# Were Humans A LOT Smaller 200 Years Ago? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 17, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921 "2004-01-17T14:24:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GreyWanderer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@GreyWanderer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyWanderer)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/41 "2004-02-29T01:34:40Z")
I just read [here](http://www.skoleetaten.oslo.no/Oslo-patriot/th31.html)(Norwegian) that the average height for school children went down during the German occupation. I don’t know how credible the source is though. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Serpentine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Silver\_Serpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Serpentine)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/42 "2004-02-29T13:25:17Z")
Why can’t we look at skeletons from those times? I’d think that’d be a pretty go indicator. I don’t mean this to be callous, but if we’re willing to dig up pharohs in the name of science, why can’t scientists go into some old-time graveyards, exhume a few skeletons, measure the bones, take a few pictures, and put everything back where it was? I’d think this would clarify things a little. It’d be more accurate than doors and chairs. And there are several cemetaries in my area with graves from the 1700-1800’s. Sorry if I offended anyone - I ask this question for science. PS: While we’re at it, why is it taboo to dig up a grave that’s 100 years old, but not to go rummaging around in Egypt? ---
**Author:** ![Nichol\_storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Nichol\_storm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nichol_storm)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/43 "2004-02-29T17:12:18Z")
> [@Silver Serpentine](#): > > Why can’t we look at skeletons from those times? I’d think that’d be a pretty go indicator. While touring the Chicago Museum of Art, I visited their Egyptology department and saw a sarcophagus belonging to a priest. The little note on the display mentioned that his skeleton had been measured, and he had stood 5’4. As a member of the priestly caste he probably received adequete nutrition and care. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/44 "2004-03-01T07:19:18Z")
> [@Silver Serpentine](#): > > Why can’t we look at skeletons from those times? I’d think that’d be a pretty go indicator. > > I don’t mean this to be callous, but if we’re willing to dig up pharohs in the name of science, why can’t scientists go into some old-time graveyards, exhume a few skeletons, measure the bones, take a few pictures, and put everything back where it was? I’d think this would clarify things a little. It’d be more accurate than doors and chairs. And there are several cemetaries in my area with graves from the 1700-1800’s. > > Sorry if I offended anyone - I ask this question for science. > > PS: While we’re at it, why is it taboo to dig up a grave that’s 100 years old, but not to go rummaging around in Egypt? In my museum, we have a couple of coffins that were made around 1870. (Never used, of course.) I’ve never measured them, but they’re visably shorter than a “normal” casket of today. Secondly, it didn’t used to be all that taboo to dig up graves of less than 100 years old. I’ve read that in England some graves were “rentals.” After a certain period of time, the corpse would be disinterred, and the remains disposed of in a communal pit or crypt, and the grave would be re-sold. In the Victorian era, no one seems to have been all that distressed by the idea. There was a morbid fad of disinterring the famous dead at that time. Graves in Westmister Abbey were often opened, sometimes for no more reason than curiosity. In my hometown, a cemetary was moved in the 1880s. The surviving coffins were moved to another cemetary. There are records from the time indicating that many of the coffins were opened in order to see what “condition” the bodies were in, but it is not noted as to why this seemed important at the time. From reading of a few instances like these, I speculate that we’ve become more sensitive over time to the idea of our dead being disturbed. (Of course, there could have been myriad folks who were greatly distressed by this whose opinions were not recorded.) ---
**Author:** ![treeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@treeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treeman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/45 "2010-07-29T08:25:25Z")
Yes people were shorter in the past, on average. Look at any of the current “oldest known” bones of our ancestors. The average seems to be 4’2". If that isn’t enough for you the average height of americans has changed significantly in the last 50 years. I read an article in a car magazine (Forgot which one.) which stated that in the 1960’s cars were built for men and the seats were set for someone between 5’2" to 5’8". Since car dealers wouldn’t have made much money building cars too small for people I think we can accept that people have grown quite a bit from the 1960’s. I remembered the article because it had mentioned that car makers were having trouble making cars for the current average of 5’“10 to 6’2”. because so many older customers are still around and would have trouble driving cars built for the new average. And as any 6’ tall person out there knows trying to fit into the escort or saturns built in the 1990’s was next to impossible unless they desired to drive with their knees. So yes on average people are taller. I think it has more to do with the availability of good protein than anything else. Although one can’t rule out the growth hormones used in the beef industry. And anyone who thinks knights exercised in the middle ages exercised needs to have thier head examined. John Wayne was considered in good shape for the times. (And he was considering what was known about health at the time.) But the only people in the past who I have ever seen who seemed to know what exercise was about were the Greek Olympians, and Roman Gladiators. I’m not saying that the knights of the past were weak, but they didn’t exercise as we consider it today. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/46 "2010-07-29T09:12:51Z")
Were people shorter six years ago? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/47 "2010-07-29T09:23:54Z")
The zombies are getting bigger, I know that much. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/48 "2010-07-29T11:50:58Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > I work in a musem. … > > The gloves we have are astonishingly tiny at times. Even accounting for some shrinkage in the leather over time, the hands of the ladies who wore them must have been very small. (I have small hands myself, and there’s no way I could fit into a good portion of the gloves.) And so you can’t wear them, fewer people could, so they were not damaged. Thus they lasted long enough to be put in a museum. Larger gloves/clothes where worn by more people and were used until they were rags. So they are not in museums. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Mondegreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/91b2a8/32.png) [@Lord\_Mondegreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Mondegreen)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/49 "2010-07-29T12:47:08Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Were people shorter six years ago? Well the zombies certainly were. Edited to add: Bah, too slow. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/50 "2010-07-29T13:01:20Z")
[I’ve discussed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=528484&highlight=medieval)[this on similar](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10964593&postcount=87)[threads before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10965547&postcount=91). TL;DR: We know from skeletal evidence that medieval people were only couple of inches shorter than the average today. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/51 "2010-07-29T13:05:33Z")
Giant zombies, just what we need… ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/52 "2010-07-29T13:14:51Z")
> [@treeman](#): > > And anyone who thinks knights exercised in the middle ages exercised needs to have thier head examined. John Wayne was considered in good shape for the times. (And he was considering what was known about health at the time.) But the only people in the past who I have ever seen who seemed to know what exercise was about were the Greek Olympians, and Roman Gladiators. I’m not saying that the knights of the past were weak, but they didn’t exercise as we consider it today. This is QG. Waking up a 6 year old thread only to spout ignorance is not what this forum is about. We have evidence from medieval and renaissance fechtbuchs that the warrior classes of the time exercised a LOT. Have you tried fighting with a full harness and a polearm? It’s not somethign someone not in top shape can do for any decent amount of time. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/53 "2010-07-29T18:14:40Z")
200 years ago, Europeans were short when compared to Americans. Americans were about the same hight they are today, but the Europeans tended to be much shorter. I’ve seen sleeping nooks that were only 5’ 6" in length. Most of the hight difference was due to poor nutrition. Europeans tended to eat mainly carbohydrates with little protein or produce. America was very different. It was mainly an underpopulated agricultural country with plenty of produce and animals. Americans simply ate a more varied diet because food was more readily available. George Washington at 6’1" was considered tall for an American, but not unheard of. He wouldn’t have stood out in the United States like a 7 foot tall Basketball player would, but to the Europeans, he was a giant. Ironically, it is now the Americans who are shorter than the Europeans. It is the Europeans who now have better nutrition and health, and thus have sprung up in hight. I don’t have any cites, but I had an army friend who was over there and simply noticed the difference in height between the American solders and the Europeans. In the American lines, the average hight was around 5’9", and it wasn’t unusual to see an American solder under 5’7" tall. The Europeans tended to be closer to 6’ feet. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/54 "2010-07-29T18:45:54Z")
The Japanese have been studying the changes in height and weight since they became westernized after WWII. This is only one paper. It’s fascinating how dramatically the height and weight of Japanese has changed since 1945. They are facing the same troubling obesity and health issues as Americans. [http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1379S](http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1379S) > [@](#): > > **The height of boys and girls rapidly increased during the 15-y period from 1945 to 1960** , and after 1970 the adult height in Japan was thought to have reached its maximum. The factors that contribute to the health problems facing today’s Japanese children include their sedentary lifestyle, irregular intake of meals (especially skipping breakfast), and the increasing daily ratio of fat to total energy intake. Presently, changing the sedentary lifestyle is the most significant issue to be resolved. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/55 "2010-07-29T19:25:58Z")
I didn’t realize this was a zombie thread till now. Anyway, I’ve toured the National War Museum in Edinburgh Castle. The uniforms there are incredibly small and would fit probably most 13 or 14 year old boys now. Anecdotal evidence but clearly worth mentioning. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/56 "2010-07-29T20:17:01Z")
My brother and I tower over our cousins in Ireland; it’s a standing joke. Which is especially strange because the folks on our Mother’s side are not very tall either, and our Irish cousins all keep dairy cows in addition to their regular jobs, so it’s not as if the children have ever lacked calcium. I have always thought it was the hormones added to American beef and dairy cattle which caused it. But Celtling is lactose intolerant, and we seldom eat beef, and she is a head taller than her classmates, and two heads taller than her cousins. I think it’s because American kids get more sun. Vitamin D + calcium = better absorption and taller kids/adults. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/57 "2010-07-29T20:22:32Z")
> [@Silver\_Serpentine](#): > > Why can’t we look at skeletons from those times? I’d think that’d be a pretty go indicator. > > I don’t mean this to be callous, but if we’re willing to dig up pharohs in the name of science, why can’t scientists go into some old-time graveyards, exhume a few skeletons, measure the bones, take a few pictures, and put everything back where it was? I’d think this would clarify things a little. It’d be more accurate than doors and chairs. And there are several cemetaries in my area with graves from the 1700-1800’s. > > Sorry if I offended anyone - I ask this question for science. > > PS: While we’re at it, why is it taboo to dig up a grave that’s 100 years old, but not to go rummaging around in Egypt? I believe you would be best served using mass graves and probably from the military/a military action. Compare something like the mass grave at Vilnius to the one found at Gloucester. Better yet the Roman mass grave found in Germany years back as those were “battle dead”. Yes, using the military as an average could carry a certain bias but not as much as picking graves at random would be accused of. ---
**Author:** ![rhubarbarin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rhubarbarin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhubarbarin)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/58 "2010-07-30T01:42:14Z")
Yes, the average height of populations will change by few inches as time goes by and conditions change. Skeletons have been dated and measured to establish how and when it happens. Interestingly, skeletons from the Paleolithic area have been found to have modern average heights. Average heights and weights are mostly related to the amount and quality of the food you eat, and your living conditions (infections, diseases and pests stunt growth). There are groups of people who have been on the taller side and well-built for many hundreds of years, and there are many groups of people who had sub-par lifestyles that led to short average heights across populations. Here in America we seem to focus on all the European and early American data, and artifacts left behind that indicate many people were small… People were smaller in general during many periods of time, because much of Europe and many early Americans had horrific nutrition, frequent food shortages, lived in filthy, crowded conditions and had tons of diseases for the last few hundred years. I’ve seen it plenty of times first-hand. Tiny Thai, Vietnamese or Guatemalan parents who grew up during tough times in their home country have their kids in America, and the children are the same height as their parents when they are 10 years old. I know a couple (they are elderly now, who knows what they went through as children in Mexico) who both have to be under 5’ tall, and their 2 sons ended up literally a foot taller than them and had tall children themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Captain\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/59 "2010-07-30T06:36:51Z")
Here is a list of USA Presidents and their heights. Not that I used different colors depending on the time that they served in office, basically about 70 years apart, give or take. Pre-Civil War-1789-1860 Red Civil War to WWII-1865-1945 Blue Post WWII 1945-Today Black * * * 6 ft 4 in 193 cm \*\* Abraham Lincoln \*\* (Note-If Kerry was elected in 2004, he would be the tallest President) 6 ft 3½ in 192 cm \*\* Lyndon B. Johnson \*\* 6 ft 2½ in 189 cm **Thomas Jefferson** 6 ft 2 in 188 cm **George Washington** [6][9] **Chester A. Arthur** [6] **Franklin D. Roosevelt[6]** **George H. W. Bush[6][10]** \*\*Bill Clinton[6][11][10] \*\* 6 ft 1 in 185 cm **Andrew Jackson** [6][12] **Ronald Reagan Barack Obama** 6 ft 0 in 183 cm **James Monroe** **John Tyler** **James Buchanan** [6] **James A. Garfield** **Warren G. Harding** **John F. Kennedy** **Gerald Ford** 5 ft 11 in 180 cm **20 William Howard Taft[15]** **Herbert Hoover[16]** **Richard Nixon** [6][14] **George W. Bush** [17][18] 5 ft 11½ in 182 cm \*\* 5 ft 11 in 180 cm Grover Cleveland[6]\*\* \*\*Woodrow Wilson[6][19] \*\* 5 ft 10½ in 179 cm **Dwight D. Eisenhower** [6] 5 ft 10 in 178 cm **Franklin Pierce** **Andrew Johnson[6]** **Theodore Roosevelt[6][13]** \*\*Calvin Coolidge[6] \*\* 5 ft 9½ in 177 cm **Jimmy Carter** [6][14] 5 ft 9 in 175 cm **Millard Fillmore[6]** **Harry S. Truman** [6] 5 ft 8½ in 174 cm \*\*Rutherford B. Hayes \*\* 5 ft 8 in 173 cm **William Henry Harrison** [6] **James K. Polk** [6][21] **Zachary Taylor** [6][13] \*\*Ulysses S. Grant \*\* 5 ft 7½ in 171 cm **John Quincy Adams** [23] 5 ft 7 in 170 cm **John Adams** \*\*William McKinley[/B 5 ft 6 in 168 cm **41 Benjamin Harrison[25]** **Martin Van Buren** [26] 5 ft 4 in 163 cm **James Madison** [6][27] Pre-Civil War (1790-1860) (Washington to Buchanan) Over 6 feet tall--------------------6 men Between 5’10" and 6’-------------1 man Under 5’10"------------------ 8 men Civil War to WWII (1865-1945) (Lincoln to Hoover) Over 6 feet tall --------------------4 men Between 5’10" and 6’-------------- 7 men Under 5’10"----------------------4 men Post WWII (1945-) (FDR to Obama) Over 6 feet tall -----------------8 men Between 5’10" and 6’-----------3 men Under 5’10"---------------------2 men Total 43 Presidents (even though Obama is 44, he is the 43rd person to be President because Grover Cleveland was counted twice because of non-consecutive terms.) Over 6 feet Post WWII–8 Pre Civil War–6 Civil to WWII–4 Between 5’10" and 6’ Civil to WWII----7 men Post WWII----3 men Pre Civil—1 man Under 5’10" Pre Civil-8 men Civil to WWII–4 men Post Civil—2 men. Actually, I think this is a fairly average spectrum of heights. If aliens from outer space abducted 43 middle aged men for study, this would be the spectrum that they would get. Nutrition helped a lot in making people taller. Many of the earlier Presidents were not tall people probably because of this fact. In my opinion, they ate much healthier than the shit we eat now, the problem was that many diseases which are easy to treat today killed many of them. Food, however healthy (lots of vegetables, little sugar, or fattening processed crap like today) it may not be safe due to the cleanliness of the prodict and the lack of refrigeration. Many of the Presidents, especially the early to mid 19th Century Presidents, were outdoorsmen out of necessity and stayed in shape living on the frontier. Even for the rich and the gentry, life was a lot harder than now, which required survival of the fittest. Lincoln however was not the tallest because he was the healthiest. Probably being his height was due to some health or genetic problem. Lincoln probably would have died in his second term if he wasn’t killed. My assumption, yes, people were a little shorter and lighter 150 to 200 years ago, simply because of diet. The ones who did not succumb to a host of illnesses and diseases made up for the slightness through muscle and hard work. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921/60 "2010-07-30T13:51:02Z")
Keep in mind that during the 19th century we were awfully short for a lot of reasons, mostly associated IIRC with everybody picking up and moving to the city. So yes, Lincoln was a huge man for the time, but the time was shorter than average. [This](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/abraham-lincoln/pictures/linloln-troops-650.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln-troops.htm&usg=__5wlQx68RgIDHdnHGj57bUWaq408=&h=558&w=650&sz=110&hl=en&start=0&sig2=UvVqezg_81kQTSDty_IwEA&tbnid=bWaCvl0bVCnn6M:&tbnh=140&tbnw=177&ei=fNhSTKy7E8P58AaX_7n8Ag&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlincoln%2Bunion%2Bsoldiers%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D573%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C342&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=560&vpy=39&dur=1895&hovh=208&hovw=242&tx=174&ty=137&page=1&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0&biw=1024&bih=573) is one of my favorite Lincoln pictures - “Holy shit it’s a giant!” The average height of a soldier in the Civil War was around 5’7", though. So really he’s only a bit taller than my dad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-humans-a-lot-smaller-200-years-ago/224921.md?page=2)