Average height for ancient characters?
Rolock
wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you go,
in
time the shorter the people are, right? (or is that based soely on geographical
areas?)
Any help us appreciated.
Eric Smith
news:19990125185029...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Actually, that's based mostly on poor nutrition, which was a major problem
until recently. Today in a first world country there are very few children
that don't get enough food (and those that do _usually_ don't have to, if the
parents are willing to apply for welfare).
This means that many of the upper class didn't suffer from these problems, and
so wouldn't necessarily be shorter. If he comes from a more humble
background, 3-6 inches shorter wouldn't be out of the question, but then again
he could always be a tall person which happens to put him at modern days
average height.
In other words, whatever he wants.
>Any help us appreciated.
EricBSmith
@earthlink.net
As infinitely improbable as it sounds, I have a Heart of Gold.
An honest politician is one who stays bought.
Xiphias Gladius
>I've got a friend who designed an immortal character for another friend, and
>wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
>civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
>Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you go,
>in
>time the shorter the people are, right?
Yes. Up to the Victorian Era. And that's questionable.
Modern humans aren't much taller than anybody else since the Neolithic
age.
Of course, I'm a Jew, under five and a half feet tall, and most of my
friends aren't much taller than I am, so my ideas might be skewed.
- Ian
--
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Peter Knutsen
>
> I've got a friend who designed an immortal character for another friend, and
> wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
> civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
>
> Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you go,
> in
> areas?)
Ibn Fadlan met some Vikings around 900 AD (922 IIRC) and reported that
they were extremely tall ("tall as palm trees"). Male skeletons found
in Denmark from that period are about 170 tall - so either Fadlan
was lying, or the average height of Arabs at that time was a lot
lower than 170. I think the latter is more probably.
Height depends a lot on nutrition, the Vikings ate a lot (living
in a colder climate, they'd have a heftier appetite. Lots of the
food was cabbage and grains, but they probably ate more meat
than the Arabs too). I'll guess that Ibn Fadlan and his countryme
were about 160 cm's (5'3").
> Any help us appreciated.
It depends a lot on nutrition. Genes does play a role in very
tall or short native peoples (pygmes and some 7' African
tribes), but even genetically average people will have
taller children if they're well fed.
Japanese children who are raised in the US will grow to
be somewhat taller than their friends who stayed in Japan.
US food contains a lot more protein than Japanese food.
Nobility will probably be taller than average (they have acces
to plenty of food). While they will probably eat lots of
junk food (candied fruit and greasy meat), and get heart
disorders and clogged arteries, medieval junk food did contain
a lot more micronutrition than peasant food. (While it was
junk food in a sense, it was still natural food, unlike
the fast food we eat a lot of nowadays)
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
>
> rol...@aol.com (Rolock) writes:
>
> >I've got a friend who designed an immortal character for another friend, and
> >wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
> >civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
>
> >Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you go,
> >in
> >time the shorter the people are, right?
>
It's nutrition. And not questionable as far as I'm informed.
> Modern humans aren't much taller than anybody else since the Neolithic
> age.
Ancient skeletons will be about 170 cm tall (males), European males
living today are at least 180 cm on the average (if not 185).
It's mostly due to nutrition.
Many thousand years ago, people were actually taller than we are
now, about 185 cm. In the early stone age or something.
> Of course, I'm a Jew, under five and a half feet tall, and most of my
> friends aren't much taller than I am, so my ideas might be skewed.
Exactly how does your diet differ from non-Jewish Europeans or US
citizens? My vague impression is that traditional Jewish food
contains less protein (less meat - meat also carries micronutrition).
> - Ian
--
Peter Knutsen
Xiphias Gladius
>Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>> Of course, I'm a Jew, under five and a half feet tall, and most of my
>> friends aren't much taller than I am, so my ideas might be skewed.
>Exactly how does your diet differ from non-Jewish Europeans or US
>citizens? My vague impression is that traditional Jewish food
>contains less protein (less meat - meat also carries micronutrition).
There's a strong genetic component to height, besides the nutrition
aspect.
As a small child, I grew up in a vegetarian family, but with a
considerable emphasis on nutrition and protein. Nowadays, I eat exactly
like everyone else, although probably a bit less healthily.
My fiancee', on the other hand -- well, her family was in cattle. Her
grandfather and father ran a meat packing plant. I get the feeling that
she ate a fair bit of meat as a child. And she's short, too.
Jews, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese all tend to be
short, in my experience. There are exceptions, of course. But I think
that it's more genetic than nutrition.
Me, I think that the Victorians were pretty average height.
Michael Riddle
Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Rolock wrote:
> >
> > I've got a friend who designed an immortal character for another friend, and
> > wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
> > civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
> >
> > Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you go,
> > in
I think that Henry the V (1415) was 5' 3" ( based on the armor in London) and was
considered a big man in his day...
Tomansky
> Exactly how does your diet differ from non-Jewish Europeans or US
> citizens? My vague impression is that traditional Jewish food
> contains less protein (less meat - meat also carries micronutrition).
Less meat than a tiger eats, maybe.
David Levi
Evyn MacDude
Bill Seurer wrote:
> I wish I could point you to a web site but I
> heard it on NPR.
You could try NPR site frequently they will post a link
for stories.
--
Evyn...
Desertus Altus Schola Stellamilitia, ad1999
Evyn MacDude
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
> There's a strong genetic component to height, besides the nutrition
> aspect.
Yes, I am average in my family and the families around us at 6'4".Not so
much protein as refined sugar as one of the major factors.
That and plenty of food.
> As a small child, I grew up in a vegetarian family, but with a
> considerable emphasis on nutrition and protein. Nowadays, I eat exactly
> like everyone else, although probably a bit less healthily.
>
> My fiancee', on the other hand -- well, her family was in cattle. Her
> grandfather and father ran a meat packing plant. I get the feeling that
> she ate a fair bit of meat as a child. And she's short, too.
>
> Jews, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese all tend to be
> short, in my experience. There are exceptions, of course. But I think
> that it's more genetic than nutrition.
--
silveroak
Eric Smith wrote in message <78j8oa$dn9$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
and
>>wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
>>civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
>>
>>Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you
go,
>>in
>>time the shorter the people are, right? (or is that based soely on
>geographical
>>areas?)
>
>until recently. Today in a first world country there are very few children
>that don't get enough food (and those that do _usually_ don't have to, if
the
>parents are willing to apply for welfare).
>
>This means that many of the upper class didn't suffer from these problems,
and
>so wouldn't necessarily be shorter. If he comes from a more humble
>background, 3-6 inches shorter wouldn't be out of the question, but then
again
>he could always be a tall person which happens to put him at modern days
>average height.
>
>In other words, whatever he wants.
>
Which brings up another point- people who are not immortal tend to get
smaller when they age. Before this is a period of growth at various rates.
Depending on the 'holding age' of your immortal, it is entirely possible
that he gains an inch a century or so when the nutrition is decent, and
height would be close to the average.
silveroak
Peter Knutsen wrote in message <36AE08DA...@knutsen.dk>...
>Rolock wrote:
>>
>> I've got a friend who designed an immortal character for another friend,
and
>> wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time
that
>> civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
>>
>> Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you
go,
>> in
>> time the shorter the people are, right? (or is that based soely on
geographical
>> areas?)
>
A point to consider is that in ancient times genes and geography were
linked. People who lived in the desert didn't have much food, and people who
could get by with a smaller diet (such as smaller people) would have had a
moderate edge compared to how shortness would have factored in Europe or
southern Africa. As a point of reference, in a recent trip to Australia I
noticed that the Aborigines seemed to be a few inches shorter than the
average Caucasian. Photographs from missionaries to the Aborigines show them
to have been about 4-5 inches shorter than the Europeans.
Not anything that would be noticeable on an individual basis.
William Knowles
Remember, it's not a function of time or area but of diet. The more meat or
other protein is available the bigger the average size. The bread eating
Romans were impressed by the size of the pastoral Germans, Cro-Magnon
hunters were pretty hefty even by modern standards, Japanese height has
increased markedly over the past 50 years, etc.
william
Rolock wrote in message <19990125185029...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>I've got a friend who designed an immortal character for another friend,
and
>wanted to know the average height of a male that lived about the time that
>civilization had come to Mesopitamia.
>
>Anyone know what the average height was? I know that the further back you
go,
>in
>time the shorter the people are, right? (or is that based soely on
geographical
>areas?)
>
>Any help us appreciated.
JefWilson
In article <78lcfa$n4q$1...@hiram.io.com>, i...@dillinger.io.com (Xiphias Gladius)
writes:
>Jews, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese all tend to be
>short, in my experience. There are exceptions, of course. But I think
>that it's more genetic than nutrition.
Jews, Chinese, Indians, and Koreans, yes, although those born in the US to
parent who grew up elesewhere tend to be average a good 8cm taller than their
parents. Japanese, a resounding NO! The full-blooded japanese I've known
who've grown up in the US are of at least average height and possibly above
average.
Of course, this is all non-scientific and only based on my personal experience.
Jeff Wilson
http://members.aol.com/JefWilson/rpg/
Andrew Priestley
Michael Riddle wrote:
> I think that Henry the V (1415) was 5' 3" ( based on the armor in London) and was
> considered a big man in his day...
Average height in High Medieval/Rennaissance Europe was around 5'5" or there abouts,
judging by the armors floating around from the period. Edward the 1st was unusually
tall however in the late 13th century. Longshanks was certainly well over 6' tall and
may have actually been as much as 7 feet tall. Henry VIII was quite large as well, and
not just in girth. 6'4" is a number that sticks in my head. I've seen one of his
armors and it was large.
If Henry V was only 5'3" he was probably on the short side of average for his time, and
judging by a sword of his that I've seen, and knowing that good swords were made in
proportion to their owners, I tend to believe he wasn't too large a man. Henry V was
considered to be exceptionally strong, vigorous and agile for his age though, and
militarily, one of the more successful British Monarchs.
Iceman
Daniel Haufschild
>Ancient skeletons will be about 170 cm tall (males), European males
>living today are at least 180 cm on the average (if not 185).
It's the hair! It's the hair!
P.
Peter Jackson
<URL:mailto:and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Riddle wrote:
>
> > I think that Henry the V (1415) was 5' 3" ( based on the armor in London) and was
> > considered a big man in his day...
>
> Average height in High Medieval/Rennaissance Europe was around 5'5" or there abouts,
> judging by the armors floating around from the period. Edward the 1st was unusually
> tall however in the late 13th century. Longshanks was certainly well over 6' tall and
> may have actually been as much as 7 feet tall. Henry VIII was quite large as well, an
> d
> not just in girth. 6'4" is a number that sticks in my head. I've seen one of his
> armors and it was large.
From skeletal evidence from several British sites, the average height in the
Middle Ages was about 171 cm for men and 158 cm for women. Modern figures
are 173 cm for men and 161 cm for women.
--
Peter Jackson - work address pjac...@uk.oracle.com
What I write are my opinions. I am not responsible if others share them.
Peter Janik
BR wrote:
> Peter Jackson <Pe...@pjackson.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >From skeletal evidence from several British sites, the average height in the
> >Middle Ages was about 171 cm for men and 158 cm for women. Modern figures
> >are 173 cm for men and 161 cm for women.
>
> How recent are those 'modern' figures? I'm often considered short
> at 158cm, and it is my subjective impression that the average height
> for women is rather more than 3cm taller than me.
Umm. Old and bent people are included in this average. And then the
_modern_ figures are maybe for what? English people? Welsh?
We have to wait till all old people being smaller die off. Then we
can do a new average height survey.
What should be looked at are the average heights for say 21 year
olds? I am pretty sure these changed in the last 20 years in most 1st
world countries. Blame it all on the recommendations for balanced
diet, vitamins and trace elements.
Greetings
Peter
-------------------------------------------------
"DEATH TO ALL FANATICS"
"The only skills I have the patience to learn are those that have no
real application in life" - Calvin
prei...@my-dejanews.com
> > >From skeletal evidence from several British sites, the average height in
> > >the Middle Ages was about 171 cm for men and 158 cm for women. Modern
> > >figures are 173 cm for men and 161 cm for women.
Which sites would those be? That directly and blatantly contradicts
everything I've ever heard everywhere else, and, further, makes no sense.
The "no sense" part comes mainly from the effects of vastly greater nutrition
and early health care on modern populations - these have raised the average
heights of people in Europe and the US by 5-10 cm in the last 200-300 years
alone, and almost certainly more since the Middle Ages. Also, I've heard
from a few sources that nobles at that time averaged several inches taller
than the common man simply because of those health effects (and their
health/nutrition was much worse than modern folk) - perhaps the skeletons in
question were well-fed.
The data for modern humans seems decent, though - see
http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/average.htm.
Anyway, the "what I've heard" part (coming from Discover magazine, "the
average height of the medieval yeoman soldier was five feet to five feet two
inches" at http://snt.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html,
"the average height and weight for European men in the 15th Century was 5
feet 2 inches and 135 lbs" at http://religionworld.org/dd/archiv3/822.htm,
and a few other places I can't remember) suggests MA people were ~18 cm (~7")
shorter than modern people (4'9" and 5'2" - women tend to be about 5 inches
shorter than men the world over).
> What should be looked at are the average heights for say 21 year
> olds? I am pretty sure these changed in the last 20 years in most 1st
> world countries. Blame it all on the recommendations for balanced
> diet, vitamins and trace elements.
Some, but not much - average male height in the US is apparently 5'9" and
average height for those 20-25 is 5'10". Much more striking changes can be
seen in places like Japan where (IIRC) new foods supplemented and improved
the diet.
-P
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Rudd
>
> > > >From skeletal evidence from several British sites, the average height in
> > > >the Middle Ages was about 171 cm for men and 158 cm for women. Modern
> > > >figures are 173 cm for men and 161 cm for women.
>
> Which sites would those be? That directly and blatantly contradicts
> everything I've ever heard everywhere else, and, further, makes no sense.
>
> The "no sense" part comes mainly from the effects of vastly greater nutrition
> and early health care on modern populations - these have raised the average
> heights of people in Europe and the US by 5-10 cm in the last 200-300 years
> alone, and almost certainly more since the Middle Ages. Also, I've heard
> from a few sources that nobles at that time averaged several inches taller
> than the common man simply because of those health effects (and their
> health/nutrition was much worse than modern folk) - perhaps the skeletons in
> question were well-fed.
>
> The data for modern humans seems decent, though - see
> http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/average.htm.
>
> Anyway, the "what I've heard" part (coming from Discover magazine, "the
> average height of the medieval yeoman soldier was five feet to five feet two
> inches" at http://snt.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html,
> "the average height and weight for European men in the 15th Century was 5
> feet 2 inches and 135 lbs" at http://religionworld.org/dd/archiv3/822.htm,
> and a few other places I can't remember) suggests MA people were ~18 cm (~7")
> shorter than modern people (4'9" and 5'2" - women tend to be about 5 inches
> shorter than men the world over).
>
You're making a bold assumption though.. that the medieval yeoman
soldier was better fed, and taller, than the ancient soldier or
citizen. Considering the general collapse of society and common
knowlege in the dark ages, I wouldn't expect that nutrition in the dark
ages was representative of nutrition in earlier times. It is one more
piece of knowlege that may have been lost.
There is no indication that the progression of knowlege, nutrition, and
thus height, are non-decreasing functions over time. There may have
been brief collapses and surges in knowlege. For example, there is
archaelogical evidence of very advanced agricultural techniques having
been used for a short period of time in both ancient egypt and south
america. By ancient, I mean before 2000 BC. Then for unknown reasons,
both projects were abandoned and went back to less advanced agricultural
techniques. I'm sure that during the several generations each project
lasted, they saw an advance in nutrition and growth rates.. and I'm sure
that went away when the projects ended.
Though, it may just be that everyone is using different meanings for
"ancient". Most historical sources I come across use ancient to mean
"before the fall of Rome" or perhaps even before the emergence of Greece
and Rome (depends on how you enterpret the word "antiquity", which tends
to imply the Greco-Roman era -- is that part of "ancient times" or is it
the era between "ancient times" and the middle ages?). I rarely hear
anyone talk about the middle ages as being "ancient times".
prei...@my-dejanews.com
> You're making a bold assumption though.. that the medieval yeoman
> soldier was better fed, and taller, than the ancient soldier or
> citizen. Considering the general collapse of society and common
> knowlege in the dark ages, I wouldn't expect that nutrition in the dark
> ages was representative of nutrition in earlier times. It is one more
> piece of knowlege that may have been lost.
You are also making a bold assumption, that nutrition was worse in the Middle
Ages than earlier, and this is entirely and demonstratably false.
Indeed, Medieval Europe made many very important advances beyond Roman
agriculture. Chief among these were the adoption of the heavy plow which
allowed the rich, heavy soils of the more northern areas (Germany, France,
etc.) to be effectively cultivated and the development of the three-field
system (where there is a crop1-crop2-fallow rotation rather than a
crop1-fallow rotation). The heavy plow made more land cultivatable and made
better use of much land, but the 3-field system was probably more important.
Not only did it provide an immediate 30% increase in soil under cultivation
at any given time (only 1/3 was unused, not 1/2), it, more importantly,
diversified the diet of Europe. In Rome, wheat was the staple food. Since
the 2-field system was used, it was just about the sole staple (save wine and
some olives). With the 3-field system, there _had_ to be at least one more
crop - usually these were things like beans/peas/turnips/etc. This provided
much better nutrition (and more protein), particularly for women (much more
iron in the food). (for those who can find it, there's a good discussion of
this around p.178-9 in Hollister's "Medieval Europe: A Short History")
Of course, your bold and wrong assumption seems to have been based on another
bold and wrong assumption, that the Middle Ages in Europe was a thousand years
of ignorance. It wasn't. Much knowledge was lost, but much more, and in many
more areas (like agriculture) was gained. Best guess is that Medieval Europe
surpassed Rome in terms of knowledge/commerce/culture/etc. around the turn of
the millenium (roughly when the High Middle Ages began).
> Though, it may just be that everyone is using different meanings for
> "ancient". Most historical sources I come across use ancient to mean
> "before the fall of Rome" or perhaps even before the emergence of Greece
...
> the era between "ancient times" and the middle ages?). I rarely hear
> anyone talk about the middle ages as being "ancient times".
They aren't (hence the phrase "middle ages"). However, heights at that time
are apt to be much closer to earlier heights than either what they are now or
what was given.
Due to the increased nutrition in the middle ages, I'd suggest knocking a few
inches off those heights for ancient characters (at least those modelled on
Rome - barbarians, like the Germanic tribes, _were_ larger, in part because
of a more varied and more meaty diet). Maybe 5'0" for Roman men and 5'2" for
barbarian men. Or just make them 5'9" because that's what everyone's
familiar with.