## On the trail of hobbits?

Expand Messages
• ... European ... somewhere ... I can just imagine the 2-foot-long suits of armor and the 2 1/2-foot-tall horses they were using in those days of chivalry...
Message 1 of 11 , Mar 2, 2000

> As a result of public health, today the
> average American is a full meter taller than European ancestors were
> in 1400.

To which I replied:

>What in G-d's name are they talking about?? The =average= American won't
>reach 6 feet, I am sure. A meter is, if I recall, 3 feet 4 in. Thus, our
European
>ancestors were an amazing bunch of hobbits running around measuring
somewhere
>in the 2 feet, 2 feet 6 in, 3 feet range?

I can just imagine the 2-foot-long suits of armor and the 2 1/2-foot-tall
horses they were using in those days of chivalry... there must be some in
museums, the armor, I mean, not the horses.

Mary S
• I just tried to look up what the actual difference in average height is between now and 1400. The best guess seems to be about two or three inches (caused by
Message 2 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
I just tried to look up what the actual difference in average height is
between now and 1400. The best guess seems to be about two or three inches
(caused by things like improved nutrition and such). The average height of
adult American men now is 5' 9.0" and of adult American women is 5' 3.6",
incidentally.

Wendell Wagner
• In a message dated 3/3/00 2:54:52 AM Central Standard Time, ... Good luck! I tried that on the Web when we had this discussion awhile ago on another List,
Message 3 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
In a message dated 3/3/00 2:54:52 AM Central Standard Time,
WendellWag@... writes:

> I just tried to look up what the actual difference in average height is
> between now and 1400

Good luck! I tried that on the Web when we had this discussion awhile ago
on another List, and kept getting sites for role-playing games: how high is
the Human who is combatting the Troll, and how many points to assign them,
etc. It was v annoying!

Role-playing games and rock bands are tops for generating false hits for
otherwise sensible words. Plus genealogy sites, if you are trying to look
up any author who has a name a bit more ordinary than, say, "J.R.R. Tolkien."

Mary S
• In a message dated 03/03/2000 2:56:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Stolzi@aol.com writes:
Message 4 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
In a message dated 03/03/2000 2:56:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Stolzi@... writes:

<< Role-playing games and rock bands are tops for generating false hits for
otherwise sensible words. >>
Well, uh, some gamers are also history and/or literature buffs. Just a
matter of asking the right person.

Lizzie
• Stolzi@aol.com wrote: Thus, our European ancestors were an amazing bunch of hobbits running around measuring somewhere in the 2 feet, 2 feet 6 in, 3 feet
Message 5 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
Stolzi@... wrote:

"Thus, our European ancestors were an amazing bunch of hobbits running
around measuring somewhere in the 2 feet, 2 feet 6 in, 3 feet range?

I can just imagine the 2-foot-long suits of armor and the 2 1/2-foot-tall
horses they were using in those days of chivalry... there must be some in
museums"

There is... and it does look a bit large for Hobbits! ;-) though rather too
small for the average modern man. The range might be more like 5 feet, 5
feet 10". Still, knights had to be tough. I remember being told in school
that a knight in full armour would have been carrying 30-35 kgs of metal on
his body, which considerably hampered their mobility. I also remember a
display in a museum in England, explaining that their chargers were huge
horses of the Clydesdale type, because these were the only ones that didn't
collapse under the weight of the armour (the horse also wore some armoured
protection of its own, besides having to carry the knight and his stuff,
which would probably amount to ca. 100 kg).

Other examples for comparison: in Haworth Parsonage, one of Charlotte
Bront�'s actual dresses (adult size) is displayed. She writes somewhere that
she was undersized, being something under 5 feet, and the dress bears this
out. The dress is in fact pretty small - today it would barely fit a petite
10 year-old (You wouldn't believe how tiny that waist is!).

Still smaller are the petrified Roman bodies that were excavated at Pompeii.
When you actually see them, it's hard to believe they weren't all children,
even taking into account that they must have been shrivelled by the hot
ashes which buried them.
The Romans were known to be of small stature - but even these must have been
at least 4 feet tall...

Also, different European peoples had different average sizes during the same
period. The Gauls often seemed gigantic to the Romans.

So, even though people today are as an average somewhat taller than their
medieval ancestors, that "full meter" difference reads more like a joke from
Marseille (people there love exaggerating...)than like any kind of serious
fact...

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@...
• In a message dated 3/3/00 4:03:46 PM Central Standard Time, ... So was Queen Victoria, if I recall. Geo Washington, on the other hand, was 6 foot three in his
Message 6 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
In a message dated 3/3/00 4:03:46 PM Central Standard Time,
jupalffy@... writes:

> being something under 5 feet,

So was Queen Victoria, if I recall. Geo Washington, on the other hand, was 6
foot three in his prime.

I find that figure about 4-foot Romans hard to believe. We have lots of
life-size Roman statues remaining, has anyone measured them?

Granted, of course, that Northern Europeans on the average were taller than
Mediterraneans. I was told recently on another list that human height is a
genetic given, with max attainment depending on nutrition; people in bygone
ages =who got well fed= reached the same heights as their descendants today -
but of course there were fewer who were well fed. This was from a study
which measured actual buried bones, surviving clothing, etc.

Inbreeding in a given smaller population can produce startling results: viz.
Watusis or Pygmies. And if you want to know, Pygmies measured in the early
1900's, it says here in my 1911 EB, averaged 4 1/2 feet, though some of 3 1/2
or even 3 feet were known.

Just for the record, I measure around 5 ft 7 and 3/4 inches. My mother is 5'
6", my father topped six feet (as do my sons) and my father's mother was 6 ft
tall, unusual in her day and age. Husband Conrad is around 5' 10". Racial
derivation here, on both sides, largely northern European.

Son John went to Carleton College, in Minnesota, and the dorm beds were

Mary S
• In a message dated 3/3/00 2:34:43 PM Central Standard Time, ERATRIANO@aol.com ... True, but I meant you don t get the factual history webpage you are looking
Message 7 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
In a message dated 3/3/00 2:34:43 PM Central Standard Time, ERATRIANO@...
writes:

> << Role-playing games and rock bands are tops for generating false hits for
> otherwise sensible words. >>
> Well, uh, some gamers are also history and/or literature buffs. Just a
> matter of asking the right person.

True, but I meant you don't get the factual history webpage you are looking
for on your word-search. I would never demean or impugn the intelligence of
gamers.

Mary S
• ... Somehow this causes me to think of four-footed Romans, and to imagine statues of Roman soldiers in glistening armour, posed awkwardly with their hands on
Message 8 of 11 , Mar 3, 2000
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 Stolzi@... wrote:

> I find that figure about 4-foot Romans hard to believe. We have lots of
> life-size Roman statues remaining, has anyone measured them?

Somehow this causes me to think of four-footed Romans, and to imagine
statues of Roman soldiers in glistening armour, posed awkwardly with
their hands on the ground and their rears sticking up in the air.

David Bratman
• Stolzi@aol.com wrote: I find that figure about 4-foot Romans hard to believe. We have lots of life-size Roman statues remaining, has anyone measured them? I
Message 9 of 11 , Mar 4, 2000
Stolzi@... wrote:

I find that figure about 4-foot Romans hard to believe. We have lots of
life-size Roman statues remaining, has anyone measured them?

I remember found it hard to believe it too when I saw those petrified
bodies... which is why I suggested the possibility of some "shrivelling" -
but of course, I can't imagine that making more than a couple of inches
difference. It's many years since I visited Pompeii, so my estimate may be a
little wide of the mark, but I think not much.

As to Roman statuary - It would depend on what it was made for in the first
place.
I visited the collection in the Vatican museums last November. There were
too many different sizes to be really sure of which were life-size. Most of
them, as I remember, were funerary statues. They did seem curiously
proportioned in that they were just under what I would define as life-size,
sort of the shape of adults but the height of children.
I think the function of the statues would also influence their size: the
statue of a famous consul or of some divinity, meant to be set up as a
public monument, would be more likely to be carved somewhat oversize to look
more impressive. And family Lares (statues of ancestors) might also depen on
the price the sculptor asked for it or what the family could have afforded.
So I'm not sure statues are a good reference to judge the size of actual
people.

Again, when I think of the Etruscan war-chariot I saw in the same museum, I
think a five-foot man would almost have been too tall for it. I'm not sure
whether it was meant for a single passenger or a charioteer and a passenger
(in the latter case, only hobbits could actually have fitted into it without
falling out at the first jerk!)And yet it certainly wasn't a toy!

Thinking about it, a lot of historical artefacts I've seen in museums are
unnervingly barely just too small to seem realistic - I've often wondered
whether I could really believe what was written on the display label, or
been tempted to think it must have been some kind of ritual object, not
meant for actual wear, or been meant for a child, though it isn't anything
child-like...

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@...
• I m a naturalized German/English type (thank you for that info on Cousin George), around five and a half feet tall and all the men on my side of the family
Message 10 of 11 , Mar 4, 2000
I'm a "naturalized" German/English type (thank you for that info on Cousin
George), around five and a half feet tall and all the men on my side of the
family are 6' or over BUT I married a Northern Irish/Sicilian and most of the
men on the Sicilian side are shorter than me, and of the Northern Irish some
seem very short and others very tall (been there to visit the family)... not
that you care... AND when doing the hitchhiking / train thing in 1985, my
friend and I noticed, crossing the borders coming up from France into
Germany, that everyone suddenly got a few inches taller on average. Didn't
go into Italy and Greece. It's a pretty noticeable trend, if you are just
blundering around prepared to notice it.

Lizzie
• In a message dated 03/03/2000 9:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, Stolzi@aol.com writes:
Message 11 of 11 , Mar 4, 2000
In a message dated 03/03/2000 9:39:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Stolzi@... writes:

<< True, but I meant you don't get the factual history webpage you are
looking
for on your word-search. I would never demean or impugn the intelligence of
gamers. >>
ggg. It's so hard to see expressions on this machine. Actually I get a lot
of false leads when doing web searches. Even using questions. And then the
search engine has the nerve to question my spelling.

Lizzie
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.