Why are men of the Dinaric Highlands so tall?

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,327
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
See:

Pavel Grasgruber et al

The mountains of giants: an anthropometric survey of male youths in Bosnia and Herzegovina

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/4/161054

"The aim of this anthropometric survey, conducted between 2015 and 2016 in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), was to map local geographical differences in male stature and some other anthropometric characteristics (sitting height, arm span). In addition, to investigate the main environmental factors influencing physical growth, the documented values of height would be compared with available nutritional and socioeconomic statistics. Anthropometric data were collected in 3192 boys aged approximately 18.3 years (17–20 years), from 97 schools in 37 towns. When corrected for population size in the examined regions, the average height of young males in BiH is 181.2 cm (181.4 cm in the Bosniak-Croat Federation, 180.9 cm in Republika Srpska). The regional variation is considerable—from 179.7 cm in the region of Doboj to 184.5 cm in the region of Trebinje. These results fill a long-term gap in the anthropological research of the Western Balkans and confirm older reports that the population of the Dinaric Alps is distinguished by extraordinary physical stature. Together with the Dutch, Montenegrins and Dalmatians, men from Herzegovina (183.4 cm) can be regarded as the tallest in the world. Because both nutritional standards and socioeconomic conditions are still deeply suboptimal, the most likely explanation of this exceptional height lies in specific genetic factors associated with the spread of Y haplogroup I-M170. The genetic potential for height in this region could then be the greatest in the world. Future studies should further elucidate the roots of this intriguing phenomenon, which touches an important aspect of human biodiversity."

I'm not convinced it's as simple as that.

Someone else who is skeptical:
http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/04/13/the-reality-of-cultural-hitchhiking/
 
I doubt that this has anything to do with haplogroup I. Y-DNA does influence height, but variations between haplogroups amount to a difference of only 1 or 2 cm according to the only study on the subject.

I am not even sure that all haplogroup I is linked to increased height. Personally, among the Belgian people I know who have had their Y-DNA tested, R1b people are generally taller than other haplogroups, including I1 and I2. That may also explain why Dutch, Danish and Norwegian people (who have proportionally more R1b) are taller than Finnish and Swedish people (higher I1), despite very similar autosomal DNA. Here are some stats on male height to corroborate that.

Country% of R1b% of I1+I2Male height
Netherlands49%23%1.838
Denmark33%39.5%1.826
Norway32%35%1.824
Sweden21%40.5%1.779
Finland3.5%28.5%1.789


There is an equal lack of correlation with haplogroup I in the Dinaric Alps. Montenegrins and Bosniaks are the tallest (1.832 and 1.839) but have very different percentages of haplogroup I (37% vs 57.5%). Croatians (1.805) are 3 cm shorter than Montenegrins but have higher levels of hg I (43%).
 
Yeah I'm not convinced either. I'm a skeptic when it comes to the influence of Y-DNA Haplogroups on certain traits but the objectives and the outcomes of this study don't even match. It's supposed to be about the factors that influence height in Bosnia and by the end of the study they're claiming I-M170 influences height which was something they did not even test for.

If they wanted to discover if Y-dna I is correlated with increased height then they should've compared people with the same diet, socio-economic background from the same ethnic group/country who have different Haplogroups, this wasn't the proper way to test the theory.

Also they make the claim that "I-M170 is associated with tall statures not only in the Balkans but also in Central and Northern Europe" but as Maciamo explained this isnt necessarily true, in Northern Europe it seems the countries with more R1b are taller. Likewise they conveniently fail to mention the Sardinians who a few decades ago were among the shortest people on the planet.

Pig producing area(which correlates with pig consumption), income and education were positively correlated with height, meanwhile maize producing areas and "Urbaness" were negatively correlated. I think the most interesting piece from this is that the people from Rural areas were slightly taller than people from Urban ones, the rest is expected.
 
I think modern food production and consumption of meat laced with hormones and antibiotics gave recent generations good few inches in extra growth. It should be reversed in coming generations, when people demand organic food more and more.
 
Yeah I'm not convinced either. I'm a skeptic when it comes to the influence of Y-DNA Haplogroups on certain traits but the objectives and the outcomes of this study don't even match. It's supposed to be about the factors that influence height in Bosnia and by the end of the study they're claiming I-M170 influences height which was something they did not even test for.

If they wanted to discover if Y-dna I is correlated with increased height then they should've compared people with the same diet, socio-economic background from the same ethnic group/country who have different Haplogroups, this wasn't the proper way to test the theory.

Also they make the claim that "I-M170 is associated with tall statures not only in the Balkans but also in Central and Northern Europe" but as Maciamo explained this isnt necessarily true, in Northern Europe it seems the countries with more R1b are taller. Likewise they conveniently fail to mention the Sardinians who a few decades ago were among the shortest people on the planet.

Pig producing area(which correlates with pig consumption), income and education were positively correlated with height, meanwhile maize producing areas and "Urbaness" were negatively correlated. I think the most interesting piece from this is that the people from Rural areas were slightly taller than people from Urban ones, the rest is expected.

I think this latter may have something to do with something geneticists have been proclaiming for a long time, i.e. that there were selective pressures favoring height in northern Europe, and favoring shorter stature in southern Europe, with the exception of the Dinaric Alps. That may partly have to do with more urbanization in southern Europe for a longer period of time. Island people are usually shorter too, which somewhat explains the Sardinians.
 
people on isolated islands tend to be smaller, and not only people, also animals
on cyprus there were pygmy hipopotamus
there was pygmy homo floresiensis who hunted pygmy elephants on a remote island in Indonesia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
the strategy seems to be to survive with as many as possible on an island with only a fixed amount of resources by consuming less resources per individual
I would think on a vast steppe where seemingly unlimited resources were available, but only for the strongest ones that could outcompete their rivals, humans and especialy men would become taller
 
My observation is that Germanic's have long legs, and short upper buddy, generally speaking. When they get fat in the old age their legs look ridiculously thin because of their length. So it would be fair to say that Northern Europe has long legs which can be attributed to Ydna R1b. South Europe has more balanced upper buddy, leg length.
 
Mountainous areas seems to enable some selective processes that gives the people certain phenotypes with long limbs. In the Balkans that's the case with the so-called Dinaric type, long limbed type suitable for living in mountains. The Western Balkans are full with this Dinaric phenotype and it's most common in the highlands. Nevertheless, the case in Northern Europe in apparently different, maybe connected to the diet, the better living standarts and who knows what else. Usually there are multiple reasons for the height differences.
As for the haplogroup I1/I2, it looks like in the Balkans there's some correlation between I2a-Din and this Dinaric phenotype but outside the Balkans this theory fails to explain the presence of the Dinaric phenotype throughout Europe, so it could be local phenomenon or just a coincidence. The haplogroup alone just can't explain all the height variations after all, as there's something more than that. Hope we'll know it at some point.
 
people on isolated islands tend to be smaller, and not only people, also animals
on cyprus there were pygmy hipopotamus
there was pygmy homo floresiensis who hunted pygmy elephants on a remote island in Indonesia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
the strategy seems to be to survive with as many as possible on an island with only a fixed amount of resources by consuming less resources per individual
I would think on a vast steppe where seemingly unlimited resources were available, but only for the strongest ones that could outcompete their rivals, humans and especialy men would become taller
'

That is correct

but there is also the exception in Africa,
among Pygmees and their neighbors
 
Mountainous areas seems to enable some selective processes that gives the people certain phenotypes with long limbs. In the Balkans that's the case with the so-called Dinaric type, long limbed type suitable for living in mountains. The Western Balkans are full with this Dinaric phenotype and it's most common in the highlands. Nevertheless, the case in Northern Europe in apparently different, maybe connected to the diet, the better living standarts and who knows what else. Usually there are multiple reasons for the height differences.
As for the haplogroup I1/I2, it looks like in the Balkans there's some correlation between I2a-Din and this Dinaric phenotype but outside the Balkans this theory fails to explain the presence of the Dinaric phenotype throughout Europe, so it could be local phenomenon or just a coincidence. The haplogroup alone just can't explain all the height variations after all, as there's something more than that. Hope we'll know it at some point.

It also could be a byproduct of race crossing (if we are allowed to call race Albanian type and Slavic type). Dinarics appear numerous only in places where old Illyrian population were mixed with Slavs. Its not prevalent in places where other populations mixed with Slavs like Bulgaria, Macedonia, Northern Greece In other words, had it been a trait that Slavs brought with them, it would have appeared in Bulgaria, Macedonia etc. My conclusion is that Dinaricism was a trait that old Illyrian population possessed and passed to present Slavic speaking populations. The evidence is strong.
 
Mountainous areas seems to enable some selective processes that gives the people certain phenotypes with long limbs. In the Balkans that's the case with the so-called Dinaric type, long limbed type suitable for living in mountains. The Western Balkans are full with this Dinaric phenotype and it's most common in the highlands. Nevertheless, the case in Northern Europe in apparently different, maybe connected to the diet, the better living standarts and who knows what else. Usually there are multiple reasons for the height differences.
As for the haplogroup I1/I2, it looks like in the Balkans there's some correlation between I2a-Din and this Dinaric phenotype but outside the Balkans this theory fails to explain the presence of the Dinaric phenotype throughout Europe, so it could be local phenomenon or just a coincidence. The haplogroup alone just can't explain all the height variations after all, as there's something more than that. Hope we'll know it at some point.

Its not quite convincing trying to connect Dinaricism with Y dna. Its not only men that have dinaric features. Its also women. Dinaric women are also tall, hooked nose. So right here Y dna is out of picture. Again Dinaricism is a trait of pre slavic Illyrian populations that was passed to mixed slavic speaking populations of today.
 
So called "Dinaricism" is found all over Europe. The Bell Beaker remains have been called "Dinaric". So it's highly unlikely that it was limited to the Illyrians. I agree, however, that it was present in the Balkans before the arrival of the Slavic speaking peoples.
 
I believe it has to do with selectivity and evolution. The harsh terrain these people live has lead nature to select only the best among them. Could this be the case in the pastoral societies generally? Smoother terrains, which are usually better in terms of what earth can provide (higher caloric value) are able to maintain more people and, perhaps, not the best among them.
 
Yes, in the Balkans this phenotype is mainly of pre-Slavic origin although some Roman, Celt and Germanic influence should be considered for its present percentages and variations. Its presence troughout Europe is linked to migrations from Anatolia>Balkans>Rest of Europe. Should have happened in the Copper age.

Sent from my LG-P710 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
I believe it has to do with selectivity and evolution. The harsh terrain these people live has lead nature to select only the best among them. Could this be the case in the pastoral societies generally? Smoother terrains, which are usually better in terms of what earth can provide (higher caloric value) are able to maintain more people and, perhaps, not the best among them.
Is there a climate and terrain harsher than the Himalayas. Sherpas are as tough as you can get, and they're not tall by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, many mountain people are indeed rather compact in build.

Gavin-and-his-Sherpa-Team-at-Base-Camp---11th-May-2011.jpg
 
I recall that the Neanderthals had small built in order to survive in the roughness of the cold era they were living at. They were not supposed to have large body parts exposed to the cold. There must be another reason then. The people in the Himalayas have developed different genetic pool than those in Europe. One has to also see whether the people in the mountains have had a different diet than those in low terrain areas.
 
Honestly, I am a bit puzzled by this topic. Why one has to assume Y-DNA as a mean of interpretation is completely unclear.
underneath is the last hundred years change in height in the world. Is quite funny to see the ranking of 100 years ago. Quite an amazing DNA change ... or maybe not.

http://www.ncdrisc.org/height-mean-ranking.html

Tallest population of the world: Chinese volleyball team.
 
Sorry, the link before is set for women by default.
You should switch it to men.
 
I think modern food production and consumption of meat laced with hormones and antibiotics gave recent generations good few inches in extra growth. It should be reversed in coming generations, when people demand organic food more and more.

tempted to agree;

that said (here I don't answer you of course), until recently, urban areas had as a rule a higher stature than the peripherical rural areas!!! I don't rely too much about all these studies about stature, sociology, genetics, because the most of them are biased for prejudice/agenda - the "mixture" of several different causes acting on diverse directions complicate the kind of studies: urban areas themselves have to be discriminated between suburbs workers areas and high classes central areas; high stature is favoured by some kind of food and by social level, and with this last by the physical activities which can have opposite effects linked to sort and age of first dense activity; to complicate a bit more, the "ethnic" background of urban and rural areas of the same regions are almost always a bit different. I think that when (rare case) rural are higher than urban, there are "ethnic" causes.
 
Y-DNA input? maybe a slight one, but the most of the question is in autosomoes (beside cultural causes) IMO
 

This thread has been viewed 64399 times.

Back
Top