagine the amount of std's being passed around before forms of protection were developed. besides abstanence of course....hmm maybe thats why religious people tended to have the longer life spans in times past, less screwing around so to speak.

just imagine how many times people died of things they had no idea that they had, and just thought 40 was 'old age'

I recall they mentioned that within the next generation or so the average life expectancy will be 100, a nice change for the beginning of the 20th century where it was 50 or something like that, LOL !

[solo1]

Having a more robust and durable body was certainly an asset the downside of course is the 25 year life span, 95% infant mortality, being eaten by sabre toothed tigers and instead of being the top of the food chain you were in the middle of it. Run faster, jump higher, take a hit like no bodies business? cool stuff . I prefer a bigger brain, grocery stores, and kungfu.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have no doubts that a modern man, put into the conditions that ancient man had to endure, form the very beginning, would at least equal ancient man's "achievments", if not surpass them.

[TAO YIN]

I bet that ancient men would be into these forums. Wonder what they would think about paying taxes, buying land, and money for that matter...

[David Jamieson]

I bet that ancient men would be into these forums. Wonder what they would think about paying taxes, buying land, and money for that matter...

money is as old as written language, land has always been regarded as precious and taxes are applicable to all who would have a leader take care of their social construct.

these ideas are timeless despite our changing the words we use to describe them.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You don't find this in the ancient world:
http://www.shops-online-uk.co.uk/lycra-strappy-money-thong.jpg

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/5/16/633780378258797685-beer.jpg

[TAO YIN]

Cool, but Ur-eh, I meant before then, ancient man...Did people always drive on the right side of the road? How much did an "acre" cost back then? What did neanderthal money look like? When did the concept of having a "boss" come up? After or before Tony Danza? How did they look at micro-management back then?

[David Jamieson]

Cool, but Ur-eh, I meant before then, ancient man...Did people always drive on the right side of the road? How much did an "acre" cost back then? What did neanderthal money look like? When did the concept of having a "boss" come up? After or before Tony Danza? How did they look at micro-management back then?

1. the cart went in the ruts. if another cart came along, one would have to move off the road, unless the road was wide enough, in which case, both carts could travel the road. sides had not yet been picked as most roads were just 1 set of ruts.

2.acre cost varied depending on where you lived. some kings and queens owned each and every inch of land under their dominion and they granted it for use. people would pay a portion of their crop to use the land in an effort to provide food for the king and queen and themselves.

3. neanderthals aren't human, they're a different species.

4. the boss was the one holding the whip and forcing you to make the mastaba or make the bricks to build the mastaba.

5. everything comes after tony danza, he precedes the concept of time.

6. micro-management consisted of putting grains of sand into hourglasses and didn't have the same meaning.

i hope this clears it all up for you. :p

[Scott R. Brown]

There is NO professional league in rowing and how many endorsements for rowers do you see?
Dude, seriously now.
The two people happen to be olympic medal winners, by the way.
There is NO professionalism in weight lifiting either by the way.
Now, getting to track, you have nice endorsements for the "glory" sports, but the rest?
Nope.

Uhhh Maybe not in Canadia, but that was not so in the Eastern block nations and China was it? Regardless of whether the Eastern block still exists or not, every Olympics they have programs on how Olympic athletes train and how much financial support Olympic athletes get. So you know some rowers who have to pay their own way in Canadia and they all do is that it?

Track athletes get paid, swimmers get paid, etc. Apparently rowing is not glamourous enough in Canadia. I am willing to be they are supported in other countries who find it more glamorous. Regardless many "amateur" athletes receive sponsorships in order to train.



In a world of billions of people some people will always be an exception, right?

[uki]

In a world of billions of people some people will always be an exception, right?this is highly dependent on ones subjective view of what is regarded as exceptional...

[Scott R. Brown]

I don't think anyone is arguing that ancient man was in better shape, typically, than modern man, that is a given (typically), what we are currently debating is the potential of modern man.

Well maybe I am off the main line here then, because I thought that was the point of the thread, that ancient man was in better overall condition, meaning strength, endurance etc.


remember, I am sure that the average greek citizen was not as in shape as the average greek warrior and certainly the average roman citizen, with slaves and such, was NOT as in shape as a roman legionaire.

That cannot be denied. The body is adaptive to its activity. Anyone who marches regularly will be a better marcher than one who does not, anyone who sits at a computer all day will probably sit at a computer better than someone who marches, etc.:)

[Scott R. Brown]

this is highly dependent on ones subjective view of what is regarded as exceptional...

Your view that it is a highly subjective view is a highly subjective view!:p

My subjective view is that YOU are an exceptional person, but then so is everyone else! So in a sense you also aren't all that exceptional!:eek::confused::rolleyes:;):mad::D

[uki]

So in a sense you also aren't all that exceptional!which is quite exceptional actually...

[Scott R. Brown]

which is quite exceptional actually...

Exactly...since everyone is exceptional and you are not, that makes you exceptional, which means you aren't exceptional because everyone else is exceptional too!

BTW...I didn't realize you were so tall. In the pics of you alone you look about 5'10" or so but in the group pic you look over 6'. Just how tall are you? Without the dirt under your feet of course!:D

[uki]

BTW...I didn't realize you were so tall. In the pics of you alone you look about 5'10" or so but in the group pic you look over 6'. Just how tall are you? Without the dirt under your feet of course!i stand at 6'2" with my shoes off and the dirt scraped away from the bottoms of my feet... nothing exceptional there except the air quality. :D