Is a 17 century (specifically, 1688) foot the same as a modern English foot?
Pic unrelated.
No
the ratio of the human body remains constant, therefore, if one part is seen to change measure (ie: height) then you can assume that everything else will also scale with the same factor.
>>363919
>Is a 17 century (specifically, 1688)
Where?
>>363936
England.
>>363941
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_units
To 1824.
>Prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Roman foot of 11.65 inches (296 mm) was used. The Anglo-Saxons introduced a North-German foot of 13.2 inches (335 mm), divided into 4 palms or 12 thumbs, while the Roman foot continued to be used in the construction crafts. In the late 13th century, the modern foot of 304.8 mm was introduced, equal to exactly 10⁄11 Anglo-Saxon foot.
>>363955
Thanks, anon.
>>363965
This is what happens when idiots aren't specific enough.
>>363965
What does /his/ think of this book
>Lieberman studies how and why the human body is the way it is.[2] His research combines paleontology, anatomy, physiology and experimental biomechanics in the lab and in the field. He has focused to a large extent on why and how humans have such unusual heads.[1] He is also well known for his research on the evolution of human locomotion including whether the first hominins were bipeds,[3] why bipedalism evolved,[4] the biomechanical challenges of pregnancy in females,[5] how locomotion affects skeletal function[6] and, most especially, the evolution of running. His 2004 paper with Dennis Bramble, “Endurance Running and the Evolution of the Genus Homo[7]” proposed that humans evolved to run long distances to scavenge and hunt. His research on running in general, especially barefoot running
>>364005
tfw I didn't evolve to run long distances
too many burgers, clogging up muh genetics
