History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
You would normally expect city-dwellers to be taller than countrymen in such a society

Also hunter-gatherers are normally taller than farmers. So are - I guess - people who eat a lot of fish. As for blond hair - it is believed that this mutation originated in a single woman somewhere at the south-eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, perhaps among ancestors of modern Ugro-Finnic or modern Baltic people. I don't know when it took place, perhaps many thousands years ago. But it is still hard to believe how the Celts - who originated and lived far away from both the Ugro-Finnic and the Baltic populations - could be mostly blond, as some sources - IIRC - claimed. Unless they developed a blond hair mutation independently.

A blond hair mutation also took place among the dark-skinned Melanesians:

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

On the other hand, descendants of Celts have high frequency of red hair (contrary to what is believed that red hair is from Scandinavia):



The population with a lot of red hair in Russia which can be seen above, are the Udmurts - some photos of Udmurts:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4825891/1/

Spoiler :









They look pretty much like Herodotus described the Budini:

Herodotus said:
The Budini are a large and powerful nation: they have all deep blue eyes, and bright red hair.
Flying Pig said:
The Latin word gens and the Greek ἔθνος are often translated race, but certainly mean 'tribe'. Gentes in Rome were the extended family clans, such as the Julii, the Cornelii and the Claudii, which often competed for power and influence.

But apart from word gens there is also genus. I think gens refers to a smaller group and genus to a larger group.
 
As for blond hair - it is believed that this mutation originated in a single woman somewhere at the south-eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, perhaps among ancestors of modern Ugro-Finnic or modern Baltic people. I don't know when it took place, perhaps many thousands years ago. But it is still hard to believe how the Celts - who originated and lived far away from both the Ugro-Finnic and the Baltic populations - could be mostly blond, as some sources - IIRC - claimed. Unless they developed a blond hair mutation independently.

A blond hair mutation also took place among the dark-skinned Melanesians:

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

On the other hand, descendants of Celts have high frequency of red hair (contrary to what is believed that red hair is from Scandinavia):

In the UK, we stereotype Irish and Scots as red-headed, while Scandinavians are stereotypically blond.
 
The highest percentage of blond-haired people nowadays is among Finnish and Saami populations.

Both are Scandinavian, but Ugro-Finnic groups (not Germanic).

Among Germanic Scandinavians % of blond hair is lower. Similar as among Baltic nations (Lithuanians, Latvians), among Estonians and Slavic Northern Russians (please note that many of Northern Russians are descendants of Ugro-Finnic groups assimilated by Slavic tribes).

For example what is now the Zalesye region of Russia, used to be area inhabited by Finno-Ugric speakers in the Ancient era:

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

It seems that Scandinavians "got" their blond hair from Ugro-Finnic populations, and so did Balts and Slavs. In Northern Poland there is also a high % of blond hair - higher than in Northern Germany, and comparable to that in Denmark and Sweden or Norway.

while Scandinavians are stereotypically blond.

Reading about the Vikings - Harald the Red-Beard, Eric the Red, etc., etc. - I had an impression that red hair is originally Scandinavian:



But maybe the fact that they had their nick-names from their hair colour actually suggests, that it was not all that frequent.

========================

Map of Finno-Ugric populations today (in the past they used to extent maybe even as far south-west as northern edge of Belarus):



Flying Pig said:
In the UK, we stereotype Irish and Scots as red-headed

And this seems correct (see the map above - Ireland, Wales and Scotland).

But also part of Norway and part of the Low Countries, Iceland and much of England, actually.
 
Flying Pig, the link you posted (about height in Europe) provides a good material for another question.

I found this in the link you posted:



Just look at the average height of Europeans during the Dark Ages (from the 5th to the 7th centuries AD).

Why were Europeans on average taller during the Early Medieval Dark Ages than in any other period?

And what caused the drastic decline of height in the 17th century (actually it seems like it started to decline already in the 16th century) ???

13th century also saw a drastic decline of average height - followed by a rapid growth in the 14th century (after the Black Death?).

===============================

It seems that it was connected with starvation and overpopulation, followed by death of population and more food = people growing higher.

The 13th century saw overpopulation and hunger in Western Europe - the Black Death changed this, killing a lot of people.

The 2nd half of the 16th century and the 17th century saw devastating wars and epidemies in much of Europe = starvation, disease.

That caused the population decline and was followed by a period of growth = height became normal again.

But in the Roman era people were apparently higher in the 3rd century (even though there was crisis at that time):

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

What do you think?

But probably it still does not fully explain why the Dark Ages had the tallest people of all periods.
 
this might be embrassing I don't know this basic academic writing knowledge as a master student, but yes, my purpose in this forum is for learning so I will ask it.

In the footnote of one book I read an information like this :

Al-Bidayah wa an-Nihayah, 7/115

Does it mean Al Bidayah wa An-Nihayah book 7 page 115, or is it chapter 7 page 115, or else?

NB: Al Bidayah wa an-Nihayah is one of the book that is written by Ibn Kathir, a classic Muslim scholar and Historian.

If anyone can answer, do answer, I really need this to defend my paper. Thank you in advance.
 
never mind I already know the answer it is volume ;)
 
They look pretty much like Herodotus described the Budini

Herodotus also described a people with no head and a mouth on their stomach. Basically, things got weirder the farther you went from Greece in his view.

However, that description is extremely generic and could be anywhere. Blue eyes often go with red hair.
 
Herodotus also described a people with no head and a mouth on their stomach. Basically, things got weirder the farther you went from Greece in his view.

However, that description is extremely generic and could be anywhere. Blue eyes often go with red hair.
The sad thing is that Domen's comment would basically have been considered legitimate ethnography up to maybe thirty years ago.
 
Flying Pig, the link you posted (about height in Europe) provides a good material for another question.

I found this in the link you posted:



<...stuff...>

It'd sure be nice if before we talked about all that, we had the standard deviations and confidence intervals calculated and printed. Without knowing that data, this could just be noise.
 
Agreed. To me, that looks like a straight line with uncertainty disguising it. Indeed, the paper did say that heights in Europe remained pretty much static until the Industrial Revolution, which it used to challenge the assumption that quality of life rose under the Pax Romana
 
Please watch fragment of this lecture by a Jewish historian between 0:55:16 / 0:55:20 and 0:57:10 concerning Jews in Germany:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUlM2a2tsOM#t=55m20s


Link to video.

And tell me, why do Jews keep coming back to Germany each time after Germans massacre or expell them?

I must say that I fully agree with this Jewish historian about this issue. Germans have repeatedly massacred Jews throughout entire history.

German anti-Semitism is not a new thing. It dates back to the Early Middle Ages.
 
Why did Luther become a Protestant?
 
It was symbolism. He was mad.
 
Flying Pig said:
Roman soldiers averaged around 5 foot 6, while Northern Europeans were the tallest in Europe throughout most of the pre-modern period: indeed, the Dutch still are.
Interesting somewhat tangential fact. There was no height differential between Southeast Asians and Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The gap only widened in the eighteenth owing to better diet.

Flying Pig said:
Diets in Germanic areas tended to be high in protein, geography demanded a vigorous lifestyle, and the Celts played a great deal of sports which the Romans do not seem to have done.

Laboring on the land almost always demands a vigorous lifestyle. I'm also not sure if sports - an elite preserve I assume? - are good predictors of height. But yeah, diet is the important part. I'm also awry of talking about "Germanics", "Celts" and "Romans" as mutually exclusive groups or really even as groups. I also wouldn't be surprised if elite diets were broadly comparable in terms of things like protein intake.
 
Laboring on the land almost always demands a vigorous lifestyle. I'm also not sure if sports - an elite preserve I assume? - are good predictors of height. But yeah, diet is the important part. I'm also awry of talking about "Germanics", "Celts" and "Romans" as mutually exclusive groups or really even as groups. I also wouldn't be surprised if elite diets were broadly comparable in terms of things like protein intake.

Actually, farmers in general are shorter than hunters; this was particularly stark when farming was first developed. Labouring on the land at its worst is hard work, with a low-protein diet, with the result that what little energy you eat is soon taken up with work, and you have little left over for body-building. I'm led to believe that in Gaul and Germany, a greater proportion of ordinary rural people spent a greater proportion of their time hunting than would have been the case for an Italian farmer. I'm also not sure that sports would have been an elite activity among Gallic farmers; farming's a full-time job, for sure, but it happens in stops and starts, particularly with crop farming. People who play a lot of sport from a young age tend to be taller and stronger than those who don't, especially if we consider that the Romans had a huge number of urban poor people who didn't really exist north of the Alps.
 
I don't think a lot of those assumptions are accurate. But I'll just focus on the pertinent stuff.

Flying Pig said:
Actually, farmers in general are shorter than hunters; this was particularly stark when farming was first developed.
We're talking about two sedentary agrarian societies though. So I'm not sure how that observation is relevant?

Flying Pig said:
Labouring on the land at its worst is hard work, with a low-protein diet, with the result that what little energy you eat is soon taken up with work, and you have little left over for body-building.
I don't think hard work and a "vigorous lifestyle" are meaningfully different though. And I'm not sure how different life would have been for Gallic and Italian farmers.

Flying Pig said:
I'm also not sure that sports would have been an elite activity among Gallic farmers; farming's a full-time job, for sure, but it happens in stops and starts, particularly with crop farming.

I don't see how that would apply any different to Italian farmers though? The point about having "little energy left" at the end of the day surely also applies to Gallic farmers. And if it doesn't, why?

Flying Pig said:
People who play a lot of sport from a young age tend to be taller and stronger than those who don't
I don't think height has much to do with physical activity. It's largely the product of diet. So what I guess I'm trying to get at is that protein consumption is the single largest driver of height. I'm also not convinced that these other factors were meaningfully different. The virile Gaul and the weak Italian peasant sounds rather like a stereotype.
 
In the past, height was usually greater in places with low population density, lots of wild animals to hunt for and lots of fish.

Height depends greatly on diet composition / nutrition. That's why people are becoming taller with each generation in most countries nowadays.

In Poland nowadays average height is 178,5 cm for men.

But in 2004 it was 177,5 and in 1968 it was 170,5. And in 1880 it was 165,0. So during 130 years it increased by 13 cm.

My father, for example, is much shorter than me (he is ca. 176,0 cm IIRC - when he was born it was way above average, now it is below).

Masada said:
I don't think height has much to do with physical activity. It's largely the product of diet.

Yes. And that's why hunters were taller than farmers - because hunters eat more meat. So you are both right, Flying Pig and Masada.

We're talking about two sedentary agrarian societies though. So I'm not sure how that observation is relevant?

Ancient Germania was a low population density society who lived in a region where 90% of land was covered by forests.

They were farmers, but at the same time they had a lot of wild animals around them to hunt for. They also had no cities, only villages.

And in general they had more food per inhabitant, because their population density was very low. Especially more meat and fish per inhabitant.

In Rome there were problems with food supplies, especially for poor people. Remember the slogan "Give us gladiator fights and bread", etc. ???

I don't see how that would apply any different to Italian farmers though?

In Italy during Roman Imperial times there were not many free farmers (free farmers were the dominant group during the Early Republic, but not later).

In Imperial times there were large latifundia owned by agrarian magnates, and poor laborers who worked there on salary, but did not own the land.

There was also a huge influx of people from villages to cities since the Late-Republic period until the Mid-Empire period.

Rome alone had a huge number of poor people, who lived from "social help" provided by the state ("Bread and gladiator fights").

Only since the crisis of the 3rd century AD, cities started to become depopulated again and people started to migrate to villages.

This - combined with the huge decline of population that followed - contributed to improvement of diet of an average person.

However, Late Imperial Rome produced the agrarian law known as colonatus - it was similar to feudalism. Peasants (colons) worked for landowners. So despite the decline of cities, ownership of land did not return to common people - like during the Early Republic - but land continued to be owned by a handful of Roman magnates. Anyway, the average diet of an average person still improved compared to the overcrowded period of the 1st to 2nd centuries CE.
 
The virile Gaul and the weak Italian peasant sounds rather like a stereotype.

The problem is that most of Italian "farmers" were not really peasants, but badly-paid agrarian seasonal workers, who worked for great landowners.

And peasants were still more virile than poor people from cities like Rome. Gaul did not have so many urban poors, because it was less urbanized.
 
The virile Gaul and the weak Italian peasant sounds rather like a stereotype.

This sounds like it would be verifiable based on skeletal remains. We don't have to trust ancient sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom