>   Die at 22 like they all did.
>
> Mike
>

That was the average life time for Romans too. They grew a lot of grains in
different parts of the empire and ate it. They were all the time at war
which of course isn't so good for life longevity. Could we say that grains,
war, aggression and very short life expectansy go hand in hand? Or? Should
we read statistics in a different way?
At least we can blame extended wars with full time soldiers on grain
growing!

Some scientists say that if tribal people manage to reach adolescence they
also have a good chanse of being older than what we today call middle age
and then they did not die from those diseases that we try to avoid nowadays.
At least no signs of that have been found.

The only person (that I know of) from hunter/fisher/gatherers that
archaeologist have found in Sweden lived to be 60 -70 years old - first they
said it was a man because there was hunting gears in the grave but it turned
out it was a woman.
Eva

> This is common thinking but pretty suspect.  I was reading a book the
other
> day about a bunch of early "natural" food people from the turn of the
> 19th/20th century.  I also read that average life expectancy then was
about
> 30.  The book listed the birth and death date for everyone who was
> mentioned.  Most of them were living from 60-80 years with a few to their
> 90's.  So much for average life expectancy.  Were these people
particularly
> special - no.  If you read roman, or Islamic history that mentions ages it
> is not unusual for people to be in their 80's and beyond.
>
> sean