why were people shorter?

[VAE VICTUS]

why were people shorter in ancient times?diet,whatever,anyone know?
im 6'7 and i was in an western american fort and the doors werent even to my shoulders.it sucked,had to duck into everything.also some suits of armor look quite short.

[AntiochusIII]

Nutrition. The ancient people can't be picky about their food - they already had enough worries about famine to be so - and those who could be picky (rich people; nobles, basically) didn't have the knowledge of nutrition, anyway.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Looking at roman food customs, I'm not sure that's the entire explanation. Roman food was very similar to later Italian food.

I don't know any other explanation than malnutrition though.

But seeing that some pharaos, particularly Pepi I think, lived over 90 years, malnutrition perhaps wasn't a problem in some ancient civilizations. If you can live long, then you can also be a little taller, perhaps.

Another explanation could be that Europe was overrun by the "northern barbarians" who very a lot taller, perhaps because being taller was important when hunting mammoths, but being tall wasn't necessary for those who lived further south where there weren't any mammoths, but slightly smaller animals. Mixing of those with shorter people resulted in slightly taller people. Some sources claim many of the "barbarians" were taller than modern average length. As the "barbarians" often lacked armor, most armor samples we look at today are from greeks and romans, so this theory is possible. Today, most peoples in Europe are a mix of earlier Mediterranean peoples and the "barbarians".

But that doesn't explain people being taller in the rest of the world today than during the ancient period. Perhaps it's a combination of malnutrition and taller tribes mixing with shorter, with different combinations of the two in different regions.

People being shorter during the Middle ages and up to around 1900 can at least be explained by the fact that we know that knowledge of nutrition of the time was limited, and work was very hard for most people. So the shortness at that time wasn't of a genetical, but rather an environmental, kind.

[Longshanks]

It has to do with nutirition. Modern Japanese people for example, are frequently taller than WW2 era Japanese because of diet. The difference is that Japanese people consume more beef, pork and dairy products than they did 50 years ago.

[Kraxis]

It has to do with nutirition. Modern Japanese people for example, are frequently taller than WW2 era Japanese because of diet. The difference is that Japanese people consume more beef, pork and dairy products than they did 50 years ago.

Nutrition can indeed have a most serious impact. As the case of Japanese and Chinese clearly show. They are almost at our hight now.
But the last 50 years we have grown too, in fact I know several people at the age of 30+ and I'm myself 25, so I know a lot of people at around 20 too. It is clear, the younger people are indeed taller. My brother who turns 32 in a few days was a tall man when he was younger (his class photos are obvious pointers), but now he is hardly taller than the average. I'm slightly shorter and I was the perfect average when I was a teenager, now I'm shorter. It is in fact rather disturbing to me. I hate being forced to look up at people.

That can't be nutrition as we have in fact in the last 20 years begun to eat a lot more of the bad food, but also a lot more luxury foods (luxury foods are not always good though). So something else is playing in... I have no idea really. Hormoneresidue in our food? Perhaps...

[CBR]

Nutrition and healthcare.

In the middleages people were actually taller than in the Rennaisance and that trend only changed in the late 19th century. Overcrowded cities and a change in nutrition because of the cooler climate are the major factors IIRC. Our modern day healthcare also gave an increase of the average height.

Kraxis: I actually think we do eat more meat now than for 30 years ago. Junk food might reduce the height but we will see when the children of today grow up


CBR

[English assassin]

Gravity was stronger in the past.

But seriously. As historical times are no way long enough for any material genetic change, this can only be a phenotypic change brought on by a change in the environment. And the obvious candidate by a long chalk is more calories and (maybe) better diet.

What is slightly hard to understand is that even well fed people in times past don't seem to have been that tall. Henry VIII of England, for instance, was reckoned to be pretty tall for his day, and quite a hard case all round. (Henry, like Elvis, bloated out in his later years, although presumably not on cheeseburgers.) Yet his armour is about 5'8", which today would be on the short side of average.

I can only guess Henry was genetically a short-arse who grew to his maximum possible stature, whereas peasants who had the genes to have grown much taller were being kept short by chronic under-nourishment.

[Kraxis]

Kraxis: I actually think we do eat more meat now than for 30 years ago. Junk food might reduce the height but we will see when the children of today grow up


CBR

Yes, we do, but in general we lived better back then, eating a far more varied diet. As I said, we pretty much eat the same now as back then, but we eat more junk and more luxury foods. That is how properous we have gotten here. We use about the same percentage on food now as in the early 70s, but since we have far more money now we use more. The difference is just that we could still afford a good diet in the early 70s but not the expensive stuff, and that is marginal in difference with regards to nutrition and other aspects that might have an impact (and sometimes it is worse).

Btw, I didn't know Henry VIII was that short. Hmmm... In any case the nobles that lived well enough to be tall like us, were in numbers a big enough group to be a fair statistical group, yet they are still not as tall as us. The case with Henry is pretty good. Who regarded Henry as tall? The peasant that never saw him? No it was his relatives, court nobles, servants and so on, people that lived quite well themselves. Among them should have been at least a good number that was taller than him.
Remember, tall is always considered in relation to your peers, and Henry's peers certainly had the nutritional background to be almost as tall as us. Yet Henry was special and still shorter than us... Interesting isn't it.

I doubt nutrition is the whole issue here. Other less obvious aspects must be affecting us.

[lars573]

Gravity was stronger in the past.

But seriously. As historical times are no way long enough for any material genetic change, this can only be a phenotypic change brought on by a change in the environment. And the obvious candidate by a long chalk is more calories and (maybe) better diet.

What is slightly hard to understand is that even well fed people in times past don't seem to have been that tall. Henry VIII of England, for instance, was reckoned to be pretty tall for his day, and quite a hard case all round. (Henry, like Elvis, bloated out in his later years, although presumably not on cheeseburgers.) Yet his armour is about 5'8", which today would be on the short side of average.

I can only guess Henry was genetically a short-arse who grew to his maximum possible stature, whereas peasants who had the genes to have grown much taller were being kept short by chronic under-nourishment.

Actually I saw a man who was 5'8" standing next yo Henry VIII armour. It was for "the 6 wives of Henry VIII" and he was on a stool to get to head level with Henry's 6'2" armour.

[Byzantine Prince]

It also has to do with our evolution and our way of life. Not everyone is going to be tall even today, but there's some evidence there a lot more tall people from short parents. That much might be true. It has to do with how many hours of sleep we get even how much we walk and work. Food is also important and considering that most animals today are fed with hormones, we are also getting hormone therapy by eathing the meant of these animals. Since hormones are primarily used to enlarge animals, they have the same effect on us to a lesser extent.

But if you are going to history for evidence, good luck! How can you know what people were like when you don't even have any studies from the era?

[Rodion Romanovich]

As historical times are no way long enough for any material genetic change, this can only be a phenotypic change brought on by a change in the environment.

That is partly true, but not entirely. The fact that the barbarians were taller but we have little remnants of them of type armor suits etc., means their mixing with the shorter people could result in a genetic change of length. Then the differences in length have been genetical, because those tribes got taller in a process of over 10.000 years. Changes in appearance and physical construction are quite quick genetical changes. Changes in behavior patterns and more complex details such as functionality of an organ system and things such as that take much longer. But a slight change of appearance, which can probably be regulated by a simple change in activity of hormone producing genes, could take 10.000 years or less IMHO.

But I see no other possibilities for a genetical change causing people to get taller. It would be impossible, according to my belief that is, for an entire isolated population to get taller without being mixed with populations with a greater average length.

What is slightly hard to understand is that even well fed people in times past don't seem to have been that tall.

That means there has to be SOME kind of genetical influence.

But apart from the one I mentioned above, I don't think it's possible with any other genetical factors. That leaves environmental factors. All posters above have already described those very well so I needn't repeat it. But I thought I'd just throw in my two cents on a possible genetical change (which isn't really a change in the usual sense), that could explain the cases when environmental effects aren't enough to explain why it was like it was.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As noted:

Diet and Nutrition:

Modern diets commonly include higher percentages of protein and calcium, along with a greater range of other vitamins from fruits. Moroevoer, the modern diet is far more varied in terms of protein type etc. We think nothing of having 3 different kinds of meat in a given week -- wasn't practical before refrigeration. All of these things contribute to growth.

A lot of the northern groups -- where milk didn't spoil in an hour -- had far more calcium in their diets than the med peoples (adn were noted for their tallness).

"Small" suits of armor -- a number of these are "display" sets which were never made full size. A lot of the displays survive because they were never in use.

Healthcare matters too. Wear and tear will shorten you over time. There was little in the wya of sports medicine to counter it.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

"Small" suits of armor -- a number of these are "display" sets which were never made full size. A lot of the displays survive because they were never in use.

Healthcare matters too. Wear and tear will shorten you over time. There was little in the wya of sports medicine to counter it.

Seamus

Some armour was perhaps display armour, meant to stand somewhere in a hall or something, but that is far from all. They are just the most perfect. We have plenty of corroded mailshirts and the like.
For isntance there is a fullplate knightsarmour here in Copenhagen, worn by a knight in battle. On the armour you can see his rather ignomious demise. He was cut down by an arbalest (I expect, it could be a normal crossbow though). The breastplate was completely penetrated and the backplate was heavily dented at the point of impact. Nasty...
Anyway, this knight was the size of a small teenager, at most 1.60 meters. And from the elaborate ornaments on the armour it is clear he was no poor knight (also evident in the fact that it was full plate).

[Steppe Merc]

Different people in different places had different heights. Some peoples, either through diet or genetics were taller than others.
I think people with acess more meats and milks, like herders or serious hunters would probably be taller than farmers.
I think some Scythian mummies found were pretty tall, but I can't find where I read that, and I can't find anything on the internet about how tall they were...

And about armor, some of it is 3/4 of a real size, to show how delicate the armorer was. So just because a lot of it was tiny, doesn't mean all knights were midgets. Oh, that was already mentioned...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well then, it could then be a genetical change. Those spoiled women always searching for the tallest men they can find ... Seriously though, it might be a popular misconception that non-functional, non-behavior-related genetical changes would take that long time. Perhaps only a few generations are enough.

Another explanation could be pollution. Maybe we're polluting some chemicals that effect our growth hormones, seeing as the greatest increase of length came after the industrial age begun - the correlation of those incidents might not be pure coincidences. After all, we're polluting N2O (the 2 should be in subscript), which I don't know the English word for, but it's a gas that has been used as a drug and as anaesthetics. Without knowing it or deliberately wanting it, the average inhabitant in a European or American country is on drugs . Something similar could be the case with polluted chemicals that affect growth hormones. Unfortunately, I can't come up with an example at the moment. Only well-known example of pollution of hormones is the contraceptive pills, that are femaleizing (is that a word btw?) fish and probably also, though luckily still only to a very limited extent, human males.

Can someone help making a timeline of how the average length has changed in different areas over time?

[CBR]

Searched through my links and found this recent study: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/...omillennia.pdf


CBR

[Rodion Romanovich]

Cool! Note the abstract says: "One astonishing result is the height increase in the fifth and sixth centuries" - i.e. the period when the barbarians spread out over Europe and settled in most areas. My theory could be correct, then...

Quite interesting also that height difference between males and females has increased (page 22)...

[GoreBag]

You're not suggesting that Germans hunted mammoths, are you, Legio?

It is mostly diet, I would think, but perhaps also sleep. Since we have much nicer, softer and more comfortable sleeping conditions than your typical serf, and since the hormone for deep sleep is only released after, what, 5 or so hours of sleep without interruption, it could be that the majority of people today sleep better.

The "taller barbarians" theory is actually mostly myth. The concept was that the Mediterranean peoples were the most civilised, and the further away from the Mediterranean one went, the larger the people became (and also crueler). It was thought that the Northmen were almost giants, and the same for "bushmen" in southern Africa. This is odd, though, considering that Swedes are among the tallest people in the world, and Watoosies as well. I guess nothing is ever purely myth.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You're not suggesting that Germans hunted mammoths, are you, Legio?

lol, no. Just that the peoples living furthest north hunted mammoth in a period way before the time when the word "germanic" and "gallic" was first used. And the germanics and gauls and others were probably more of that ancestry than for example romans and greeks were. But it's hard to know anything for sure regarding human population movements in early history. Anyway, the point of this thing originating from the "mammoth hunting period" gives evolution a little more time, and that was the point of the theory - since there are no other explanations for how a genetical change could have happened. It's hard to believe the entire change could be environmental and not partly genetical, as it's so large. And if that's the case, then it's greater chance that this genetical change happened over say 10.000 years or more than over the less than 2.000 years from 5th century and up to today.

The "taller barbarians" theory is actually mostly myth. The concept was that the Mediterranean peoples were the most civilised, and the further away from the Mediterranean one went, the larger the people became (and also crueler). It was thought that the Northmen were almost giants, and the same for "bushmen" in southern Africa. This is odd, though, considering that Swedes are among the tallest people in the world, and Watoosies as well. I guess nothing is ever purely myth.

I believe there've been many myths of that sort, and myths of almost the opposite kind and so on. Which myth did you refer to, from which period did it come? Anyway I'm not sure the tallness thing is entirely a myth (although it's not proportional to your distance from greece and rome), but the cruelty thing is obviously (I hope ) a myth...

[King Henry V]

I think it also had to do with the fact that most people-especially women- reproduced much earlier than they do today, often before their bodies have fully finished growing. As the mother is not herself fully grown, how can the child be so much taller?

[Kagemusha]

This is bit side topic but have you guys ever thought not how short but how tough Roman Legioners were. They werent as big as modern people but they had to march 20 miles in 5 hours every day when campaigning,carrying their armour,weapons,2 posts about 2,4 meters long,spade,cooking eguipment and food rations for 3-4 days+personal stuff.After the march they had to build fortified camp and after that would start the guard duty.It would be intresting to see how tough a veteran legionary was.After all the marching was the easyest part of their job?

[Steppe Merc]

Eh, it's their fault for not relizing how to use proper pack animals.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The "taller barbarians" theory is actually mostly myth. The concept was that the Mediterranean peoples were the most civilised, and the further away from the Mediterranean one went, the larger the people became (and also crueler). It was thought that the Northmen were almost giants, and the same for "bushmen" in southern Africa. This is odd, though, considering that Swedes are among the tallest people in the world, and Watoosies as well. I guess nothing is ever purely myth.

I agree. Though I would also freely admit that sweeping generalizations were employed. After all, we aced 50k barbarians makes you sound tough, but we aced 50k barbarians and not a one of them was less than 2m plays better to the crowd.

Kage: Not only 20-30 miles in the day, fortify, and stand guard, but your veterans might have a lot of experience, since 20+ years was a normal "hitch."

Seamus

[Kagemusha]

Kage: Not only 20-30 miles in the day, fortify, and stand guard, but your veterans might have a lot of experience, since 20+ years was a normal "hitch."

Seamus

Yes.I just wonder how rugged those retiring legioners must have been.Someone who served full time prior "Pax Romana" must have seen quite a few clashes and quite a tour de Europe,Africa and Middle East.

[Kraxis]

Remember the old add saying: "Join the Army and see the world." Well in this case we could say: "Join the Army and walk the world."

[Kagemusha]

Well sayd Kraxis. Should start another thread about legionaries,this is going so off topic,but im too damn tired.Maybe i start it tomorrow.

[CBR]

I doubt they marched 20 miles in 5 hours as standard. March speed was around 100 paces/minute or quick step of 120 paces and thats about 4-5 kmh. The numbers from Vegetius' manual are pretty close to what later armies managed to do in the 19th century.


CBR

[Longshanks]

This is bit side topic but have you guys ever thought not how short but how tough Roman Legioners were. They werent as big as modern people but they had to march 20 miles in 5 hours every day when campaigning,carrying their armour,weapons,2 posts about 2,4 meters long,spade,cooking eguipment and food rations for 3-4 days+personal stuff.After the march they had to build fortified camp and after that would start the guard duty.It would be intresting to see how tough a veteran legionary was.After all the marching was the easyest part of their job?

Height has nothing to do with endurance, physical strength or any other factor related to soldiering. I always get a chuckle when someone suggests the "barbarians" were stronger than the Romans because they were taller on average. A Roman Army could march circles around a barbarian one, proof that the Roman soldier was more physically fit because of his superior training and conditioning.

[GoreBag]

lol, no. Just that the peoples living furthest north hunted mammoth in a period way before the time when the word "germanic" and "gallic" was first used. And the germanics and gauls and others were probably more of that ancestry than for example romans and greeks were. But it's hard to know anything for sure regarding human population movements in early history. Anyway, the point of this thing originating from the "mammoth hunting period" gives evolution a little more time, and that was the point of the theory - since there are no other explanations for how a genetical change could have happened. It's hard to believe the entire change could be environmental and not partly genetical, as it's so large. And if that's the case, then it's greater chance that this genetical change happened over say 10.000 years or more than over the less than 2.000 years from 5th century and up to today.

The only problem with that theory is that Celts and Germans are descendants of Indo-Europeans, who didn't live in mammoth-land. What few people more native to the area who interbred with the Germanic or Celtic invaders would have been a pretty insignificant addition to the gene pool, especially considering the Celtic tendency to kill all their predecessors. Still, though, I want to learn more about the Tsjuder people...

I believe there've been many myths of that sort, and myths of almost the opposite kind and so on. Which myth did you refer to, from which period did it come? Anyway I'm not sure the tallness thing is entirely a myth (although it's not proportional to your distance from greece and rome), but the cruelty thing is obviously (I hope ) a myth...

I believe the myth was early-middle-ages or dark-ages in origin...it would make sense to have its popularisation coincide with increasing clashes with northern barbarians and southern...barbarians. Like I said, though, not all myths are purely fictional in origin.

As for cruelty...well, the vikings did perform a good many human sacrifices. The "Blood Eagle" especially would have been enough to make "good Christians" sit up and take notice once the news reached them in their warm, cozy homes along the Mediterranean.

[yesdachi]

I found an interesting article on height in the NBA.

An excerpt…
Stephen Morgan, an economics professor at the University of Melbourne, found that the average Chinese 17-year-old boy was 2.7 inches taller in 1995 than in 1955. The diet of the average Chinese child, especially in the cities and along the coast, improved dramatically after free market reforms began in 1978.

In contrast, "Americans have not grown (in height) in 25 years," noted Richard Steckel, an Ohio State economist and anthropologist. Economic historians who study changes in average stature call themselves "auxologists."

It appears that “free market reforms” make people taller.

I think nutrition is the biggest factor but I wouldn’t dismiss that a good nights sleep (farmers vs. barbarians) and an active lifestyle (hunting, marching, etc.) would be contributing factors.

I think the use of vitamins and supplements have also become more influential. All the way back to the day James Lid figured out citrus fruit prevented Scurvy and I’m sure others were using them long before.

@ King Henry V
Nice observation about women. The way babies suck (pun intended) the calcium and other nutrients out of their mothers it would be reasonable to expect some women of large families to be pretty small and less healthy.