Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy
In this article it is, though. That’s why they use the phrase “average lifespan”. There is no “average” in maximum.
In the article the phrase “average lifespan” is used in the meaning “average life expectancy”.
That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago. The ratio of older to younger remains doesn’t mean a whole lot unless you can prove death from old age.
It’s not like we have a plethora of remains to draw these conclusions from.
That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago.
Yes actually it does, above 30 would be an outlier.
Of course genetically they had about the same potential as modern people, but life was simply too harsh for people to survive above 30. The struggle to survive meant they were simply worn out at that point.
We see this even today in nomadic tribes in the rain forest of South America.
Tribal nomads of 100000 years ago did not live anywhere near to their 60’s.
AFAIK they rarely lived beyond 30.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy-of-ancient-humans-44847
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan
So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve.
Life expectancy would probably have been around 15.
In this article it is, though. That’s why they use the phrase “average lifespan”. There is no “average” in maximum.
In the article the phrase “average lifespan” is used in the meaning “average life expectancy”.
Average disregarding race or culture, spanning thousands of years.
That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago. The ratio of older to younger remains doesn’t mean a whole lot unless you can prove death from old age.
It’s not like we have a plethora of remains to draw these conclusions from.
Yes actually it does, above 30 would be an outlier.
Of course genetically they had about the same potential as modern people, but life was simply too harsh for people to survive above 30. The struggle to survive meant they were simply worn out at that point.
We see this even today in nomadic tribes in the rain forest of South America.