Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)
14. It is a tricky subject, and easy to overstate the point in either direction
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:48 PM
Nov 2013

but there have been studies based on burials and historic records which include only those who reached adulthood, to arrive at an estimate of life expectancy for those who survived the infant mortality problems of the past. Mid forties is a good estimate.

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

I've read several like this from similar studies, even one from Pre-spanish Mexico, which surveyed burial sites and, not accounting for children, found that adult remains averaged around 40 years old.

The availability of food has been one big change, as technology has steadily increased the reliability and abundance of the food supply. Even in the 1700's, I've read that in most areas of the world famine was, on average, a once every 15 years occurence. The difficulty of transport made things worse, as a crop failure in on region couldn't be practically mitigated by an abundance in another region. Famine led directly to disease (more often than starvation), especially prior to medical advances.

Digging a bit more - here's a good write-up on that: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oh the IRONY: White supre...»Reply #14