It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Modern man is a giant compared to the Neolithic one

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
According to Hermanussen M. (2003) via “The National Center for Biotechnology Information” Neolithic man was of quite short stature:


The ancestors of modern Europeans arrived in Europe at least 40,000 years before present. Pre-glacial maximum Upper Palaeolithic males (before 16,000 BC) were tall and slim (mean height 179 cm, estimated average body weight 67 kg), while the females were comparably small and robust (mean height 158 cm, estimated average body weight 54 kg). Late Upper Palaeolithic males (8000-6600 BC) were of medium stature and robusticity (mean height 166 cm, estimated average body weight 62 kg). Stature further decreased to below 165 cm with estimated average body weight of 64 kg in Neolithic males of the Linear Band Pottery Culture, and to 150 cm with estimated average body weight of 49 kg in Neolithic females. The body stature of European males remained within the range of 165 to 170 cm up to the end of the 19th century.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In the Neolithic average human males were actually shorter than the average of modern women. Somehow, when God supposedly comes around and creates his usual Adam— humans are at their shortest. Easier to control I suppose. Then there is the talk about giants later in Genesis. This supposed gigantism (google it) is seen throughout the animal kingdom when certain branches of a species mix, hey get a lion and a tiger to mate and you get a huge liger or a big tigon (depending on what species is the male). And dogs come in all sizes and shapes. Makes me wonder what would happen if I mixed a Norwegian elg with an Alaskan moose. Could be groovy, I guess.

So. What was the reason for the sudden drop in body height after the last ice-age (or the ice cap left after the Flood, anyone)? Was it God interfering to make man easier to deal with, perhaps being a head higher and nearly twice the body mass? Or is God really quite short? Making Adam in his likeness I mean. Or does it have a scientific explanation saying too much ice equals shortness? What causes height to change that much over time?




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


I think natural selection is the answer to your question. When in cooler climate shorter with shorter appendages is a usefull trait as it takes less energy to heat etc.

I would think in warmer climates a taller more slender frame would attract less and dissipate heat better than the stocky fellow above.

That's my guess anyway, the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


In terms of size, smaller vertebrates are more likely to survive cataclysm.

Big eaters and species that have very small numbers of offspring die off first.

So, Rats will probably be the next intelligent life on Earth. Give it about 1M years after homo sapiens are out of the way.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Treespeaker
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


I think natural selection is the answer to your question. When in cooler climate shorter with shorter appendages is a usefull trait as it takes less energy to heat etc.


Then how do you explain the explosive growth in height the last 100 years. Is it all because of nylon and the tall dark fella? Seeing beds and doorframes from a few centuries ago, well, they were in the hobbit department.


I would think in warmer climates a taller more slender frame would attract less and dissipate heat better than the stocky fellow above.


Well, looking at average height around the globe distributed in various climatic zones, I can't really see that connection.




That's my guess anyway, the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Cheers


Old Occam has a point.

Skål
edit on 29-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: typo.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Whales, shark and crocodiles seem quite steadfast. I believe the dinosaurs caught a genetic disease that turned their offspring into something more bird-like, the dinos simply died out since they were no longer capable to mate with the birdies of their species. I guess something happened (something cyclical), that altered the DNA and make-up of our terrestrial fauna. My theory is that this cyclical (dirty snowball) is what spawned life here on Earth in the first place. Some kind of comet carrying a genetic nucleic acid chain transmitter, that haunts life in our solar system, shaping and reshaping it as it comes by. Just a thought.
edit on 29-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Deleted irrellevant sentance



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Just a personal observation from the last almost 50 years of looking and visiting:

S.E. Asia and I will throw in Japan and Korea also as I used to pass through there quite a bit... The populations have gotten taller and their feet bigger... Because of better diets and vitamins.. You absolutely almost never saw a fat person and very seldom anyone over 5'7" in men and 5'3" was a tall girl in S.E. Asia; not the case now.. Some attribute the skeletal growth due to dairy products and a higher meat consumption... I do not know the true cause, but it is amazing with the changes I have witnessed.

The Europeans were not all that big in the past 100 years if you judge their height by the head clearance (or lack there of) when you go below decks of an old sailing ship or man of war... I seem to remember being told the average height was just 5'5" of the sailors....

Just an observation

edit on 29-1-2014 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


In terms of size, smaller vertebrates are more likely to survive cataclysm.

Big eaters and species that have very small numbers of offspring die off first.

So, Rats will probably be the next intelligent life on Earth. Give it about 1M years after homo sapiens are out of the way.


I shall rule this world with an iron first!

2nd... sorry I had to...



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Although it's not much of an argument for my point made above but in answer to you...I feel that today's society is not based on the same things as long ago.

Namely survival was the game back then....now with our magical "furnaces" etc the role of nature is largely ignored by us to be replaced with currant fads in culture....like tall is better kind of mentality seen today in western culture.

I think if we found ourselves in a new ice age or extreme heat wave we would see the trend return to what's been historically noted.

The tall burly fellow is great help when there's plenty , in times of need that same guy would be a burden to his group in just space and dietary needs......

After mulling it over I'm leaning towards thinking the entire environmental situation likely plays a role as well as climate, how food is easily obtained...kind of foods sought etc.

I wish the tptb would just release what they know about our combined past without the spin so we could decide collectively ourselves.

Every time I delve to deep into what's been said about our past the more it sounds like there are all these dissimilar stories to turn the eye away from "our" story.

With stories and myths about floods and earthquake and all the rest , where is our combined oral narrative or texts talking about getting through the last ice age? With a history like that you'd think we would have more remembrance passed down don't you think?

Missing time...oh where fort are though? I find the fact that none of the traces we got solidly deal with hundreds of years living and surviving the big ice globally. the odd frozen dude in the mountains doesn't quite cut it.

Hey, peace and cheers
edit on 29-1-2014 by Treespeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Indeed, a friend owns a boat from around the turn of the centuries and you sure get bumpy in the head after a few days onboard. You can see it on violins too. Modern violins are bigger than the ones Mozart made music for.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
It's not climate change, it's industry.

We're growing taller to adapt to the pollution from industry.

Nothing else fits.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Treespeaker
 


I don't buy being tall equals means an automatic need more food, unless we're talking really huge, like the guy who was fore me in the store the other day. A bloody Jotun right there in front of me. Amazing.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
when i was in school i was one of the tallest in my year of 100 or so kids at 14 i was over 6 foot tall now i feel small when the school kids are out even the girls are 6 foot plus now and that is in 23 years out of school .

kids of 6'4 are common everywhere you go what is it diet and has it changed that much in 2 decades then you see the old newspaper cuttings of giants being found by the dozen and that is what we know about .

but a foot taller in 100 years weird



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
This is caused by diet.

I remember when I visited Europe and the doors being short(I'm 5'8).

Even the sailor outfits from 30s and 40s were tiny. Men were shorter, as were women.

We have a very diverse diet these days full of nutrients.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphanApology
 


Then why the change in the last 20 years? When I was in highschool I was far above average height at 6ft 1. There were very few people who were my height or taller. Now, 6ft one is within the norm, and plenty would tower over me. It's only been 12 years since I would have graduated.

I don't buy it being diet. The topsoil has been delpleted of nutrients. We now NPK monocultures, and throw pesticides on top. If you dig deep enough, you'll find old articles that talk of the declining nutrient values within various produce. Vegetables and fruits have a fraction of what they did a century ago.

I'd agree that we have more options that a century ago, and consume more calories, but the bulk of this for the average westerner comes from empty calories (HFCS sources).

Look at global air pollution levels. That's what fits.
Link
edit on 29-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


When exactly is the "linear band pottery culture"? The beginning of agriculture and the resulting pyramid hierarchy is generally not all that advantageous for most of the population in terms of quality of life, particularly nutritionally. Just a thought, as I am just spit-balling here. I could be totally off. As I said, it depends on what was developing at the time.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


I am very interested in the 1800s and naval ships of that time, literally england ruled the waves. There is a ship in portsmouth, its called the HMS Victory, I went aboard, the ceilings are so low, peeps back then were tiny!! Still very impressive, the ship has been around for 300 years or something. Love it. Just my random diabribe.
edit on 29/1/14 by eoyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Utnapisjtim
Then how do you explain the explosive growth in height the last 100 years. Is it all because of nylon and the tall dark fella? Seeing beds and doorframes from a few centuries ago, well, they were in the hobbit department.


Basically, the food. It's more nutritious and there's more of it. Look at the difference in height with the Japanese population born in 1900 versus today. The difference in height as compared to western European has been made up in 2 generations. That's too fast for evolution, but it isn't too fast for diets.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


There's more of it, but more nutritious? Seriously? I don't buy that. Was royalty significantly taller than peasants, or simply more likely to be overweight/obese?

It may be too slow for evolution, but not for epigenetic markers to have shifted.

If plants shift upwards in response to changes in the climate, why can't humans shift upwards in response to changes in the environment? Neither case would be evolution, just shifts from generation to generation.

Link


edit on 29-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Well, as far as any history or mythology is concerned, people either set out to kill giants or they were used in wars. Frankly, if we were in the habit of killing the too tall, even back then, as every one of these texts points to, so if there were no larger males breeding back into a population that kept killing them, no wonder the height dropped?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by schuyler
 


There's more of it, but more nutritious? Seriously? I don't buy that. Was royalty significantly taller than peasants, or simply more likely to be overweight/obese?


Just because they were royalty did not mean they got more nutritious food. Indeed, sometimes the opposite happened. Witness the fine white rice preferred by royalty was less nutritious than the brown rice eaten by peasants. In this case, peasants got the better end of the deal. The same is true of European royalty. Who was healthier? The rich who dined on copious amounts of fatty greasy meat, or the peasant farmer with a diet rich in grains and vegetables?

I used the Japanese because they are an extreme example. Great Grandparents were not much over five feet tall, and many much less. But contemporary Japanese are as tall as westerners. What changed? Western diets were introduced. But it's not just the Japanese. If you look at the size of 18th and 19th century males who emigrated to the US, for example, you will find that they were small, scrappy men. Why? Because Europe had gone through generations of famine. (Try, for example, to handle a six-shooter from the mid-19th century. Your hand won't fit because the firearm was made for a smaller hand.)

It's not just diet, of course. For example, the lifespan has nearly doubled. For males it was 46 in 1900. Today it is 83. People are larger and healthier and live longer lives than ever before because their lives are much less harsh.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join