_Examination…put his likely age to be around 45. This was a good age considering the short life expectancy 5300 years ago.
I think this is an urban myth.
Edit: Seems like I was thinking wrong, see below.
The average life expectancy 200 years ago (ie the time we did comprehensive and complete records of births and deaths of a population) was indeed much lower than today. But a huge part of that was a high child mortality rate of around 50% until adolescence was reached. Once a person grew beyond that age, it‘s life expectancy was just a few years below of where we are today. There is no reason to believe that this was different a few millenias ago. The reason that child mortality dropped substantially around the end of the 19th century was 1. the discovery of the importance of hygiene and 2. antibiotics.
" Once a person grew beyond that age, it‘s life expectancy was just a few years below of where we are today."
I strongly disagree. Every single archeological study that I read and that examined ages of skeletons excavated from normal European cemeteries (= not kingly burials etc.) indicated that people over 60 used to be fairly rare (less than one in 10), even in the Early Modern Era, much less so in the Middle Ages. In the Early Middle Ages, with their hunger and frequent raids, even 50 was untypical.
Even the most important people of the past, for whom we actually know their ages at death, died way earlier than we do today.
Try enumerating the English or the French kings who lived to be 70. Not many, a few individuals over a span of a millennium. It only started getting better post 1750, and really better since 1900.
> life expectancy was just a few years below of where we are today. There
I don't think that's really true. e.g. IIRC back in ~1900 mortality rates even for people in their 20s and 30s were more than twice as high as now.
Life expectancy at 20 currently in the US is ~60 years, back in 1850s it was about ~40 and mid 30s in the 1700s. But we must consider that that US/Thirteen Colonies were an exceptionally nice place to live compared to pretty much anywhere else back in those days.
Look at Figures 4 and 5. A relatively huge proportion of the population died in the 30s - 50s. Very few people die that young these days. Back in the 1850 70% of reached age 20 and 50% reached 50. NOw it's >99% and 96% respective..
Young people died all the time from various rampant communicable diseases many which are treatable these days. Just consider the cultural significance Tuberculosis had back in the 1800s..
miramba|1 year ago
I think this is an urban myth.
Edit: Seems like I was thinking wrong, see below.
The average life expectancy 200 years ago (ie the time we did comprehensive and complete records of births and deaths of a population) was indeed much lower than today. But a huge part of that was a high child mortality rate of around 50% until adolescence was reached. Once a person grew beyond that age, it‘s life expectancy was just a few years below of where we are today. There is no reason to believe that this was different a few millenias ago. The reason that child mortality dropped substantially around the end of the 19th century was 1. the discovery of the importance of hygiene and 2. antibiotics.
inglor_cz|1 year ago
I strongly disagree. Every single archeological study that I read and that examined ages of skeletons excavated from normal European cemeteries (= not kingly burials etc.) indicated that people over 60 used to be fairly rare (less than one in 10), even in the Early Modern Era, much less so in the Middle Ages. In the Early Middle Ages, with their hunger and frequent raids, even 50 was untypical.
Even the most important people of the past, for whom we actually know their ages at death, died way earlier than we do today.
Try enumerating the English or the French kings who lived to be 70. Not many, a few individuals over a span of a millennium. It only started getting better post 1750, and really better since 1900.
qwytw|1 year ago
I don't think that's really true. e.g. IIRC back in ~1900 mortality rates even for people in their 20s and 30s were more than twice as high as now.
Life expectancy at 20 currently in the US is ~60 years, back in 1850s it was about ~40 and mid 30s in the 1700s. But we must consider that that US/Thirteen Colonies were an exceptionally nice place to live compared to pretty much anywhere else back in those days.
England was a few years lower but e.g.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
Look at Figures 4 and 5. A relatively huge proportion of the population died in the 30s - 50s. Very few people die that young these days. Back in the 1850 70% of reached age 20 and 50% reached 50. NOw it's >99% and 96% respective..
Young people died all the time from various rampant communicable diseases many which are treatable these days. Just consider the cultural significance Tuberculosis had back in the 1800s..