I already showed you
@Yorksman, the median lifespan declined after the paleolithic and didn't recover for another 7000 or so years.
30,000 to 9,000 B.C. (Late Paleolithic): Male 35.4 Female 30
9,000 to 7,000 B.C. (Mesolithic): Male 33.5 Female 31.3
7,000 to 5,000 B.C. (Early Neolithic): Male 33.6 Female 29.8
5,000 to 3,000 B.C. (Late Neolithic): Male 33.1 Female 29.2
3,000 to 2,000 B.C. (Early Bronze): Male 33.6 Female 29.4
But those figures are from a 1982 study from the eastern mediterranean where the archaeological record was incomplete for the area, and this "spottiness" to use the description in your linked article, was filled in by samples from outside the area ncluding places as diverse as North Africa and the Ukraine so we have to consider how valid it is to compare palaeolithic samples from say, the Ukraine, with Neolithic samples from the Fertile Cresent.
Moreover, whilst the table above shows no increase in longevity from the mesolithic onwards, the graph from the 2007 study does show an increase in longevity.
The Galor and Moav study has the benefit of improvements in C14 dating, of improvements in the techniques of osteoarchaeology and modern statistical analyses rather than simple median averages.
So why favour the former over the latter which has the benefit of 25 years additional research?
