https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jan/26/friar-crushed-by-cart-bone-analysis-hints-at-causes-of-medieval-deaths
QuoteAnother surprise, said Dittmar, was that there was no evidence of weapon-related injuries, whether healed or not, among the dead
How disappointing ;)
The lack of weapon injuries (clearly sharp weapon injuries as someone is recorded as having his head bashed in) is surprising. Cambridge may not have had many nearby battles but medieval society was generally pretty violent and weapon injuries in the course of daily life were quite common according to surviving court records.
https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2021/01/inequality-in-medieval-cambridge-was.html
another article on the same set of finds
I continue to have a slight concern about the "cart accident". While modern car accident victims have similar positioning, a modern car does it by hitting the pedestrian with the bumper or bonnet, neither of which a cart has. Cart accidents certainly occur in medieval records but being crushed under the wheels seems to be the main problem.
This should be of no surprise. I mean, it was not like there was any health and safety legislation governing use of mechanical equipment in those days. Even by 1800, the Royal Navy lost more men falling from the rigging than it did in naval battles. Given that the latter held the promise of prize money whereas the former only offered an unpleasant death or the bosun's lash, your can understand why seamen entered battle with a degree of enthusiam.
Incidentally, a statistic for those who believe all such things are insignificant. In 1980 the UK construction industry, employing roughly 2 million people killed approximately 2,000 every year. 30 years later it had reduced the number of fatalities by 90%. You can make a difference.
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 14, 2021, 01:48:21 PM
This should be of no surprise. I mean, it was not like there was any health and safety legislation governing use of mechanical equipment in those days. Even by 1800, the Royal Navy lost more men falling from the rigging than it did in naval battles. Given that the latter held the promise of prize money whereas the former only offered an unpleasant death or the bosun's lash, your can understand why seamen entered battle with a degree of enthusiam.
Incidentally, a statistic for those who believe all such things are insignificant. In 1980 the UK construction industry, employing roughly 2 million people killed approximately 2,000 every year. 30 years later it had reduced the number of fatalities by 90%. You can make a difference.
Whereas in Agriculture most industrial fatalities are in men over retirement age
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 02:30:58 PM
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 14, 2021, 01:48:21 PM
This should be of no surprise. I mean, it was not like there was any health and safety legislation governing use of mechanical equipment in those days. Even by 1800, the Royal Navy lost more men falling from the rigging than it did in naval battles. Given that the latter held the promise of prize money whereas the former only offered an unpleasant death or the bosun's lash, your can understand why seamen entered battle with a degree of enthusiam.
Incidentally, a statistic for those who believe all such things are insignificant. In 1980 the UK construction industry, employing roughly 2 million people killed approximately 2,000 every year. 30 years later it had reduced the number of fatalities by 90%. You can make a difference.
Whereas in Agriculture most industrial fatalities are in men over retirement age
farming is a hard life all round
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 02:30:58 PM
Whereas in Agriculture most industrial fatalities are in men over retirement age
Sorry Jim, I do not understand your last statement. A couple of decades ago the retirement age was officially abolished. This means that, irrespective of one's career choices, the only people over retirement age are, by definition, dead.
something to look forward to then Nick ;D
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 14, 2021, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 02:30:58 PM
Whereas in Agriculture most industrial fatalities are in men over retirement age
Sorry Jim, I do not understand your last statement. A couple of decades ago the retirement age was officially abolished. This means that, irrespective of one's career choices, the only people over retirement age are, by definition, dead.
which is entirely true
Perhaps I should comment that a third of farm worker casualties last year were in men over seventy
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 05:26:46 PM
Perhaps I should comment that a third of farm worker casualties last year were in men over seventy
Clearly this age group needs its own risk assessment if they wish to continue employment in agriculture. I mean, one can hold a driving license indefinitely, but, after 70, the DVLA requires progressively more frequent check ups of sight and other faculties to ensure one is still competent to manage a vehicle.
Are all these fatalities related to the work being performed rather than, say, a sudden heart attack whilst taking a tea break?
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 15, 2021, 09:03:42 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 05:26:46 PM
Perhaps I should comment that a third of farm worker casualties last year were in men over seventy
Clearly this age group needs its own risk assessment if they wish to continue employment in agriculture. I mean, one can hold a driving license indefinitely, but, after 70, the DVLA requires progressively more frequent check ups of sight and other faculties to ensure one is still competent to manage a vehicle.
Are all these fatalities related to the work being performed rather than, say, a sudden heart attack whilst taking a tea break?
four were crushed by machinery they were working with, two were drivers (who were just found dead under the machine, so nobody knows exactly what happened), two working with a younger person on the machinery. One died of head injuries having been knocked down by a cow whose calf he was treating
No country for old men :-[
the dairy farmer down the lane from me just simply died of old age....he was in his nineties though
Quote from: Holly on February 15, 2021, 10:00:23 AM
the dairy farmer down the lane from me just simply died of old age....he was in his nineties though
That's the aspiration 8)
I live in a farming community and they're all old especially sheep and dairy farmers. The only young ones are the ones doing speciality stuff
Quote from: Holly on February 15, 2021, 10:20:54 AM
I live in a farming community and they're all old especially sheep and dairy farmers. The only young ones are the ones doing speciality stuff
It does vary regionally, but the speciality stuff is often easier and cheaper for a young person to get into
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 15, 2021, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 15, 2021, 09:03:42 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 05:26:46 PM
Perhaps I should comment that a third of farm worker casualties last year were in men over seventy
Clearly this age group needs its own risk assessment if they wish to continue employment in agriculture. I mean, one can hold a driving license indefinitely, but, after 70, the DVLA requires progressively more frequent check ups of sight and other faculties to ensure one is still competent to manage a vehicle.
Are all these fatalities related to the work being performed rather than, say, a sudden heart attack whilst taking a tea break?
four were crushed by machinery they were working with, two were drivers (who were just found dead under the machine, so nobody knows exactly what happened), two working with a younger person on the machinery. One died of head injuries having been knocked down by a cow whose calf he was treating
No country for old men :-[
It reinforces my point. Clearly any employer of septuagenarians has a duty of care to assess their fitness to operate machinery, work with certain animals, etc. Any individual whose risk of injury or death is too high must be removed from that particular task. No arguments.
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 15, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
Quote from: Holly on February 15, 2021, 10:20:54 AM
I live in a farming community and they're all old especially sheep and dairy farmers. The only young ones are the ones doing speciality stuff
It does vary regionally, but the speciality stuff is often easier and cheaper for a young person to get into
and more lucrative!
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 15, 2021, 10:58:54 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 15, 2021, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 15, 2021, 09:03:42 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 05:26:46 PM
Perhaps I should comment that a third of farm worker casualties last year were in men over seventy
Clearly this age group needs its own risk assessment if they wish to continue employment in agriculture. I mean, one can hold a driving license indefinitely, but, after 70, the DVLA requires progressively more frequent check ups of sight and other faculties to ensure one is still competent to manage a vehicle.
Are all these fatalities related to the work being performed rather than, say, a sudden heart attack whilst taking a tea break?
four were crushed by machinery they were working with, two were drivers (who were just found dead under the machine, so nobody knows exactly what happened), two working with a younger person on the machinery. One died of head injuries having been knocked down by a cow whose calf he was treating
No country for old men :-[
It reinforces my point. Clearly any employer of septuagenarians has a duty of care to assess their fitness to operate machinery, work with certain animals, etc. Any individual whose risk of injury or death is too high must be removed from that particular task. No arguments.
Its getting wildly off topic but I think you may be missing the fact that many of these people are likely to be self-employed, working on their own farms. This doesn't obviate the need for risk assessment but it does bring in a whole load of complications.
Similar complications probably occured in medieval farms, though with a much higher rate of casualties at younger ages, simply because the number of people over 70 was much smaller (maybe 2-3% ?)
maybe slightly off topic but very interesting nonetheless and there are always comparisons to be made
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 15, 2021, 10:58:54 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 15, 2021, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: NickHarbud on February 15, 2021, 09:03:42 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 14, 2021, 05:26:46 PM
Perhaps I should comment that a third of farm worker casualties last year were in men over seventy
Clearly this age group needs its own risk assessment if they wish to continue employment in agriculture. I mean, one can hold a driving license indefinitely, but, after 70, the DVLA requires progressively more frequent check ups of sight and other faculties to ensure one is still competent to manage a vehicle.
Are all these fatalities related to the work being performed rather than, say, a sudden heart attack whilst taking a tea break?
four were crushed by machinery they were working with, two were drivers (who were just found dead under the machine, so nobody knows exactly what happened), two working with a younger person on the machinery. One died of head injuries having been knocked down by a cow whose calf he was treating
No country for old men :-[
It reinforces my point. Clearly any employer of septuagenarians has a duty of care to assess their fitness to operate machinery, work with certain animals, etc. Any individual whose risk of injury or death is too high must be removed from that particular task. No arguments.
They're self employed. No employer, and not a lot of pension
Quote from: Holly on February 15, 2021, 12:29:05 PM
maybe slightly off topic but very interesting nonetheless and there are always comparisons to be made
Certainly it struck me as interesting to step sideways out of our usual way of looking at things. A lot of our medieval ancestors would just have worked until they couldn't at which point they're probably not long for the world
absolutely Jim. Another possible comparison I thought about with regards to this is the post Roman period in Britain where it is proposed that the population declined along with intensive farming practises. What we are not sure is which came first but at a guess the reduction in the market place caused by the downfall of central authority in Britain and Rome led to a reduction in the requirement for farming and essentially no one to buy produce. Subsistence farming creeps in, large farms are allowed to break up and farming/population reduces. In modern times we are seeing a reduction in market call for British farmed produce along with a reluctance for farmers sons and daughters to carry on and so we are left with aging farmers who when they are gone the land goes to a different use
Hmm is that true though? The internet informs me that "In the UK, the average age of a farmer is 59. In Kenya, it is 60. And in Japan, with the highest average age for a farmer, it is 67." But it also points out that in many cases there is a planned line of succession so the current elderly farmer fully intends to hand over to his son/daughter in due course, which skews the statistics. Also land doesn't often change use (thanks to planning regulations etc), but it is more likely to get concentrated into fewer hands - so fewer, larger, more mechanised farms - whether that's a good, bad or neutral thing I couldn't say. Which is more common in antiquity - the breaking up of land into smaller packets (to provide for multiple inheritance) or the concentration into fewer? I have no idea.
Quote from: RichT on February 15, 2021, 04:17:14 PM
Which is more common in antiquity - the breaking up of land into smaller packets (to provide for multiple inheritance) or the concentration into fewer? I have no idea.
I suspect that is an unanswerable question as within our time period we are dealing with multiple cultures, only some of them documented, where practices vary from culture to culture and even within the same culture over time
cheers
Mick
Quote from: RichT on February 15, 2021, 04:17:14 PM
Also land doesn't often change use (thanks to planning regulations etc),
it does when the local authority which owns it sells it off to housing developers which is whats happened alot in my county recently. Believe it or not there are a few tenanted farmers around who rent the land off local councils and the like and then lose the land when they retire and/or die. Also we've had quite a number of privately held land sold off for developers in my county as well.....all bets are off when there's money to be had
Modern planning law is doubtless interesting but not particularly related to medieval farming practice. The loss of agricultural land to urban development was probably not great in the Middle Ages, especially following the population fall from mid 14th century. Some urban areas reverted in part to agricultural land for various reasons (French raids with silting of harbours shrank several towns - if you are ever on the Isle of Wight, I recommend a trip to Newtown).
Medieval agricultural conditions were probably a bit different to today too. A much higher proportion of the population made their living on the land, a lot were tenants, some had small holdings and also laboured for others and quite a few were landless labourers. lacking much in the way of social welfare safety nets (the elderly and infirm maybe got some support from the monastries, and family were expected to support their older members), quite a few probably worked till they dropped but fewer of them got much beyond sixty.
Quote from: RichT on February 15, 2021, 04:17:14 PM
Hmm is that true though? The internet informs me that "In the UK, the average age of a farmer is 59. In Kenya, it is 60. And in Japan, with the highest average age for a farmer, it is 67." But it also points out that in many cases there is a planned line of succession so the current elderly farmer fully intends to hand over to his son/daughter in due course, which skews the statistics. Also land doesn't often change use (thanks to planning regulations etc), but it is more likely to get concentrated into fewer hands - so fewer, larger, more mechanised farms - whether that's a good, bad or neutral thing I couldn't say. Which is more common in antiquity - the breaking up of land into smaller packets (to provide for multiple inheritance) or the concentration into fewer? I have no idea.
Part of the reason for older ages for farmers is 'Grandfather rights' and bureaucracy
Grandfather rights are where they bring new regulations in (for example having to do a test to buy sheep dip) but allow those who've been doing it for years to keep doing it because they know what they're doing because they've not been arrested yet ;)
Bureaucracy means that it's often easier to keep the old man's name on the paperwork because if you change names you end up with hassle and stuff getting lost. In an earlier period it might remind the authorities that you were there and young enough to conscript. I can see this reason having universal application :P