Just Wondering...

You might well imagine that between epidemics of various kinds and minor famines...doctoring being hit and miss...open sewers in the streets...dead dogs and horses left to rot where they fell...you've be forgiven for imagining that life in the 17th century was short.

Oddly enough, it wasn't.

Living to a ripe old age was actually commonplace...certainly it wasn't unusual to live into your seventies and eighties.

If you managed to survive babyhood, then it seems you'd more or less live through anything.

It was babyhood which saw couples burying endless children...one of the worst in our family was six newborns dying one after the other in the same family.

But if you reached the age of five years, then your chances of living to adulthood increased in leaps and bounds.

So that begs the question of how did people manage to achieve a good age...were their immune systems stronger perhaps...in the times when a common cold could carry you off if it developed into a chest infection...just how did those people avoid the germs...

The dainty nose-gays they carried wouldn't have been a mite of help...don't suppose the Barber/Surgeon would have had the cures for every ailment...they didn't all have recourse to a Hedgewitch and her potions...especially during the days of the Witchcraft trials...when Witches were best avoided.

Go back a couple of hundred years and to reach the age of forty was considered quite incredible...was it simply plagues and epidemics which killed those who lived in the 14th and 15th centuries...or was it something slightly more insidious in their immunity or lack of...

I'd quite like to know.

[knitter]

Oh Vashti, something else for me to ponder on in the middle of the night....good genes maybe....survival of the fittest with a touch of good luck

[Azure_Sky]

That is a very interesting question. My first thought was, that perhaps communities in the country, did not get many visits from outsiders.

I was reminded of how so many people died of diseases, brought to them by explorers.

In the olden days, many children who did survive, probably had strong constitutions at birth. There parents most likely were not at the very poorest level.

I would say country children had a better chance of survival, than those born in the poor areas of cities and towns.

A while back I saw a documentary about the plague and black death. There was a place in Yorkshire where they somehow stopped the diseases getting on.

Further investigation using genetics came to the conclusion that a percentage of the population had natural immunity to diseases that kill other people. This included Aids.

bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_...

[juzwundering in reply to Azure_Sky]

Yes Sky, I saw this also...very interesting. Hope that there are more studies done on these people.

[Hidden in reply to Azure_Sky]

It was extremely commonplace for those in Mediaeval times to mix with people from overseas...they were also frequently sailing back and forth to Europe themselves.

Didn't seem to matter whether you were rich or poor, town dweller or countryside...children still dropped like flies.

The village was Eyam

[Azure_Sky in reply to Hidden]

Thank you Vashti. How and why would people from foriegn parts go to remote villages in the country? Unless they were Pedlars or Mummers>

[Hidden in reply to Azure_Sky]

Mummers are local people and dress up for St Stephens Day...

Peddler's would have been local to the neighbourhood as well...but the Merchants who travelled from the Far East and Europe would have been a common enough sight in most towns...remember the villagers would have gone to their nearest town every week for buying and selling...or if a hanging was due to take place of course.

[Hidden]

Hi vashti lovely story as usual. I think the average age then was a lot lower even without taking into account the number of babies dying under 5. Ok there were a few who lived to a ripe old age but I reckon many succumbed to illness well before then.

Even though there wasn't the medicine available then or proper sanitation, don't forget most people had a lot more exercise and were a lot fitter for it. There wasn't all this junk put in our food then either and not as much salt and sugar.

Unless you were very poor and starved people also ate less (well most had to) and it has been shown that restricting calorie intake actually increases your lifespan.

You were less likely to get cancer or heart problems and if your constitution was strong enough you would survive infections etc.

Did you know the Pharoh Ramasees 2nd lived into his 90's? and that was thousands of years ago. Apparently the average age then was 40 and he trained a dozen sucessors, all of them dying before him! x

[Hidden in reply to Hidden]

Bet he was a funny old boy at ninety!

[Nikkers]

I reckon it was all that "bleeding" that went on when someone had the slightest suggestion of any illness? Just imagine if (because of poor diet) you were anaemic in those days beside any other illness that you may be suffering from,.....then to have someone "bleed" you, would have just about finished the job I think?

[Hidden in reply to Nikkers]

They were certainly overly fond of Leeches and sharp knives...lol

[Hidden]

Even cottages like ours were smoky from the open fires...but the people who lived in them were out in the fields every day...makes you wonder doesn't it?

[babssara]

Very thought provoking Vashti x

[bayleyray-uk]

I wonder if it has anything to do with how we have a thing about cleanliness and trying to stop children come into any contact with all kinds bacteria. Little ones are gradually loosing their resistance to 'dirt'. My daughter tells me off if I fuss to much with my grandkids and she tells me that a bit of dirt will do them no harm.

As they are fit and healthy I have to abide go with the flow, but oh I do itch sometimes to grab a wet one.

cheers,

Sue

[Hidden]

Apparently copd is very common in the 3rd world 1008 because of cooking inside huts over open fires. x

[Hidden]

Yep I saw it on the internet. Google it and have a look. x

[Azure_Sky]

Perhaps if the mother is weakened, by having lots of children, the babies were not very strong. If she was producing babies one after another, her milk would not have been sufficient to feed a newborn and older sibling under a year old. Then there was the question of cross infection, between several young children, 5 years old and under.

[Hidden]

Tee...only if you get a death cert...and they came into being in 1837...I have a couple which just say ' old age'...lol

Very very occasionally there'll be something written about the death in the early Parish records...if a person fell from a horse for instance. Or if they were Quaker...they'd sometimes put the cause of death in...but not always.