What's the size of human being during 10th - 17th century BC?

Question

some would say there are huge compared by their foot-print fossil of a human back at that time.

Answer 1

Glenn is correct; in the ancient world not everyone was short.  Height was largely determined by social class throughout human history, until better technology allowed more and more people to eat a better and more varied diet.  The reason they have found "huge" footprints, is because originally, according to theories regarding human evolution, all human beings come from Africa, and because our ancestors are African, everybody once had African body proportions.  However migrations into lands less food rich, and dependency on animals (e.g. protein) and not eating enough vitamins, led to people who were food consuming (the bigger the body.....) to starve to death.

The large foot prints, an evolutionist scientist would say, stem from those of an early cro magnon human who still had African proportions.  Part of the reason the native americans of Latin America are shorter than their north american cousins, is because while migrating south, they had to cross the Sonora desert, which likely killed off all the bigger people because the dessert makes food scarce.  And because a smaller body consumes less food, in addition to the fact that it is more heat resistant, the end result was that despite sharing the same genes, native americans of north American origin grow taller.  Originally all of them were tall; the peoples of central Asia from which they descend from, many of them, exceed 6 feet or more.

If you look at human height patterns across the planet, you will notice that the shorter peoples of the world are short, because their ancestors had to cross over deserts, or places where food is scarce.  In west Africa for instance, food is plentiful, and it can support the huge people from there.  Obviously enough the Pygmies are Pygmies, because while migrating southward they crossed over lands where food was all but non-existant.  You see the same thing in China; most Chinese do not grow very tall because, obviously enough, their ancestors had to cross over the Gobi.  The Manchu grow tall, because likely they either a) crossed over to their traditionally ancestral lands before the gobi became a desert or b) they went further north to syberia where believe it or not food is more plentiful if you can stand the cold, and they went AROUND it.  If the Manchu grow taller, hey, must be because their ancestors were smart enough to go AROUND the gobi, instead of THROUGH it.

Once again; the ancestors of the whole of the human race, the men, all exceeded 6 feet, and with proper, even proportions by the way, and 5'10 or taller was not uncommon for the women.  Scientists would explain this, from the simple fact that early humans came from Africa, and some of the biggest people on this planet come from there.  This an evolutionist would use as a counter argument against any creationist who would say that the tall people were "nephilim" or the children of fallen angels and mortal women when, even THAT argument fails for religious reasons as well.

According to Hebrew lore, Adam, the first man, was gigantic; an evenly proportioned 12 feet tall, a whopping 12 feet.  He could pick up a modern man by the head, a white man, and crush his skull as if though it were a grape.  Yes, it had to be a white man, sorry.  His skin color, was the tone of a modern day middle caste Indian.  Meaning according to Hebrew tradition Adam was easily as dark as an American black guy, a particularly dark Mexican, or a middle caste Indian.  In fact, if we were to look at Adam's face today, most people would think the "giant" was from India.  From the way Hebrew lore described him; I'm not saying its true.

Adam's face, also, was ethnically neutral; being the ancestor of the whole of the human race, his face looked like every race's, but at the same time it looked like no race's.  Another thing the lore mentions is that he could grow a full black beard, but shaven, it was androgynous.  That is, the man had androgynous good looks as the lore also says "he was as handsome as Joseph."

Hebrew lore says, of Adam; "he was wise like Solomon, his hair was beautiful like Absalom's, he had David's strength while intimate with his wife, he was strong like Sampson, and handsome like Joseph, and his heart, was gentler than Daniel's."  In other words all the different virtues of every major Hebrew prophet and or figure, all their strengths, combined into one man.

Adam was, albeit with dark skin, Nietczhe's "Superman" or "Overman."

To borrow a line uttered by actor Ryan Reynolds in the movie "Blade Trinity," Adam, according to Hebrew lore....

"...he was born perfect...... and like the great white shark, this guy has never had to evolve......"

Adam, is to modern men, what the character "Drake" is to fictional vampires of the Blade universe.  According to how Hebrew lore and myth describe him, infinately superior to ANY modern man in every way you can imagine.

Naturally his wife eve would have to have been tall as well I mean, come on, for mechanical reasons......

They were gigantic, but not deformed or out of proportion.  According to Hebrew lore and myth, the first couple were both perfect people, while modern people are, by comparison, small, weak, stupid, and ugly.

Evolution says we got better, while creationism says, we are a sad, deteriorated, and pathetic species, compared to our "early ancestors."

Ultimately though what you choose to believe is up to you, because to me, evolution is as much a myth as the creation stories.  I don't believe either one.  Evolution because at its very heart, is racist dogma, which modern scientists have tried, without success, to turn into a respectable science that is NOT racist dogma, but because of its very nature, the very logic that produced it in the first place, namely Darwinian ideas of class, makes that impossible, and many advocates of the theory have replaced the catholic church as far as being inquisitors.  You can't question the theory evolution, don't try it, because its not a theory, its a law man!

Not bible thumping and saying Gensis happened, but c**p man leave it open for debate!  Even Ben Stein makes this point in his mockumentary regarding evolution.  With regards to creationism, I say to them this;

criticize it, but get a biology degree first, and for crying out loud don't bible thump, it hurts your argument.

The reason it lost out in the courts is twofold;

1)  The school system and the federal government, and state governments, are intimately connected with each other.  The reason teachers arrogantly bully parents AND children, is because they are backed up by both the state, and the federal government.  And because the decision was made by a state court guess what?  OF COURSE IT WAS GONNA FAVOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AND NOT THE PARENTS.  Honestly man...

2)  The premise isn't scientific.  If you say "I feel evolution is wrong because this Physics equation shows that no matter what time scale you show, it demonstrates that it would be too small, and that the universe could not have had a natural origin....." then people will consider your argument more scientific but if you say "I feel evolution is wrong because I think God made everything...." by the strictest rules of science, even if the scientist personally may believe in God, they are ethically bound to shoot you down, nothing personal, its just the rules.  As a Psychology major, as any Psych major, even though I  do not hold an advanced degree I too am bound by those rules.  Despite my own beliefs I would be forced to say the creationist argument isn't scientific; nothing personal, I believe some of it myself but hey, those are the rules.  Mathematically speaking, and from the simplest math, evolution is horribly flawed, in that no time scale provided can adequately explain the origin of the universe.  So you give life billions of years, big deal, that still imposes limits on the universe that we are not even aware are there?  So if you do not know it works in the first place then how can you make an argument for it?  I am not making an intelligent design argument here, but I am making an argument that this glaring flaw which should be obvious, is not adequately or satisfactorily explained.  But because creationists do not argue from that standpoint, because the government is bound by secular laws, and secularism MUST respect science guess what?  This, combined with the first reason means that the judge was going to shoot that theory down.  Some places have had a compromise, in which they allow questioning but they do not teach creationism because it is indeed not scientific and besides; creationism by what religion's perspective?  See, there is another problem.  To avoid these issues, and that glaring logical flaw, evolution concentrates, therefore, primarily in talking about biology but it does not concern itself with the origin of the Universe, instead it has a tone of "this is what has been observed, so this is what we think."  Sadly though, too many are dogmatic, and leave absolutely no room for questioning at all and that in and of itself makes it VERY bad science.

I expanded the topic too much, although I imagine the whole reason you asked about the "huge footprints" is because you were curious about that kind of stuff.

Word of the wise, if you get into a cerebral slugging match with an advocate for evolution;

1)  do not use the statistical argument, because the universe is huge.  No matter how ridiculous the odds, big as this universe is, it only needs to happen ONCE.

2)  Point out their dogmatism, because by all ethical scientific standards, it IS bad science.

3)  Point out how similar they are to the Catholic Church of 16th century Spain.  Because they are when you think about it.  I heard horror stories of people losing their degrees over it.

4)  Point out the time scale issues provided above, because it is a glaring problem.

5)  Point that any observations made under a microscope are restricted to a small laboratory time scale.  Results from the field, and results from a lab, do not always yield the same results.  That is why in Psychology both field and laboratory analyses are conducted to ensure accuracy.  In Biology, regarding evolution, any field analysis is nearly impossible given the time scale, and the restriction to laboratory analysis means that any experiments can only occur in those controlled conditions that are not always guaranteed in nature.  In fact, let me tell you a story; a zoo keeper once warned a veterinary biologist who designed a cage for a gorilla that "that damned thing is too flimsy, those animals are strong...."  The biologist insisted, that all laboratory analyses indicated that the cage would hold the gorilla.  Problem was they did not know how the animal behaved in the "real world."  Guess what happened?  True to what the zoo keeper's warning, the animal smashed through the cage and it ran amock.  This happened in the London Zoo I think, way back when in the late 19th century, when they were first discovered or whenever it was they were taken to captivity.  It was in fact that incident, which prompted the scientific community in Europe to do both laboratory AND field studies, whereas evolution is restricted largely to paleontology which is largely unreliable considering the sparse number of fossils, not to mention unobservatble, and lab studies, which are severely limited as that pissed off gorilla so kindly demonstrated.

Ultimately though, passions and tensions are too high regarding that, and in America, the whole creation/evolution debate has become amongst Americans, what Israel/Palestine has become among Jews.  People feel much too strongly about what camp they choose in those wars for there to be any wisdom in starting that debate with anybody......

still, good luck.  Be sure to study any logic books you can find, and play plenty of chess.

Answer 2

we have become larger with time. Humans compared to today where small.

Answer 3

  It varied by area and diet, but generally, people were 3 to 6 inches shorter until around 1860, when hieight began to increase with improved production. transportation and preservation of food.

Answer 4

When Cromagnons first entered Europe they had an average height of 6 feet. Over time this decreased slightly to the current average 12,000 years ago. When the Ice age ended the extinction of the mega fauna led to a diet more reliant on the now more plentiful plant food and height decreased more. Health and height decreased drastically with the onset of agriculture and the restrictive diet that entails. Until the development of modern industrial farming the higher the population in a period the less food there is to go round, and vus the lower the average height becomes.