Subject: Re: Bed length
> I still stand behind my research on this idea for my former site, an 1830s
community. Various sources I looked at mentioned that the average height for
American males in the mid-19th century was about 3/4" shorter than today. I
believe the numbers were about 5'7" -5'8" compared with about 5'9" today.
> Scott D. Peters
Yes, this is close to my understanding of height in the past. I think part
of the problem is again generalizing all the "theys" in all of the past as
the same. Time and place and population matters.
Generally a population will reach its genetically optimal height IF children
have good nutrition. This means that, one, there has to be enough available
food, and two, it has to be evenly distributed enough in the population that
all or most benefit, and three, that children are valued and fed
appropriately (which is not, unfortunately, a universal truth). In colonial
New England, this meant that average heights were very similar to Englishmen
today - the adequate food, distributed evenly, to children who were valued,
let the population reach its genetic potential. BUT, if you are discussing
late 19th century New York City, with immigration from famished lands, and
poverty, inequality, and racism limiting availability and distribution,
heights were radically shorter - and increased dramatically in the 20th
century, the change we all hear about in the past few generations. This I
think is what leads to the over-generalized "people were shorter then".
In the American Revolution, the Continental Army was taller than the British
army. Approximately same gene pool, better nutrition in America. Height is
in fact a fascinating index to inequality, welfare of children, status of
women, and other issues. It's just hard to measure in the more distant
past - soldiers being the only population whose measurements were noted, and
they are not a random sample.
Other ethnic groups have different genetic potential. Scandinavians are
taller, Asians are shorter, mix it all up and that's America today.
So TIME and PLACE and who you are talking about matters, and I wish all
historic sites would be careful to make these distinctions. The good ones
have done their research on THEIR people, and put them in time and space
context. Some are just too content to generalize, and we get these "they all
were...." myths. History is complicated! History is local!
Carol Ely
Museum Consultant, Louisville
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
