Life expectancy

[Colin Moretti]

Can anyone point me in the right direction for information about the variation in life expectancy from the medieval period up to the 19th century? I can find lots from about 1800 on, particularly for the present day, but it's historical trends that I'm looking for.

References to published sources would be helpful if there are no on line resources.

Many thanks

Colin

[Jan1954]

Like you, Colin, I am only able to find online sources for 1800 onwards.

However, apparently the University of Cambridge has undertaken a study: http://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/longevitydeterminants/

Click on the name Professor Richard M. Smith on the right-hand side and various publications are listed at the bottom of his page.

Hope this helps.

[Guy Etchells]

Probably the most accurate source would be to make a study of parish registers from the 16th century to the present day.

Just don't fall into the common trap of believing that average life expectancy is the same as the normal age of death in adults.
It is skewed by the large number of infant deaths bringing the average age down.
Cheers
Guy

[John Nicholas]

As an actuary, I thought I might find something on our professional site. And although it wasn't easy to track down, this might be a useful starter for you:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/25867/0445-0454.pdf

The English Life tables are population tables published every 10 years, based on the returns to the Registrar General.

Depending on what you require, you might get more results by googling other terms than life expectancy: demographic trends, longevity, mortality or any of those with 'historical' or 'mediaeval' attached.

John

[Mutley]

I think there was a book written by M Jonker.
'Estimation of life expectancy in the Middle Ages'. I think he also wrote some articles. Try the British Library Direct

Spotted this snippet somewhere by Tim Lambert
The average life span in the Middle Ages was indeed shorter than today but how much smaller is often exaggerated. Average life expectancy at birth was only 35. That does not mean that people dropped dead when they reached that age! Instead many of the people born died while they were still children. Out of all people born between one third and one half died before the age of about 16. However if you could survive to your mid-teens you would probably live to your 50s or early 60s. Even in the Middle Ages some people did live to their 70s or 80s.

[David Annis]

I suppose in theory it would have been the survival of the fittest. The air would have been much cleaner, the food had no additives and would have been organic and I suppose healthier. On the other hand, the weather and living conditions, poor diet, hygiene, disease and body malfunction would have shortened many lives.
When I was 21 I had my appendix removed, had I been living then it would have seen me off this mortal coil.
I wonder, if you did get to reach old age whether you were treated with respect in those days.
Cheers.
Dave.

[Colin Moretti]

Thanks everyone for your answers. John's, in particular, looks promising and I must now set aside some time to come to grips with the paper he has identified.

I have to say that I'm not looking to do a major research project on this topic (vide Guy), my wife is preparing a talk for a local social history group on health care since medieval times so she wants some pretty graphs to illustrate it.

Anyway, should anyone identify any further sources where the hard work has been done I'm still interested.

Many thanks

Colin

[Colin Moretti]

Reading the paper by Renn, he doesn't seem to define lx in his Graph I, Life tables, curve of lx.

Am I correct in assuming that lx is the number of individuals surviving at age x from an initial population of 1000? And what is the meaning of 5qx please? (Sorry, we don't seem to be able to use subscripts here). Presumable these are standard symbols that most people reading the paper would not need explaining.

Thanks

Colin

[John Nicholas]

Hello Colin,

These are indeed standard actuarial abbreviations which professional readers of the paper would already know. You are correct in assuming that l (subscript)x is the number living at age x exact. l0 can be anything, in this case 1000. If you see any of the English Life Tables, I think they are based on 100,000 for more precision.

(subscript)5 q (subscript)x is the rate of mortality at age x over the following 5 years - hence (lx - lx+5)/ lx. The term q (subscript)x, with no prefixed subscript, is used for a period of one year from age x.

I hope that helps rather than confuses! I'm sure you will have noted that this paper of Renn's is almost 50 years old. It is quite possible that more recent historical research has thrown up more data and new perspectives which could invalidate some of Renn's ideas. However, I guess it might still be good enough to give an overall picture.

Let me know if you have any more queries on what the paper means.

John

[Colin Moretti]

Many thanks John, I shall now look at it further.

I guess that the big problem with getting pre 19th C information is the lack of data of age at death, not something that occurs consistently in most of the PRs I've ever looked at.

Colin

[Geoffers]

Just don't fall into the common trap of believing that average life expectancy is the same as the normal age of death in adults.
It is skewed by the large number of infant deaths bringing the average age

This is a particularly important point, which struck me when analysing the 1,936 surviving burial records in Buxton, Norfolk from 1600-1872 Ages at death could be ascribed to 1,699 of these entries). To cut a long story short, I found that 471 (27.7%) were buried within two years of baptism. A further 309 (18.2%) died between 3 and approximately 18 years of age - the percentages did vary between generations.

So, a little over 54% survived to adulthood - the average age at burial amongts adults during the 17th century being 35.2 years - results for this period are very much skewed by lack of information during the civil wars and Commonwealth. In the 18th century, average age at death amongst adults varied between 42 and 45.6 years.

Migration between parishes might result in figures for individual villages being inaccurate. However, I am extending my study to include 30 parishes in NE Norfolk and so far the figures for the extended area hold out at around 27-28% of infants being buried at age 2 and under, 17-19% dying aged 3-18. In the extended area, average age at death of adults in the 17th century is about 37-39 years, and in the 18th century is 43-46 years of age.

[Colin Moretti]

This is a particularly important point, which struck me when analysing the 1,936 surviving burial records in Buxton, Norfolk from 1600-1872. To cut a long story short, I found that 471 (27.7%) were buried within two years of baptism. A further 309 (18.2%) died between 3 and approximately 18 years of age - the percentages did vary between generations. ...The graph in the paper suggested by John shows that even in the 1840s something like 23% of children died by age 2 and by 1900 it was about 17%. 50% of those born survived to about age 45 in the 1840s but it was up to almost 60 by 1900 and more than age 70 by 1950. By contrast the estimated figures for "medieval England" are that approx 27% died by age 2 and 50% survived to only age 28!

No doubt later studies such as that done by Geoffers will help to refine these latter figures.

These figures are taken from a graph so may be out by a little.

Colin