Human Height

[Justin70]

I've heard over and over contrary information as to the height of people 100 years ago all the way back to 5000 years ago or more. Is there any factual information with regards to ancient peoples being significantly shorter on average than people in current times?

I did a few searches on google but I'm lacking the keywords to find some relevant information on the subject.

Was wondering if anyone can point me to some information or a few studies that would clear up this hazy information in my mind.

Thanks in advance! =)

[Toto]

Human height varies with nutrition for any given genetic potential. It is generally believed (based on measuring skeletons) that hunter gatherers were relatively tall; when there was a transition to agriculture, with more grain and less meat in the diet, humans were shorter. As nutrition improved in modern ages, humans became taller.

But there are other factors in height. The genes for tallness are recessive, so you find more tall people in isolated communities where recessive genes can show up. And there is probably some selection for tallness in modern society, since tall men have an advantage in a lot of areas.

But most of my information comes from secondary sources, such as books on the Paleolithic diet (like this (http://www.bluedolphinpublishing.com/living.htm).

Grain permitted a great population expansion, which, with a lack of animal foods, caused short stature due to poor nutrition. Man lost about 6 inches of height. Only today are we back to the 5'10" males and 5'6" females of the Stone Age.

I have seen medieval armor in museums, and it is obviously designed for men who would be considered very small by today's standards.

[Max Bane]

Originally posted by Toto

I have seen medieval armor in museums, and it is obviously designed for men who would be considered very small by today's standards.

But couldn't only the wealthiest men of medieval society (and therefore the best fed) afford armor? Or did even they suffer from poor nutrition by today's standards?

[Kat_Somm_Faen]

I guess one can include the total quality of life - from pregnancy, infections, disease and on. For a young child to reach its full potential it has to stay healthy too, well fed and a host of other things.

Diet may be a big but not the only factor. Also better fed feudal lords might be entirely relative i.e. we might be better fed than ANY of the feudal lords. They only might have had more than a serf but not comparable to todays caloric intake and variety of nutrients including vitamins and potein and such.

[souperman]

I have seen medieval armor in museums, and it is obviously designed for men who would be considered very small by today's standards.

I read somewhere that this is because the joints and spacing in the armor, necessary for movement, isn't shown when the armor is displayed, since a full sized human isn't in the armor.

Anyone back me up here? :)

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by souperman
I read somewhere that this is because the joints and spacing in the armor, necessary for movement, isn't shown when the armor is displayed, since a full sized human isn't in the armor.

Anyone back me up here? :)

That's true. As it's normally displayed, the armour doesn't show the spacings that allow movement. Another factor to keep in mind is that most of the armour that you'll find in displays was not armour that was ever used in battle, or so I've read.

Most of the suits of armour that have survived the centuries more or less intact were ceremonial suits that saw little use, and were probably worn only on special occasions.

I wear armour pretty frequently, actually (a Japanese bogu), and you can fit the entire thing into a bag the size of a suitcase. If it were to be placed on a dummy for display, you'd never be able to tell exactly how tall I am from examining it.

Cheers,

Michael

[McD]

I have always heard this too. In fact, I heard an atheist/agnostic debating a creationist (not too well) and he said that humans are getting taller and taller each generation and submitted this fact as proof of evolution. He mentioned that Abraham Lincoln was considered to be a giant, even though he was only 6'4" (I haven't checked this data, so don't cave my head in if it's inaccurate) and that in medieval europe the suits of armor were about the size of the average modern woman.

It was his show, so I didn't get involved, but that night or a few nights later, I was watching the "Roman War Machine" on the History Channel and they said in the republic and early empire, to be a Roman soldier, one had to stand no less than 5' 8" (which would have precluded me) which indicated to me that 5'8" was very likely less than average height.

Just my two cents.

[emphryio]

I heard that the Germanic tribes that attacked the Romans were roughly a foot taller than the Romans. (Shrug?)

I have many nepalese relatives. Pretty much all the ones that grew up in Nepal are quite short. (Average man there is 5'4".)

But then my one cousin who was born here is 6 foot. (Half a foot taller than his older brother who lived in Nepal until 6 years old.)

And my adopted brother is also 6 foot. (shrug) I wonder if it's just from hanging out with me. (6'4") We went to a gathering of about 1,000 Nepali and they were just about the two tallest Nepali there.

Related is that the youngest boy in a family usually becomes the tallest and best athlete. Check into professional athletes backgrounds and this quickly becomes evident.

I've wondered if Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory had something to do with it.

[Will I Am]

As far as I know, "Toto" has it exactly right. Which is a little surprising, because I'm usually annoyed by how little-known these particular 'facts' are.

I wish I could put my finger on some good Online evidence, but all that springs immediately to mind is the account in Jared Diamond's (extremely) noteworthy book "Guns Germs and Steel", which describes North American hunter-gatherers in transition to early agricultural lives, and the subsequent fall in height, and general health.

It's somewhat sobering to realize that the "progress" we've been taught to believe in… is a largely a myth.

The hunter-gatherers had it as good as it gets, and we've been trying to equal their standard of living, ever since we lost that lifestyle…


Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny. Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it.

- Prof. (physiology) Jared Diamond

[DMB]

If one is talking about Northern European plate armour, it must show a great deal about the size of the wearer, since there is so much variation between the different suits. I don't think it makes much difference whether it was battle armour or for display. Henry VIII of England was both tall and fat (the latter in later life) and his armour dwarfs that of most others. But he is not supposed to have been a giant, so it certainly looks as though a lot of the others were little chaps. The foot armour and gauntlets tend to show that a lot of them had smallish hands and feet as well.

Another indicator of small stature is the low height of many doors from the mediaeval period.

The Northen European diet was limited and bad, particularly in the winter. There was a frequent shortage of green vegetables. The poor tended to eat bread and cheese and the richer people ate a lot of meat. Intestinal worms were the norm, and that must have affected how well they were actually nourished.

OTOH, the ones who survived must have been very tough. Few modern men can easily bend a mediaeval long bow.

I don't know if the effect is so pronounced in America, but in my lifetime (63 years) I have seen a marked increase in stature in Western Europe. I am sure this is attributable to improved nutrition. During WW2 and in the immediate postwar years most people went short. At the same time as supplies became more plentiful, there was better sharing of resources than there had been before the war, so the poor benefited greatly.

I doubt that we shall see a proportionate further increase over, say, the next 40 years, because most of the nutritional benefit is already there and there will be genetic limitation.

[ohwilleke]

A couple of anedotes that indicate increasing height:

1. If you go to Pioneer settlements, everything is built for shorter people including the adult coffins.

2. The growth in height among the Japanese since 1945 has been dramatic. Heigh is currently a decent gauge of generation. Grandparents peak heights were several inches less than that of their grandchildren.

3. I am aware that there are military enlistment records in a number of European countries that show similar height improvements. These statistics are often cited as coroborating evidence in debates over chaning intelligent and an early date of first menses in women.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally posted by ohwilleke


2. The growth in height among the Japanese since 1945 has been dramatic. Heigh is currently a decent gauge of generation. Grandparents peak heights were several inches less than that of their grandchildren.

A Japanese friend has told me that he always has to duck to avoid hitting the doorway whenever he goes into an older building. Houses built during the past 30 years or so have to take into account the fact that the average Japanese person is somewhat taller today than was true 50 years ago.

Cheers,

Michael

[Jackalope]

This comes up over and over again. Some points that usually don't get considered:

During the medieval period in northern europe, it was damn cold. After all, there was the little ice age happening. Shorter doors and ceiliings meant better heat conservation. Therefore, the height of doors and ceilings in buildings may not be indicative of the inhabitants' average height.

Clothing and armor that's preserved was often either not used much, or it was too small to be reused. Dresses from the victorian period are especially notorious for this. Anything with enough yardage was usually cut up and remade into other garments. So most of the surviving pieces we have are very small.

The victorian period in particular saw a big decrease in average height. This is unfortunate, as that's also the period where we start getting reliable data about height in given populations. Malnutrition, childhood disease, hideous working conditions (usually even worse for children), and pollution all took their toll on urban dwellers. So what many people just starting out see is this huge increase coming out of the victorian period. What they don't realize is that time period was a big dip in the average height. So the increase looks much more dramatic than it should.

There are also variations in ethnic groupings. The Masai are among the tallest people on earth. You also have the norweigians and swedes, who tend to be taller. Scots and irish with nordic blood (where'd you think that red hair came from?) tend to be taller as well. Then in a very near area, you also have very short english and welsh. The problem with trying to figure out the average height is that humans appear to have a pretty damn big envelope of variation.

Given the bit about ethnic groupings, the various celtic tribes appear to have been quite tall. And medieval burials show quite a few tall folks (in the 6" range). There's currently no way to tell how close someone is to their full potential height, so you have to take all the theories with a lump of salt.

[thenendo]

Originally posted by emphryio
I heard that the Germanic tribes that attacked the Romans were roughly a foot taller than the Romans. (Shrug?)


Yeah, my prof made a point of this in my Roman civ class. It had a lot to do with Roman military failures in England and eventually settling for Hadrian's wall. The fighting there was extremely demoralizing and terrifying for the romans. Imagine you're a "civilized" Roman soldier, relatively short, you write letters home, maybe read poetry or something. And you're fighting against immense barbarians a full foot taller than you, who come running out of the mists without warning, bare-chested scotsmen covered in mud and paint, red hair (something you've probably never seen before) trailing behind, weilding giant axes. For all your training and tactics, it sucks to be you.

[trillian]

Height is a strange thing, isn't it?

When I was in Rotenburg, Ger. I visited the torture museum with the iron maiden. It was pretty small--you could not have tortured me there without cutting me up first!!

On the way out we went through one of the cities gates (which led to a courtyard.) I stood up inside the archway and my head hit the top, and I'm only 5'9". This would not be explained by the "heat saving" small doors which was suggested earlier. It was dated 1569 if I remember correctly.

Both of my grandmothers are under 5 feet despite having relatively good nutrition. Then my mother is 5'5". And now I'm 5'9" (and shrinking slowly). But the men were usually over 6 feet so I guess that's where I got it.

Perhaps there is some combinations of imported foods which greatly added to the height. We have so much more variety now, even though I don't remember eating any of the good stuff except for my Flinstone chewables. Or maybe its in those vaccines and meds we get now as children. Or all those processed foods we ate as children!!!

Could the aliens that started coming in the 50's actually been here to insert a growth stimulant in the human anus? ha ha! You can't prove it didn't happen. hmmmm

trillian (with a bad case of insomnia)

[Deadend]

Originally posted by Justin70
Was wondering if anyone can point me to some information or a few studies that would clear up this hazy information in my mind.

I don't know of any studies that go back as far as 5000 years, but perhaps you can use these:

Human Heights and the Standard of Living (http://oassis.gcal.ac.uk/teaching/historyweb/cdromteaching/SOCIAL/cores/kirbycor.htm),

some others;
When it Comes to Height, Americans no Longer Stand Tallest (http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/taller.htm),
A Tall Story For Our Time (http://www.vwl.uni-muenchen.de/ls_komlos/covereu.html),
The Dutch are the World's Tallest People (http://www.rnw.nl/health/html/tall_dutch.html), my favourite ;).
You could also browse the web for Auxology (science of growth).

[trillian]

Originally posted by Deadend
I don't know of any studies that go back as far as 5000 years, but perhaps you can use these:

The Dutch are the World's Tallest People (http://www.rnw.nl/health/html/tall_dutch.html), my favourite ;).[/list]
You could also browse the web for Auxology (science of growth).

Wow...I never knew the Dutch were tallest. I would have thought it was some small African country- or even nordic.

It fits me pretty well. I'm Dutch (well from Friesland anyway), from the north, and tall- but Catholic. Yeah! Netherlands is No. 1 in something!! (besides liberal laws and cutest currency ;0)

trillian -waving her little friesian flag to no one in particular