Recent excavations of peasants' and workers tombs at the city of Akenaton (1300 B.C) has revealed that the vast majority of ancient Egyptian civilians lived extremely precarious lives. Most people died young (excluding infant mortality) and few lived beyond the age of 30. Skeletal remains has revealed a poor diet with a lack of protein and vitamins and many have suffered spinal injuries as an indication of back-breaking labour. The average height of males did not even exceed 160cm.
On another website I have come across a census made during Roman times.
Males
age |
village |
town |
total |
0-4 |
24 |
26 |
50 |
5-9 |
16 |
26 |
42 |
10-14 |
7 |
16 |
23 |
15-19 |
13 |
23 |
36 |
20-24 |
13 |
18 |
31 |
25-29 |
14 |
12 |
26 |
30-34 |
16 |
19 |
35 |
35-39 |
10 |
6 |
16 |
40-44 |
12 |
6 |
18 |
45-49 |
13 |
11 |
24 |
50-54 |
4 |
6 |
10 |
55-59 |
11 |
3 |
14 |
60-64 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
65-69 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
70-74 |
6 |
3 |
9 |
75-79 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
80-84 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
all ages |
169 |
181 |
350 |
Females
age |
village |
town |
total |
0-4 |
28 |
8 |
36 |
5-9 |
18 |
18 |
36 |
10-14 |
24 |
14 |
38 |
15-19 |
21 |
11 |
32 |
20-24 |
15 |
20 |
35 |
25-29 |
13 |
17 |
30 |
30-34 |
18 |
6 |
24 |
35-39 |
22 |
9 |
31 |
40-44 |
9 |
9 |
18 |
45-49 |
11 |
3 |
14 |
50-54 |
13 |
5 |
18 |
55-59 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
60-64 |
6 |
1 |
7 |
65-69 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
70-74 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
75-79 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
all ages |
211 |
126 |
337 |
which seems to reveal that a significant number of people apparently did make it beyond the age of 40 and that life was not as short as if was 1300 years earlier under Akenaton.
If these census figures were reliable, would it indicate that the quality of life of Ancient Egyptian peasants had improved under Roman times?
There is another article here,
that analysis the economic conditions of day labourers under Roman Egypt, which implies a precarious life for Egyptian day labourers where very few made it to the age of 40. However, wealthier Egyptians lived considerably longer and better.
How reliable are these analysis?