There is no record of them bringing anyone back with them and even if they did then there is no evidence that they had six with them. Believe it or not but female slaves were not bought to perform sixual activities, they were workers like all other slaves.

A few weeks ago I wrote a paper on slavery in Iceland for a class I'm taking, so I know what I'm talking about

http://historicmysteries.com/vikings-introduce-native-american-dna-to-iceland though admittedly nothing definitive has been decided yet.

And no, this isn't the only one.

Genetically most Brits & Gaels are different to Scandinavians & Balts.

The paternal DNA know as Y that is genes passed from a father to his son but can not pass via a woman and in turn proves male ancestry. Over years this gene has suffered small mutations which once recorded are placed into haplogroups. The hapolgroup for the majority of the British Isle is R1b. This haplogroup is also common across south and central Europe. This is the gene group of the Megalithic people of central and western Europe from whom the Celts descended.

In Scandinavia they are mostly I or R1a.
I is possibly the highest and is also the Balkans and forms the group IJ. J is the haplogroup of the Chaldeans (Iraquis, Syrians etc) Arabs & Jews) which shows they were related much further back.
R1a is the haplogroup found amongst Slavs, Persians and also NW Indians. It is high in countries such as the UKraine. R1a which was related to R1b much further back is believed to be the genes descended from the nomadic groups of the steppes of Russia such as the Scythians, Getae, Samatians, Persians, Medes etc. R is believed to be the gene passed down from the original Indo-Europeans


Interestingly although Iceland was colonised by Scandinavians it is high in R1b unlike Scandinavia & the Baltic which is relatively low in comparrson.

wrong thread

The Maasi, Oromo and the Mandinka/Mandingo are African tribes which are considered tall, and Inuit tend to be dimunitive in height, so that puts a kink in Bergman's rule.
Heredity has a lot to do with, despite claims of nutrition. Poor nutrition can stunt growth, that is true. However, if one is genetically predispositoned to short stature or has/is predispostioned to health/endocrine issues, all the food in the world will not increase their height.

That's how they make up for being short in fake life.

I'm Norwegian and pretty tall 193 cm or 6 foot 4 inches. So i'm pretty lucky in that regards. Also I'm rather stocky at 220 pounds and at 12% body fat thats pretty muscular. I'm just lucky in my genes i guess.

mongolians rode horses though. you dont want to be tall on a horse cause that raises your center of gravity and makes it harder for the horse to turn. thus mongolians became shorter.

im willing to bet its mostly diet. just watching that show deadliest warrior you see large differences between eastern and western warriors with the western warrior being alot bigger. probably eat more meat and obviously dairy since alot of asians have difficulty with dairy products because it wasnt part of their normal diet historically. japanese i think are the exception if i remember the map correctly.

About your first paragraph, well, I don't think so. If you ask me, evolution wouldn't work like that. I mean, I don't think they were taller at the beggining and then became shorter, as I don't see how the taller people would have died and the shorter ones would survive to spread their genes. As other peoples living close to the mongolians are more or less the same size, I would say their height was like that even before they rode horses. If by luck that gave them some advantage... could be, though there were very good riders in Europe, being taller.

About your second paragraph, I agree :thumbsup:. But don't forget that even with their too-much-vegetable diet (shared by some western folks as well) there were completely badass warriors!

Please, please, please don't cite that show for actual scientific and historic content. Please.

I'm part Sami and I can only say that my sami great-grandmother was short, that I tend to think of Sami as shorter than Germanic Scandinavians but that I cannot supply any official info either.


Peoples mixed long before such things were made up.


From what I've read, the Vikings didn't have that much contact with the natives in America. Not other than trading with the ones who came to the colony and fighting when misunderstandings arose. I've only heard about the vikings being near native villages from people on the internet, never read it in a book, but in turn, I've hardly read all sources on the subject.

well I'll be damned...

That's pretty cool

I agree. Though it's already pretty cool that you could easily converse with time-travelling Vikings.

Indeed, I love the fact that I can pick up ancient Icelandic / Norwegian books and stories and read them with ease. ^_^

I saw this had to question what you meant. You do know that we all came from England, right? I don't see many stereotypes about English people being tall and strong. Unless you mean our indigenous population of course, but they're not really famous for being tall and strong.

A bit of info.

Indian people as a whole are short however people such as those of NW India such as the Punjab are known as being tall. Interestingly the Punjab is mostly populated by people such as Jatts who trace their ancestry to the Saka. Saka was the name used by the Scythians for themselves. Jatts are also fair in comparison to most other Indians and their features are often sharper or squarer.
When DNA studies were done on the people such as the Jatts their Y DNA haplogroup was R1a which is the same as that common amongst males of Eastern European countries such as Ukraine & Poland. Although they are Indian and look India we can prove via DNA testing that Jatts therefore share the same ancestry as many people living in Eastern Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatt

Half Norwegian, other half is scot/irish. Somewhere between 5'9" - 5'10"(No cm for you, too bad) so just slightly below average for a norwegian.

We're all so big because we eat the smaller ones.

[censored] you, no I didn't!

Yes, because that's how evolution works.

Not.

my ancestors came from northern countrys i guess, but my dad's side of the family always was tall, my grandpa was 6 ft 3, (He was also part native american, like half or something) his dad was around the same hight (or so i've been told) I'm around 6 ft 2, i think that tallness comes from your ancestors, but maybe some families are just a lot taller than others

Wha... wu... uh... huh?

Why is there genetic variation within species at all? The answer is evolution and divergent paths.