marehart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess I wasn't too clear. I do agree with you
> about isolated tribes perhaps producing the TALL
> guys and everything being relative. I'm 6'2" and
> considered short in family.

I'm 6'3" and I'm the 'runt' of all male cousins. OTOH, my sisters stand 5'2 and 5'8 respectively. Genetics is an odd thing, but medical care and nutrition obviously play their part as well.

It wouldn't take very many 6'+ adventurers/wanderers amongst 4'8 to 5'4 populations to start causing some legends of giants in pre-writing cultures. It seems logical on the surface anyway

>
> Thanks for the good links. Am still curious about
> any Norse links about their height.

Trying to find the old ones I'd had that were well referenced. I'd researched it for an alternative history site once upon a time. I'm presuming here you mean generally from ~600AD to ~1200AD time frame - the heights of the Nordic cultures. Of interest to me would be if anyone could locate Celtic heights across the same time frame or a little earlier - pre-Roman invasions.

Non-referenced is a bit buried, but more easily found:
[www.hurstwic.org]
[www.family-ancestry.co.uk]

Somewhat referenced:
[www.vikinganswerlady.com]


In the end, both originally and now re-convinced, I firmly believe the Vikings weren't much taller than the average Briton or N. European (note: French were only 5'2 to 5'4 during the same time, IIRC) but were better fed (at least initially) and used to greater hardships, which should translate to more mass/stature. Comparing an average teen to a rugby jock, the population of average sized teens (Britons/Europeans) might well view the jocks as being 'giant' like.

Pure speculation -- there's also the psyche factor of the tall story, 'Those guys were soooo huge! we didn't even think, we just ran!'

>
> From my study of records, am very skeptical of
> thinking that people of the past were somehow
> different than at present. By this I mean in
> their psychology, abstract thinking, and ability
> to problem solve.

On this, I'd have to disagree. The more sophisticated the society, without the modern conveniences for it, would have mannerisms of thought we can barely conceive today. Even a mere 150 years in America has seen truly dramatic changes in thoughts and psychology. Death is no longer the constant companion, distance has become more irrelevant, etc. but at the same time, our base problem solving abilities (at least in city-bred children) seem to be declining. Trial and Error problem solving is even becoming more and more difficult to find even amongst my own generation! Kids walk away from problems they can't solve -- because they don't have to solve them!
Fundamentally, maybe there isn't much change... but it sure seems like there is. Abstract thinking is next to impossible for me to find in kids under 25 years old - and their psychology bears no resemblance to that of the 1850's, or even the 1940's.


>
> Am somewhat more flexible on physical factors, but
> think that in the past the gene pool was such that
> there was much more variation in expression; both
> in mainstream populations and in isolated ones.

I'm not understanding this one. How does a smaller gene pool provide greater variety?? This seems to be contra-indicate by genetic 'bottleneck' events?