The life expectancy of average Romans was 35, a major misconception

[Hugo Böse]

While visiting Rome I remember being shocked when the tour guide told us that Romans had a life expectancy of 28 or so, it turns out that that is a major misconception.

http://www.revealedrome.com/2012/06/...women-age.html

Major misconception #1: Ancient Romans had very short lives, and if you made it to 35, you were old

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this: "The life expectancy of the average Roman was 35." What people, including many tour guides, usually draw from this is that 30- and 40-something Romans must have been very venerable indeed.

Here's the problem. Aside from the fact that the data is terrible, this 35-year life expectancy is the average. Meaning it factors in the ancient world's very high child mortality rate: Up to half of all Roman kids died before the age of 10. If you did reach 10, you could expect to live into your 40s or 50s, at least. Then there's all the Roman men who died in military service... and the women who died in childbirth.

If you jumped through those hoops and survived your teens, 20s, and 30s, you'd have no reason to think you wouldn't lead a nice, long life. In fact, those who reached the age of 60 would, on average, die after their 70th birthdays.

So someone at 35 wouldn't have been seen as an "old person." "From around the first century B.C. onwards, the age of 60 or 65 was commonly mentioned as the threshold of old age," writes Karen Cokayne in "Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome." That's also when you got out of previous public obligations, like jury duty (yay!).

In other words: In the ancient world, child mortality sucked. But if they survived their childhood, childbirth, and military service, Romans could expect to live as long as we do today.