Smart ancient people

[Keegah]

As I mentioned before, there were various degrees of agriculture or lack of it, depending on location. Your example actually falls very nicely in my premise that intensive agriculture was unsustainable in North America, pretty much above Mexico.
The mound builders culture existed for fairly short time (500 years?) and completely vanished couple of centuries before white man showed up in the area.
Compare it to Europe with long, extensive farming and herding, and continuous from pretty much 5,000 BC, over whole continent.
In comparison in North America (beyond Mexico) extensive farming was sporadic and short lived, in wetter parts of continent only gardens by homes existed, herding was limited to turkey and duck, and on more than half continent you have only nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers (prairie Indians and Inuits). Plus alcohol was unknown.
I'm not blaming them, they did the best in condition and climate they came to live. Europe is a lucky place if it come to steady, warm and fairly wet weather. One of the best places to farm in the world.
I'm sure if the American Indians evolved in Europe and Europeans in America, the situation would be reversed. We would see white man in reserves not coping with alcohol well.

Ever read Guns, Germs and Steel?

 

[LeBrok]

Ever read Guns, Germs and Steel?

Nope, and it won't happen soon. Get to the point.

 

[Keegah]

Not too friendly of a person, are you LeBrok. I was just curious because the author of that book puts forth an argument similar to the one you made, that the historical success of European nations in subjugating the indigenous populations of other continents, like Africa or North America, was due predominantly to the natural advantages bestowed on Europeans by Europe's favorable geography, climate, and natural resources. Going along this line of reasoning, the author basically traces the beginning of Europe's rise to the top to the early adoption of agriculture, which was only possible because of the favorable climate and geography. The book was partially written to argue against the ideas that European hegemony was and is due to the European gene pool, or anything inherent to the European peoples.

A similar proposition to the one that you made, so I was curious if you'd read the book. That's all.

 

[LeBrok]

Not too friendly of a person, are you LeBrok. I was just curious because the author of that book puts forth an argument similar to the one you made, that the historical success of European nations in subjugating the indigenous populations of other continents, like Africa or North America, was due predominantly to the natural advantages bestowed on Europeans by Europe's favorable geography, climate, and natural resources. Going along this line of reasoning, the author basically traces the beginning of Europe's rise to the top to the early adoption of agriculture, which was only possible because of the favorable climate and geography. The book was partially written to argue against the ideas that European hegemony was and is due to the European gene pool, or anything inherent to the European peoples.

A similar proposition to the one that you made, so I was curious if you'd read the book. That's all.

Sorry for that, so much work recently and I'm even too tired to answer posts nicely. lol
I'm in agreement with that, although there will be genetic differences and predispositions to new agricultural lifestyle.
Overall, I believe the civilization progress, invention, education, science came from population density factor. More people (due to farming) preserve knowledge better that small tribes; increase population dencity and knowledge starts accumulating in exponential way. Recent fast scientific and economic progress of 20th century is in agreement with this observation. Population went from 1 billion to 6, and scientific progress is just crazy. It is hard to keep up.

 

[Dianatomia]

I'm pretty sure the process was slow in scale of couple of thousands of years, with few bottlenecks to speed up the process, before we started seeing, big populations, building big cities, organized political systems, big variety of specialized trades, growing economies, monetary/exchange systems, and beginning of sciences.

I know it's not very scientific of me to say that, but I wonder sometimes how on scale of today's standardized IQ tests, smart they were on average. I think the bottom must be around 85 or 90, of early Egypt of Babylon and others from that time. I think it's hard to imposible to run a succesful country with population IQ lower than 80, at least for longer time.
I'm really at awe with ancient Greeks. They invented so many things or improved borrowed ideas intensively, and we are talking about populations of no more than one million people, probably less. It's much easier to be born into well running system and learn the ropes, but it's 10 times more difficult to invent and implement new things and ideas. How smart were the Greeks? 110? How about Romans at the height of their empire? I think the Phoenicians belonged to this (ancient hi-tech) group too. It would be interesting to know if average IQ in Europe fluctuated with centuries and if it was related to high and low points in European history.
If in future we'll be able to estimate IQ from genetic material we might find the answers to few mysteries.

IQ of Ancient Greeks would be closer to 80. Remember, all ancient peoples were far more primitive than the most modern nations today. Upon reading Ancient history closely you get to understand that most people in Ancient Greece were underdeveloped. To cite but a single example. When Themistocles wasn't able to convince the Athenians that they should build ships to fight the Persians, he used a tall beautiful girl from a village near Athens and portrayed as the Goddess AThena. He started the gossip that the Goddess was watching over the Athenians and would be with them against the Persians. Using this trick, Themostocles managed to shift the public opinion.

Now, take notice, this were the Athenians during the Golden Era of their history. Yet, the majority of the population was easily fooled by superstition. Surely, the Greeks had individuals among them which had a high IQ. Perhaps we should say that their basic reptilian brain was well evolved. But to suspect Greeks as a whole had an IQ of 110 is mostly based on the idealized image we have of them.

The most developed modern populations with good education, economy and nutrition in 2014 have an IQ of 106. Arguing that the Ancient Greeks as a whole had 110 on average is hilarious.

 

[Angela]

IQ of Ancient Greeks would be closer to 80. Remember, all ancient peoples were far more primitive than the most modern nations today. Upon reading Ancient history closely you get to understand that most people in Ancient Greece were underdeveloped. To cite but a single example. When Themistocles wasn't able to convince the Athenians that they should build ships to fight the Persians, he used a tall beautiful girl from a village near Athens and portrayed as the Goddess AThena. He started the gossip that the Goddess was watching over the Athenians and would be with them against the Persians. Using this trick, Themostocles managed to shift the public opinion.

Now, take notice, this were the Athenians during the Golden Era of their history. Yet, the majority of the population was easily fooled by superstition. Surely, the Greeks had individuals among them which had a high IQ. Perhaps we should say that their basic reptilian brain was well evolved. But to suspect Greeks as a whole had an IQ of 110 is mostly based on the idealized image we have of them.

The most developed modern populations with good education, economy and nutrition in 2014 have an IQ of 106. Arguing that the Ancient Greeks as a whole had 110 on average is hilarious.

I don't see the logic in what you're saying at all. A big number of Jihadists are engineers, computer programmers, and doctors, and they believe if they die for the cause they're going to be rewarded with 70 virgins (Or is it 40? Whatever, it's certainly an excess.) Look up the educational background of the men who flew those planes into the World Trade Center.

Some incredible percentage of modern Americans believes that Martians with big heads and huge eyes come down and scoop people up for "experiments". Meanwhile, an even larger percentage doesn't know the name of their vice-president or the structure of their own government. Polls routinely have large percentages of people who when questioned about issues of the day say "they don't know". Maybe they're either stoned or playing video games all the time or maybe both. Oh, let's throw watching "The Bachelor" in there too.

Every day I meet even professional people, business school graduates, computer people, and yes, even engineers, who know nothing of the history or culture of western civilization.

These are all separate from how you score on an IQ test.

 

[Dianatomia]

I don't see the logic in what you're saying at all. A big number of Jihadists are engineers, computer programmers, and doctors, and they believe if they die for the cause they're going to be rewarded with 70 virgins (Or is it 40? Whatever, it's certainly an excess.) Look up the educational background of the men who flew those planes into the World Trade Center.

Some incredible percentage of modern Americans believes that Martians with big heads and huge eyes come down and scoop people up for "experiments". Meanwhile, an even larger percentage doesn't know the name of their vice-president or the structure of their own government. Polls routinely have large percentages of people who when questioned about issues of the day say "they don't know". Maybe they're either stoned or playing video games all the time or maybe both. Oh, let's throw watching "The Bachelor" in there too.

Every day I meet even professional people, business school graduates, computer people, and yes, even engineers, who know nothing of the history or culture of western civilization.

These are all separate from how you score on an IQ test.

Understanding the nature of what goes through the brain of Jihadists or other fanatics of any kind is extremely complex. The example I gave was different. Yes, the great majority of Americans don't believe in evolution etc. And it is one thing that some people vaguely believe in Martians, but convincing the populace to engage in a war because a reincarnated Jesus walked through the streets to encourage the people would indicate a rather low average IQ in modern terms.

 

[LeBrok]

IQ of Ancient Greeks would be closer to 80. Remember, all ancient peoples were far more primitive than the most modern nations today.

I don't buy it. Not that Greeks, like Athenians or Spartans were overworked in fields and any physical work. There was at least one slave per citizen in ancient times. They had plenty of time for education, and they had the best schools and universities in the known world. When we take under consideration accomplishments of ancient greeks in sciences, art, political systems and military achievements, in population of one million people, it is hard to conclude that their IQ was lower than in modern populations.
In modern world HQ of 80 only happens in most impoverished countries with almost none existent education systems. Athenians were rich and educated.

Upon reading Ancient history closely you get to understand that most people in Ancient Greece were underdeveloped.

To be fair lets skip farmers and slaves and talk about citizens of Athens and other big cities.

To cite but a single example. When Themistocles wasn't able to convince the Athenians that they should build ships to fight the Persians, he used a tall beautiful girl from a village near Athens and portrayed as the Goddess AThena. He started the gossip that the Goddess was watching over the Athenians and would be with them against the Persians. Using this trick, Themostocles managed to shift the public opinion.

It is not much different when politicians address modern Greeks and have to convince them that fiscal responsibility is important. And yet modern Greeks IQ is around 100.

Now, take notice, this were the Athenians during the Golden Era of their history. Yet, the majority of the population was easily fooled by superstition.

It is more about state of knowledge of the world than IQ per se.

Surely, the Greeks had individuals among them which had a high IQ. Perhaps we should say that their basic reptilian brain was well evolved. But to suspect Greeks as a whole had an IQ of 110 is mostly based on the idealized image we have of them.

You are not giving them enough credit. To invent things from scratch it takes a genius. If average IQ of society is low, you won't get that many geniuses in short period of time from population of around one million. That's why I think, some populations in the past, for some reason, had high IQ. If it goes for the whole country, one tribe, or just elite, I don't know.

The most developed modern populations with good education, economy and nutrition in 2014 have an IQ of 106. Arguing that the Ancient Greeks as a whole had 110 on average is hilarious.

They invented many things from scratch, enhanced and developed others inventions in many fields, and conquered the whole civilized world. All of this, you saying, with population of 1 million and IQ 80?
No offence, but modern Greeks with population of 10 million and IQ of 100 can't even come close to achievements of ancients. If anything, at least it should give you some perspective.

 

[Aberdeen]

Anyone who thinks that the ancient Greeks weren't clever should do a bit of research about what they were able to do, for example by doing an internet search for "antikythena machine". Or learn what engineering skills were required for the building of the Parthenon. Or think about the fact that a Greek figured out 2500 years ago that the world was round with a circumference of about 25,000 miles. And don't get too excited about the supposed intelligence of people in the 21st century - some academics have argued that the average human IQ has declined since the Victorian Era.

 

[Dianatomia]

I don't buy it. Not that Greeks, like Athenians or Spartans were overworked in fields and any physical work. There was at least one slave per citizen in ancient times. They had plenty of time for education, and they had the best schools and universities in the known world. When we take under consideration accomplishments of ancient greeks in sciences, art, political systems and military achievements, in population of one million people, it is hard to conclude that their IQ was lower than in modern populations.
In modern world HQ of 80 only happens in most impoverished countries with almost none existent education systems. Athenians were rich and educate

At least one slave per citizen. Very true. But since we are analyzing the IQ of Ancient Greeks we have to include Slaves. Slaves in Ancient Greece were Greeks as well. Usually survivors of another city-state which lost a war. The marbles of the Acropolis were mostly carved by slaves which had that skill set. Most Ancient Greeks were Slaves and illiterate peasants.

There were geniuses among them. Just as there are geniuses among any people today. Never argued against that. Populations today which score between 80 and 85 are Egyptians and Moroccans. That is the IQ of Ancient Greeks. Ancient Egyptians may have had an even lower IQ.

You are not giving them enough credit. To invent things from scratch it takes a genius. If average IQ of society is low, you won't get that many geniuses in short period of time from population of around one million. That's why I think, some populations in the past, for some reason, had high IQ. If it goes for the whole country, one tribe, or just elite, I don't know.

Ancient Greek population in classical times was between 8-10 million. 1/3 of the total European population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography

 

[LeBrok]

At least one slave per citizen. Very true. But since we are analyzing the IQ of Ancient Greeks we have to include Slaves. Slaves in Ancient Greece were Greeks as well. Usually survivors of another city-state which lost a war. The marbles of the Acropolis were mostly carved by slaves which had that skill set. Most Ancient Greeks were Slaves and illiterate peasants.

There were geniuses among them. Just as there are geniuses among any people today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography

In this case we have to talk about highly educated and skillful elite of high IQ controlling the rest of population. Like in Athens, 60 thousand citizens overseeing half a million folks. Not only controlling but also inventing and developing the base elements of Western Civilization.
From the link above:

The city of Athens in the 4th century BC had a population of 60,000 non-foreign free males.^{[citation needed]}Including slaves, women, and foreign-born people, the number of people residing in the city state was probably in the range of 350,000 to 500,000 people,

 

[Dianatomia]

In this case we have to talk about highly educated and skillful elite of high IQ controlling the rest of population. Like in Athens, 60 thousand citizens overseeing half a million folks. Not only controlling but also inventing and developing the base elements of Western Civilization.
From the link above:

As I told you, slaves in Ancient Greece were mostly Greeks, and 'Foreign born' people in Athens were mostly Greeks who were not born in Athens and as such were not Athenians and did not have a right to vote. They had substantial rights, but not as much as free citizens. They also fought in Wars and there were many monuments immortalizing slaves. Sometimes slaves got Athenian citizenship and received full rights.

If you are going to argue that we should only count the IQ of the elite group of free and most wealthy Athenians, then that would not be an objective measure of the IQ of Ancient Greeks, rather the IQ of the elite Athenians. In every society elites have higher IQ's than the average population. The IQ of Egyptians today is 80-85, but their elites could well have an IQ of over 100. Same is true for Ancient Greeks.
Thinking that the average IQ of Ancient Greece is 110 is a complete overstatement.

 

[LeBrok]

As I told you, slaves in Ancient Greece were mostly Greeks, and 'Foreign born' people in Athens were mostly Greeks who were not born in Athens and as such were not Athenians and did not have a right to vote. They had substantial rights, but not as much as free citizens. They also fought in Wars and there were many monuments immortalizing slaves. Sometimes slaves got Athenian citizenship and received full rights.

If you are going to argue that we should only count the IQ of the elite group of free and most wealthy Athenians, then that would not be an objective measure of the IQ of Ancient Greeks, rather the IQ of the elite Athenians. In every society elites have higher IQ's than the average population. The IQ of Egyptians today is 80-85, but their elites could well have an IQ of over 100. Same is true for Ancient Greeks.
Thinking that the average IQ of Ancient Greece is 110 is a complete overstatement.

You are missing the point. Off course we can't objectively and precisely establish IQ of dead people, and it wasn't the main purpose of this thread. The main question is why some ancient people were smarter than others. If you don't want to compare the whole populations and their supposed IQ, and maybe rightfully so, based on your good points. We can compare achievements of elites who went to schools or not, took part in shaping nations politically, invented and figured out sciences, arts and theatres, built strongest economy of the region investing their wealth, etc. Why is it that ancient greeks dominated the region at this? Why were the ancient Greeks so skillful? Even nations with head start of thousand of years like Egyptians, Babylonians, Scythians, Indians, didn't achieve such heights but Greeks. All of this in a scale of 500 years since devastation of Bronze Age collapse, just with group of educated elite?

Phoenicians might have constituted similarly strong phenomenon. Interestingly their relatives Jews, survived fairly intact in their communities. Genetic studies tell us that their DNA is still strongly based in Near East and Greek population, with not much admixture from the rest of Europe. One can say that they carry an ancient Mediterranean DNA, which didn't mix much for last 2,000 years. We also know that Ashkenazi Jews have highest average IQ of all ethnic groups on Earth, around 112.
This might be our measuring stick of ancient populations.

 

[arvistro]

Can you show me a link with modern population IQ estimates?
I found one list of top 10 countries where Euro-Germanic nations (+Italy) were rated 6th to 10th at ~102ish and Asian high techs took first 5 places 103-106.
This kind of feels intuitively correct, except I would put Finns somewhere in top 10 as well.

 

[LeBrok]

Can you show me a link with modern population IQ estimates?
I found one list of top 10 countries where Euro-Germanic nations (+Italy) were rated 6th to 10th at ~102ish and Asian high techs took first 5 places 103-106.
This kind of feels intuitively correct, except I would put Finns somewhere in top 10 as well.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html Probably +/- 3 points for errors.

I'm thinking along these lines: If IQ between ethnicities varies today, it obviously varied even more in the past when populations and ethnicities were segregated and didn't mix fast or much. One can imagine that some groups got to the level of of well run, well fed city states, with well educated elite. The education, the nutrients could have boosted IQ well above others, giving technological, economic and military advantage, in return producing higher prosperity and boosting IQ even more.

When we look at the IQ per nation tables, we can see there is true correlation between income and IQ level. Nutrients, health and education definitely boosts IQ.

There is also obviously genetic factor, the nature, that gives us the base for our intelligence, the good memory, brain speed, brain architecture, which affects: imagination, pattern recognition, statistical thinking, concentration, etc.
Perhaps agricultural way of life boosted the base IQ and delivered first strong groups, cities, states and civilization in fertile crescent and Balkans. This is also true for Far East and American civilizations. They all grew on base of farming societies.

 

[Dianatomia]

 

[Angela]

This chart appears to be fatally flawed; no nation gains or loses 8 or so points in IQ in a seven or ten year period. The tests used must be different, with some of them tapping perhaps more into "aptitude" and some based on performance tests, which are, of course, highly influenced by the education system, and changes in it. That, or they are testing different areas of the same country.

The only accurate measures of IQ, in my opinion, are produced by tests like that developed by Weschsler, the WAIS-III version, in particular, that incorporate things like digit recollection, visual processing, processing speed etc., things which are less effected by differences in education systems and cultures.

 

[LeBrok]

im not sure if we are smarter than them or not, but i do think that the ancient Egyptians and the Romans were much more materialistic than we are today
now that we have all our building conveniences we just build and create using small logic, but the ancient people had to find new ways to build massive architecture and create crucial inventions

my overall opinion is that the egyptians and romans were smarter than us...a lot of our inventions today came from their creations, but i dont think anybody knows for sure who is/was smarter haha

In general sense, as a global population, we are much smarter than ancient people all together. We have 500 million people with higher education and 20 million scientists, engineers and technologist inventing things.

Around year 0 whole world had probably 200 million people, that's 40 million adults (160 million kids), perhaps 10 thousand with some schooling degree. Collectively we are 2,000 times smarter than them.

 

[Expredel]

Human brain size has decreased by 10-20% in the past 5000 years. Hard to find good sources on this as researchers no longer report on cranial capacity. Civilizations might collapse in the long run as they lower intelligence?

 

[LeBrok]

Human brain size has decreased by 10-20% in the past 5000 years. Hard to find good sources on this as researchers no longer report on cranial capacity. Civilizations might collapse in the long run as they lower intelligence?

Maybe brain size decreased 10% during this time, but isn't it intriguing that during exactly this time we developed civilizations? Wouldn't it mean that we got smarter with brain shrinkage? Perhaps it is not size that maters but rather the architecture and complexity of our brain. Brains got more organized and became more efficient, therefore could shrink (saving energy and food) having same thinking power.

For example compare car engine from 70s to today's. Engine shrank in size, but are more powerful and more efficient. Typical evolution in action in both circumstances.