Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:59 PM PDT by blam
September 19, 2005
Notebook: Archeology
Medieval ancestors measured up to our height standards
By Norman Hammond, Archaeology Correspondent
OUR ANCESTORS were as tall as we are, contrary to popular belief. Over the past five millennia the average height of men in Britain has remained stable at about 170cm (5ft 7in), and that of women at 160cm (5ft 3in). We may be surprised at how small the armour worn by the Black Prince or King Henry V was, but such giants on the battlefield were not physically large and were towered over by contemporaries of all classes.
“The enduring myth that people in the past were much shorter than we are today contains a small element of truth,” writes Sebastian Payne, chief scientist at English Heritage, in British Archaeology. “There have been small changes, and average height has increased by an inch or so over the past 50 years,” he says, attributing the increase to better health and nutrition.
The myth seems to stem from such things as low doorways on some medieval houses, and the small suits of clothes and armour in museums. But Dr Payne says that there are plenty of tall doors, and we simply don’t register “normally” sized outfits. “Recruits in 18th and 19th-century military records were considerably below today’s average heights,” he says, but adds: “Recruits are often from poorer families whose average height is less, and were often not fully grown.”
In the abandoned medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire, the churchyard has yielded hundreds of skeletons for analysis. There “ten-year-olds were around 8in shorter than children today: by the time they were fully grown they were nearly as tall as modern adults”.
A study by Charlotte Roberts and Margaret Cox, drawing together evidence of stature from skeletons across the country, shows that adult heights in both sexes have remained constant since the Neolithic era.
British Archaeology No 84: 51
Skeletons are "more elongated," maybe? Feet are much bigger these days, and that means arms are longer. I saw Mrs. President Polk's shoes once (1840's) - not half the size of my 9-1/2 Wides, although she was about my height. Shoe manufacturers have adjusted shoes sizes up, because most women don't like the idea of having large feet, even when they do. (More than half of women wear shoes that are too small.)
Joints are also heavier, because we get more calcium. Also, hard work - farm or factory - builds muscles differently from planned exercise and "strength training." I find it all fascinating.
“Sinewy and lean” are good words. But how about bone structure? Just a question.
On TV, one sees actors with arms as large as their fat heads, although this has nothing to do with bone structure.
Sorry about the sarcasm about actors. I just don’t have much respect for them as a whole.
A costume museum once measured the waistlines of their antique Victorian-era dresses, to see if there was any truth to the Scarlett O'Hara "16-inch waist."
The smallest dress in their collection had a 23" waist.
That makes sense to me. The calcium intake you mentioned certainly does contribute to heavier joints. Also, all that hard physical work.
Also, we have to look at the physical training our military has to go through in boot camp. I hurt all over just thinking about it.
Bed time. I have to get up early mañana. Good night all.
Never did boot camp, myself :-).
Not to argue though I have seen in Germany, many suits of armor that were most obviously used, cuts, cross bow bolt holes etc. These were worn by relatively small people in the 5 foot to 5 foot 6 category. Armor was worn and is rather unforgiving in size in that it does not stretch. Ceremonial or not, it had to fit.
Very few of Napoleon's soldiers were over 5 feet 2 inches. Those six feet or over were made members of his elite regiment of personal guards.
Our unit of measure, the mile is short for Mille Passum or 1000 paces. One can see that the pace, two steps, usually equal the walker's height. A mile being 5280 feet means the average marching Roman was 5.28 feet tall or 5'3-1/2"
They were going to have a Civil War re-enactment here in the Mobile area but, had to cancel it because no-one would volunteer to be the Yankees. LOL.
(as far as blades are concerned)
I understand perfectly. I am dark and have brown eyes myself, but I have a very strong preference towards fair skinned blue eyed women. There is nothing more attractive in my book than a leggy blonde, and they don't get much leggier than my wife.
A Roman mile is said to have been somewhat shorter than an English mile (1620 yards = 4860 feet).
At 6' tall, your wife would have long legs...you are a lucky man...
Disagree. A khukri takes that honor, no contest.
Honey, I'm the shortest in my family. I'm the only one under 6'. (5'10"). Mama is 6', Papa is 6'1, Big Brother is 6'2", Little brother is 6'8". Its the land of the giants when I was growing up.
I wouldn't know, ask Xenalyte. It does sort of look like one. In real life I believe she prefers more modern weapons, and is skilled in their use too.
Tiny for the US. Perhaps not for Europe.
What was meant was that statistically those who died at 10 where shorter than today's 10 year olds, but that the adults who died where about the same size as today's adults. Again, statistically speaking.
Of course it could be that whatever caused the 10 year olds to die, also tended to cause them to be shorter than they otherwise would have been.
Since genetics pretty much determines one's ultimate height, in absence of adverse environmental effects, disease, malnutrition, the notion would be that until recently those adverse effects kept many people, even most, from achieving their full height. Genes don't change that quickly, in humans that is. In bacteria, fruit flies, moths, etc, they can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.