1979
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330500312
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Growth in Afro‐Caribbean slave populations

Abstract: Height data for African slave populations in Trinidad, Guyana and other British Caribbean colonies in the early nineteenth century are analyzed and compared with Cuban and United States slave populations. Slaves born in Trinidad and Cuba achieved final heights greater than their African‐born parents, but those born in Guyana were shorter. Afro‐Caribbean slaves living in sugar‐producing colonies showed inferior growth compared to those living in colonies based on less arduous forms of economic activity, such as… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

1982
1982
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Angel (1976) provided osteometric data from American Blacks from several small samples, and he briefly reported on 25 individuals from the Catoctin Furnace cemetery (Angel, 1980;Burnston, 1980a). Aside from Higman's (1979) analysis of slave stature and growth from historical data, we can still repeat Dailey's (1974:ll) comment that "we know virtually nothing about the stature, diseases and nonmetrical variations of black populations during the slave period." These limitations led Saksena (1974) to use a collage of modern coastal West African skeletal samples as representatives of the ancestral stock, and to compare them to American Blacks and Whites along an osteometric continuum.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Angel (1976) provided osteometric data from American Blacks from several small samples, and he briefly reported on 25 individuals from the Catoctin Furnace cemetery (Angel, 1980;Burnston, 1980a). Aside from Higman's (1979) analysis of slave stature and growth from historical data, we can still repeat Dailey's (1974:ll) comment that "we know virtually nothing about the stature, diseases and nonmetrical variations of black populations during the slave period." These limitations led Saksena (1974) to use a collage of modern coastal West African skeletal samples as representatives of the ancestral stock, and to compare them to American Blacks and Whites along an osteometric continuum.…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…To compare from Angel and Kelley samples, eighteenth-century farm slaves at 170.5 (N = 15), nineteenth-century farm slaves at 170.2 (N=20), and Catoctin industrial slaves at 171.6 (N = 7) do not differ much either between themselves or from Engerman's sample of 518. U.S. slaves (1828-1860) at 171.6 (reworked by Higman, 1979). Two kinds of evidence for stature exist:…”
Section: Staturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A possible third source is statures measured from cadavers, from which a number of variables in methodology occur. Evidence from the living includes Engerman's (reworked by Higman, 1979) slave samples (contemporary to FABC) of 518 US. males at 171.6 and of 299 females at 158.6.…”
Section: Staturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nutrition also seems, to a large extent, to be responsible for "racial" differences in adult stature. This has been amply demonstrated by the secular increases of stature in populations that were once disadvantaged (Greulich, 1957;Meredith, 1976;Malina, 1979;Roche, 1979;Higman, 1979). The reverse has also been observed, i.e., socioeconomically advantaged groups, such as Harvard and Wellesley college freshmen, have shown no significant increase of stature in recent decades (Bawkin and McLaughlin, 1964;Damon, 1974).…”
Section: Nutrition and Public Healthmentioning
confidence: 99%