New insights into the age of death for Anglo-Saxon burials

[Imperial Dave]

http://www.medievalists.net/2018/01/research-anglo-saxon-burials-uncover-new-insights/

could mean we need to reevaluate what we thought we knew about longevity for that period

[Jim Webster]

http://www.medievalists.net/2018/01/research-anglo-saxon-burials-uncover-new-insights/

could mean we need to reevaluate what we thought we knew about longevity for that period

certainly interesting

[Imperial Dave]

I didnt realise about the problem with dating bones as mentioned in the article previously

[Patrick Waterson]

A good osteologist can tell age fairly precisely from bones.  The problem, or so the article indicates, was really the methodology: if you have categories of infant, child, young adult, adult and 40+, there is - or was - a tendency to regard the 40 as a sort of upper limit and ignore the plus.  Not wholly convinced by this (assuming I have understood it correctly) as the prevailing assumption used to be that prior to modern medicine life was necessarily short, nasty and brutish for just about everyone.  Whether that assumption was correct is another matter ...

[Imperial Dave]

well. apparently the teeth say maybe not 

[Andreas Johansson]

"For people living traditional lives without modern medicine or markets the most common age of death is about 70, and that is remarkably similar across all different cultures."

This is really a meaningless statement without telling us how they do the binning.

[Erpingham]

A good osteologist can tell age fairly precisely from bones.

Depends a lot on the condition of the remains.  It is certainly less precise than age markers for younger people and relies a lot on things like wear and imprecise stuff about cranial sutures.  Given a good set of remains a good osteologist will combine a number of markers to get a more accurate estimate of age.

  The problem, or so the article indicates, was really the methodology: if you have categories of infant, child, young adult, adult and 40+, there is - or was - a tendency to regard the 40 as a sort of upper limit and ignore the plus.  Not wholly convinced by this (assuming I have understood it correctly) as the prevailing assumption used to be that prior to modern medicine life was necessarily short, nasty and brutish for just about everyone.  Whether that assumption was correct is another matter ...

The idea everyone died early is really a misunderstanding of statistics.  A common mistake is to assume "life expectancy" is a date everyone expected to reach before they died and not a statistical average.  In ancient societies, half the people born didn't reach adulthood, which rather skews things.

One of the areas I've looked at in medieval warfare is the age range of the participants.  This is pretty much confined to the gentry classes of course but it isn't uncommon to see men begin their military careers in their mid teens and for others to continue theirs into the fifties and more. 

[Dangun]

One of the areas I've looked at in medieval warfare is the age range of the participants.  This is pretty much confined to the gentry classes of course but it isn't uncommon to see men begin their military careers in their mid teens and for others to continue theirs into the fifties and more.

There is some interestingly long careers recorded on Roman grave stele. For example...

"Tiberius Flavius Virilua, centurion in legion II Augusta, centurion in legion XX Valeria Victrix, centurion in legion VI Victrix, centurion in legion III Augusta, centurion in legion III Parthica, Emperor Severus' Own, commanding the second century of hastati of cohort VIIII, lived for 70 years and served for 45 [!!] ..." (Lambaesis, 3rd C).

[Erpingham]

This is a favourite of mine, from the Scrope v. Grosvenor trial 1385-6

SIR JOHN SULLY, of the age of one hundred and five years, and armed eighty years, deposed that he had seen and known the arms of Sir Richard Scrope, borne by Sir Henry Scrope, at the battle of Halidon Hill, the field Azure, a bend Or, with a label Argent.

He afterwards saw the said Sir Henry armed in the same arms at the siege of Berwick; Sir William Scrope at the battle of Cressy, so armed with a difference; the said Sir Richard armed in the same arms at the battle of Espagnols-sur-mere; and afterwards saw the said Sir William Scrope armed in the same arms with the Prince at the battle of Poictiers, and the said Sir Richard so armed at the battle of Spain [Najara.]

Sully would by his own testimony have been born in 1280, be first armed (performed military service) in 1305.  He participated in or witnessed the Battle of Najera in 1367.  Now, we might doubt Sully's memory (medieval people were remarkably lax on birthdates and quite a few deponents in the trial can be shown to have got their sums wrong) but he was clearly elderly and served for a long time.

The longest service I think we can accurately date is perhaps William Marshall, who first went into action in 1167 and fought his last battle in 1217, aged 70 or 71.

[Jim Webster]

This is a favourite of mine, from the Scrope v. Grosvenor trial 1385-6

SIR JOHN SULLY, of the age of one hundred and five years, and armed eighty years, deposed that he had seen and known the arms of Sir Richard Scrope, borne by Sir Henry Scrope, at the battle of Halidon Hill, the field Azure, a bend Or, with a label Argent.

He afterwards saw the said Sir Henry armed in the same arms at the siege of Berwick; Sir William Scrope at the battle of Cressy, so armed with a difference; the said Sir Richard armed in the same arms at the battle of Espagnols-sur-mere; and afterwards saw the said Sir William Scrope armed in the same arms with the Prince at the battle of Poictiers, and the said Sir Richard so armed at the battle of Spain [Najara.]

Sully would by his own testimony have been born in 1280, be first armed (performed military service) in 1305.  He participated in or witnessed the Battle of Najera in 1367.  Now, we might doubt Sully's memory (medieval people were remarkably lax on birthdates and quite a few deponents in the trial can be shown to have got their sums wrong) but he was clearly elderly and served for a long time.

The longest service I think we can accurately date is perhaps William Marshall, who first went into action in 1167 and fought his last battle in 1217, aged 70 or 71.

Edward Longshanks could have run him close. He was also supposed to have ridden in full armour pretty well to the end. He was probably 68 when he died of dysentery on campaign.

[Erpingham]

Edward Longshanks could have run him close. He was also supposed to have ridden in full armour pretty well to the end. He was probably 68 when he died of dysentery on campaign.

As could John Hawkwood.  We don't know his date of birth (probably 1320 or 1323) but Hawkwood fought his last campaign in 1391. 

[Patrick Waterson]

A good osteologist can tell age fairly precisely from bones.

Depends a lot on the condition of the remains.  It is certainly less precise than age markers for younger people and relies a lot on things like wear and imprecise stuff about cranial sutures.  Given a good set of remains a good osteologist will combine a number of markers to get a more accurate estimate of age.

True.  There are also indicators like pelvic demineralisation, ankylosis of the sternum and spinal shrinkage (or lack of same) which usually pinpoint at least the decade of demise.  Most of my acquaintance is with Egyptian mummies, and with these one usually gets a complete set of bones in reasonably good condition, or at least a complete set of bones.  This allowed Dr Derry to put Smekhare's age at death at 25-26, for example.  Ramses II is a bit of a bother (at least for conventional chronology) because although arthritic and arteriosclerotic he has the teeth, sternum and pelvis of a 50-55 year old or so rather than the 90-ish year old historians would like him to be.  But I digress ...

The idea everyone died early is really a misunderstanding of statistics.  A common mistake is to assume "life expectancy" is a date everyone expected to reach before they died and not a statistical average.  In ancient societies, half the people born didn't reach adulthood, which rather skews things.

Very true.

One of the areas I've looked at in medieval warfare is the age range of the participants.  This is pretty much confined to the gentry classes of course but it isn't uncommon to see men begin their military careers in their mid teens and for others to continue theirs into the fifties and more.

As exemplified by William Marshall, John Hawkwood et. al.  Unfortunately many records of the Anglo-Saxon period were lost when the Vikings peacefully interacted in a non-berserk fashion with the monasteries which were the principal repositories for written records, so we do not have the same level of documentary evidence for this period.  Were it still in existence, we might have a few surprises.

[Erpingham]

Further reading has revealed this article about John de Sully, which presents more evidence of his age.  The first record of a man at arms called John de Sully is in 1313.  This could be our man, although it could be another member of the family (John Hawkwood had an elder brother also called John, for example).  This would give him a service career of at least 54 years.

The article attempts to explain why Sir John doesn't state he was at Bannockburn.   However, deponents in these cases weren't listing every battle they were in, just where they saw the disputed arms displayed.  If Sully didn't see the Scrope arms at Bannockburn, he would have no reason to mention it.

[Patrick Waterson]

If Sully didn't see the Scrope arms at Bannockburn, he would have no reason to mention it.

Indeed, although the Scropes were strong supporters (albeit not in the heraldic sense ) of Edward II and their absence from the field of Bannockburn would seem puzzling unless they had been assigned duties elsewhere.