Average life expectancy in the 19th century. How did the peasants live in Tsarist Russia

“Russian mortality, in general, is typical for agricultural and backward countries in sanitary, cultural and economic terms,” wrote Doctor of Medical Sciences, Academician Sergei Novoselsky in 1916.

The scientist believed that Russia actually took a special place among similar states because of the "exceptional height of mortality in childhood and exceptionally low mortality in old age."

Monitoring such statistics in the Russian Empire officially began only in the time of Alexander II, who signed a document regulating this aspect of society. The "regulation" of the Committee of Ministers stated that the doctor in charge or the police officer was required to issue death certificates, which were then handed over to the police. It was possible to bury the body only "on presentation of a medical certificate of death to the cemetery clergy." In fact, from the moment this document appeared, it was possible to judge what was the average life expectancy of men and women in the country, and what factors could influence these figures.

31 for women, 29 for men

For the first 15 years of keeping such statistics, a picture began to emerge that the country was losing children in huge numbers. For every 1,000 deaths, more than half - 649 people - were those who did not reach the age of 15; 156 people are those who have overcome the milestone of 55 years. That is, 805 people out of a thousand are children and the elderly.

As for the gender component, boys died more often in infancy. There were 388 boys per 1,000 deaths, and 350 girls. After 20 years, the statistics changed: there were 302 men and 353 women per 1,000 deaths.

They added their colors to the overall picture and the data of sanitary doctors.

“A population that exists from hand to mouth, and often completely starving, cannot give strong children, especially if we add to this those unfavorable conditions in which, in addition to lack of nutrition, a woman is during pregnancy and after her,” - wrote one of the first Russian children's doctors Dmitry Sokolova and Dr. Grebenshchikova.

Speaking in 1901 with a report at a joint meeting of the Society of Russian Doctors, they stated that "the extinction of children remains an undoubted fact." In his speech, Grebenshchikov emphasized that "the congenital weakness of the child depends entirely on the state of health of his parents and, in addition, especially on the conditions in which the mother is during pregnancy."

“Thus, if we raise the question of the health and strength of parents, then, unfortunately, we must admit that the general level of health and physical development in Russia is very low and, one can unmistakably say, is getting lower and lower every year. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but undoubtedly the more and more difficult struggle for existence and the increasing spread of alcoholism and syphilis are in the foreground ... "

“A population that exists from hand to mouth, and often starving at all, cannot give strong children.” Photo: Public Domain

One doctor for 7 thousand people

Speaking about the availability of medicine in those years, it can be noted that in 1913 the total amount of expenses for the medical part was 147.2 million rubles. As a result, it turned out that for each inhabitant there were about 90 kopecks per year. The report “On the state of public health and the organization of medical care in Russia for 1913” stated that there were 24,031 civilian doctors in the empire, of which 71% lived in cities.

“Based on the entire population, urban and rural, one civilian doctor served on average 6,900 residents, while 1,400 in cities and 20,300 outside cities,” the document said.

During the years of the formation of Soviet power, these figures began to change. So, for example, by the end of 1955, the number of doctors in the USSR exceeded 334 thousand people.

In one of my earlier posts on the topic: “RUSSIA WHICH THEY LOST” (it was about natural growth 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 century":

“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 a maximum of 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 27 years, gave birth 14 times”; "Akulina Manukhina, peasant woman, 45 years old, married 25 years, gave birth 16 times."

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

High infant mortality played the role of a spontaneous regulator of the reproduction of the rural population. According to surveys (1887-1896), the proportion of dead children under five years old averaged 43.2% in Russia, 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 up” plunged me into a real shock.

“According to the data for 1908-1910. the number of deaths under the age of 5 years was almost 3/5 of the total number of deaths. The infant mortality rate 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, there were 606.5 dead children under 5 years old, i.e. almost two-thirds (!!!). Of every 1,000 dead men, in the same year, 625.9 were children under 5 years old, and 585.4, of every 1,000 dead women, were girls under 5 years old. In other words, in Russia, a huge percentage of children who have not even reached the age of 5 die every year - a terrible fact that cannot but make us think about the difficult conditions in which the Russian population lives, if such a significant percentage of the dead are accounted for for children under 5 years of age.

Please note that in the quotes I have cited, we are not talking about the deaf 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 like to prove that the empire was “on the rise”: the economy was growing, the well-being of the people too, the level of education and medical care was rising.

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

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

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

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

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

The following table (source - P.I. Kurkin "Mortality and birth rate in the capitalist states of Europe", edition of 1938) shows the indicators of infant mortality for the entire period under review.

Out of 100 babies born, 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 an overall high infant mortality, infant mortality was extremely high in 1868, 1872, 1878, 1882, 1890 and 1892.

Minimum mortality for 1867-1911 was reached in 1907. But is it worth rejoicing at the fact that such a record low was achieved this year? In my opinion - no! In the future (1908-1910) it again grows to 27.1, after which it again declined to 23.7, which is quite natural if we analyze the trend in child mortality since 1867. The trend is the same - after every fall in this indicator for infants under 1 year old, it again goes up.

The only reason for some optimism of the supporters of the tsarist empire is that after 1892 until 1911 the infant mortality rate among infants under 1 year old did not reach the record for 1892 of 30.7 dead infants per 100 births and showed a slight decrease in the maximum. But at the same time, please do not forget that with the outbreak of the First World War, the economic situation in the Russian Empire only worsened, which could not but affect infant mortality, because, as 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 one of the admirers of tsarism itches his tongue to accuse Kurkin of the fact that the figures he cited are biased (the edition, they say, of 1938, i.e. Stalin), I propose, in fairness, to get acquainted with one more source.

In the work of S.A. Novoselsky "Overview of the main data on demography and sanitary statistics", edition of 1916 (!)) published the following summary data on the mortality of infants under one year old in European Russia for 1867-1911.

So, out of 100 babies born, died under the age of 1 year (for 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).

As you can see, the data of both authors are almost identical. And although the data for five years,
show a downward trend in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age from 1892-1896. to 1907-1911 by 11.27%, this decrease, in general, 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 all in the same “prosperous” year 1913, according to the “Report on the state of public health and the organization of medical care for 1913”, only 20% were hospitalized!

And now, a small "lyrical" digression for those who, after all, have not read my materials. The Russian Empire, according to the data of the same Novoselsky (“Mortality and life expectancy in Russia”, edition of 1916), among the countries of Europe he cited, was still in the relatively prosperous 1905-1909. showed superiority in mortality from smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough. Scabies (!) And malaria (!) In the prosperous 1912, more people were sick than influenza (4,735,490 people and 3,537,060 people, respectively, against 3,440,282 people) (Statistical collection of Russia.
1914, data are 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 reported cases. (M.S. Onitkansky “On the spread of cholera in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1911). The annual incidence rate of tuberculosis steadily grew, from 278.5 thousand in 1896 to up to 876.5 thousand in the "prosperous" 1913. And he never (!) (since the mentioned year 1896) had a tendency to decrease! (Novoselsky "Mortality and life expectancy in Russia", edition of 1916).

This deplorable situation in the Russian Empire only worsened with the outbreak of the First World War. Therefore, as I said above, Rubakin absolutely rightly remarked: "... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure, an epidemic, etc., first of all, is reflected in infant mortality, which immediately increases."

I think that after the above statistics, no one wants to argue that the First World War, as a national disaster, was better than a crop failure or an epidemic, and its consequences did not affect infant mortality in general, and infants under 1 year old 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 in the lead in infant mortality among infants under 1 year old? I have the answer to this question! So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in child mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year) were the following provinces:

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

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

For 1886-1897. leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year) from 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!);
Saratov - 377 children (!);
Vyatka - 371 children (!);
Penza and Moscow 366 children each (!);

The generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 274 children (up to a year old) died per 1000 births.

For 1908-1910. leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year) from 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 generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia is 253 children (up to a 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 child mortality rates (for infants under 1 year old) compared to 1867-1881. decreased!

Ltd!!! Do not rush to draw conclusions!

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

For example, in the Region of the Don Cossacks for 1867-1881. the infant mortality rate was 160 dead infants under 1 year old per 1000 births, in 1886-1897. it became 206 dead babies under 1 year old per 1000 births, and in 1908-1910. it rose to a record 256 deaths before 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 the rest of the provinces, changes in the mortality rates of infants under 1 year old for 1867-1881 and 1908-1910. were relatively small.

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

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

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

Group 1 with a mortality rate of 14 to 18% - 11 provinces: Estland, Courland, Lifland, Vilensk, Minsk, Grodno, Podolsk, Volyn, Taurida, Yekaterinoslav, Poltava, located in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (At least one Russian province, E-MY!!!);

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

3rd group, with a mortality rate of 22 to 26%, - 6 provinces: Astrakhan, Kyiv, Kazan, Orenburg, Arkhangelsk, the Don Cossack 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 strip, on northeast and southeast of the Russian Empire (Here it is Central Russia! That's where Russia degenerated!);

5th group 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 in the central part of Russia. Moreover, the Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Olonets and Perm provinces had an infant mortality rate above 32%!

The source of all these data is Rashin “Population of Russia for 100 years. 1811-1913". Who does not believe - that everything that I posted there is - find this magnificent book, open it and read it. Everything is very simple!

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

And here Rashin helped us:

“According to the data for 1895-1899. out of a total of 23 million 256 thousand. 800 babies born died at the age of less than a year - 6 million 186 thousand 400 children!!! WHY THIS IS NOT THE MOST REAL GENOCIDE!!! Do lovers of tsarist Russia have something to say?

I think it's a rhetorical question...

But that's not all. In conclusion, considering the mortality of children under 1 year old in the Russian Empire, I will give another very useful comparison (N.A. Rubakin "Russia in Numbers" (St. Petersburg, 1912):

“The following table shows the place that Russia occupies among other peoples of the globe in terms of the death rate of its children.

In 1905, out of 1000 births, people died before 1 year:

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 the Netherlands - 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;
New Zealand has 68 children.

These figures are so eloquent, so bright, that any explanations for them become completely superfluous.

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 states, the mortality rate has dropped significantly, even where it was very low, as, for example, in Sweden, where it almost halved from 13.2 to 7.5. On the contrary, Russia - according to these data, relating to 1901, not only in comparison with European, but also with all states (excluding Mexico alone, where the coefficient reaches 30.4) belongs to the sad superiority in terms of the loss of the largest number of babies during the first year their lives compared to the number of those born in the same year, namely, 27.2 deaths per 100 live births in the first year of life 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. I'll see what they can do...

At this point, I consider the question of infant mortality among infants under 1 year old to be 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 that the sacramental phrase of N.A. Rubakin (“Russia in Figures”, St. Petersburg, edition of 1912):

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

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

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

So, for 1867-1881. The leaders in child mortality (per 1,000 children under the age of 5) were the following provinces:

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

For 1887-1896. The leaders in child mortality (per 1,000 children under the age of 5) were the following provinces:

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

Generalizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia for 1867-1881. – 423 children (under 5 years old) who died per 1000 births.

For 1908-1910. The leaders in child mortality (per 1,000 children under the age of 5) were the following provinces:

Samara - 482 children;
Smolensk - 477 children;
Kaluga - 471 children;
Tverskaya - 468 children;
Saratov - 465 children;

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

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

If we analyze the indicators of infant mortality for dead children under the age of 5 per 1000 births (for the three periods under consideration) for 50 provinces of European Russia, we will get very 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.

Note how significantly the number of provinces has increased, where infant mortality for children under 5 years old was 500 (or more) deaths per 1000 births. I am practically sure that if we look at 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 old. Somehow I will deal with this issue, but for now we will 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 infant mortality for children under 5 years old, although extremely small, still exists. There are no more provinces where 500 or more children under 5 died per 1000 births, there are more provinces where less than 300 children under 5 died per 1000 births, but with all this, the number of provinces where 400 died up to 450 children under the age of 5 per 100 births.

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

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

And further. I deliberately do not want to talk and write a lot about the reasons that gave rise to the terrible situation in which the Russian Empire found itself in terms of infant mortality among children under 5 years old. Anyone who is interested can read about this in Bezgin's “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries”, as well as Milov’s “Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process”.

I will dwell on this issue only in passing.

So, the main causes of high infant mortality 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 the State List and Financial Estimates for 1911" (St. Petersburg, 1912. S. 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 the 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 (who does not know - most of the peasant huts were heated "in black". Source - Bezgin "Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries")?

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

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

However, there is another opinion that our ancestors, on the contrary, lived much longer than you and I. They ate organic food, used natural medicines (herbs, decoctions, ointments). And the atmosphere of our planet was much better than 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 so far occupy most of the history of our species. It was the era of the formation of man as a social being and as a biological species. It was during this period that the ways of communication and interaction were formed. Languages ​​and cultures were created. Man learned to think and make reasonable decisions. The first rudiments of medicine and healing appeared.

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

Anatomy of an ancient person

There is such a science - paleopathology. She studies the structure of ancient people from the remains found during archaeological excavations. And according to the data obtained during the study of these findings, scientists have found that ancient people got sick just like us, although before the advent of this science everything was completely different. Scientists believed that prehistoric man did not get sick at all and was completely healthy, and diseases appeared as a result of the emergence of civilization. Thanks to knowledge in this area, modern scientists have found that diseases appeared before man.

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

Lifestyle of ancient people

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

Ancient man completely relied on himself and on his abilities. Every day he fought for survival. There was no mention of mental development. Ancestors hunted and defended the territory they inhabited.

Only later did people learn to pick berries, roots, grow some kind of crops. But from hunting and gathering to an agrarian society, which marked the beginning of a new era, mankind went on for a very long time.

The lifespan of a primitive man

But how did our ancestors cope with these diseases in the absence of any medicines or knowledge in the field of medicine? The very first people had a hard time. The maximum to which they lived was the age of 26-30 years. However, over time, a person has learned to adapt to certain environmental conditions, and to 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 with the development of healing skills.

There are three stages in the formation of primitive medicine:

• Stage 1 - the 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, prepared decoctions from ingredients that came to hand;
• Stage 2 - the development of the primitive community and the gradual transition to their disintegration. Ancient man learned to observe the processes of the course of the disease. I began to compare the changes that occurred in the process of healing. The first "medicines" appeared;
• Stage 3 - the collapse of primitive communities. At this stage of development, medical practice finally began to take shape. People have learned to treat certain ailments in effective ways. We realized that death can be cheated and avoided. The first doctors appeared;

In ancient times, people died from the most insignificant diseases, which today do not cause any concern and are treated in one day. A man died in the prime of his life, not having time to live to old age. The average duration of a person in prehistoric times was extremely low. For the better, everything began to change in the Middle Ages, which will be discussed further.

Middle Ages

The first scourge of the Middle Ages is hunger and disease, which still migrated from the 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 methods of preparation. 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.

Medieval lifestyle

What did people do in the Middle Ages? The eternal problems remain the same. Diseases, the struggle for food, for new territories, but to this was added more and more problems that a person had when he became more reasonable. Now people began to wage wars for ideology, for an idea, for religion. If earlier man fought with nature, now he fought with his fellows.

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

Lifespan in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

The miserable state in which medicine was in ancient times and the Middle Ages, many diseases that were incurable at that time, poor and terrible food - all these are signs that characterize the early Middle Ages. And this is not to mention the constant strife between people, the conduct of wars and crusades, which claimed hundreds of thousands of 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 up to 55 years.

In ancient Greece, people did live an average of 29 years. This does not mean that in Greece a person lived to the age of twenty-nine and died, but this was considered old age. And this despite the fact that in those days the first so-called "hospitals" had already been formed in Greece.

The same can be said about Ancient Rome. Everyone knows about the powerful Roman soldiers who were in the service of the empire. If you look at the ancient frescoes, then in each of them you can recognize some god from Olympus. One immediately gets the impression that such a person will live long and remain healthy throughout his life. But the statistics say otherwise. Life expectancy in Rome was hardly 23 years old. The average duration throughout the Roman Empire was 32 years. So the Roman wars weren't all that healthy after all? 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 speaks of such figures.

In the Egyptian empire, which existed even before the beginning of our era, which is the cradle of civilization, the SOL 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 negligible? It was in Egypt that people first learned to treat people with snake venom. Egypt was famous for its medicine. At that stage in the development of mankind, it was advanced.

Late Middle Ages

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

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

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

Modernity and our days

And only with the onset of the 20th century did humanity begin to equalize the indicators of 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 used to seeing them now. Life expectancy began to increase sharply in the middle of the 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 has led to a sharp improvement in the demographic situation throughout the planet.

The twentieth century heralded a new era in the development of mankind. It was truly a revolution in the world of medicine and in improving the quality of life of our species. For some half a century, life expectancy in Russia has almost doubled. From 34 years to 65. These figures are amazing, because for several millennia a person could not increase his life expectancy even by a couple of years.

But the sharp rise was followed by the same stagnation. From the middle of the twentieth century until the beginning of the twenty-first century, no discoveries were made that radically changed the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bmedicine. 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

The question of our connection with nature has sharply arisen before humanity. The ecological situation on the planet began to deteriorate sharply against the backdrop of the twentieth century. And many are divided into two camps. Some believe that new diseases appear as a result of our disregard for nature and the environment, while others, on the contrary, believe that the more we move away from nature, the more we prolong our stay in the world. Let's consider this question in more detail.

Of course, it is foolish to deny that without special achievements in the field of medicine, mankind would have remained at the same level of self-knowledge, its body at the same level as in the middle and even later centuries. Now mankind has learned to treat such diseases that destroyed millions of people. Entire cities were taken away. Achievements 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 XXI century

But this is the price we pay for progress. Modern man lives many times longer than his distant ancestors. Today, medicine works wonders. We have learned how to transplant organs, rejuvenate the skin, delay the aging of body cells, and detect pathologies at the formation stage. And this is only a small part of what modern medicine can offer every person.

Doctors have been valued throughout human history. Tribes and communities with more experienced shamans and healers survived longer than others and were stronger. States in which medicine was developed suffered less from epidemics. And now those countries in which the healthcare system is developed, people can not only be treated for diseases, but also significantly prolong their lives.

Today, the vast majority of the world's population is free from the problems that people faced before. 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. He goes to work, rests on weekends, has a choice. He has all the means for self-development. People today eat and drink as much as they want. They do not need to worry about getting food when everything is in stores.

Life expectancy today

Average life expectancy today is approximately 83 years for women and 78 years for men. These figures do not go to any comparison with those that were in the Middle Ages and even more so in antiquity. Scientists say that biologically a person has been given 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 the improvement of medicine. Here, the knowledge that we have about ourselves and the structure of the body also plays an important role. 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 the culture of a healthy lifestyle is instilled in citizens from childhood, the mortality rate is much lower than in countries where this is not given due attention.

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

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

About life expectancy in different eras (video)

The following graph covers a longer period of time and shows how great life was for people in ancient Greece. This time, not a complete sample is considered, but a regional one: for the 18th century - representatives of Western Europe, and for two periods of Antiquity - Romans and Greeks. As in the previous case, the identification of people by time was carried out on the basis of their dates of birth.

The average life expectancy in ancient Greece in the VI-III centuries BC. was 73.3 years. The number is simply unrealistic. Even in the first half of the 20th century, Europeans, on average, lived less. Of course, these statistics do not take into account people in dangerous professions, for example, the military, where life expectancy is below average. However, this shortcoming is compensated by the practical absence of women in this sample, who traditionally live longer than men. In any case, all this does not matter, because our task is to compare the results obtained with each other.

The graph clearly shows that in the 18th century (and, therefore, partially in the 19th century, since we are talking about people born in the 18th century), even in Western Europe, the average life expectancy was lower than in ancient Greece. Despite the fact that Greek statistics are based on just over fifty people, the differences between the two groups are statistically significant, which suggests that Western Europeans definitely lived less than the ancient Greeks. The reliability of this conclusion is as high as before - less than one percent (the smaller this figure, showing the probability of a researcher's error, the higher the reliability).

The main idea that I try to convey in critical publications on history is that the generally accepted chronology of historical events was composed at a relatively late time, approximately in the 17th-18th centuries. Therefore, it would be more interesting to see what life expectancy was not in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, but in the 18th century and in the time immediately preceding it. To do this, we will make statistics for smaller periods of time, for half a century. And for a clearer picture, we will limit the sample only to representatives of Western Europe.

The graph below shows that the highest figures fall on the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th centuries. After that, in the second half of the XVIII century, there is an unjustified decline. As before, the specified time periods correspond to the dates of birth of the people for whom the statistics were made. Therefore, the phenomenon of reduced life expectancy applies to people who were only born in the second half of the 18th century, most of whom died at the beginning of the 19th century. Let us consider this period and the two previous half-century periods in more detail.

The average life expectancy in the first half of the 18th century is 67.7 years - about the same as in the previous fifty years. In the second half of the 18th century, this figure dropped to 64.5 years. The difference is just over three years, which is not so much in relation to previous comparisons, and may not seem significant. Therefore, we turn again to the methods of mathematical processing.

The task is to find out whether the decrease in life expectancy in the second half of the 18th century in relation to the previous period of time is reliable or whether the difference in the figures obtained is statistically insignificant and is a consequence of chance. Since in the first half of the 18th century and the second half of the 17th century the life expectancy indicators are approximately the same, we will combine them into one group. This will increase the amount of initial statistical data and increase the reliability of calculations. There will be two groups that need to be compared: the second half of the 18th century, in which the average life expectancy is 64.5 years, and the previous period, covering a hundred years, with an average life expectancy of 67.8 years.
The following table reveals the life expectancy statistics for both groups.

We see that both groups have approximately the same number of people. However, even with a superficial glance, it is noticeable that they were distributed in them in different ways. Thus, in the first group, the number of people who did not live to be 50 years old is greater than those who died between the ages of 50 and 60. In the second - on the contrary, besides, those who died under the age of 50 are two times less than those who died in the range from 50 to 60 years.

Mathematical analysis comparing the two distributions showed that they differ from each other with a high level of statistical significance of less than one percent. Translated from the language of mathematics, this means that people born in the period from the middle of the 17th to the middle of the 18th centuries, on average, lived regularly longer than those who were born in the next fifty years. What underlies this pattern is unclear. From the standpoint of traditional history, this question will remain unanswered, because we are talking about the relatively recent past of Western Europe. It is well studied, and there are no global epidemics or other large-scale cataclysms in it that could affect the decline in life expectancy. Maybe just before that, for some reason, she suddenly became higher than normal, and then dropped to a natural level? But these reasons are also unknown to science.

The only interpretation of the result obtained can be that there was in fact no decrease in life expectancy in the second half of the 18th century. Most likely, people began to live longer than in the first half of this century and, even more so, than in the 17th century. But then no one wrote down the real dates of birth, no one needed it. Then, when the chronology was calculated, the dates of the lives of famous people were also invented. And it just so happened that these fictitious dates somewhat increased the natural life expectancy for that time.

The latest mathematical and statistical analysis once again showed that the chronology before the 18th century is not natural, not reliable, and therefore fictitious. As a final touch to demonstrate the artificiality of the picture of average life expectancy, I present one more diagram. It differs from the previous ones in that its indicators are calculated not on the basis of the dates of life of those who were born in a particular period, but of those who died in it. The periods themselves are reduced to twenty years.