Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Avg. Height of East Asians(1930s) Posted: 06-Jan-2006 at 11:44 |
I found this stastics while surfing the net. This is avg. height of East Asian people during 1930s. I think this data represnt height of each East Asian people before modern times. Since, this is the time before industrilization and improved diet increased avg. height of East Asians.
Anyway, the tallest people in East Asia in 1930s were people from Hebei province(near Beijing) while the shortest people in East Asia was from Okinawa, Japan.
Following are avg. height of East Asian during 1930s.
1. Korea:
Northern Provinces (Today's North Korea): 166.0cm
Central Provinces (Near Seoul): 163.3 cm
Southern Provinces: 161.7 cm
Tallest Province: HamKyong 166.7cm
Shortest Province: Chungchung 161.74cm
2. Mongolians
Kalkas: 165.4 cm
Balgas: 165.3 cm
Buriyat: 164 cm
3. Tungus
Manchu: 164.2 cm
Solon: 163. 8 cm
Orchon: 160.8 cm
Dahru: 162.59 cm
4. Japan:
Ganto: 159.4 cm
Kinki: 161.3 cm
Sikoku: 160.2 cm
Kitakyushu: 160 cm
Okinawa: 156.9 cm
5. China:
Northern Provinces: 167.6 cm
Southern Provinces: 162.2 cm
Tallest Province: Hebei 168.9 cm
Shortest Province: Hunan 161.5 cm. Guangdong 161.7 cm
Edited by changkun
|
|
stupidumboy
Knight
Joined: 28-Mar-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 10:26 |
interesting ,thank you but
Where is the source?
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 12:56 |
Is that for men or men and women. If it's the latter it's not a lot different from now.
|
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 14:00 |
Height is mostly concerned with diet, namely the amount of protein and fat int he diet. Poor and older Chinese remain short, but I have seen many new generation Chinese who are just as tall if not taller than Brits.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 14:01 |
I found this info on one of the Korean forum (dcinside). He did not mention his original source. So I don't know what his original source is.
And I am pretty sure that the above average is for men.
|
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 05:12 |
Originally posted by changkun
I found this info on one of the Korean forum (dcinside). He did not mention his original source. So I don't know what his original source is.
And I am pretty sure that the above average is for men.
|
can you provide the source of that forum too please.
Also, I am not sure about all the datas presented above, but they do confirm what i heard so far that Chinese are the tallest of all East Asians. It correlated with these measures of Chinese:
Tallest Province: Hebei 168.9 cm
Shortest Province: Hunan 161.5 cm. Guangdong 161.7 cm
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
|
|
Conan the destroyer
Samurai
Joined: 21-Jun-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 20:01 |
Todays statistics indicate that northern Han Chinese are the tallest east Asians. With northeast China having the highest average height at 177cm.
http://www.newsunday.com/blogview.asp?logID=456
|
|
Qin Dynasty
Shogun
Joined: 08-Jan-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 22:16 |
The diet influences huge, not only height, also constitution, China now is ranking 10 among the fattest countries, the only developing country in top 10. Traditional food has been giving way to Western fast food.
|
|
I/eye
Baron
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 498
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 00:11 |
Originally posted by changkun
I found this info on one of the Korean forum (dcinside). He did not mention his original source. So I don't know what his original source is.
And I am pretty sure that the above average is for men.
|
huk.. yukgal-in?
-------------------------------------------
the original poster said the koreans stats are from 1930-34 and others are somewhat different but mostly before 1945
and that the sitting height was all similar, although standing heights differ.
Edited by I/eye
|
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-May-2006 at 02:09 |
They are in fact Non-Han-Chinese as a matter of physionomics, though they may believe they are Han-Chinese, due to psychological cinicization. In fact, the true Han-Chinese were one of the smallest -statured nation and thus, the Northern Non-Chinese called them "Dwarfs (Neikan in Dagur, Nikan in Manchu)". The Han Chinese also traditionally recorded that Non-Han ethnies had taller and bigger body, as we can see from the names of "Chang Yi" (Long Barbarians: Koreans, Tungus), Gao Yi (Tall Barbarians: Koreans) and Ren Pang Da (Humans extremely big: Koreans). He Bei, Shan Dong and Dong Bei (North-East) people are the typical Non-Chinese (Mongolic, Koreano-Tungus) people or a mixture of all these ethnic groups, at least physically, though they mistakenly believe they are Han-Chinese. The southern Chinese (in particular Hagga, Min, and probably Guangdong) are the true Han-Chinese, relatively pure in terms of blood, in comparison to Northerners.
Edited by Shigintang
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-May-2006 at 08:47 |
OK. Enough is enough. I am fed up with infantile posts like those posted by Singintang and Dayanhan that serve no purpose but to hijack every single thread and turn it into opportunities to denigrate another nation and to provoke anger from fellow forumers. Whether you two are identical twins or clones of one another, I don't care. If you harbour so much hatred and contempt towards people from another country, join a hate group where you can find ignorant and idiotic like-minded people like you instead of a HISTORY discussion forum. A history forum is for intelligent people to discuss historical issues. You certainly don't qualify to be members of us.
So consider this your first OFFICIAL WARNING. You either change your attitude or quit. (I suggest the latter.)
Violation of AE Code of Couduct
B. Inappropriate posting
3.Trolling ; Trolling is the act of posting witty, response-provoking comments that appear relevant in order to disrupt the discussion, annoy or create attention. Trolling can also be considered as Spam, inflammatory remarks, or annoyance.
5. Rude insults, defamatory remarks, personal attacks, words of hate. Any remarks that stirs up anger. In dealing with flame wars, comments that started the flame war will have more weight in terms of violation.
6. Nationalism, derogatory remarks to national or ethnic groups, jingoism, bigotry, racism, political propaganda. (see appendix below)
7. Derogatory remarks to individual members or social groups on grounds of their age, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
8. Negative attitude; tone of confrontation, annoyance, or contempt; disrespectful toward other members.
Possible violation of 2 too.
2. Spam: Spam is defined as irrelevant, wrongly placed, or redundant messages posted for attention in the Forum or sent via PM as unsolicited mail. Spam will be deleted from the forum, and constitutes a violation of use. Posting under multiple user-names by an individual member is also considered as spamming.
|
|
The Charioteer
Colonel
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 735
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-May-2006 at 11:54 |
@Shingintang
You do realise that the term Han(Chinese) is named after Han dynasty, and Han dynasty is called Han is after its founder LiuBang's earlier political title in which he was assigned king of Han by XiangYu(who overthrew the Qin dynasty). and the reason hes called King of Han is because LiuBang was assigned to the place of HanZhong, HanZhong got its name from the Han river near it.
Its just like Tang dynasty is called Tang because its founder LiYuan had his political title named after that of ancient Tang kingdom in Shanxi province.
Whether we are called Han or Tang or Chu(if Chu rather than Qin or Han dynasty prevailed), we'd still be the (Han)Chinese people.
This is unique part of Chinese culture, just like QuYuan(Chu poet and patriot) or XiangYan(Chu general) had two different surnames, does not dilute their identity that they are related to the royal lineage of the Chu ruling household of Mi. They got the seperate names of Qu and Xiang because their old generation were assigned to the fiefdom after places named Qu and Xiang. But whether its Qu or Xiang, much like whether its Qin or Chu or Han, they are still the same people.
You think Han-Chinese came from nowhere but only during the Han or Zhou era or Qin's unification? or even a "modern construct", you have been ignorant if you think so.
Both former KMT leaders LianZhan and Chiangkaishek are direct descendants of legendary Huangdi. Chiang's grandson JiangXiaoYan visited Huangdi burial place in ShannXi province paying homage to his ancestor. LianZhan's grandfather LianHeng resisted Japanese occupation of Taiwan, as he wrote in his history of Taiwan, referring himself as direct descendant of the Yellow emperor.
The Jiang(Chiang) family regard themselves to be Huangdi's offspring because the surname Jiang was after a vassal kingdom of "spring&autumn" also named Jiang, the ruler of Jiang kingdom had the surname Ji, related to Zhou household. As their kingdom was weak and eventually engulfed by other powerful kingdoms, their named themselves after their kingdom ever after.
LianZhan and LianHeng's family name Lian originated from a person called HuiLian, HuiLian is the third son of LuZhong, LuZhong is great-grand son of Zhuan Xu, Zhuan Xu is grandson of Huangdi.(the Yellow emperor) Thats why they regard themselves so.
Edited by The Charioteer - 21-May-2006 at 11:55
|
|