i always thought that short statutes were found among the Laconic peoples.
It may seem counterintuitive, but if we are going to generalise then cold regions are far more ecologically productive and can support far more humans than warm regions. Most warm regions are savannas, deserts and rainforests, none of which are capable of supporting high human population densities. In contrast cooler regions such as the Pacicifc Northwest and southern Australia were so productive as to allow even hunter gatherers to settle in semi-permanent villages.
The trouble with warm regions is that in many areas they have infertile soils and/or low rainfall and so aren’t very productive. In those areas with fertile soils or high rainfall the vegetation growth becomes so dense that it becomes impossible for humans to survive. It’s only in very select locations in tropical areas that humans are capable of sustaning high populations without agricuture, and those are almost exclusively on the coastal fringes or riparian zones.
I won’t argue with that. But by “cold regions”, I was thinking more in terms of “arctic”. And tundra doesn’t support very many people, despite there being a few folks there.
Still I wouldn’t be suprised to find that the pre-agricultural population of arctic regions was about the same as that for the tropics. In both cases there are limited areas of productive land (mainly the coast in arctic regions) with vast areas that are hard pressed to support any people at all, whether that be tundra and ice cap or desert and rainforest.
Pygmies are shorter in statutes than almost anyone.