Height and "Italian DNA"

[maximillianveers]

I have a spreadsheet file with an anthropological data (including height) on 2177 skeletons from as old as 26kya BP to almost contemporary ones. Ironically, among the tallest ones there is an "Italian" Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherer from Barma Grande site being ~190, so just slightly shorter than me.

My dad often remarks on this. My dad claims to be 5'8" (although I think that he might be an inch or two shorter) and born in 1958. He often remarks how he wasn't considered short when he was young and most were around his height. Whereas he remarks that the young people are giants now. You will always get some exceptions but, on the whole, the young generation now seem to tower over their parents.

Interesting, yes I agree that Southern Europeans can be taller, and I also agree that children can be taller than their parents – such as in the case of my brothers, but the main discussion I wanted to have was about how genetics and height relate to different historical migrations of different peoples, be that medieval, ancient, or prehistoric. There are many things that are assumed to be environmental which are actually determined largely by genetics. For example, there are people who eat lots of food and are still shorter and people who don't eat much food who still grow up taller. Hence it would make sense that their stature reflects the genes of a distant ancestor, and the more different the parents the more likely such changes are to occur.

[member]

171-172 cm back then was quite above the average

I'm talking specifically about the average height of men in ancient Rome and Greece. Remember how I mentioned Ötzi the Iceman who was only 5ft 3in (the same height as my mother), well I have seen people who look exactly like him around today. This also goes for most facial reconstructions of ancient or prehistoric people. I know for myself, I have a Neanderthal body and a Cro-Magnon skull.

What I am trying to say is that 171-172 cm would be 1-2 inches above Roman military standard for infantry. It would be on par with Germanic warriors who Romans deemed to be the tallest in Europe, and that's even a couple of centuries before Romans encountered Germanic tribes. So that's not short at all. Even today Greeks are not short.

As regards to Otzi the Iceman... I doubt there are similar people like him. That would require a group that's immensely isolated from flows of events in the central Europe for the last 10000 years or so. Simply impossible. Same goes for Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

the so-called roman military standard of quinque pedibus et septem unciis is a mention in the Cx Theodosianus (late antiquity) whether that was always the standard or whether a standard had always prev existed is however not certain

but going with that standard there is data from Bisel's health examination of the Herculaneum skeletons (79 CE) incl stature; the males avg was 169.1 cm (n=51) ie higher on avg than the standard if said standard also existed during the principate, and acc to jp roth one of the skeletons at Herculaneum that was identified as a soldier was 174.5 cm

That's a couple of centuries after the Classical Greek period.

[member]

What I am trying to say is that 171-172 cm would be 1-2 inches above Roman military standard for infantry. It would be on par with Germanic warriors who Romans deemed to be the tallest in Europe, and that's even a couple of centuries before Romans encountered Germanic tribes. So that's not short at all. Even today Greeks are not short.

As regards to Otzi the Iceman... I doubt there are similar people like him. That would require a group that's immensely isolated from flows of events in the central Europe for the last 10000 years or so. Simply impossible. Same goes for Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

What you just confirmed is that I'd be considered a little taller than most Romans, but 5ft 7in is still not as tall as 6ft 2in. Also, why would it be impossible for people to reflect the traits of ancient or prehistoric people? When I said I have a Neanderthal-like body I meant that I'm stocky, have apish arms, and shorter fingers. And when I said I have a Cro-Magnon-like skull I meant that the top of my head is round (not elongated) and block-shaped with protruding brows. 

I mean, its not impossible to have similar features, but Neanderthals basically died off many thousands of years ago, and in the mean time other groups of humans moved in the areas where the Neanderthals lived thus reducing Neanderthal heritage. So the probability you inherited it from Neanderthal ancestor is minimal

[maximillianveers]

I mean, its not impossible to have similar features, but Neanderthals basically died off many thousands of years ago, and in the mean time other groups of humans moved in the areas where the Neanderthals lived thus reducing Neanderthal heritage. So the probability you inherited it from Neanderthal ancestor is minimal

Fair enough, you've convinced me and I think you are correct. I know that they say 1-4% is Neanderthal is related to modern-day humans. So the resemblance of different people to Neanderthals must then have something to do with how different genes relate to each other? I know some people here have 100% as a result of a certain ethnicity or group of ethnicities. I wonder how many different heights are lumped together with the way companies define those ethnicities genetically. If the same could be done for different countries then I'm wondering if a pattern could form which would remove many discrepancies with genetic testing results such as my improbable "Italian DNA".

100% Irish, Scottish, and Welsh

[Aeolus]

Can´t Anglos and Scotts be 5´7 too ? Why blame some italian ancestry that you likely don´t even have?  James McAvoy,Cyllian murphy and Brian Cox for example are all 5´7 and insular celts.
https://www.celebheights.com/tags/273.html
Average height among scotish actors according to this site is  5ft 9.9in (177.5cm) wich is not far from your height.

Did you see the map? I already know that the average height in the UK is 5ft 9in. That's what blue represents. And I'm not "blaming Italian ancestry", I'm exploring the possibility that height has something to do with why some Anglos and Scotts get "Northern Italian" on their DNA tests. 

171-172 cm back then was quite above the average

I'm talking specifically about the average height of men in ancient Rome and Greece. Remember how I mentioned Ötzi the Iceman who was only 5ft 3in (the same height as my mother), well I have seen people who look exactly like him around today. This also goes for most facial reconstructions of ancient or prehistoric people. I know for myself, I have a Neanderthal body and a Cro-Magnon skull.

I doubt height has something to do with it. Male Turkish average is 174 cm I believe. I'm 182 cm. I'm way above average, yet have no non Turkish ancestry.

It's just diet and luck. My father is very short (150 cm) and my mom was somewhat tall for a woman (174 cm). I am way taller than my dad and taller than my mom. Maybe it's because my grandpa was 2 meters tall, but then again our height isn't the reason of some foreign background. Its just luck/coincidence.

[Square]

Interesting topic.

From this recent study : https://www.researchgate.net/publication...dern_Times

It looks like Medieval Northern Europeans genomes have a bit more of these Height increasing variants.
While Medieval Italy genomes have a bit less of these height increasing variants.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/...-group.png

More or less the same pattern in another study with modern samples : https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figu..._345724652

As a polygenic trait, hundreds of height variants are more or less randomely distributed along every chromosomes , from 1 to 22 (and X), each variants with very small impact.

Not sure if it's possible that the offspring of an English man and an Italian woman would be shorter because of his Italian side. It would require Italians to be 100% homozygous "short height variant" on every genes (hundreds) influencing height.