Generally what's going on with claims of short premodern lifespans is that people are confused over the difference between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at 10 years.
No, they are correct - that is generally what happens when people compare historic life expectancy rates to modern times.
And, people are using 'lifespan' and 'life expectancy' as if they were interchangeable (they're different things).
Your Wikipedia source states up front that the linked research is old and questionable, with the cited paper dating back over 50 years. More recent research, some of it linked here [0], does indeed point to a significantly longer life expectancy.
No idea why Wikipedia is using incorrect 55 yo data for this one; but it does help to prove OP's point further.
Here's how the logic works: I am stating that a person who clearly has a bone to pick with people who say red meat is bad for you, is misdirecting their ire in a thread about people who ate a lot of red meat 13,000 years ago. If you want to push the expected life expectancy I quoted up by 10-15 years, please do so, I don't mind.
