[kaba0]

The Bible and plenty similarly old texts refers to marriage of such young women to usually older men, but even Romeo and Juliet is about 14 years olds.

Biological fertility as a baseline only slightly modified by social norms seems to be a good guess.

[yywwbbn]

> Romeo and Juliet is about 14

And Juliet was considered way to young to marry (we don’t really know how old exactly Romeo was).

While mid-teens was acceptable age in many cultures to marry and have children by the 17th century that wasn’t really the case. e.g. the average age at first marriage for women was 24 in England in the 1600s

[stevezsa8]

Romeo and Juliet is fictional.

I mean sure, could count as "evidence" but you'd have to be aware of the strength of it.

Imagine in a 100 years time, the next civilisation finds some popular dvd and tries to draw conclusions from it.

[kaba0]

I just mentioned it as a much later example for early marriages, but my other example(s) wasn’t refuted.

Also, I think quite a lot can be reconstructed from even primitive drawings, let alone a whole dvd we know got popular and thus even more relevant for an age.

[stevezsa8]

The only "other example(s)" I could find from you was "The Bible". I (respectfully) avoided questioning it.

I do agree with you about getting information from even primitive drawings. I think we differ in our views about the degree and type of information we can get.

[tanbog5]

Within the time-span of the study, I would argue both the Bible and Romeo and Juliet are effectively modern/contemporary events.