They were both taller and shorter
Posted by P.Bingham on November 30, 1997 at 15:51:55:
In response to Shorter and smaller?, written by Constanza on November 26, 1997 at 13:25:02
I tend to agree with everyone, there really was no difference in the height of the group of people (the upper class) we are interested in today. Although these same people who were fortunate enough to eat lots of meat (and wine) were also often suffering from gout!
When a historian speaks of height and bones, etc, he is merely speaking of the average. As far as the average is concerned, people had smaller and shorter bones just as they lived for a shorter time period. These lower classes, which had less access to proper nutrition as well as good medical care, effect the average which makes it appear as is everyone was smaller when that is not the case.
But people such as Wellington were not average, they enjoyed a rich lifestyle with plenty of meat and milk products. It was the lower classes that were smaller and shorter (on an average, of course.
Today, with fewer populations of the needy and better medical access and improvements, our average of height, life expectancy, etc. is greater.
I hope that was not too confusing, I wrote it so fast, I fear my thoughts travel with more eloquence than my mouth and fingers.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.