Iron Age War Grave

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

Thanks
The roman foot has 29,3cm in metric-system, but i have really problems to transfer the english mile, foot, inch and pint in the metric system :|

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yeah, me too. Spent all my school life working in metric, then went offshore and not only was it all in barrels and feet, but the 'inches' were actually tenths of an inch, just to really confuse you. :lol:

[Urselius]

Homo ergaster and related types were relatively tall. As were the early modern humans in Europe. From the introduction of agriculture there has been a tendency for people to become less robust and shorter. Other changes occurred when agriculture was adopted, such as the development of the overbite (where the upper front incisors project in front of the lower incisors when the mouth is closed), hunter-gatherers usually show edge on edge occlusion of incisors. The trend in the diminution of body size only reversed in the last century or so, with improved diet. This is possibly a blip in an otherwise general trend towards smaller body size since the end of the Mesolithic period.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmmmm, smaller and less robust....that sounds definately insulting....... :wink:

[tommy303]

hmmmm, 29.3cm for a Roman foot = 11.5 imperial inches, so 6 Roman feet = 5.75 feet Imperial, or 5-ft. 9-inches imperial.

[Urselius]

Hmmmm, smaller and less robust....that sounds definately insulting....... :wink:

Well I can't think of any aspect of modern life where being big and robust is of any practical advantage. Fitting into small economical cars and aeroplane seats isn't easy or comfortable if you're large and having big banana fingers is positive disadvantage in using computers and other digital technology. Plus there are no mammoths left to hit on the head, where size and robusticity would be an advantage.

[Medicus matt]

Hmmmm, smaller and less robust....that sounds definately insulting....... :wink:

Well I can't think of any aspect of modern life where being big and robust is of any practical advantage.

Playing rugby as a second row.
Getting served in pubs
Scaring off chavs.
Seeing over the heads of smaller, punnier mortals at concerts.

6'3" and fairly robust.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

5'7" and fairly robust......the insulting part is the suggestion that shorter people are less robust!!
Lower center of gravity.
Can sneak under the guard of taller individuals to get to the bar.
can reach the important parts of a womans boby with out having to contort into awkward positions........ :wink:
Less wind resistance...
Require less metal to cover body wit harmour.....economical to equip! :mrgreen:

[Urselius]

5'7" and fairly robust......the insulting part is the suggestion that shorter people are less robust!!
Lower center of gravity.
Can sneak under the guard of taller individuals to get to the bar.
can reach the important parts of a womans boby with out having to contort into awkward positions........ :wink:
Less wind resistance...
Require less metal to cover body wit harmour.....economical to equip! :mrgreen:

Neanderthals were short, and far more robust than any modern humans. :wink:

The trend is to both shorter stature and less robusticity, the two features are not necessarily genetically linked, either in an individual or a population. I'm below average height but broad shouldered and deep chested, with a remarkably thick skull, I'm not 'gracile' at all.

The move from a meat, fish and fruit heavy diet to one reliant mainly on cereals and dairy products with the introduction of agriculture seems to have shifted body proportions downward, though not uniformly. The effects of contagious disease in the higher density of population allowed by agriculture and later urbanisation probably had some effect on the relative survival of large bodied genotypes. There is evidence that Europe had a more diverse genetic make up before the Black Death.