Archaeologica.org

You seem on an abuse roll.
(Is that a Christian trait?)
It'll be interesting to see how long you can keep that up...

I'll apply soccer rules.

fine, apply them to your own posts first.

You want to call it 'progress' rather than 'selection'? Fine, be my guest. Shakespeare described it as "a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet".

all you have done is said it but cited no source material for your statistic. one which is wrong as if you peruse history you will find that other nations had tall men and women long before the 19th century. if you want proof, take a look at the suits of armor in museums. most are well over the 5'5" mark and many are over 6'

so historicallly, your numbers do not add up.

The 'facts'? Like it being patently obvious that you don't know what you're talking about?

well said RK, you sound like you have a head on your shoulders.

You seem on an abuse roll.

Rk isn't abusing you nor am i. just pointing out your inability to present material without credible back up.

archaeologist wrote:[...]if you want proof, take a look at the suits of armor in museums. most are well over the 5'5" mark and many are over 6'

so historicallly, your numbers do not add up.

No medieval helmet will fit any 21st century person over 5 feet tall. When I worked as a tour guide in 2 castles/museums I actually tested that, physically, on well over 15,000 people and found it to be true. Only kids up to 10/11 years of age will fit medieval helmets.

'Medieval' defined as 15th century and before.

Please be so kind as to provide the adresses of those museums where you say they have "suits of armor [...] most well over the 5'5" mark and many [...] over 6' from medieval times..."
Let's see if that checks out, shall we?

Technically, 'mediaeval' means pre-1500, not 14th century. But that's not written on stone tablets, obviously.
Doesn't the museum in the Tower of London have suits of armour over 5'? I seem to remember Henry VIII's being quite big (height!).

No medieval helmet

you have tried them all?

anyways, since you have offered no credible source to back you up, i will doubt your thiunking on that area. your loogic concerningheirght doesn't add up as the ancient world would be no bigger than 2' by your thinking.

even the hobbit was taller than that and if you are using evolutionists research i would highly suspect their data.

archaeologist wrote:

No medieval helmet

you have tried them all?

anyways, since you have offered no credible source to back you up, i will doubt your thiunking on that area. your loogic concerningheirght doesn't add up as the ancient world would be no bigger than 2' by your thinking.

even the hobbit was taller than that and if you are using evolutionists research i would highly suspect their data.

There have been numerous studies done about the physical characteristics of peoples of past times. These have been conducted by archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, historians, and medical researchers, among others. How many are "evolutionists" is unknown - that identifier is not an element of qualification for those jobs, nor relevant to the collection and analysis of empirical evidence.

It is also irrelevant to a discussion of evolution to observe that over time populations of people have reflected their genetic heritage as well as their physical environments - adequate diet, physical health, effects of climate, influeces of social conditions all affect human development in any specific time.

Military historian John Keegan has discussed the role that improving food production, health techniques, education, relative social wealth and other factors produced in the mid-1800's large populations of men able to carry heavier packs and march longer. One consequence was the expansion of wars involving very large armies.

Another interesting indicator of relative physical size is the regiment established by Frederick the Great in the early 1700's. This "elite" unit was composed of "giants," men all 6' or taller - and nickemed "die lange Kerlen," or the "tall fellows." Few of the Prussian army's men of the time were taller than approximately 5'4".

Study of ships from the 1500's to the late 1700's show that the average crewman was by 21st century standards very short. The tallest person who could have walked through Francis Drake's "Golden Hind" without bending over would have been less than 5'2" tall.

Earlier discussions of medieval armor were, in fact, largely correct. While a few suits of armor that survive were made for tall peopole, on average the armored warrior of Europe was within an inch or three of 5' tall. And these were the people who usually enjoyed the best available food and most supportive social structure. However, in other areas around Europe, some populations were larger folk - the Scots, it turns out, have been shown to be on avarge the world's tallest people.

Height and physical strength may or may not be considered factors of "evolution." It is reasonably well-known, however, that these are variable factors that seem to reflect genetics and evnironmental conditions rather than some permanent divergence of species. If adaptation is per se seen by some as evolution, then they have a strong argument to make - including reverse evolution.

Evolutionists - and that means, those persons such as Steven Jay Gould who make a professional commitment to the study and evaluation of issues in evolution - generally look to far more sweeping and permanent devlopments than mere height and physical strangth.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Technically, 'mediaeval' means pre-1500, not 14th century.[...]

Who mentioned "14th century"...?

You actually described medieaval as 15th century and before; I pointed out it's actually pre-1500....then added a typo just to keep it interesting!

Today's Doonesbury strip:

LOL!!!
But with the effects of comics splashed all over today's frontpages, I'd recheck my fire insurance, minimalist!

Doonesbury has been around since the late 60's as a sort of left-of-center comment on the world and culture. It is frequently the target of outrage by the political/religious right but its popularity in the Blue States is well established.


I have no idea if it runs in the UK so, here's a link.


http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/

It doesn't run in the UK, but we have plenty of Left-wing newspapers to make up for it.

Well, in that case, here's another example.

Hmmm....don't know why that didn't work as an image.... click the link.


http://photobucket.com/albums/y108/rsch ... 051218.gif

That one worked ok. Not sure TB is something to make a joke of, but hey.......