Quite often there is a statement that in Russian Empire everyone died by age 30 and that 30-year-olds were considered old. This may seem so if you look at the average life expectancy, which was 31-32 years. But there are also those who are critical of this statement. Because the average life expectancy of 31 years was calculated for all births, taking into account the high infant and child mortality rate. There is evidence of what life expectancy was like for those who survived childhood.

In the first volume of Boris Mironov’s book “The Russian Empire: from Tradition to Modernity” there is the following table:

According to it, in 1867, Orthodox peasants married on average at 24-25 years of age and after that lived for 35-36 years (that is, 59-61 years in total), and peasant women got married at 21-22 years old and lived after that for 39-40 years ( 60-62 years in total).

In 1890, Wladyslaw Bortkevich calculated the average life expectancy for the Orthodox population in 1874-1883. According to his calculations, at birth it was 26.31 years for men and 29.05 for women, but for 20-year-olds it was already 37.37 and 37.65 years, respectively, which means 57 years old total.

Later, Sergei Novoselsky carried out calculations for the entire population of the European part of the Russian Empire, the results of which he published in his work “Mortality and life expectancy in Russia.” Average life expectancy at birth in 1896-1897 was 31.32 years for men and 33.41 years for women. Those who reached age 20 had, on average, another 41.13 and 41.22 years to live, respectively, which means 61 years old total.

Comparative results of Bortkevich and Novoselsky tables:

Found it very interesting book and it contains few statistics on life expectancy and infant mortality in the second half of the 18th century.

Actually, this is probably, in principle, almost the first such statistical study in Russia. But the figures here are given mainly from European sources. How accurate they are is also a question. But trends are reflected. And very scary trends.

This is a description of one of the long-livers. Natural selection In his best.

Only half of the people lived to be 15 years old.

I saw quite a lot of icons of various kinds, as well as ancient frescoes. So there is such a canon there, pay attention if necessary. All warriors are exclusively without beards. If you remember that the main growth of hair in young men occurs somewhere around the age of 17-18, then you can understand where this canon came from and who made up the bulk of any army. Not for nothing back in the 19th century. And according to my calculations, well, you know about Romeo and Juliet.

Women have always lived longer than men.

And people lived married for a long time back then. Even despite the short lifespan. Well, we got married at 15-16.

And then the centenarians lived mainly in the mountains.

But this is a very interesting passage that shows the standard of living of the population in various areas. Moreover, as you can see, the larger the city, the lower this standard of living. This seems to be very important point in understanding the history of that time.

Because of all this, people in the cities didn’t get married or give birth very much. And the influx of people from the village was not very large. In my series of posts, I clearly show that the population and size of cities have grown little over the course of 200 or even 300 years. until the early 20th century and the explosive growth of cities.

Vitamin deficiency is a terrible thing.

And now the scariest part of my post. Infant mortality:

And again this is the curse of cities.

But at the same time, the city was still more advanced in the field of medicine.

Progress in medicine was slowly taking place.

This is another scary moment of that time. Mothers or nurses were often so tired that they fell asleep while feeding or simply in bed and crushed their babies with their whole bodies so that the babies simply died.

We now have a poor understanding of the realities of life at that time. Human life was short and worthless. Therefore, the mentality of people was different. And the realities of life. And you need to know all this in order to correctly understand history. Otherwise, it appears before us in the form of a distorting mirror, where everything is wrong and everything is different.

Addition :

I also found data on mortality in the second half of the 18th century.

Book: Kurganov, Nikolai Gavrilovich (1726-1796).
As you can see, at that time the birth rate sharply exceeded the death rate. It was then that the population of Europe and Russia increased at a very rapid pace. According to my data, in Russia it began somewhere in the late 17th, early 18th centuries. A single autocratic state was formed in Russia and the number of internal strife decreased sharply. Again, there was less fighting than before. The raids of the Tatars and other nomads were completely a thing of the past. Labor productivity has increased, the common population has become more money in order to feed the offspring, and they gave birth a lot back then.
But at the same time, the mortality rate in cities was very high. Let's, for example, compare it with the current one. I live in the city of Perm. The population of the city is about 1 million people. Mortality 12 thousand per year. The population of the rest of the Perm region is 1.6 million. people and the mortality rate is 22 thousand people per year. Of course, most of it still lives in cities, but they are not comparable to the city of Perm in many respects. I think this disproportion in mortality is due to the difference in the quality and availability of medical care. Because the ecology in Perm itself is much worse than in other cities of the region, not to mention the countryside.
If you multiply 12 thousand by 23, as it is written in the book, you get 276 thousand people. This should have been the population of the city of Perm, given the mortality rate that was in the second half of the 18th century. The almost complete absence of medicine, even for the rich, took its toll. And the environment was clearly not all right. The lack of water supply and sewerage, given the general overcrowding of the population, did its job.
Life has clearly become better and certainly more fun.

The post was written as part of the cycle -.

In one of my previously published posts on the topic: “RUSSIA, WHICH THEY LOST” (it was about natural increase and mortality in the Russian Empire and European countries), I cited this quote from the book by V.B. Bezgin “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries":

“According to demographers, a Russian peasant woman of this period (the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries - approx.) gave birth on average 7-9 times. The average number of births among peasant women in the Tambov province was 6.8 times, and the maximum was 17. Here are some extracts from the report of the gynecological department of the Tambov provincial zemstvo hospital for 1897, 1901:

“Evdokia Moshakova, peasant woman, 40 years old, married for 27 years, gave birth 14 times”; “Akulina Manukhina, peasant woman, 45 years old, married for 25 years, gave birth 16 times.”

In the absence of artificial birth control, the number of children in a family depended solely on the reproductive capabilities of the woman.

High infant mortality played the role of a spontaneous regulator of the reproduction of the rural population. According to survey data (1887-1896), the proportion of deceased children under five years of age on average in Russia was 43.2%, and in a number of provinces over 50%.”

Agree, the data on child mortality is impressive, isn’t it? I decided to “dig” deeper into this issue, and what I “dug” plunged me into a real shock.

“According to data for 1908-1910. the number of deaths under 5 years of age accounted for almost 3/5 of the total number of deaths. The mortality rate of infants was especially high” (Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913”).

“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deaths of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, 606.5 of the dead were children under 5 years of age, i.e. almost two thirds (!!!). In the same year, out of every 1,000 male deaths, 625.9 were children under 5 years old; out of every 1,000 female deaths, 585.4 were among girls under 5 years old. In other words, in Russia every year a huge percentage of children who have not even reached the age of 5 die - a terrible fact that cannot help but make us think about the difficult conditions in which the Russian population lives if such a significant percentage of the dead are for children under 5 years old."

Please note that in the quotes I have given we're talking about not about the dark and dark years of serfdom and the complete lack of rights of the peasantry of Tsarist Russia, but about the beginning of the 20th century! Speaking about this time, lovers and admirers of tsarism love to prove that the empire was “on the rise”: the economy was growing, the well-being of the people was also growing, the level of education and medical care was increasing.

"Gentlemen"!!! Not everything is as you think! Read the contemporaries of that “prosperous” time, for example, Nechvolodov (I note to you - a Russian, gendarmerie general, the largest analyst of the tsarist secret services) “From Ruin to Prosperity”, 1906 edition (I gave this material), Rubakin “Russia in Figures” edition 1912, Novoselsky “Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”, 1916 edition.

The main result is the gigantic external debt of the Russian Empire by 1914, the sale (“...we are not selling, but selling out” - as Nechvolodov wrote) of national wealth to foreigners, the purchase by the same foreigners of basic industries: metallurgy, shipbuilding, the oil industry, etc. ., its tiny share of industrial production in global production, a significant lag behind the USA, England, France, Germany in terms of gross national product per capita - “European Russia, compared with other countries, is a country
half-impoverished” (Rubakin “Russia in Figures”, 1912 edition).

The main thing is that there would be a desire to read the authors I’m talking about, but no - at least read what I have already given in my LiveJournal on the topic “RUSSIA THAT THEY LOST” (tag “Tsarist Russia”). Everything that is posted there is based precisely on these sources (and on other authors), plus statistical data from the Collection “Russia 1913. Statistical and documentary reference book."

However, I have moved somewhat away from the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire. I think that what you have already read about her from me has interested you. Now I will give you the most detailed statistics that will convince you that the horror that both Rashin and Rubakin wrote about was just that.

We will start with the mortality rate of infants under 1 year of age in European Russia for the period 1867-1911.

The following table (source: P.I. Kurkin “Mortality and Fertility in the Capitalist States of Europe,” 1938 edition) shows infant mortality rates for the entire period under review.

Of 100 babies born, the following died before the age of 1 year:

1867 – 24.3;
1868 – 29.9;
1869 – 27.5;
1870 – 24.8;
1871 – 27.4;
1872 – 29.5;
1873 – 26.2;
1874 – 26.2;
1875 – 26.6;
1876 ​​– 27.8;
1877 – 26.0;
1878 – 30.0;
1879 – 25.2;
1880 – 28.6;
1881 – 25.2;
1882 – 30.1;
1883 – 28.4;
1884 – 25.4;
1885 – 27.0;
1886 – 24.8;
1887 – 25.6;
1888 – 25.0;
1889 – 27.5;
1890 – 29.2;
1891 – 27.2;
1892 – 30.7;
1893 – 25.2;
1894 – 26.5;
1895 – 27.9;
1896 – 27.4;
1897 – 26.0;
1898 – 27.9;
1899 – 24.0;
1900 – 25.2;
1901 – 27.2;
1902 – 25.8;
1903 – 25.0;
1904 – 23.2;
1905 – 27.2;
1906 – 24.8;
1907 – 22.5;
1908 – 24.4;
1909 – 24.8;
1910 – 27.1;
1911 – 23.7.

With a generally high infant mortality rate, infant mortality was extremely high in 1868, 1872, 1878, 1882, 1890 and 1892.

Minimum mortality rate for 1867-1911. was achieved in 1907. But is it worth rejoicing at the fact that such a record low figure was obtained this year? In my opinion - no! Subsequently (1908-1910) it grows again to 27.1, after which there is a decline again to 23.7, which is quite natural if we analyze the trend in child mortality since 1867. The trend is the same - after any drop in this indicator for infants under 1 year, it increases again.

The only reason for some optimism among supporters of the tsarist empire is that from 1892 until 1911, the infant mortality rate among infants under 1 year of age did not reach the 1892 record 30.7 infant deaths per 100 births and showed a slight decrease at the maximum. But at the same time, please do not forget that with the beginning of the First World War, the economic situation in the Russian Empire only worsened, which could not but affect child mortality, because as the same Rubakin rightly noted: “... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure , epidemic, etc., first of all, is reflected in child mortality, which immediately increases.”

And now, if any of the admirers of tsarism are itching to accuse Kurkin that the figures he gives are biased (the publication, they say, is from 1938, i.e. Stalinist), I suggest, in fairness, to familiarize yourself with one more source.

In the work of S.A. Novoselsky “Review of the main data on demography and sanitary stratification”, edition of 1916 (!)) the following summary data on mortality were published infants up to a year in European Russia for 1867-1911.

So, out of 100 babies born, the following died before the age of 1 year (over five years):

1867-1871 – 26.7 (26.78 for Kurkin);
1872-1876 – 27.3 (26.26 for Kurkin);
1877-1881 – 27.0 (27.0 for Kurkin);
1882-1886 - 27.1 (27.14 for Kurkin);
1887-1891 – 26.9 (26.9 for Kurkin);
1892-1896 – 27.5 (27.54 for Kurkin);
1897-1901 – 26.0 (26.06 for Kurkin);
1902-1906 – 25.3 (25.2 for Kurkin);
1907-1911 – 24.4 (24.5 for Kurkin).

You can see for yourself that the data from both authors is almost identical. And although data for five years,
demonstrate a downward trend in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age from 1892-1896. to 1907-1911 by 11.27%, this decline, generally not very significant, was interrupted with the outbreak of the First World War due to the rapid deterioration of the economic and epidemiological situation in the empire.

For example, the incidence of typhus in the Russian Empire increased from 118.4 thousand diseases in 1913 to 133.6 thousand in 1916. And these are only registered cases, among which, in the same “prosperous” year of 1913, according to the “Report on the state of public health and the organization of medical care for 1913,” only 20% were subjected to hospital treatment!

And now, a small “lyrical” digression for those who, after all, have not read my materials. The Russian Empire, according to the same Novoselsky (“Mortality and life expectancy in Russia” edition of 1916), was among the European countries he cited back in the relatively prosperous years 1905-1909. demonstrated superiority in mortality from smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and whooping cough. In the prosperous year of 1912, more people suffered from scabies (!) and malaria (!) than influenza (4,735,490 people and 3,537,060 people, respectively, against 3,440,282 people) (Statistical collection of Russia.
1914, data are also given for 1912).

As always, cholera behaved unpredictably even in prosperous years. For example, in 1909 10 thousand 677 people died from it, and already in the next 1910. – 109 thousand 560 people, i.e. more than 10 times! And this too, only registered cases. (M.S. Onitskansky “On the spread of cholera in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1911). The annual incidence rate of tuberculosis grew steadily, from 278.5 thousand in 1896. up to 876.5 thousand in the “prosperous” year of 1913. And it has never (!) (since the aforementioned 1896) had a tendency to decrease! (Novoselsky “Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”, 1916 edition).

This deplorable situation in the Russian Empire only worsened with the beginning of the First World War. Therefore, as I already said above, Rubakin absolutely rightly noted: “... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure, an epidemic, etc., first of all, affects infant mortality, which immediately increases.”

I think that after the statistics given above, no one will want to claim that the First World War, as a national disaster, was better than a crop failure or an epidemic, and its consequences did not in any way affect child mortality in general, and infants under 1 year of age in particular.

Now we put an end to the “lyrical” digression and again return to the topic of conversation.

Do you want to know which of the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the leaders in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age? I have the answer to this question! So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 children under 1 year of age) were the following provinces:

Perm - 438 children (Quiet horror!!!);
Moscow - 406 children (and this is not the abandoned outskirts of the empire!);
Nizhny Novgorod - 397 children (!);
Vladimirskaya - 388 children (!);
Vyatskaya – 383 children (!)

The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 271 children (under 1 year old) died per 1000 births.

For 1886-1897 The leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 children under 1 year of age) from the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the following provinces:

Perm - 437 children (Again the highest figure among 50 provinces);
Nizhny Novgorod - 410 children (Quiet horror!);
Saratovskaya - 377 children (!);
Vyatskaya – 371 children (!);
Penza and Moscow 366 children each (!);

The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 274 children (under one year old) died per 1000 births.

For 1908-1910 The leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 children under 1 year of age) from the 50 provinces of the European part of the Russian Empire were the following provinces:

Nizhny Novgorod - 340 children;
Vyatskaya – 325 children;
Olonetskaya – 321 children;
Perm - 320 children;
Kostroma - 314 children;

The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 253 children (under one year old) died per 1000 births.

(Sources: D.A. Sokolov and V.I. Grebenshchikov “Mortality in Russia and the fight against it”, 1901, “Population movement in European Russia for 1908, 1909 and 1910”).

Well, tell me. Maximum infant mortality rates (for infants under 1 year) compared to 1867-1881. decreased!

Ooo!!! Don't rush to draw conclusions!

By 1908-1910 infant mortality rates decreased mainly in a number of provinces with particularly high infant mortality (in Perm, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, St. Petersburg, Orenburg, Kazan) and increased in Kursk, Kyiv, Bessarabian, Vitebsk, Kovno, Ekaterinoslav, Vilna provinces, Oblast Donskoy troops.

For example, in the Don Army Region for 1867-1881. the infant mortality rate was 160 deaths of infants under 1 year per 1000 births, in 1886-1897. it became 206 deaths of infants under 1 year per 1000 births, and in 1908-1910. it rose to a record 256 deaths under 1 year per 1,000 births. The growth in mortality in this area is no less impressive in its pace than the decline in mortality, say, in the Perm province.

For other provinces, changes in mortality rates for infants under 1 year of age for 1867-1881 and 1908-1910. were relatively small.

And further. A short comment regarding the Moscow province. P.I. Kurkin in his special study on infant mortality in the Moscow province for 1883-1892. indicated: “Children who died before the age of 1 year of life make up 45.4% of the total number of deaths of all ages in the province, and this ratio for individual five-year periods ranges from 46.9% in 1883-1897. to 45.7% in 1888-1892. and up to 43.5% in 1893-1897.” (Source – Kurkin “Infant mortality in the Moscow province and its districts in 1883-1897”, 1902).

For complete clarity, a picture of infant mortality for 1908-1910 should also be given.

So, the 50 provinces of European Russia can be divided into the following 5 groups:

1st group with a mortality rate from 14 to 18% - 11 provinces: Estland, Courland, Livonia, Vilna, Minsk, Grodno, Podolsk, Volyn, Tauride, Ekaterinoslav, Poltava, located in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (At least one Russian province, E-MY!!!);

2nd group, where the mortality rate was from 18 to 22% - 8 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Kovno, Bessarabian, Kherson, Kharkov, Chernigov, Ufa, located mainly (with the exception of the Bashkir Ufa province) in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (Where are the original Russian provinces???);

3rd group, which has a mortality rate from 22 to 26%, - 6 provinces: Astrakhan, Kiev, Kazan, Orenburg, Arkhangelsk, Don Army Region;

4th group with mortality from 26 to 30% - 14 provinces: St. Petersburg, Yaroslavl, Pskov, Vologda, Novgorod, Moscow, Ryazan, Oryol, Kursk, Voronezh, Tula, Tambov, Saratov, Samara, located mainly in the central zone, on the northeast and southeast of the Russian Empire (This is Central Russia! This is where Rus' degenerated!);

Group 5 with a mortality rate of 30% or more - 11 provinces: Kaluga, Tver, Penza, Smolensk, Vladimir, Simbirsk, Kostroma, Olonetsk, Vyatka, Perm, Nizhny Novgorod provinces, located mainly in the north and central part of Russia. Moreover, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Olonets and Perm provinces had an infant mortality rate above 32%!

The source of all this data is Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913.” For those who don’t believe that everything I posted there exists, find this magnificent book, open it and read it. Everything is very simple!

Now for a little shock! The numbers I cited above are relative, i.e. we talked about the mortality rate of children under 1 year of age per 1000 births. And how many children under 1 year of age died in absolute numerical terms, at least during some of the periods under consideration?

And here Rashin helped us:

“According to data for 1895-1899. out of a total of 23 million 256 thousand. 800 born babies died before the age of one year - 6 million 186 thousand 400 children!!! HOW IS THIS NOT A REAL GENOCIDE!!! Do lovers of Tsarist Russia have anything to say?

I think the question is rhetorical...

But that's not all. In conclusion, considering the mortality rate of children under 1 year of age in the Russian Empire, I will give one more very useful comparison(N.A. Rubakin “Russia in numbers” (St. Petersburg, 1912):

“The following table shows the place that Russia occupies among other nations globe on the mortality of their children.

In 1905, out of 1000 births, the following died before the age of 1:

In Mexico - 308 children;
In Russia – 272 children;
In Hungary – 230 children;
In Austria – 215 children;
In Germany – 185 children;
In Italy – 166 children;
In Japan – 152 children;
In France – 143 children;
In England - 133 children;
In Holland – 131 children;
In Scotland – 116 children;
In the United States of America - 97 children;
In Sweden – 84 children;
In Australia – 82 children;
In Uruguay – 89 children;
There are 68 children in New Zealand.”

These figures are so eloquent, so vivid, that any explanations for them become completely unnecessary.

In this regard, in the official review “Mortality of infants aged from birth to one year in 1909, 1910 and 1911 in European Russia”, compiled by the Director of the Central Statistical Committee, Prof. P. Georgievsky, we meet the following recognition:

“25-30 years have passed... In all countries, mortality has dropped significantly, even where it was very low, such as in Sweden, where it almost halved from 13.2 to 7.5. On the contrary, Russia - according to these data dating back to 1901, not only in comparison with European, but also with all states (except for Mexico, where the coefficient reaches 30.4) has a sad lead in terms of losing the largest number of babies during the first year their lives compared with the number of births in the same year, namely, per 100 live births there are 27.2 deaths in the first year of life (here we are talking about the number of children who died per 100 births - approx.)" (Source - P. Georgievsky "Mortality infants aged from birth to one year in 1909, 1910 and 1911 in European Russia", 1914).

Let my opponents from the “gold chasing” camp try to comment on this somehow. And I'll see what they can do...

At this point, I consider the issue of infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age closed.

Let's move on to the issue of infant mortality among children who died under the age of 5, since it was with them that our conversation with you on the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire began. I remind you of the sacramental phrase of N.A. Rubakina (“Russia in Figures”, St. Petersburg, 1912 edition):

“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deaths of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, 606.5 of the dead were children under 5 years of age, i.e. almost two thirds (!!!)

Looking ahead, I want to say right away - this is quiet horror in the brightest colors!

So, our main source is already well known to you, Rashin “Population of Russia over 100 years. 1811-1913.” And we will present it (with regard to infant mortality for children under 5 years of age) for the same periods as when considering infant mortality for infants under 1 year of age.

So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 children under 5 years of age) were the following provinces:

Moscow - 554 children (quiet horror for the ancient capital of the state
Russian!!!);
Perm - 541 children (among dead infants under 1 year old, she was the leader in
this period);
Vladimirskaya - 522 children (!);
Nizhny Novgorod - 509 children (!);
Vyatskaya – 499 children (!)

For 1887-1896 The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 children under 5 years of age) were the following provinces:

Perm - 545 children (Leader in mortality among infants under 1 year for the same
period);
Nizhny Novgorod - 538 children (!);
Tula - 524 children (!);
Penza - 518 children (!);
Moscow - 516 children (!);

Generalized results for 50 provinces of European Russia for 1867-1881. – 423 children (under 5 years of age) died per 1000 births.

For 1908-1910 The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 children under 5 years of age) were the following provinces:

Samara - 482 children;
Smolenskaya - 477 children;
Kaluzhskaya - 471 children;
Tverskaya - 468 children;
Saratovskaya - 465 children;

The general result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 389 children (under 5 years old) died per 1000 births.

From 1867-1881 to 1908-1910. On average, the mortality rate of children under 5 years of age in European Russia decreased from 423 to 389 children per 1000 births. At the same time, along with groups of provinces in which the infant mortality rate decreased, there is a group of provinces where changes in mortality were relatively insignificant, as well as a group of provinces where infant mortality increased.

If we analyze the infant mortality rates for deceased children under 5 years of age per 1000 births (for the three periods under consideration) for 50 provinces of European Russia, we obtain the most interesting data:

1867-1881

500 or more (!) children died in 4 provinces;
450-500 children died in 13 provinces;
400-450 children died in 14 provinces;

1887-1896

500 or more (!) children died in 12 (!!!) provinces;
450-500 children died in 9 provinces;
400-450 children died in 10 provinces;
350-400 children died in 8 provinces;
300-350 children died in 7 provinces;
Less than 300 children died in 4 provinces.

Notice how significantly the number of provinces has increased where the infant mortality rate for children under 5 years of age was 500 (or more) deaths per 1000 births. I am almost sure that if we look up the mortality data for the provinces of the Russian Empire, where the famine of 1891-1892 took place, it will turn out that these provinces are the leaders in mortality among children under 5 years of age. Someday I will deal with this issue, but for now let’s continue.

1908-1910

500 or more children did not die in any province;
450-500 children died in 7 provinces;
400-450 children died in 18 provinces;
350-400 children died in 9 provinces;
300-350 children died in 7 provinces;
Less than 300 children died in 9 provinces

Positive dynamics in child mortality for children under 5 years of age, although extremely small, is still there. There are no more provinces where 500 or more children under 5 years of age per 1,000 births died; there are more provinces where less than 300 children under 5 years of age per 1,000 births died, but at the same time, the number of provinces where the death rate was 400 or more has increased significantly. up to 450 children under 5 years of age per 100 births.

So now draw your conclusions after all this, and to help you a little, I will again give you a small quote from Rubakin “Russia in Figures” (St. Petersburg, 1912):

“... in some corners of the Kazan province in 1899-1900, some public schools did not admit students, since those who were supposed to enter school that year “became dead” 8-9 years ago, during the era the great national disaster of 1891-1892, which, however, is not the greatest, but there are many of which in Russian history.”

And further. I deliberately do not want to talk or write much about the reasons that gave rise to the terrible situation in which the Russian Empire was in terms of infant mortality among children under 5 years of age. Anyone interested in this can read about it in Bezgin’s “Peasant Everyday Life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries,” as well as Milov’s “The Great Russian Plowman and the Peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process.”

I will dwell on this issue only briefly.

So, the main reasons for the high infant mortality rate in Tsarist Russia were: - unsanitary conditions caused by the living conditions of the peasantry and city residents, and in connection with this constant outbreaks of infectious diseases (especially in summer). Here, for example, is a small quote from the “Explanatory Note to the State Control Report on the Execution of State Schedules and Financial Estimates for 1911.” (SPb., 1912. P. 194-200):

“As a result of a survey of the cities of Kyiv, Kharkov, Rostov-on-Don and St. Petersburg in 1907-1910. It turned out that one of the reasons for the widespread epidemics of typhus and cholera was contamination of the water supply with sewage.” If such a situation was observed in the largest cities of the Russian Empire, then what was it like where there was no running water at all, and where the culture of life was at the level of dirty chicken huts (for those who don’t know, most peasant huts were heated “black.” Source – Bezgin “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries”)?

It is not surprising that at the same time, the main sore of the empire was scabies, and for the most part it was not the residents of the Central Asian possessions of the Russian Empire who suffered from it, but the residents of the European part of the Russian Empire (

The life expectancy of people varied in different historical periods and depended on socio-economic conditions.

Scientists who studied ancient tombstone inscriptions, as well as the remains of burials, came to the conclusion that in ancient times people lived on average 22 years.

In the XIV-XV centuries there was a slight increase in life expectancy. English scientists believe that it was minimal (17 years) during the era of the “Black Death” plague, which raged in England in the 14th century. And in other periods, the maximum level did not exceed 24-26 years.

In the 19th century, according to statistics, the Belgians lived on average 32 years, the Dutch - 33 years. In India, during the rule of the British, the average life expectancy of Hindus was 30 years, while the British in this country at that time lived up to 65 years. In Tsarist Russia in 1897, the average life expectancy of men was recorded as 31.4 years, in 1913 – 32 years. Today in the Soviet Union, according to the Central Statistics Service, men live on average 65 years, and women - 74 years.

In many countries, there is a difference in life expectancy between men and women of 5-7 years. Some researchers explain this by the fact that the male population drinks alcohol, others - by a decrease in women's mortality from childbirth, others - by the fact that men do more difficult work, and others - by the biological adaptability of women to changing living conditions. These questions are currently being studied.

Historical data shows that at different periods in almost all nations there were individuals who managed to live very long lives.

Academician A. A. Bogomolets in his book “Life Extension” gives examples of longevity. In 1724, P. Kzarten, 185 years old, died in Hungary. His son was 95 years old at the time; in 1670, Disenkins died in Yorkshire, aged 169. Thomas Parr lived a working peasant life for 152 years. At the age of 120, he remarried a widow, with whom he lived for 12 years, and was so cheerful that, as contemporaries say, his wife did not notice his old age. In Norway, Joseph Surrington died in 1797 at the age of 160, leaving a young widow and many children from several marriages, the eldest son being 103 years old and the youngest son 9 years old.

Hungarians John Rovel and his wife Sarah have been married for 147 years. John died at 172 years old, and his wife 164 years old.

The Norwegian sailor Drakenberg lived 146 years, and his life was difficult: at the age of 68 he was captured by the Arabs and remained in slavery until he was 83 years old. At the age of 90 he still led the life of a sailor, and at 111 he got married. Having lost his wife at the age of 130, he wooed a young peasant woman, but was refused. The painter Kramer left a portrait of Drakenberg at the age of 139, in which he looks like a strong old man.

In 1927, Henri Barbusse visited the peasant Shapkovsky, who was then 140 years old, in the village of Laty near Sukhumi. Barbusse was surprised by the cheerfulness, vivacity of movements, and sonorous voice of this man. His third wife was 82 years old, his youngest daughter was 26 years old. Thus, at the age of 110, Shapkovsky had not yet stopped having sex.

Women are not inferior to men in their longevity. Mechnikov reports that in 1904 there lived an Ossetian woman whose age was 180 years old. Despite this, she was engaged in sewing and housekeeping. Not long ago in Ankara after heart attack 169-year-old Turkish woman Hacer Issek Nine died. Her last words were: “I haven’t lived enough in this world yet.” The life of the Ossetian Taiabad Anieva was even longer: she died at the age of 182.

The largest number of centenarians is noted in Georgia, but people 100 years and older also live in harsh Yakutia, Altai, Krasnodar territories and in all regions of the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR and other republics.

If we compare data for the USSR with data from capitalist countries, then in the USSR there are 10 centenarians per 100 thousand population, in the USA - 3 people, in France - 0.7 people, in Great Britain - 0.6.

The socialist system, with its concern for the welfare of the people, creates all the conditions for longevity. The Soviet government gave citizens a secure, peaceful old age. Despite their material security, many of them continue to work to the best of their ability and benefit society. Typically, old age develops gradually, and different people it proceeds in different ways. For some, the aging process begins at 35-40 years old: vision decreases, signs of sclerosis appear. The concepts of youth and old age are relative. Currently, it is generally accepted that there is a passport age and a biological age, so retirement (55-60 years) is sometimes ahead of the age at which a person actually is.

The average life expectancy in the USSR, scientists believe, will soon increase to 80 years, and by 2000 - to 150 years. Of course, not all people will be able to reach this age. Life expectancy depends not only on the environmental conditions in which a person finds himself, but also on the genetic characteristics of a person.

Scientists studying the ancient world claim that our ancestors lived much shorter than modern humans. No wonder, because before there was no such developed medicine, there was no knowledge in the field of our health that allows a person today to take care of himself and predict dangerous diseases.

However, there is another opinion that our ancestors, on the contrary, lived much longer than you and I. They ate organic food and used natural medicines (herbs, decoctions, ointments). And the atmosphere of our planet was much better than it is now.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. This article will help to better understand what was the life expectancy of people in different eras.

The ancient world and the first people

Science has proven that the first people appeared in Africa. Human communities did not appear immediately, but in the process of a long and painstaking formation of a special system of relationships, which today are called “public” or “social”. Gradually, ancient people moved from place to place and occupied new territories of our planet. And around the end of the 4th millennium BC, the first civilizations began to appear. This moment became a turning point in the history of mankind.

The times of the primitive communal system still occupy most of the history of our species. This was the era of the formation of man as a social being and as a biological species.

It was during this period that methods of communication and interaction were formed. Languages ​​and cultures were created. A person learned to think and make reasonable decisions. The first rudiments of medicine and healing appeared.

This primary knowledge became a catalyst for the development of humanity, thanks to which we live in the world that we have now.

Ancient human anatomy There is such a science - paleopathology. She studies the structure of ancient people from remains found during archaeological excavations. And according to the data obtained during the research of these finds, scientists found that ancient people were sick just like us, although before the advent of this science everything was completely different

. Scientists believed that prehistoric man was not sick at all and was completely healthy, and diseases appeared as a result of the advent of civilization. Thanks to knowledge in this area, modern scientists have found that diseases appeared before humans.

It turns out that our ancestors were also exposed to danger from harmful bacteria and various diseases. Based on the remains, it was determined that tuberculosis, caries, tumors and other diseases were not uncommon among ancient people.

But it was not only diseases that created difficulties for our ancestors. Constant struggle for food, for territory with other tribes, non-compliance with any hygiene rules. Only during the hunt for a mammoth, out of a group of 20 people, about 5-6 could return.

Ancient man completely relied on himself and his abilities. Every day he fought for survival. There was no talk of mental development. The ancestors hunted and defended the territory in which they lived.

Only later did people learn to collect berries, roots, and grow some grain crops. But from hunting and gathering to the agrarian society that marked the beginning new era, humanity has been walking for a very long time.

Lifespan of primitive man

But how did our ancestors cope with these diseases in the absence of any medications or knowledge in the field of medicine? The very first people had a hard time. The maximum they lived to was 26-30 years old. However, over time, people learned to adapt to certain environmental conditions and understand the nature of certain changes occurring in the body. Gradually, the life expectancy of ancient people began to increase. But this happened very slowly as healing skills developed.

There are three stages in the formation of primitive medicine:

• Stage 1 – formation of primitive communities. People were just beginning to accumulate knowledge and experience in the field of healing. They used animal fats, applied various herbs to wounds, and prepared decoctions from ingredients that came to hand;
• Stage 2 – development of the primitive community and gradual transition to their collapse. Ancient man learned to observe the processes of the disease. I began to compare the changes that occurred during the healing process. The first “medicines” appeared;
• Stage 3 – collapse of primitive communities. At this stage of development, medical practice finally began to take shape. People have learned to cure certain ailments in effective ways. They realized that death can be deceived and avoided. The first doctors appeared;

In ancient times, people died from the most minor diseases, which today do not cause any concern and can be treated in one day. A person died in the prime of his strength before reaching old age. The average lifespan of a person in prehistoric times was extremely low. Everything began to change for the better in the Middle Ages, which will be discussed further.

Middle Ages

The first scourge of the Middle Ages was hunger and disease, which still migrated from ancient world. In the Middle Ages, people not only starved, but also satisfied their hunger with terrible food. Animals were killed on dirty farms in complete unsanitary conditions. There was no talk of sterile preparation methods. IN medieval Europe The swine flu epidemic claimed tens of thousands of lives. In the 14th century, a plague pandemic that broke out in Asia wiped out a quarter of Europe's population.

Lifestyle of a medieval man

What did people do in the Middle Ages? Eternal problems remained the same. Diseases, the struggle for food, for new territories, but to this were added more and more problems that a person had when he became smarter. Now people began to fight wars for ideology, for ideas, for religion. If earlier man fought with nature, now he fought with his fellow men.

But along with this, many other problems also disappeared. Now people have learned to make fire, build reliable and durable homes for themselves, and began to observe primitive rules of hygiene. Man learned to hunt skillfully and invented new methods to simplify everyday life.

Life expectancy in antiquity and the Middle Ages

The wretched state in which medicine was in ancient times and the Middle Ages, many diseases that were incurable at that time, meager and terrible nutrition - all these are signs that characterize the early Middle Ages. And this is not to mention the constant strife between people, the wars and crusades that carried away hundreds of thousands human lives

. The average life expectancy still did not exceed 30-33 years. Forty-year-old men were already called “mature husband”, and a man of fifty was even called “elderly”. Residents of Europe in the 20th century. lived to be 55 years old. IN Ancient Greece

people lived on average 29 years. This does not mean that in Greece a person lived to be twenty-nine years old and died, but this was considered old age. And this despite the fact that at that time the first so-called “hospitals” had already been formed in Greece. The same can be said about. Everyone knows about the powerful Roman soldiers who served in the empire. If you look at the ancient frescoes, in each of them you can recognize some god from Olympus. One immediately gets the impression that such a person will live a long time and remain healthy throughout his life. But statistics say otherwise. The life expectancy in Rome was barely 23 years old. The average duration throughout the Roman Empire was 32 years. So Roman wars weren't all that healthy? Or are incurable diseases to blame for everything, from which no one was insured? It is difficult to answer this question, but data taken from more than 25,000 epitaphs on the tombstones of cemeteries in Rome indicate precisely these numbers.

In the Egyptian empire, which existed before the beginning of our era, which is the cradle of civilization, the Siberian Front was no better. She was only 23 years old. What can we say about the less civilized states of antiquity, if life expectancy even in ancient Egypt was it negligible? It was in Egypt that people first learned to treat people with snake venom. Egypt was famous for its medicine. At that stage of human development, it was advanced.

Late Middle Ages

What about more late Middle Ages? In England, from the 16th to the 17th centuries, the plague raged. Average life expectancy in the 17th century. reached only 30 years of age. In 18th-century Holland and Germany, the situation was no better: people lived to an average of 31 years.

But life expectancy in the 19th century. began to slowly but surely increase. Russia XIX century was able to increase the figure to 34 years. In those days, people in England lived shorter lives: only 32 years.

As a result, we can conclude that life expectancy in the Middle Ages remained low and did not change over the centuries.

Modernity and our days

And only with the advent of the 20th century did humanity begin to equalize its average life expectancy. New technologies began to appear, people mastered new methods of curing diseases, the first medicines appeared in the form in which we are accustomed to seeing them now. The life expectancy rate began to increase sharply in the mid-twentieth century. Many countries began to develop rapidly and improve their economies, which made it possible to increase the standard of living of people. Infrastructure, medical equipment, everyday life, sanitary conditions, the emergence of more complex sciences. All this led to a sharp improvement in the demographic situation throughout the planet.

The twentieth century foreshadowed new era in the development of humanity. It was truly a revolution in the world of medicine and improving the quality of life of our species.

Over the course of just half a century, life expectancy in Russia has almost doubled. From 34 years to 65. These numbers are amazing, because for several millennia a person could not increase his life expectancy by even a couple of years.

But the sharp rise was followed by the same stagnation. From the mid-twentieth century until the twenty-first century, no discoveries were made that radically changed ideas about medicine. Certain discoveries were made, but this was not enough. Life expectancy on the planet has not increased as rapidly as it did in the middle of the 20th century.

XXI Century Humanity is faced with an acute question about our connection with nature. The ecological situation on the planet began to deteriorate sharply against the backdrop of the twentieth century. And many were divided into two camps. Some believe that new diseases appear as a result of our disregard for nature and

environment

, others, on the contrary, believe that the more we move away from nature, the more we extend our stay in the world. Let's consider this issue in more detail.

Of course, it is foolish to deny that without special achievements in the field of medicine, humanity would remain at the same level of knowledge of itself, its body at the same level as in the Middle Ages, or even later centuries. Now humanity has learned to treat diseases that have destroyed millions of people. Entire cities were carried away. Advances in the field of various sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics allow us to open new horizons in improving our quality of life. Unfortunately, progress requires sacrifice. And as we accumulate knowledge and improve technology, we inexorably destroy our nature. Medicine and healthcare in the 21st century But this is the price we pay for progress.

Modern man

Today, the vast majority of the world's population is free from the problems that people faced before. There is no need to hunt, no need to make fire, no need to be afraid of dying from a cold. Today man lives and accumulates wealth. Every day he does not survive, but makes his life more comfortable. Goes to work, rests on weekends, has the opportunity to choose. He has all the means for self-development. People today eat and drink as much as they want. They don't need to worry about getting food when everything is in the stores.

Life expectancy today

Average life expectancy today is approximately 83 years for women and 78 years for men. These figures cannot be compared with those in the Middle Ages and especially in antiquity. Scientists say that biologically a person has about 120 years. So why are older people who turn 90 still considered centenarians?

It's all about our attitude to health and lifestyle. After all, the increase in the average life expectancy of a modern person is associated not only with improved medicine. The knowledge that we have about ourselves and the structure of the body also plays a big role here. People have learned to follow the rules of hygiene and body care. A modern person who cares about his longevity, leads a correct and healthy lifestyle and does not abuse bad habits. He knows that it is better to live in places with a clean environment.

Statistics show that in different countries where is the culture healthy image life is instilled in citizens from childhood, the mortality rate is significantly lower than in states where due attention is not paid to this.

The Japanese are the longest living nation. People in this country have been accustomed to the right way of life since childhood. And how many examples of such countries are there: Sweden, Austria, China, Iceland, etc.

It took a long time for a person to reach this level and life expectancy. He overcame all the challenges that nature threw at him. How much we suffered from illnesses, from cataclysms, from the awareness of the fate that was in store for all of us, but we still moved on. And we are still moving towards new achievements. Think about the path we have taken through the centuries-old history of our ancestors and that their legacy should not be wasted, that we must only continue to improve the quality and duration of our lives.

About life expectancy in different eras (video)