6 ms·

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 th

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.
- pixodaros 2y ago
  You are citing the preliminary study by Angel in 1945 (published when Greece was recently liberated from military occupation and moving towards civil war!) not the 1985 study by Angel and others which Kron cites. In his later work, Angel and colleagues decided that the first estimate had been too short. As a general rule, its best to check the most RECENT publication on a subject, especially in fields like natural science where data grows and methods improve over time. You wouldn't rely on computer science papers from 1945 without seeing if the art had developed since then would you?
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    Post a link to the 1985 study. Here's one from 2023: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-023-01744-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-023-01744-1 In any case, there's really no good reason to never mention the 1945 studies at all when they're still cited today. It's bad practice.
    - pixodaros 2y ago
      Its not open access because it was a book published in 1985! You have to do a little bit of work to research this like any subject but I provided a link to an open-access paper which summarizes it and two other studies (your local public library can probably get you a copy through interlibrary loan). Its not standard practice to cite obsolete papers and 1945 is obsolete in almost any field of research. I have no idea why the chapter in "Men of Bronze" picked a paper from 1945 as its source of Truth about Ancient Heights but I suspect it was the first thing the author could find that seemed to support the predetermined conclusion. Remember that in 1945 statistics was pencil-and-paper!
      - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
        I didn't ask for open access. Any link would have sufficed. Without any of that, how do you know that "Angel and colleagues decided that the first estimate had been too short"? Based on what? What did they say? If you are correct, why didn't Angel publish a correction to his previous article? Why is it that most of Angel's 1945 article's citations come after 1985 and indeed after 2005? (>20 citations since 2005, of 27 total on CrossRef.) Ultimately, what you're saying doesn't make much sense. It's either bad science and bad publishing practices, or you are mistaken. (I'd argue that Kron is basically unethical, in any case. There's absolutely no reason not to mention the popular and much-cited 1945 work, even if only to highlight its errors and note that it has been superseded. He covered it up and is guilty of worse cherry-picking than you accused the book authors of.) Also, that exhaustive 2023 review finds results which are much closer to Angel's 1945 paper -- and indeed cites that paper -- rather than to whatever you're claiming happened in 1985. So by your own argument Angel's 1985 study is now irrelevant and no longer matters.

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.

pixodaros 2y ago
You are citing the preliminary study by Angel in 1945 (published when Greece was recently liberated from military occupation and moving towards civil war!) not the 1985 study by Angel and others which Kron cites. In his later work, Angel and colleagues decided that the first estimate had been too short. As a general rule, its best to check the most RECENT publication on a subject, especially in fields like natural science where data grows and methods improve over time. You wouldn't rely on computer science papers from 1945 without seeing if the art had developed since then would you?
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  Post a link to the 1985 study. Here's one from 2023: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-023-01744-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-023-01744-1 In any case, there's really no good reason to never mention the 1945 studies at all when they're still cited today. It's bad practice.
  - pixodaros 2y ago
    Its not open access because it was a book published in 1985! You have to do a little bit of work to research this like any subject but I provided a link to an open-access paper which summarizes it and two other studies (your local public library can probably get you a copy through interlibrary loan). Its not standard practice to cite obsolete papers and 1945 is obsolete in almost any field of research. I have no idea why the chapter in "Men of Bronze" picked a paper from 1945 as its source of Truth about Ancient Heights but I suspect it was the first thing the author could find that seemed to support the predetermined conclusion. Remember that in 1945 statistics was pencil-and-paper!
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      I didn't ask for open access. Any link would have sufficed. Without any of that, how do you know that "Angel and colleagues decided that the first estimate had been too short"? Based on what? What did they say? If you are correct, why didn't Angel publish a correction to his previous article? Why is it that most of Angel's 1945 article's citations come after 1985 and indeed after 2005? (>20 citations since 2005, of 27 total on CrossRef.) Ultimately, what you're saying doesn't make much sense. It's either bad science and bad publishing practices, or you are mistaken. (I'd argue that Kron is basically unethical, in any case. There's absolutely no reason not to mention the popular and much-cited 1945 work, even if only to highlight its errors and note that it has been superseded. He covered it up and is guilty of worse cherry-picking than you accused the book authors of.) Also, that exhaustive 2023 review finds results which are much closer to Angel's 1945 paper -- and indeed cites that paper -- rather than to whatever you're claiming happened in 1985. So by your own argument Angel's 1985 study is now irrelevant and no longer matters.