International Journal of Osteoarchaeology DOI: 10.1002/oa.991
Trends in adult stature of peoples who inhabited the modern Portuguese territory from the Mesolithic to the late 20th century
H. F. V. Cardoso, J. E. A. Gomes
Abstract This study documents long-term changes in stature from the Mesolithic to the late 20th century in the territory of modern Portugal. Data utilised originated from published sources and from a sample of the Lisbon identified skeletal collection, where long bone lengths were collected. Mean long bone lengths were obtained from 20 population samples and compiled into nine periods. Pooled long bone lengths for each period were then converted to stature estimates. Results show three major trends: (1) a slow increase in stature from prehistory to the Middle Ages; (2) a negative trend from the Middle Ages to the late 19th century; and (3) a very rapid increase in mean stature during the second half of the 20th century. The political and territorial stability of the Kingdom of Portugal may have contributed to the greater heights of the medieval Portuguese, compared with the Roman and Modern periods. The negative secular trend was rooted in poor and unsanitary living conditions and the spread of infectious disease, brought about by increased population growth and urbanisation. Although the end of the Middle Ages coincided with the age of discoveries, the population may not have benefited from the overall prosperity of this period. The 20th century witnessed minor and slow changes in the health status of the Portuguese, but it was not until major improvements in social and economic conditions that were initiated in the 1960s, and further progress in the 1970s, that the Portuguese grew taller than ever before. Since the Middle Ages other European countries have experienced similar oscillations, but showed an earlier recovery in stature after the industrial period.
Link
17 comments:
Medieval Portugal was not more stable than Roman "Portugal". The opposite is true. Like in all Europe, the end of Roman Rule brought a story of now ending violence.(And also a lot of people from center and north of Europe.-How about their contribution?) The final stage of Medieval period coincides with Little Ice Age(XVI-XIX) that don´t help to improve the sources of food available to the common people. I know, I´me the "amateur", but sometimes cientists forget History...
According to this one, the British remained at the average height of 5'7" tall since the Neolithic to the Middle Ages and right up to the present day.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/09/stability-of-british-height-in-england.html
60-400 or so years ago, 5'7 was considered very tall,lol. In fact, most Cromagnon remains rarely went past 5'9". The tallest one was around supposedly 5'11" while the shortest were around 5'3"(ex. Obercassel, Germany).
Anyway, its a shame this study didnt give the exact Portuguese height averages.
Medieval Portugal was not more stable than Roman "Portugal". The opposite is true.
Partly agree. Portugal became estable in the 13th century and it has been stable after that for most of its history until present (exceptions: a handful of wars with Castile and the Netherlands).
What happened eventually was that Portugal passed from independent power to a dependent one: first from Castile/Imperial Spain and later from Britain. Also the "reconquista" may have caused the increase in latifundia and therefore low class (serfs, slaves, poor freemen), who probably had worse nutrition and health.
I wonder where were the samples taken. If they were near Lisbon (an area populated since Paleolithic), then the decrease in stature may signify the change from Muslim control to Christian (Portuguese proper) one. It may mean that nutrition and health in Christian Portugal were worse than in Al Andalus.
(And also a lot of people from center and north of Europe.-How about their contribution?)
Probably very anecdotic. In fact the process does not describe any variation with the Germanic invasions, that anyhow had their main settlement area in what is now central Spain (Goths).
OLÁ MAJU!
Portugal don´t became stable in XIII century. We only arrive to our modern borders. The Moors are expelled from Algarve (Al-Gharb) only in 1249, and the agreement with Castilha about the borders in 1298 (not respected). The violence was endemic between nobles (and sometimes with the King). Thanks to the "Reconquista", the common people was trained to fight, and so, prone to riot when they feel abused. And I´me speaking about the best period, first half of XIV. Then the "Plague" arrived,...In antropologic point of vue, you have also to remember that Portugal was the first, and last, Colonial Empire (1415 to 1975). It means that for almost 6oo hundred years, the best and strongest people of ich generation, was send to die in an area that goes from south America to Japan. About the "Nordic"...This was not an episod, but a trend that endures centurys. Everibody in western Europe was invited to came, and help against the Moors. The Road to Santiago, for instance, brings thousands of settlers ich generation. At least 2O% of us have light eyes(even more in the northern regions) wich in average is connected with taller stature. (Something easy to confirm if you take a look in a group of our soldiers). But, one thing don´t change, since the Neolitic we are the shortest in Western Europe. Not so mixed, after all...Regards!
Well, you should know better about your own history. Anyhow, I do understand that all southern Iberia was affected by the latifundist phenomeon upon the late reconquista. I don't think Portugal was any exception but in fact it was the first to create colonial plantation economies, specifically in Madeira (though the process was mirrored in former Al Andalus to an extent). What you depict is more like the history of the middle and upper classes: the freemen and gentry. But death knows of no classes.
About the "Nordic"...This was not an episod, but a trend that endures centurys. Everibody in western Europe was invited to came, and help against the Moors. The Road to Santiago, for instance, brings thousands of settlers ich generation. At least 2O% of us have light eyes(even more in the northern regions) wich in average is connected with taller stature.
I don't think you can happily attribute light eyes or blondisms in general to Nordic origins. These must have existed as minority trait among West Eurasians since early (or at least middle) Paleolithic times. We know why they were primed in higher latitudes, specially after the Epipaleolithic colonization of the far north but they must have certainly been widespread before.
While there was certainly some demic flow from Middle/Northern Europe into Iberia in the reconquista period, this was in any case small and limited to a handful of adventurer/crusaders or pilgrims. I don't think it should be too noticeable and certainly it cannot explain your figure of 20% light eyes in any case because there was never a mass migration of Northern Europeans to Portugal, at least not since Neolithic times (I'm unsure about Epipaleolithic though).
But, one thing don´t change, since the Neolitic we are the shortest in Western Europe.
Galicians used also to be the shortest in Spain, yet in the last decades they have become the tallest ones (or nearly so - unsure). Nutrition and welfare pay their role and Galicia used to be plagued by poverty and corruption.
Medieval Iberia was not Medieval France or England. This is the "Farwest", a land of "Oportunity".There is no serfs in the sense of France, for instance. Slaves are a demografhic nulity. Even Moors are generally free persons. Latifundism was connected with Templars and Plantations belong to another Age. There was a great need of workers and warriors. The Church make the "publicty" (Santiago and Holly War). In XI, XII and XIII centurys every village or region of the Crhistian Iberia was a strong minority of "Francos", like was called any person from the other side of Pireneans. They are not Northern Europeans, but they bring more Nordic traits. It´s true that blondism is very old, already present in proto caucasoides. But ligth eyes(blue) are a recent aquisition. I believe that this traits(together) became common in Hispania due to the Keltic/Germanic/Slavic slavery,invasions or imigrations. You have to notest that in Greek or Roman paintings, almost nobody is depicted with "nordic" traits(except slaves and gladiators). About Galicia...We always say "Blonde like a Galician"! This region(with northern Portugal) was a Germanic Kingdom(Suevos) in V-VI century and I agree with your reasons for their past lack of stature. Regards!
Well, Kurika, I do not agree with your interpretations. Certainly Iberia was not medieval France nor Germany (England was also rather low in classical feudalism and the dominant working class was the yeoman or free peasant). But southern Iberia upon the reconquista became a colony, a contiguous colony certainly but a colony anyhow and their lands were given as prize to aristocrats more often than not. The result was that by the time of the Industrial Revolution most of Iberia was deeply retrogressive and feudal. It had gone backwards, maybe not as much as Russia and other Eastern European countries but largely anyhow.
I don't know as well the timeline for Portugal but in Spain the feudal right of first night was abolished only in the 19th century and in the 20th century there were still people paying rural rent to the "amo" (master) in chickens. The reality of all southern Spain is still that of huge latifundia (there was never a property reform) with huge reserves of rural workers and once many of these workers were African slaves (moved to Cuba after partial slavery abolition). I understand that Portugal followed largely the same path as Castile/Spain and that in both cases this historical trend of decay has been largely reversed in the late 20th century.
The Church make the "publicty" (Santiago and Holly War). In XI, XII and XIII centurys every village or region of the Crhistian Iberia was a strong minority of "Francos", like was called any person from the other side of Pireneans. They are not Northern Europeans, but they bring more Nordic traits. It´s true that blondism is very old, already present in proto caucasoides. But ligth eyes(blue) are a recent aquisition.
Your claim on blue eyes is plainly false. My 100% Basque family branch used to be very aboundant in blue eyes. And they are not obviously the only case. It is not any recent arrival to Iberia but most likely a Paleolithic pervivence. In fact the Iberian peninsula has got much more demic input historically (and pre-historically) from the Mediterranean than from Northern Europe, even if it is concentrated in the south and the east (and never overcame the native components).
Also I don't think the Church was full of continental Europeans as you claim (and anyhow "Francos" meant mostly, even if not only, Occitans - people that may well be more Mediterranean-looking than some Portuguese). There was possibly some aristocratic input from Northern Europe, notably England, in the crusader period but that was a short-lived epysode and no any mass-migration.
I believe that this traits(together) became common in Hispania due to the Keltic/Germanic/Slavic slavery,invasions or imigrations. You have to notest that in Greek or Roman paintings, almost nobody is depicted with "nordic" traits(except slaves and gladiators).
I can tentatively agree on the relevance of the Celtic input, very tentatively only anyhow. But Germanic invasions happened only once and it is well know that their input was extremely limited. There were never any "Slavic" migrations in Iberia (just a so-caled "slavic" caste of slaves among Muslims that briefly became powerful in Eastern Iberia).
We always say "Blonde like a Galician"! This region(with northern Portugal) was a Germanic Kingdom(Suevos) in V-VI century...
Galicians are sometimes blond (but very veriegated and with unusual typology anyhow) but this does not mean that these traits arrived with Germans or Celts, much less in exclussive. They are undoubtedly of much older roots.
Too often people tend to explain these ancestry issues in terms of "recent" known historical process, of peoples we can easily identify by name such as Celts, Germans or Moors (or Slavics or Greeks in the Balcans or whatever). But with all likehood they are largely much older, of times and peoples wose names are not anymore remembered.
Until very recently most people did not migrate often. They lived and died maybe in the same village, surely in the same district or region. There were exceptions, specially (some) seamen, soldiers, colonists and slaves, now and then refugees marching a few dozen kilometers away from a disaster area, but most people did not travel at all, not more than to the closest market town. And there is no particular reason to think Iberia was any exception.
Blue eyes arose in or around the Black Sea/Eastern Mediterranean some 5-10,000 years ago.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
The article only states that it seems all blue eyes share a common ancestor, estimated 6-10,000 y.o. (just an estimate). It says nothing about where did the mutation arose.
Nevertheless, at least Wikipedia ("eye color" entry) seems to have things far less clear:
The polymorphisms may be in an OCA2 regulatory sequence, where they may influence the expression of the gene product, which in turn affects pigmentation.[8] A specific mutation within the HERC2 gene, a gene that regulates OCA2 expression, is partly responsible for blue eyes.[9] Other genes implicated in eye color variation are: SLC24A4[10], TYR [10].
Blue eyes with a brown spot, green eyes and gray eyes are caused by an entirely different part of the genome.
In fact it emphasizes HERC2 and de-emphasizes OCA2, whose expression seems regulated by the former.
Blue eyes distribution also seem much more common in NW Europe than in NE Europe, what doesn't seem to support your Black Sea origins hypothesis.
"Drang nacht sud" - Iberia like the "New Frontier", a "Babel" of settlers like the Medieval Poland it´s not my idea, like you can imagine. Aniway, this kind of "feudalistic" economy was a late developement, not Medieval in "stricto senso" (and very different in character from Portugal to Spain).
I also think that I´me not denying our Mediterranic Heritage, remenbering all migrations, invasions and slavery with origin in Central/North Europe. Since Keltic arriving 1OOO BC, until the battalions of mercenaries from Hesse or Hannover in XVIII century. They don´t "overcome" the general type, but ... In fact, if they are Mongols we will look like Kazaks(OK!Basques will be more Caucasian-). I only state that, in Iberia, the average guy changed since Roman times, due to North/Central European contribution. But I´me here to learn...Why do you think, that, in all this milennius (Mesopotamia to Bizantius) and space (Gibraltar to Iran) the persons are depicted, always with the tipical Mediterranic look (Egipt is the exception)?
"Drang nacht sud" - Iberia like the "New Frontier", a "Babel" of settlers like the Medieval Poland it´s not my idea, like you can imagine.
Hope not but looks like for the rest of your posts. For instance:
In fact, if they are Mongols we will look like Kazaks
You do agrandize a lot the possible Nordic input of Portugal, you even appeal to anonymous slaves as if Roman Lusitania was some sort of Sicily (and as if Roman slaves would have any realistic chance of reproducing). For instance:
Why do you think, that, in all this milennius (Mesopotamia to Bizantius) and space (Gibraltar to Iran) the persons are depicted, always with the tipical Mediterranic look (Egipt is the exception)?
All? Might it be a standard? Like "we don't know how Alexander looked, let's look at the average guy..." And the average guy is certainly "moreno" in all that area.
Going by that, Renaissance Italy should be much blonder than 19th century Spain. We know it's not the case, just that they had probably switched beauty standards.
Anyhow, I still think that most blondisms were once a minority trait of European Paleolithic peoples, probably with irregular distribution in some accordance to solar input (and founder effects).
There was more effective Northern input in Iberia possibly in the Epipaleolithic (N>>S Tardenoisian influence) and maybe in the Copper Age than in all your historical period. In fact, in the Paleolithic, Iberia (Cantabrian strip partly excluded) clearly recieved once and again inputs from beyond the Pyrenees, something that didn't happen anymore in the historical period.
- "Drang nacht"...Sorry disapoint you, I was trying to say that I learn this in school. But, like you suggest, some facts can be overestimated. I will look again.
- Slavery change the racial composition in North Africa, Persian Gulf, South America,...If this is not obvious in South Europe it´s because slaves and masters belong to the same racial group.
- Standards change. Agree. But why they don´t for milleniuns in all that places? Or, why only in Medieval Mediterraneo, when we became part of a comunity that goes to the Baltic (Europa)? And why, before, "blondes" are servants or foregneirs?
- I think that the answer is more in historical record than in largely unknowed Paleo/Neolitic. Fino-Ugrian/Turk-Mongol invasions in the Balcãs have been a short episode, but are still visible after 1OOO years.
Well Maju, nothing like disagree to get a good talk. I hope we can disagree a lot in the future. Obrigado!
Slavery change the racial composition in North Africa, Persian Gulf, South America
I am not so sure that North Africa Tropical African component is not part of the Epipaleolithic migrations that brought haplogroup E to the Mediterranean. I don't think slavery is the only cause nor even the primordial one.
I don't know why you mention specifically "South" America, the same process is apparent in all America, specially around the Caribbean. It's probably that Roman slavery was even worse and it's estimated that the age expectancy of the typical Roman slave was of just 20 years. Of course this does not mean that aminority could not reproduce but anyhow Lusitania seems a little peripheric in the Roman scheme of things. It's much more likely that slavery had an influx in places like Italy, Sicily, Tunisia, Andalusia, than in the Lusitanian far west.
And why, before, "blondes" are servants or foregneirs?
Were they? Pompeia certainly doesn't seem a reference for Olisippo or Londinum. It's near Naples. And you can surely argue for the Norman invasion of Naples but Southern Italians are certainly still today almost uniformly typical moreno Med. But then travel to Milan...
I think that the answer is more in historical record than in largely unknowed Paleo/Neolitic. Fino-Ugrian/Turk-Mongol invasions in the Balcãs have been a short episode, but are still visible after 1OOO years.
Cultural impact, political impact. But not any major genetic impact. Modern Turks are largely now what the "Romans" (Greek or Hellenized) Anatolians were. They look anything but the genuine Central Asian Turks(TM). And we can say much of the same of Finns and Siberia. And with these we are talking of the main vectors, not enslaved peoples or whatever. Their impact was filtered, buffered and ultimately very limited. More in the densely populated agrarian regions of the Mediterranean than in the far North maybe.
About haplo group E... I never saw none. Like I never saw in hundreds of paintings/sculptures from Greek/Carthaginian/Roman period, any evidence, even small, of subsharan contribution(from Morocco to Libya). I don´t say that don´t exist. I say that was insignificant. Even if I don´t know nothing before the Islamic Period, it´s not reasonable think that the massive and "continuum" (1OOO years)traffic is not a major factor. Any person that had travelled in Morocco, knows that the "Negroide" component decreases from South to North,citys to fields, the rich lowlands to the poor highlands. You can find yourself in a village in the midle of Atlas, and everibody around looks purely caucasoid. Even more, North African Jews, a mixture of Orientals (paternal) and Berbers (maternal) don´t show trace of admixture.
Roman slaves - average citizen don´t live much longer than the average slave. And they are much better treated, generally, than the brutally treated Negro in sugar plantations.
For South America I mean south of Rio Grande.
Pompeii - I was speaking in paintings from Conimbrigae to Ephesus. And in Napoles I saw a lot of blond girls that don´t apear in Pompeii. When appear, blond persons seems to be working or fighting for someone. If you have seen "The Death of the Gaul" (?) you know that they can depict very well etnic types.
Anatolia - Agree. You can cross Turkie and only find a handfull of sosias of Charles Bronson. But I find a lot of guys with the tipycal Baltic "look"(Grey eyes, blonde hair, "pink" skin,etç..). Naturally, since Scythian/Slav world is near, and they have similar relations to them, which we have with Germanic world. "Negro" slavery was scarce, "White" was common. Is right that Turkic people (or Bulgar, or Magyar) don´t came like slaves, but was not a trend. Only a episod. Nevertheless, in a village (Kizilmahan Moutains) I notest at least 5% to 1O% of the people was undeniable Mongolic heritage(founder effect certainly, but impressive).
Well Maju, sorry for this delay.
Any person that had travelled in Morocco, knows that the "Negroide" component...
I am every day more convinced that the East African component is very old in North Africa. Nevertheless, it arrived with Capsian culture which has a more southern distribution than older (and probably European-derived) Oranian (Iberomaurusian). Not sure if by "Negroid" you mean that or more a Western African type, more likely to have arrived with the slave trade. I do think that North Africans are something like 70% Europeans and 30% East Africans since the Epipaleolithic.
Even more, North African Jews, a mixture of Orientals (paternal) and Berbers (maternal) don´t show trace of admixture.
In fact Berber Jews seem mostly Judaized Berbers. And one could well argue that "true" Sephardic Jews (mixed with the other group since 1492) are largely Iberian as well.
Roman slaves - average citizen don´t live much longer than the average slave. And they are much better treated, generally, than the brutally treated Negro in sugar plantations.
False. The average Roman citizen had a much larger life expectancy. And Roman slaves were treated with outmost brutality, with almost null chances of reproducing (though some surely did, as slave offspring are attested - though as rare and priced item).
While in America slaves were often also treated that way, there was continuity in the slave trade until abolition in the 19th century, what secured a freed population of African origin that otherwise would be minimal. That did not happen in the Roman Empire, with slaves becoming increasingly rare and expensive as the expansion wars ceased. In fact that was what drove the Roman economy to feudalism largely. It's largely speculative but I think you are distorting both the demographic importance and origins of Roman slaves. In any case, the "Caribbean" of Rome was not in Lusitania certainly.
For South America I mean south of Rio Grande.
Wrong. Wrong in two aspects:
1. South America obviously begins south of Panama. Rio Grande is a cultural divide between Anglo and Latin America - but it's clearly in North America.
2. The area affected by the Atlantic slave trade was the Caribbean, extended to Brazil and parts of the USA. Mexico or Argentina, for instance, had a nearly null influx from African slaves. Not bigger than New York or Canada, certainly.
And in Napoles I saw a lot of blond girls that don´t apear in Pompeii.
Look at boys next time: girls dye their hairs much more often than guys.
When appear, blond persons seems to be working or fighting for someone. If you have seen "The Death of the Gaul" (?) you know that they can depict very well etnic types.
That statue doesn't show any hair color. Probably the model was blond but dyed blond, as it is known that Gauls usually dyed their hair (men too).
Anatolia - Agree. You can cross Turkie and only find a handfull of sosias of Charles Bronson. But I find a lot of guys with the tipycal Baltic "look"(Grey eyes, blonde hair, "pink" skin,etç..). Naturally, since Scythian/Slav world is near, and they have similar relations to them, which we have with Germanic world.
I won't deny that there were some IE incursions in Anatolia and that they probably had some small influence in phenotype and genetics (R1a anyhow is not too high) but remember that Anatolia was surely closely related to the origins of Europeans as a whole. I would argue for an ancient presence of blondisms in Turkey since the Paleolithic therefore.
Only a episod. Nevertheless, in a village (Kizilmahan Moutains) I notest at least 5% to 1O% of the people was undeniable Mongolic heritage(founder effect certainly, but impressive).
Yes, there may be some cases, sure. But the very vast majority are pre-Turkic and surely also pre-IE.
Negroid - I don´t know from which race came haplo E. Since I born in Angola, a "Negro" person is the average West and Center African. East African are something else. Mixture, independent developement, both? And, until I know, North African Caucasoids came from Midle East (and East Africa?), not Europe.
Roman slaves - "Slave" don´t translate "Servus". They are everywhere, they can be almost anything. From a sailor to secretary(Minister) of the Emperor. Actors, schoolteachers, doctors, burocrats, businessmens,...are usual. Most of the servus don´t remain servus all his life. They are generally freed, otherwise, they can buy their on freedom. Their sons are rarely servus. In any case they became "clients" of their ancient owner. It´s why they are encouraged to reproduce.Except for the "industrial servus" (that generally belong to state) their life expectance is the same than average citizen, 3O years. Like a Greek(Aristofanes?)said, what makes a difference between a Citizen and a Servus, is the "right to speech". Nothing to do with slavery that we know in West Indies. Two words to explain: racial and industrial.
Maju, really, nothing of this is mine. Came in every book about slavery in Ancient world...
Napoles - Well, I have this taste...But I need to be blind to not see blond guys in south italy.
Gaul - I don´t speak in color. I speak in ancient ability to recognize, and reproduce, etnical distinctions. The warrior show tipical nordic features (angulous face)distinct of the common sculptures in Anatolia. What they don´t show is someone with Mongolic features...
Well, Maju, has been a long, long way(but pleasant) since I suggest that the average guy in Iberia became taller and lighter due to mixture. By this, I only mean that the number of blond guys incresead a lot. Like you, I also believe that the dominant type is the same. But, "Devil is on details"...And the interest...Why not think about the last post of Dyenekes? It´s not War always a negative selection, killing the strongest, or can be positive, destroying the most agressive and anti-social? What´s the difference between the average man in Paleolitic and today(in a "psico" way), after all this wars?
Negroid - I don´t know from which race came haplo E. Since I born in Angola, a "Negro" person is the average West and Center African. East African are something else. Mixture, independent developement, both?
I can partly agree with this. Africa is very diverse.
And, until I know, North African Caucasoids came from Midle East (and East Africa?), not Europe.
Well, that's something I don't have fully clear but there are some elements that bring me to think of an Iberian origin:
1. Cro-Magnon type (not known AFAIK in West Asia)
2. Old unsolved dispute on wethere Oranian/Iberomaurusian techno-culture originated in Iberia or West Asia.
3. Much greater variability of halogroup U6 in Iberia. Other common European mtDNA haplos like H and V are also found in high frequency in North Africa.
4. African R1b. The best explanation I can figure is an "Oranian" expansion eastward into the Nile (Sudan has more R1b than Egypt), followed by Caspian back-migration (Y-DNA E1b1b, mtDNA U6a plus L clades) and also by other migrations eastwards along the Sahel (bringing R1b to northern Cameroon).
Neither of the haplogroups mentioned in points #3 and #4 are well explained by a direct West Asian origin. But an Iberian mediation would give a very nice model.
Roman slaves - "Slave" don´t translate "Servus".
Uh? Lat servus/-a = slave. In fact even in the Middle Ages there is confussion about that, with historians having to carefully decipher when it means slave (still very common in Carolingian times) and when land-bound serf.
They are everywhere, they can be almost anything. From a sailor to secretary(Minister) of the Emperor. Actors, schoolteachers, doctors, burocrats, businessmens,...are usual. Most of the servus don´t remain servus all his life.
Mostly in the mines and plantations, mind you. Most of the slaves died while in slavery. Emancipation was real but rare. Reproduction was also rare. You have an idealized vision of Roman slavery, sincerely.
As for industrial, classical and early Imperial Roman production system was closer to industrial in some aspects than to the Medieval model. Certainly the vast majority of slaves wer thrown in plantations or mines. The latter only included male slaves and the former had slaves almost systematically segregated by gender. The chances of reproduction were slim. And the punishments brutal.
Why not think about the last post of Dyenekes? It´s not War always a negative selection, killing the strongest, or can be positive, destroying the most agressive and anti-social?
Not sure what this has to do with this discussion but certainly wars destroy and, specially, enslave the peaceful common person. Some soldiers die but most victims are what we would call "civilians".
What´s the difference between the average man in Paleolitic and today(in a "psico" way), after all this wars?
IMO, that they have favored the more psychotic types, those that get benfit from violence, deceit and opression, as well as the more submissive types, those who survive by licking others' boots.
The reverse readjustment towards the original "social" human psychology is still being worked. The legacy from all those wars and hierarchies weights a lot though, even hindering intellectual advance in favor of more mediocre but conformist types.
Post a Comment