PDA

View Full Version : Height comparisons of modern Europeans



Drac II
11-01-16, 12:05
all of us: it is not a competition for higher statured statute. No national pride (what kind?)...
The states made in countries are not always taking in account the whole population, so some fluctuations. Plus for the most they don't take ethnic origin in accoiunt what is not without importance today (migrants).
Spanish vs French people: NO war! I speak about a general trend of Iberians being AS A WHOLE the lowest statured people in Europe for a long span of time (trend). That said, French people showED as a mean 1 cm up only over long enough periods: nothing to justify a fight between us! By the way some Spanish regions as Valencia/Levante were tallest than the most of French regions. No problem for me.
Wait and see future surveys, they contradict themselves from year to year: Finland people were smaller than Scandinavians people as a whole in the 1900 - they became taller, almost as tall as Scandinavians before mark some stop in their lifting up. When means are made by generation we see often populations close for stature passing one before another and vice versa from year to year...
Japaneses grew faster than French people in these last decennies, it's true.
What I red recently said Irish people were not among the highest Europeans and a bit smaller than Greeks.
Concerning factors, calories are far to be the only explanation. Concerning food, I think it depends too on some chemical products introduced in food, specially in meat (: the great scale ways of production of meat is not exactly the same in different countries of Europe, the feeding culinary habits not more.
to give some pride to someones, i'm 1m71 (France of my generation: about 1m73): so a bit low statured, but my feet touch the ground! WHen I meat military musicians of the Netherlands - in the 1069-70, they seemed about 8-9 cm taller than me.
To come back to my post, I was just answering Fire Haired to contradict his affirmations about "level statures" all around the world, whatever the period. Nothing more.
Have a good Sunday evening.

It's got nothing to do with "rivalries" but with making statements that are not backed up by actual measured data. There is no evidence that Spaniards should be sweepingly lumped in an phantom "Iberian" category that is supposedly shorter than all other Europeans, and the Greeks are not taller than the Irish. This is what actual surveys on this topic show. And you did not even confine your statements to the past, BTW. You clearly said "Today Portugueses and Spanish people are always less tall than other Europeans", and I just showed you how this statement is quite incorrect. Modern measurements do not show this, at least not in the case of the Spanish.

MOESAN
17-01-16, 21:38
It's got nothing to do with "rivalries" but with making statements that are not backed up by actual measured data. There is no evidence that Spaniards should be sweepingly lumped in an phantom "Iberian" category that is supposedly shorter than all other Europeans, and the Greeks are not taller than the Irish. This is what actual surveys on this topic show. And you did not even confine your statements to the past, BTW. You clearly said "Today Portugueses and Spanish people are always less tall than other Europeans", and I just showed you how this statement is quite incorrect. Modern measurements do not show this, at least not in the case of the Spanish.

Sorry: I was thinking (maybe I am wrong in 2015 but until recently I was not) Iberians were as a mean among the smallest Europeans, based upon what I red. perhaps a new trend appeared in Iberia these last ten years I'm not aware of. I feel you are a bit concerned by this question, not me. If you have huge recent reliable official states about all Europe stature to can compare I 'll be very happy to look at them and thank you n advance. By the way in old time, the French people were just a bit higher (as a mean) than Iberians, and were among the shortest people of Europe, shorter than Italians. National means it's true:
some overlap between countries when comparing regions in place of national mean.

Drac II
18-01-16, 11:47
Sorry: I was thinking (maybe I am wrong in 2015 but until recently I was not) Iberians were as a mean among the smallest Europeans, based upon what I red. perhaps a new trend appeared in Iberia these last ten years I'm not aware of. I feel you are a bit concerned by this question, not me. If you have huge recent reliable official states about all Europe stature to can compare I 'll be very happy to look at them and thank you n advance. By the way in old time, the French people were just a bit higher (as a mean) than Iberians, and were among the shortest people of Europe, shorter than Italians. National means it's true:
some overlap between countries when comparing regions in place of national mean.

I am not the one who brought up the topic, you did. And the measured data on average heights is out there from many surveys. I showed one study already that gathered data from other already published studies.

Regarding the evolution in average height among Europeans since the 19th century, you can see patterns in the information collected by Hatton and Bray:

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~hatton/Tim_height_paper.pdf

As you can see from Appendix 2, Spaniards have been getting taller particularly since the 1950s, and the French have never been shorter than Italians. Notice also that the Greeks have gotten taller since the 1940s.

Angela
18-01-16, 16:18
Sorry: I was thinking (maybe I am wrong in 2015 but until recently I was not) Iberians were as a mean among the smallest Europeans, based upon what I red. perhaps a new trend appeared in Iberia these last ten years I'm not aware of. I feel you are a bit concerned by this question, not me. If you have huge recent reliable official states about all Europe stature to can compare I 'll be very happy to look at them and thank you n advance. By the way in old time, the French people were just a bit higher (as a mean) than Iberians, and were among the shortest people of Europe, shorter than Italians. National means it's true:
some overlap between countries when comparing regions in place of national mean.


Various studies by country have been compiled by whoever wrote the Wiki article on height. For some countries there are as many as six studies, so one can get a pretty good idea of the range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Obviously, I would take any self reported statistics with a huge grain of salt. As I've said elsewhere, other than in some countries like the Netherlands, the range within Europe is pretty small, from about 5'8" to about 5'10". It's hardly an earth shattering difference.

Speaking of the Netherlands, they give a very good analysis of the changes there. The changes over time between North and South Korea are also interesting.

I also think that the article makes very good points about the things to keep in mind when reading papers on this kind of subject:

"As with any statistical data, the accuracy of this data may be questionable for various reasons:


Some studies may allow subjects to self-report values. Generally speaking, self-reported height tends to be taller than its measured height, although the overestimation of height depends on the reporting subject's height, age, gender and region.[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-52)[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-53)[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-Canada-54)[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-england-55)
Test subjects may have been invited instead of chosen at random, resulting in sampling bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias#Sampling_bias).
Some countries may have significant height gaps between different regions. For instance, one survey shows there is 10.8 cm (4 1⁄2 in) gap between the tallest state and the shortest state in Germany.[56] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-Germany-56) Under such circumstances, the mean height may not represent the total population unless sample subjects are appropriately taken from all regions with using weighted average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean) of the different regional groups.
Different social groups can show different mean height. According to a study in France, executives and professionals are 2.6 cm (1 in) taller, and university students are 2.55 cm (1 in) taller[57] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-57) than the national average.[58] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-insee.fr-58) As this case shows, data taken from a particular social group may not represent a total population in some countries.
A relatively small sample of the population may have been measured, which makes it uncertain whether this sample accurately represents the entire population.
The height of persons can vary over the course of a day, due to factors such as a height increase from exercise done directly before measurement (normally inversely correlated), or a height increase since lying down for a significant period of time (normally inversely correlated). For example, one study revealed a mean decrease of 1.54 centimetres (0.61 in) in the heights of 100 children from getting out of bed in the morning to between 4 and 5 p.m. that same day.[59] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-59) Such factors may not have been controlled in some of the studies."


This is interesting too:
"Certain studies have shown that height is a factor in overall health while some suggest tallness is associated with better cardiovascular health and shortness with longevity.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-Samaras-30) Cancer risk has also been found to grow with height.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-31)
Nonetheless, modern westernized interpretations of the relationship between height and health fail to account for the observed height variations worldwide.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-cavalli-32) Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza note that variations in height worldwide can be partly attributed to evolutionary pressures resulting from differing environments. These evolutionary pressures result in height related health implications. While tallness is an adaptive benefit in colder climates such as found in Europe, shortness helps dissipate body heat in warmer climatic regions.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#cite_note-cavalli-32) Consequently, the relationships between health and height cannot be easily generalized since tallness and shortness can both provide health benefits in different environmental settings."

As in all studies like this it should be kept in mind that correlation doesn't equal causation, yes? Taller people may have higher cancer rates because of a diet (high in saturated fats perhaps?) which contributes to height, not because of anything related specifically to height itself. Also, natural selection is only part of the story, as they point out.

MOESAN
19-01-16, 11:36
Thanks to Drac and Angela:
I red a survey abstract about the Netherlands; yet, the affirmation Dutch people were the shortest people in Europe in the 1880's seems to me a bit hazardous.
here a part of my point.



Hereunder I post about stature, not for the pleasure because it is not myfocus but only to gain some « credibility » after someremarks, and to show things are not always evident even for somethingas simple as stature.
Humanstature : about the confidence we can have in the diverse data :
Humanstature put someones to fight about figures. In fact the official orpseudo « scientific » data are not always so reliable.It's why I prefer keep in mind general trends over long periods thanto put too much confidence into spotty states. Surely some changes inthe rank of regions have some weight if confirmed over long time.More often I observed that the ancient higher and lower staturedcountries and regions found again their rank after some temporarychanges. The greater encreases in human stature are the case ofcountries stayed back outside economical progress a long time beforequick improvement (Japan).
Somestates spoke of general 'mean' stature at some point of time, othersof generation stature (year of birth) or of a more or less short spanof time.
Hereunder 2 states of Wikipedia, showing the modestly reliableconclusions we can take from them :
« about1960 » (« vers 1960 ») about2007 (not all of them, unprecised)
Montenegro 178cm Montenegro 185,6 cm
Scandinaves(!) 178 Dutchs 184,0 (21 years)
Cheyennes 174 « 183,8
Foulbe 174 « 180,8
Englishmen 173 Finns 182,6
Turkestan 171 Germans 182,3
Belgians 171 « 179,8
Frenchpeople 170 ? (too high?) Danes 182,1
Germans 168 !(too low) Croatians 182,0
Russians 168 Swedes 181,1 (16/24 years)
Italians 166 !(too low) « 177,2
Hungarians 163 !(too low) Norvegians 179,7 (18/19 years)
Mongols 163 Belgians 179,5
Spanyards 162 !(too low) Luxemburg 179,1
Ainoos 158 Spanyards 178,5 !
Inuits 158 Swiss 178,4
Saami 153 Greeks 178,0
M'buti 137 Czechs 178,0
Canadians 177,0 (18/24 years)
« 174,0
USA 177,7 (15/25 years)
« 176,5 (adults)
Australians 178,4 (18/24 years)
New-Zealand 177,0 (19-45 years!!!)
Ukrainians 176,5
France 176,1 (16/25 years)
« 175,0
Italians 175,2
Turks 175,0
Portugueses 173,7
Romanians 172,0 (adults)
Tonga 169,4 !
& :I can say Romanians are far to be so low statured – but the statehere cannot be compared to others because it covers a very longerspan of time ! Tonga are surely not so short ! Therelatively low statures means in USA and Canada seem showing everyethny is taken in account without mentioning origin (East-Asians,« Latinos » and so on?) - other point for method: ifI take the same sample number in every region of a country and I makea national mean based on it, I don't take in account the populationdensity in it and my national mean is false...


Youcan read a relatively recent work about Europe :
L'évolutionrécente de la stature en Europe occidentale (période 1960-1980) byMC. CHAMLA (Persée).
Even this serious work isbased upon states made in different countries with very bigvariations of samples : from 2000 to over 400000 !Apparently, these states do not take the origin of people in account.I found in another survey by Jaume GARCIA (a Catalan?) for PrincetownUniversity about women statures from 1950 to 1980 by groups of 5years spans of birthdates that some periods results were based uponless than 60 people when othiers were based upon more than 660people ! Scientific by the way to analyse, but not tooscientific concerning some data !








Froma serious enough work (CHAMLA's as mentioned above)
variationsbetween 1970 and 1980 (years ofbirth : the only serious way)concerning Spain, Ireland and Greece :
Spain 175.8/ 174.4 / 176.7 / 176.3 / 175.2 / 175.9 / 176.4 / 176.4 / 172.7/ 176.8 / 178.0
Ireland 177.7/ 179.2 / 175.9 / 175.5 / 178.0 / 176.2 / 176.6 / 179.3 / 175.4 /178.2 / 177.5
Greece 177.5/ 179.5 / 176.8 / 177.7 / 180.0 / 178.0 / 177.8 / 178.4 / 179.5 /179.3 / 178.3
& :means over 11 years of birth : Spain : 175.9 – Ireland : 177.2 – Greece : 178.4
sovariations which could prove insufficiant samples according toyears ? The mean upon a longer period seems more accurate evenif a too long span of time could mask some trends. By the way theSpanyards statures seem having known an increase in the late 1970'sat the opposite to Ireland. Portugal stays still the lowest staturedcountry as a whole (Saami lands are not considered a country, likeKurdistan) spite local variations.


Asa whole some southern regions of Europe, stayed maybe longer timewith a worst economy, show a bit higher coefficient of statureincrease. Exception : The Netherlands with big increase andPortugal with little increase. That said, as a whole, the old ranksbetween populations in Europe have not been put upside down for themost. The highest ones : Scandinavians lands (except Saami) andYougoslavs plus some Carpathians regions, the lowest ones :regions of Portugal, Spain, Southern Italy. In old times, somelocal spots in Brittany and Poland had very low statures too.
Onlysome phantasms like the high stature of Irish people have to berevised ; already in the 1930/1940's when Irish people weregiven about 172 cm as a mean some local states were about 166 only !I red on fora that the lowest statured folks in UK were the Englishpeople ! It's just the contrary, taken as a whole !Irishmen, Scotmen and Welshmen show a bit lower statured thanEnglishmen. When the England mean was supposed to be 171 cm Wales had169 cm. Some years later, after the 1950's, Scotland and Wales showedboth about 170,5 : at this time I can suppose England hadsomething like more than 172...(new blogs/fora science : I redtoo the Irish people were lighter pigmented than English people !But it's the subject of another thread...)
Eventhe ranks between internal regions have not been modified too much,spite some changes, the most of them on the way to osmosis andleveling. Italy has been an exception between 1960-80 seeing theregional means accentuated by time : I don't know if it is trueafter the 2000's ?
Toconclude I can say that except for regions where statures are closeone to the other, your eyes can verify without too huge states whichregions have the higher or lowest statured populations, at least atthe moment you visit these regions.
some "scientific" works made compilation of heterogenous data the only reliable being the ones with big samples sampled by dates of birth and regions
Thegenetic, mesologic and cultural basis of stature (vaste subject) canbe discussed in another thread.

ouf! the battle is over!

MOESAN
19-01-16, 11:38
Sorry this format does not take in account the columns I made in my text: 1960 and 2007

Angela
19-01-16, 16:29
@Moesan,

Thanks, Moesan, that was very informative. Clearly, the author of the Wiki article was correct about the problems with these kinds of studies.


Even the ranks between internal regions have not been modified too much,spite some changes, the most of them on the way to osmosis andleveling. Italy has been an exception between 1960-80 seeing theregional means accentuated by time

Starting in the 1950s there was a very large migration from the more impoverished south to the more prosperous north, so the figures for birth cohorts from the 1960s to the 1980s should reflect that movement and the resulting admixture to some degree, although the "mixing" didn't take place immediately (old divisions died hard), and is not complete even now.

So, in the north you would have two factors at play, yes? Theoretically, the admixture might be expected to lessen the mean height, but at the same time better nutrition would presumably increase the height even of "genetically" still 100% southern Italians. In the south there has been no admixture because the migration has been in the other direction, and the prosperity differential continues.

There are, of course, differences even in the south, and I don't mean just sub-regional differences, but individual differences. Just an anecdote, if I may. In one family I know well, of the two grandfathers, born in communes a few miles apart in southern Italy, one was about 6' tall and one about 5'5". There was a proportionally similar variation in the grandmothers. In the next generation, American born, the sons of the shorter man are about 5'9" tall. The sons of the 6' tall man are 6'1" tall, some of the grandsons 6'2", so there's obviously some sort of genetic constraint on the increase.

Just parenthetically, I've always wondered how there could be these kinds of extremes in one small area. In some places, I think it may be down to very ancient migration patterns into neighboring sub-regions, especially if one region is more isolated. That's how I explain the relative shortness of coastal Ligurians versus the height of the mountain people in Massa Carrara. (a number of very tall football players have come from there), but in the case I described the communes are literally a few kilometers apart.

Anyway, I find the data on Ireland very interesting and it comports with what I can see with my own eyes in terms of their descendants in America. That makes the extreme height of the ancient samples from Ireland even more interesting. It certainly wasn't very predictive of future generations if they were typical of the newcomers.

Drac II
20-01-16, 12:04
Thanks to Drac and Angela:
I red a survey abstract about the Netherlands; yet, the affirmation Dutch people were the shortest people in Europe in the 1880's seems to me a bit hazardous.
here a part of my point.



Hereunder I post about stature, not for the pleasure because it is not myfocus but only to gain some « credibility » after someremarks, and to show things are not always evident even for somethingas simple as stature.
Humanstature : about the confidence we can have in the diverse data :
Humanstature put someones to fight about figures. In fact the official orpseudo « scientific » data are not always so reliable.It's why I prefer keep in mind general trends over long periods thanto put too much confidence into spotty states. Surely some changes inthe rank of regions have some weight if confirmed over long time.More often I observed that the ancient higher and lower staturedcountries and regions found again their rank after some temporarychanges. The greater encreases in human stature are the case ofcountries stayed back outside economical progress a long time beforequick improvement (Japan).
Somestates spoke of general 'mean' stature at some point of time, othersof generation stature (year of birth) or of a more or less short spanof time.
Hereunder 2 states of Wikipedia, showing the modestly reliableconclusions we can take from them :
« about1960 » (« vers 1960 ») about2007 (not all of them, unprecised)
Montenegro 178cm Montenegro 185,6 cm
Scandinaves(!) 178 Dutchs 184,0 (21 years)
Cheyennes 174 « 183,8
Foulbe 174 « 180,8
Englishmen 173 Finns 182,6
Turkestan 171 Germans 182,3
Belgians 171 « 179,8
Frenchpeople 170 ? (too high?) Danes 182,1
Germans 168 !(too low) Croatians 182,0
Russians 168 Swedes 181,1 (16/24 years)
Italians 166 !(too low) « 177,2
Hungarians 163 !(too low) Norvegians 179,7 (18/19 years)
Mongols 163 Belgians 179,5
Spanyards 162 !(too low) Luxemburg 179,1
Ainoos 158 Spanyards 178,5 !
Inuits 158 Swiss 178,4
Saami 153 Greeks 178,0
M'buti 137 Czechs 178,0
Canadians 177,0 (18/24 years)
« 174,0
USA 177,7 (15/25 years)
« 176,5 (adults)
Australians 178,4 (18/24 years)
New-Zealand 177,0 (19-45 years!!!)
Ukrainians 176,5
France 176,1 (16/25 years)
« 175,0
Italians 175,2
Turks 175,0
Portugueses 173,7
Romanians 172,0 (adults)
Tonga 169,4 !
& :I can say Romanians are far to be so low statured – but the statehere cannot be compared to others because it covers a very longerspan of time ! Tonga are surely not so short ! Therelatively low statures means in USA and Canada seem showing everyethny is taken in account without mentioning origin (East-Asians,« Latinos » and so on?) - other point for method: ifI take the same sample number in every region of a country and I makea national mean based on it, I don't take in account the populationdensity in it and my national mean is false...


Youcan read a relatively recent work about Europe :
L'évolutionrécente de la stature en Europe occidentale (période 1960-1980) byMC. CHAMLA (Persée).
Even this serious work isbased upon states made in different countries with very bigvariations of samples : from 2000 to over 400000 !Apparently, these states do not take the origin of people in account.I found in another survey by Jaume GARCIA (a Catalan?) for PrincetownUniversity about women statures from 1950 to 1980 by groups of 5years spans of birthdates that some periods results were based uponless than 60 people when othiers were based upon more than 660people ! Scientific by the way to analyse, but not tooscientific concerning some data !








Froma serious enough work (CHAMLA's as mentioned above)
variationsbetween 1970 and 1980 (years ofbirth : the only serious way)concerning Spain, Ireland and Greece :
Spain 175.8/ 174.4 / 176.7 / 176.3 / 175.2 / 175.9 / 176.4 / 176.4 / 172.7/ 176.8 / 178.0
Ireland 177.7/ 179.2 / 175.9 / 175.5 / 178.0 / 176.2 / 176.6 / 179.3 / 175.4 /178.2 / 177.5
Greece 177.5/ 179.5 / 176.8 / 177.7 / 180.0 / 178.0 / 177.8 / 178.4 / 179.5 /179.3 / 178.3
& :means over 11 years of birth : Spain : 175.9 – Ireland : 177.2 – Greece : 178.4
sovariations which could prove insufficiant samples according toyears ? The mean upon a longer period seems more accurate evenif a too long span of time could mask some trends. By the way theSpanyards statures seem having known an increase in the late 1970'sat the opposite to Ireland. Portugal stays still the lowest staturedcountry as a whole (Saami lands are not considered a country, likeKurdistan) spite local variations.


Asa whole some southern regions of Europe, stayed maybe longer timewith a worst economy, show a bit higher coefficient of statureincrease. Exception : The Netherlands with big increase andPortugal with little increase. That said, as a whole, the old ranksbetween populations in Europe have not been put upside down for themost. The highest ones : Scandinavians lands (except Saami) andYougoslavs plus some Carpathians regions, the lowest ones :regions of Portugal, Spain, Southern Italy. In old times, somelocal spots in Brittany and Poland had very low statures too.
Onlysome phantasms like the high stature of Irish people have to berevised ; already in the 1930/1940's when Irish people weregiven about 172 cm as a mean some local states were about 166 only !I red on fora that the lowest statured folks in UK were the Englishpeople ! It's just the contrary, taken as a whole !Irishmen, Scotmen and Welshmen show a bit lower statured thanEnglishmen. When the England mean was supposed to be 171 cm Wales had169 cm. Some years later, after the 1950's, Scotland and Wales showedboth about 170,5 : at this time I can suppose England hadsomething like more than 172...(new blogs/fora science : I redtoo the Irish people were lighter pigmented than English people !But it's the subject of another thread...)
Eventhe ranks between internal regions have not been modified too much,spite some changes, the most of them on the way to osmosis andleveling. Italy has been an exception between 1960-80 seeing theregional means accentuated by time : I don't know if it is trueafter the 2000's ?
Toconclude I can say that except for regions where statures are closeone to the other, your eyes can verify without too huge states whichregions have the higher or lowest statured populations, at least atthe moment you visit these regions.
some "scientific" works made compilation of heterogenous data the only reliable being the ones with big samples sampled by dates of birth and regions
Thegenetic, mesologic and cultural basis of stature (vaste subject) canbe discussed in another thread.

ouf! the battle is over!

I don't know what survey you read showing that Dutch people were the shortest in the 1880s, but it certainly is not what the study I posted shows. The Chamla study is from 1983, pretty outdated. The Hatton and Bray study is from 2010 and goes all the way back to data from the 1850s and up to 1980, and takes into account more countries as well, and Grasgruber et al. 2014 deals with more recent data.

There never was any "battle" to begin with.

MOESAN
22-01-16, 18:48
@DracII: (the "battle" term was for me: because it took some of my time to edit my post; no problem; all the way my post was not exclusively addressing you)
1- this kind of survey if well made will never be outdated! IT IS HISTORICAL YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE PAST / NO INTERPRETATION of data when this kind of work is well made (sufficiant and well made samples) - you can only compare old and present time and make supposition about causes of evolution!
2- nothing personal: the affirmation about "dwarfy" Dutch people was not yours but it came from a pseudo scientific compilation.
3- I red other studies comparing statures for the dates you mention.

@Angela:
OK as a whole -
I think very often people migrating are a bit higher statured as a mean than people staying home. I don't know if serious surveys have been made about that.
the acting economic/cultural factors are not always easy to interprete: It seems in commercial great interprises responsabilities at a middle level are often given to slightly higher statured people (and males! sorry). Physical appearance and credibility. At higher levels in hyerarchy, it is maybe not so evident. and this kind of selection can be masking another one: the social selection favouring the better educated people for these places of responsability, knowing this social origin favour better nutrition, less physcial work and so higher stature since the beginning!
concerning Ireland and Steppes people, the statures we find in some tombs are the reflect of social selection and admiration for suspposed strength, at those ancient times.
it remains Eastern Europe was as a whole higher statured thahn Western Europe, yetbefore the Metals era. and the closest ones to the Steppic colonizers are Northern Europeans of today, and they are a bit higher than other Europeans, except Western Balkans and some Carpathians districts (and evidently the small regions where 'nordic' types is associated to 'dinaric' types: Austrian Tyrol...
Concerning thesis about social imput, I red someones about France regions submitted to good or bad conditions according to place sand time; the imput of life conditions is proved at some level but what is striking too is the overall stability over a long enough time: Alsace was the higher region in France in the 1930's and it is still the highest one today (excluding recent immigrants from outside France) spite some pindividuals moves. Brittany is always one of the shortest regions, so the same reasonment. (remnants of 'teviecoid' types, according to someones.

SO: stature is not the best marker but it has some signification. the question is it is hard to measure the nly genetic imput in it.

MOESAN
22-01-16, 18:54
I become chattering! to ANglea, just a remark for Cavalli-Sforza: how does he explain the mostly high statured tribes of Africa?
the explanation is not only in hot or cold climate but also in dry and wet climate (apparently forests people are shorter in Africa than others?) - I stop here for this week! Some other threads are so attractive and it is not finished.