11 ms·

At the same time though, warriors would not be chosen at random from the population. In pretty much every society you get a warrior caste who first of all were

by jjk166 2y ago

At the same time though, warriors would not be chosen at random from the population. In pretty much every society you get a warrior caste who first of all were descended from the victors of some battle or another, selecting for one end of the physiological spectrum. Then members of this class tend to interbreed, leading to a genetic predisposition towards height. They likewise often have better access to nutritious foods than people in lower castes, which helps achieve taller heights (and is the primary reason for modern tallness). Even from this warrior class, not everyone would actually wind up fighting - military units would further select the tallest and strongest to be their elite forces. So if you find a sword, it's a pretty safe bet the person who wielded it was taller than average for the time period.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
If anything, the analysis of skeletal remains has been criticized for the opposite reason. Here from the book "Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece": > "John Lawrence Angel, who in 1945 examined skeletal remains exhumed in Attica, put the average height of the Greek male in antiquity at no more than 162.2 cm, and of the female at 153.3 cm. It should be pointed out, however, that these data accrue from a rather scanty sample material: 61 male and 43 female skeletons from Attica, as against a total of 225 datable males and 132 females in all of Greece proper.39 Similar results accrue from Angel’s 1944 analysis of all ancient Greek skeletal remains known at the time: here, the result is given as 162.19 cm for males, with a range between extremes of 148 and 175 cm. The result for females overall remains the same. Angel, whose interest was primarily “racial” analysis, lists crania from Attica, Boiotia, Corinthia, and Macedonia; but unfortunately he does not indicate the distribution of more complete skeletons, which may have formed the basis for the calculations. Nevertheless it must be assumed that the average measurements actually represent the average, geographically as well as chronologically." > "The comparatively scanty material notwithstanding, we would be well advised to keep in mind that, in the words of Lin Foxhall and Hamish Forbes, “this sample may be biased in favour of higher socio-economic groups since it is the graves of the comparatively wealthy that are most likely to receive attention from archaeologists.” If this is accepted, it follows that the average Greek male was in fact likely less well nourished, and the skeletons examined by Angel may well belong in the absolute upper percentile." I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that the skeletal remains of hoplites were substantially larger than the stated average. There are a few mass graves, e.g. at Himera, but I can find no height data. Perhaps they were taller by a couple of centimeters, but it strains credulity that it would amount to any more than that. For, as a rule, hoplites were freeholders and yeomen -- military service was a matter of social class and social standing -- they were not conscripted and sorted as though they were 18th century Austrians or Prussians: "Tall men to the halberdiers, short men to the artillery, giants to the Potsdam Giants." That wasn't the way of the Hellenes, and they wouldn't stand for it. The historical record is very clear on this point.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  >Angel, whose interest was primarily “racial” analysis There is a long and sad history of 'race scientists' cherry-picking data to get the results they want (usually that other 'races' are less intelligent), so I would be a bit dubious about any data or analysis they came up with.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    Later findings corroborate his measurements to within a fraction of a centimeter. The main point of criticism was that the ornate and well-kept tombs he investigated belonged to the upper classes, so might not have been representative of society at large. Too tall on average, perhaps. In any case, there's nothing to suggest that hoplites were substantially taller than that stated average ~162cm.
    - hermitcrab 2y ago
      >Later findings corroborate his measurements to within a fraction of a centimeter. Thanks. I'm not familiar with this particular person's work.
    - pixodaros 2y ago
      See this paper by Geoffrey Kron which shows later studies (some of them by the same authors) in which adult males from classical Greece were about as tall as the dead men from Tollense battlefield https://www.academia.edu/361745/Anthropometry_Physical_Anthropology_and_the_Reconstruction_of_Ancient_Health_Nutrition_and_Living_Standards https://www.academia.edu/361745/Anthropometry_Physical_Anthr... That chapter in "Men of Bronze" was written by someone who started with a conclusion and cherrypicked anything which seemed like an argument for it.
      - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
        There is some error here, because the Kron paper quotes Angel as the source of that result. Angel's results are here: > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330040109 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330040109 ("Stature 162.19cm.") > https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/146687.pdf https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/146687.pdf ("Mean male stature of 162.2 cm.") In other words, Kron either made an honest mistake and misquoted or failed to find relevant data, or quite literally cherry-picked it himself! Could it be that he was unaware of this? Why not mention it? Besides, if anything, Kron seems as though he worked backwards from his conclusion, because much of his paper laments how far early-modern man had fallen! > The contrast with the early modem period is dramatic. The average height of Italian conscripts born in 1854 was a mere 162.64 cm, over 5 cm or 2 inches shorter than deceased Romans. > ...clearly demonstrates that the standards of nutrition and health achieved by the Romans and, more importantly, by the Hellenistic Greeks are indeed credible for a pre-industrial society, and gives us some idea of the sort of heights which can be achieved by well-fed individuals without the benefit of modem health care, nutritional science, or informed precautions against bacteria and sources of infection, and with limited attention to pure drinking water and sanitation Angel's data destroys many of the main points he was trying to make. Little wonder he had to hide/misquote it, if indeed that's what he did. In any case, there are other more recent analyses, and none of them give an average height of 1.7m in Ancient Greece. All are somewhere between 1.6 and 1.675m, settling around 1.63 or 1.64m for an Iron Age population.

by jjk166 2y ago

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

If anything, the analysis of skeletal remains has been criticized for the opposite reason. Here from the book "Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece": > "John Lawrence Angel, who in 1945 examined skeletal remains exhumed in Attica, put the average height of the Greek male in antiquity at no more than 162.2 cm, and of the female at 153.3 cm. It should be pointed out, however, that these data accrue from a rather scanty sample material: 61 male and 43 female skeletons from Attica, as against a total of 225 datable males and 132 females in all of Greece proper.39 Similar results accrue from Angel’s 1944 analysis of all ancient Greek skeletal remains known at the time: here, the result is given as 162.19 cm for males, with a range between extremes of 148 and 175 cm. The result for females overall remains the same. Angel, whose interest was primarily “racial” analysis, lists crania from Attica, Boiotia, Corinthia, and Macedonia; but unfortunately he does not indicate the distribution of more complete skeletons, which may have formed the basis for the calculations. Nevertheless it must be assumed that the average measurements actually represent the average, geographically as well as chronologically." > "The comparatively scanty material notwithstanding, we would be well advised to keep in mind that, in the words of Lin Foxhall and Hamish Forbes, “this sample may be biased in favour of higher socio-economic groups since it is the graves of the comparatively wealthy that are most likely to receive attention from archaeologists.” If this is accepted, it follows that the average Greek male was in fact likely less well nourished, and the skeletons examined by Angel may well belong in the absolute upper percentile." I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that the skeletal remains of hoplites were substantially larger than the stated average. There are a few mass graves, e.g. at Himera, but I can find no height data. Perhaps they were taller by a couple of centimeters, but it strains credulity that it would amount to any more than that. For, as a rule, hoplites were freeholders and yeomen -- military service was a matter of social class and social standing -- they were not conscripted and sorted as though they were 18th century Austrians or Prussians: "Tall men to the halberdiers, short men to the artillery, giants to the Potsdam Giants." That wasn't the way of the Hellenes, and they wouldn't stand for it. The historical record is very clear on this point.

hermitcrab 2y ago
>Angel, whose interest was primarily “racial” analysis There is a long and sad history of 'race scientists' cherry-picking data to get the results they want (usually that other 'races' are less intelligent), so I would be a bit dubious about any data or analysis they came up with.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  Later findings corroborate his measurements to within a fraction of a centimeter. The main point of criticism was that the ornate and well-kept tombs he investigated belonged to the upper classes, so might not have been representative of society at large. Too tall on average, perhaps. In any case, there's nothing to suggest that hoplites were substantially taller than that stated average ~162cm.
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    >Later findings corroborate his measurements to within a fraction of a centimeter. Thanks. I'm not familiar with this particular person's work.
  - pixodaros 2y ago
    See this paper by Geoffrey Kron which shows later studies (some of them by the same authors) in which adult males from classical Greece were about as tall as the dead men from Tollense battlefield https://www.academia.edu/361745/Anthropometry_Physical_Anthropology_and_the_Reconstruction_of_Ancient_Health_Nutrition_and_Living_Standards https://www.academia.edu/361745/Anthropometry_Physical_Anthr... That chapter in "Men of Bronze" was written by someone who started with a conclusion and cherrypicked anything which seemed like an argument for it.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      There is some error here, because the Kron paper quotes Angel as the source of that result. Angel's results are here: > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330040109 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330040109 ("Stature 162.19cm.") > https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/146687.pdf https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/146687.pdf ("Mean male stature of 162.2 cm.") In other words, Kron either made an honest mistake and misquoted or failed to find relevant data, or quite literally cherry-picked it himself! Could it be that he was unaware of this? Why not mention it? Besides, if anything, Kron seems as though he worked backwards from his conclusion, because much of his paper laments how far early-modern man had fallen! > The contrast with the early modem period is dramatic. The average height of Italian conscripts born in 1854 was a mere 162.64 cm, over 5 cm or 2 inches shorter than deceased Romans. > ...clearly demonstrates that the standards of nutrition and health achieved by the Romans and, more importantly, by the Hellenistic Greeks are indeed credible for a pre-industrial society, and gives us some idea of the sort of heights which can be achieved by well-fed individuals without the benefit of modem health care, nutritional science, or informed precautions against bacteria and sources of infection, and with limited attention to pure drinking water and sanitation Angel's data destroys many of the main points he was trying to make. Little wonder he had to hide/misquote it, if indeed that's what he did. In any case, there are other more recent analyses, and none of them give an average height of 1.7m in Ancient Greece. All are somewhere between 1.6 and 1.675m, settling around 1.63 or 1.64m for an Iron Age population.