Was Dick Whittington taller than those he left behind? Anthropometric measures, migration and the quality of life in early nineteenth century London?

Abstract

Using a new source of evidence we explore the geographical mobility of mid-nineteenth century seamen. Among seamen born outside London, the tall, the literate and those who could remember the exact day, month and year when they were born -characteristics that we suggest mark them out as men with more choices in life -were more likely to migrate to London. Contrary to what might be inferred from contemporary descriptions of urban disamenities or from persistent differentials in mortality, London appears as a desirable destination for those who could choose. The conclusion must be that London was not so bad, and we should adjust our perception of the problems of urbanisation accordingly, with implications for the wider debate on the standard of living during the industrial revolution. The paper's methodological innovation is the use of height as an explanatory variable in the analysis of migration. Although correlated with other variables that are routinely used in anthropometric studies to indicate life chances, such as literacy and the ability to recall date of birth, height has many advantages over these alternatives in that it exhibits higher levels of significance, and is more flexible. Moreover while literacy and heaping are in essence binary variables, height is a (near) continuous one, and one that allows us to test for linear and non-linear responses, as we do with interesting results in this paper. Perhaps the most fruitful use of height in historical analyses may turn out to be as an explanatory variable; at the very least such a research strategy provides anthropometric historians with fresh opportunities.

Interpreting adult stature in industrial London

“…The mass influx of laborers might have influenced the results here, particularly if migration was selective and favored more robust individuals. Although migrants may have faced novel disease environments in their new place of residence, and therefore been at an immunological disadvantage (McNeill, ; Landers, ), evidence seems to suggest that migration was selective and that those who migrated were generally taller and no more susceptible to infectious diseases in their new environments than native inhabitants (Williamson, ; Humphries and Leunig, ; Davenport et al, ; DeWitte et al, ). If migrant laborers were indeed taller and less frail, having avoided the perils of childhood in the crowded city of London, this could potentially explain the negligible differences in stature between the low‐ and high‐status samples and obscure any relationships between stature and mortality in the low‐status sample.…”

North and south: A comprehensive analysis of non‐adult growth and health in the industrial revolution (AD 18th–19th C), England

“…The detrimental living conditions of the industrial environment inevitably led to increased morbidity and mortality and was said to be “peculiarly severe on infant life” (Report of the Commissioners, : p. 5). Social and economic historians have written extensively on the impact of industrialization on the growth and health of children throughout England during this period (Floud, Wachter, & Gregory, ; Humphries & Leunig, ; Kirby, ; Nicholas & Steckel, ; Oxley, ; Sharpe, ; Voth & Leunig, ). Bioarchaeological studies of urban health in 18th and 19th century England, however, currently have a strong London‐based bias (for some examples, see Hassett, ; Henderson, Lee‐Thorp, & Loe, ; Ives & Brickley, , Ives & Humphrey, ; King, Humphrey, & Hillson, ; Lewis, , Lewis, ; Pinhasi, Shaw, White, & Ogden, ).…”

Labour migration and economic performance: London and the Randstad, c. 1600-18001

“…2.5, p. 48. For a similar view to that of Earle, see Humphries and Leunig, ‘Whittington’. In we will, however, see that the migration patterns based on the apprenticeship records are very similar to those reconstructed using the national census of 1851.…”