Tweet
in a study of English and Irish anthropometrics spanning 1805 to 1914, T.E. Jordan, in the Annals of Human Biology, an article titled Social change, height, and body mass in Victorian youth, 1805-1914, gives the statistical averages of stature by age and social class with the following results. A working class male at the time of the ripper would be 4 foot 3 inches (131.60 cm) at age 9, 5 foot and 1/2 inch (153.Cm) at age 13, and 5 foot and 1/3 inches (173.50 cm) at age 16. Respectfully Dave
-
We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast! -
Well I'd like to talk about the Albert Memorial because I think it's the finest example of....uh, oh sorry....I misread the topic of this thread. -
Dave,
Interesting, but i think the figure for a 16-year-old is in error. If it was 173.5 cm that would be about 5-8 in English measure.
Moreover, while I won't argue with the results without a look at the article, that sounds rather tall for working class youths in the LVP. What I have read suggests that after a century or more of bad nutrition, average height reached a nadir around 1860 and it was only in the last quarter of that century that average height began to rise.
Don.Last edited by Supe; 11-25-2009, 05:43 AM."To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."Comment
-
I will not be roped into ANY discussion regarding gothic revival architecture. My only comment is that the memorial is every bit as gaudy as 120 thousand pounds in 1870's currency could make it.We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!Comment
-
Supe was in fact correct that should read 5 foot eight and a third inches. This reflects a typing error on my part and I am thankful for the correction. Respectfully DaveWe are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!Comment
Comment