3 ms·
You can tell quite a lot from anthropological studies of bones excavated in old burial grounds. For example, contrary to what people think, old people over 70
by inglor_cz 2y ago
You can tell quite a lot from anthropological studies of bones excavated in old burial grounds.
For example, contrary to what people think, old people over 70 are really rare in European medieval cemeteries, around 1 per 100-200 burials. A random peasant had a good chance to see their 50th birthday in the High Middle Ages, but 60 was already uncommon. In the Early Middle Ages, with their raids and more primitive agriculture, even 50 was an admirable age to live to.
I hear the line "once you survived childhood, you had good chance to grow old" very often on social networks, but it is basically never supported by concrete data. Anthropological studies of real old bones certainly don't support that.
The only profession where living to be 70 was somewhat more frequent was the high clergy (cardinals, popes) - a mostly safe career with good hygiene and guaranteed supply of food.
Even the vast majority of medieval kings died before reaching 70.
- ghaff 2y agoWhich makes sense if you think about it. Once you get past the age of fairly widespread deaths from childhood diseases (often prevented by vaccines), a lot of people in modern society don't get a lot of critical medical care from maybe their 20s through 40s. Sure, some do, but tons of younger people don't routinely see doctors--even when doing so is free. As people get into what we now consider about late middle age, modern healthcare for a variety of things becomes more and more important.
- michaelt 2y ago> a lot of people in modern society don't get a lot of critical medical care from maybe their 20s through 40s. Did you know that in England, 40% of middle aged men have had a fracture? [1] Personally I haven't seen the inside of a hospital in over 20 years. So I agree with you to that extent. But oh boy have I benefited from sterile surgical techniques, titanium plates and screws, and antibiotics since that one week 20 years ago. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18192607/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18192607/
- ghaff 2y agoOh I don't disagree. I'm sure there were a ton of people who had fractures that didn't heal properly on their own or with non-invasive care, infections that would be fairly straightforward with antibiotics today, etc. Certainly I've depended on modern medical care many times and probably benefited overall many others. I've had serious fractures and taken antibiotics on a number of occasions. So I violently agree. But there's probably an age window when modern medicine is less important (outside of war and other especially dangerous activities).
- nradov 2y agoSure, but I'm not convinced that those old burial grounds actually contain a representative population sample. It seems that some infants who died very young were buried more informally in other places. This would skew the results.
- inglor_cz 2y agoWell, yeah. Complete representation is likely impossible. Tiny bones of infants often get absorbed entirely over centuries, erasing the very last trace of their short life. Suicides were buried like dogs, away from Christian cemeteries. Enemy soldiers fallen in battle might have been left to the carrion birds. Executed criminals were buried on the place of execution, gibbetted or dissected. People who died in plagues were buried in plague pits. Jewish people were buried in Jewish cemeteries. A lot of exceptions all around. Still, a "normal" burial ground is by far the most comprehensive record of the local Christian non-noble population that we can hope for.