What was the life of a man in the 19th century. How long our ancestors lived: historical facts and opinions of scientists

Scientists who study the ancient world argue that our ancestors lived much less than modern humans. No wonder, because before there was such a developed medicine, there was no 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 me. They ate ecologically clean food, used natural medicines (herbs, decoctions, ointments). And the atmosphere of our planet was much better than it is now.

True, as always, somewhere in between. This article will help you better understand what was the life expectancy of people in different eras.

The oldest 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 by about 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 the ways of communication and interaction were formed. Languages and cultures were created. The 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 mankind, 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 the remains found during archaeological excavations. And according to the data obtained during the research of these finds, scientists have 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 at all sick 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 humans.

It turns out that our ancestors were also endangered by harmful bacteria and various diseases. From the remains, it was determined that tuberculosis, caries, tumors and other diseases were not uncommon among ancient people.

The way of life of ancient people

But not only diseases caused difficulties for our ancestors. The 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 relied completely on himself and on his abilities. Every day he fought for survival. There was no question of mental development. The ancestors hunted and defended the territory in which they lived.

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

Life span of 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 in the body. Gradually, the life expectancy of ancient people began to increase. But this happened very slowly as the healing skills developed.

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. Used animal fats, applied to wounds various herbs, prepared decoctions from ingredients that came to hand;
Stage 2 - the development of a primitive community and a 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 took place during the healing process. The first "drugs" appeared;
Stage 3 - the collapse of primitive communities. At this stage of development, medical practice finally began to form. People have learned to treat 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 insignificant diseases, which today do not cause any concern and are treated in one day. A man died in the prime of his strength without having time to live to old age. Average duration man 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 question of sterile cooking methods. V medieval Europe the swine flu epidemic has claimed tens of thousands of lives. In the 14th century, the plague pandemic that broke out in Asia wiped out a quarter of Europe's population.

Medieval man's 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 were added more and more problems that a person had when he became smarter. Now people began to wage wars for ideology, for an idea, for a religion. If earlier man fought with nature, now he fought with his fellows.

But along with this, many other problems went away. Now people have learned how to make fire, build reliable and durable dwellings for themselves, and began to observe primitive rules of hygiene. Man learned to hunt skillfully, 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 incurable diseases at that time, poor 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 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 called "elderly" at all. Inhabitants of Europe of the XX century. lived to be 55 years old.

V Ancient Greece people did live for an average of 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 in Greece the first so-called "hospitals" were already formed.

The same can be said about Ancient Rome... Everyone knows about the powerful Roman soldiers who served in the empire. If you look at the ancient frescoes, then in each of them you can recognize some god from Olympus. Immediately one gets the impression that such a person will live a long time and will remain healthy throughout his life. But statistics suggest otherwise. The UOJ in Rome was barely 23 years old. The average duration throughout the Roman Empire was 32 years. So the Roman wars weren't all that healthy? Or is it all to blame incurable diseases from which no one was insured? It is difficult to answer this question, but data taken from more than 25,000 epitaphs on the gravestones of cemeteries in Rome speak of just such numbers.

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

Late Middle Ages

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

But life expectancy in the 19th century. began to increase slowly but surely. Russia of the XIX century was able to increase the indicator to 34 years. In those days in the same England 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, mankind began to level out the indicators of average life expectancy. New technologies began to appear, people mastered new methods of curing diseases, the first drugs appeared in the form in which we are used to seeing them now. AOJ began to increase dramatically in the middle of the twentieth century. Many countries began to develop rapidly and improve their economies, which made it possible to increase the living standards of people. Infrastructure, medical equipment, everyday life, sanitary conditions, the emergence of more complex sciences. All this has led to a dramatic improvement in the demographic situation around 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 an improvement in the quality of life of our species. For some half a century, the life expectancy in Russia has almost doubled. From 34 to 65. These figures are striking, 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 a similar stagnation. From the mid-twentieth century until the twenty-first century, no discoveries were made that radically changed the concept of medicine. Certain discoveries were made, but this was not enough. ALE on the planet did not increase as rapidly as it did in the middle of the 20th century.

XXI Century

The question of our connection with nature has arisen sharply before mankind. 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 due to our disregard for nature and environment while others, on the contrary, believe that the more we move away from nature, the more we extend the period of 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, mankind would have remained at the same level of knowledge of itself, of its body at the same level as in the Middle and even later ages. Now humanity has learned to cure diseases that have destroyed millions of people. Whole cities were taken away. Advances in various sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics allow us to open up new horizons in improving our quality of life. Unfortunately, progress requires sacrifice. And as we accumulate knowledge and improve technology, we are inexorably destroying our nature.

Medicine and healthcare in the 21st century

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

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

Today, the overwhelming 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 of a cold. Today man lives and accumulates wealth. He does not survive every day, but he 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 don't have to worry about getting food when everything is in stores.

Life expectancy today

The average life expectancy today is approximately 83 years for women and 78 years for men. These figures cannot be compared with those that were in the Middle Ages, and even more so in antiquity. Scientists say that biologically, a person is allotted 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, 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-lived nation. People in this country have been accustomed to the correct way of life since childhood. And how many examples of such countries: Sweden, Austria, China, Iceland, etc.

A person has long walked to this level and life expectancy. He overcame all the trials that nature threw him. How many we suffered from diseases, from cataclysms, from the realization of the fate that is in store for all of us, but still moved on. And we are still moving towards new achievements. Think about the path we have traveled through the centuries-old history of our ancestors and that their legacy should not be wasted, that we should only continue to improve the quality and duration of our lives.

Life expectancy in different eras (video)

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

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

In the XIV-XV centuries, there is a slight increase in life expectancy. British scientists believe that the minimum (17 years) it was in the era of the "black death" of the plague, which raged in England in the XIV century. And in other periods, the maximum level did not exceed 24-26 years.

In the 19th century, according to statistics, the Belgians lived an average of 32 years, the Dutch - 33 years. In India, during the domination of the British, the average life expectancy of the 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 for men was recorded at 31.4 years, in 1913 - 32 years. Today in the Soviet Union, according to the CSO, 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 consumes alcohol, others - by a decrease in the mortality rate of women from childbirth, others - by the fact that men do more difficult work, and still others - by the biological adaptability of women to changing living conditions. These issues are currently being studied.

Historical data show that in different periods, almost all peoples had individuals who managed to live a very long life.

Academician A. A. Bogomolets in his book "Life Extension" gives examples of longevity. In 1724, P. Kzarten died in Hungary for 185 years. His son was 95 years old at the time; Disenkins died in 1670 in Yorkshire, 169 years old. Thomas Parr lived 152 years as a working peasant life. 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, with the eldest son being 103 years old and the youngest 9 years old.

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

The Norwegian sailor Drakenberg lived for 146 years, and his life was hard: at the age of 68 he was captured by the Arabs and was in slavery until he was 83 years old. At the age of 90 he was still leading the life of a sailor, at 111 he got married. Having lost his wife at the age of 130, he got married to a young peasant woman, but was refused. Painter Kramer left a portrait of Drakenberg at the age of 139, in which he looks like a sturdy 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, liveliness of movements, the sonorous voice of this man. His third wife is 82 years old, the youngest daughter is 26 years old. Thus, at the age of 110, Shapkovsky still did not stop having sex.

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

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

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

The socialist system, with its concern for the well-being of the people, creates all the conditions for longevity. The Soviet government gave its citizens a secure, calm old age. Despite the material security, many of them continue to work to the best of their ability and benefit society. Usually, old age develops gradually, and in different people it proceeds in different ways. For some, the aging process begins at the age of 35-40: vision decreases, signs of sclerosis appear. The concepts of youth and old age are conditional. At present, it is generally accepted that there is a passport age and a biological age, therefore, retirement (55-60 years old) 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 - up 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 is, but also on the genetic characteristics of a person.

“Stop, gentlemen, deceive yourself and cheat with reality! Do such purely zoological circumstances as the lack of food, clothing, fuel and elementary culture among the Russian common people mean nothing? ... Doesn't our shameful infant mortality, which is not met anywhere in the world, really mean anything, in which the vast majority of the living mass of the people does not even live up to a third of the human century? "
M. Menshikov "From letters to neighbors". M., 1991.S. 158.

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

“According to the estimates of demographers, the Russian peasant woman of this period (the turn of the XIX - XX 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 a woman's reproductive capabilities.

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 children under five who died on average in Russia was 43.2%, and in a number of provinces over 50%. "

Agree, the data on infant mortality is impressive, isn't it? I decided to "dig" in this issue deeper and what I "dug up" plunged me into a real shock.

“According to data for 1908-1910. the number of deaths under the age of 5 was 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 deceased of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, 606.5 deceased were accounted for by children under 5 years of age. almost two thirds (!!!). Of every 1000 dead men, 625.9 were children under 5 in the same year, 585.4 of every 1000 women who died were girls under 5. In other words, a huge percentage of children who have not even reached the age of 5 die every year in Russia - 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 for children under 5 years of age ”.

Please note that in the quotes I have cited, we are not talking 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! Talking 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, too, 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 will note to you - a Russian, gendarme 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" - as Nechvolodov wrote) of national wealth to foreigners, the purchase of the basic industries by the same foreigners: 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, in comparison with other countries, is a country
half-poor ”(Rubakin“ Russia in Figures ”, 1912 edition).

The main thing would be a desire to read the authors I am talking about, but not - at least read what I have already brought in my LiveJournal on the topic "RUSSIA WHICH THEY HAVE 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 year. Statistical and documentary reference book ”.

However, I deviated somewhat from the topic of infant mortality in the Russian Empire. I think that what you have already read about her 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 rate of infants under the age of 1 year in European Russia for the period 1867-1911.

The following table (source - PI Kurkin "Mortality and fertility in the capitalist states of Europe", edition of 1938) shows the indicators of infant mortality for the entire period under consideration.

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

The minimum mortality rate for 1867-1911 was reached in 1907. But is there any reason to rejoice in the fact that such a record low figure was obtained this year? In my opinion - no! In the future (1908-1910), it again grows to 27.1, after which there was again a decline to 23.7, which is quite natural if we analyze the trend in infant mortality since 1867. The trend is the same - after any drop in this indicator for infants under 1 year old, it continues to grow.

The only reason for some optimism among 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 infant deaths per 100 births and showed a slight decrease at the maximum. But at the same time, I ask you not to 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, for as the same Rubakin rightly noted: “... Any national disaster, be it a crop failure , epidemic, etc., primarily affects infant mortality, which immediately increases. "

And now, if one of the admirers of tsarism has itched his tongue to accuse Kurkin that the figures he cited are biased (the publication, they say, of 1938, that is, Stalin's), I propose, in fairness, to familiarize yourself with another source.

In the work of S.A. Novoselsky "Review of the main data on demography and health strategy", edition of 1916 (!)) Published the following summary data on the mortality of infants under one year of age in European Russia for 1867-1911.

So, out of 100 born babies died before 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,
demonstrate a downward trend in infant mortality among infants under 1 year of age from 1892-1896. until 1907-1911. by 11.27%, this decline, in general, is not very significant, with the outbreak of the First World War it was interrupted due to the rapid deterioration of the economic and epidemiological situation in the empire.

For example, the incidence of typhus and 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" 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 same Novoselsky ("Mortality and Life Expectancy in Russia" edition of 1916), was among the countries of Europe he cited back in the relatively prosperous 1905-1909. demonstrated primacy in mortality from smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough. Scabies (!) And malaria (!) In the prosperous 1912 suffered more 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 good 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. (MS Onitskansky "On the spread of cholera in Russia", St. Petersburg, 1911). The annual rate of tuberculosis morbidity was growing steadily, from 278.5 thousand in 1896. up to 876.5 thousand in the "prosperous" 1913. And it has never (!) (Since the aforementioned 1896) tended to decrease! (Novoselsky "Mortality and Life Expectancy in Russia", 1916 edition).

This deplorable situation in the Russian Empire with the outbreak of the First World War only worsened. Therefore, as I said above, Rubakin absolutely rightly remarked: "... 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 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 in any way 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 the leaders in infant mortality among infants under 1 year old? I have the answer to this question! So, for the years 1867-1881. The following provinces were the leaders in infant mortality (per 1000 babies under the age of 1 year):

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

The summarizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia - 271 children (up to 1 year old) died per 1000 births.

For 1886-1897 the 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:

Permskaya - 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 summarizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia - 274 children (up to one year old) died per 1000 births.

For 1908-1910 the 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:

Nizhegorodskaya - 340 children;
Vyatskaya - 325 children;
Olonetskaya - 321 children;
Perm region - 320 children;
Kostroma - 314 children;

The summarizing result for 50 provinces of European Russia - 253 children (up to one year old) died per 1000 births.

(Sources: DA Sokolov and VI Grebenshchikov "Mortality in Russia and the fight against it", 1901, "Population movement in European Russia in 1908, 1909 and 1910").

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

NS!!! Take your time 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, Petersburg, Orenburg, Kazan) and increased in Kursk, Kiev, Bessarabsk, Vitebsk, Kovensk, Yekaterinoslav, Vilensk provinces, Oblast Don troops.

For example, in the Oblast of the Don Army for 1867-1881. the infant mortality rate was 160 infant deaths 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 at 1 year per 1000 births. The growth in mortality in this area is no less impressive in its pace than the fall in mortality, say, in the Perm province.

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

And further. A small comment on 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 make up 45.4% of the total number of deaths of all ages in the province, and this ratio for individual five years ranges from 46.9% in 1883-1897. up 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, another picture of infant mortality in 1908-1910 should be given.

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

Group 1 with a mortality rate from 14 to 18% - 11 provinces: Estlyandskaya, Kurlyandskaya, Liflyandskaya, Vilenskaya, Minsk, Grodno, Podolskaya, Volynskaya, Tavricheskaya, Ekaterinoslavskaya, Poltava, located in the west and south of the Russian Empire. (At least one Russian province, E-MY !!!);

Group 2, where the mortality rate was from 18 to 22% - 8 provinces: Vitebsk, Mogilev, Kovno, Bessarabsk, 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 primordially Russian provinces ???);

Group 3, with a mortality rate of 22 to 26%, - 6 provinces: Astrakhan, Kiev, Kazan, Orenburg, Arkhangelsk, Don Cossack Region;

Group 4 with mortality from 26 to 30% - 14 provinces: 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 Russia degenerated!);

Group 5 with a mortality rate of 30% or more - 11 provinces: Kaluga, Tver, Penza, Smolensk, Vladimir, Simbirsk, Kostroma, Olonets, Vyatka, Perm, Nizhny Novgorod provinces, located mainly in the north and 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 have laid out there is - find this magnificent book, open and read. Everything is very simple!

And now a little shock! The numbers that I gave above are relative, i.e. we talked about the mortality rate of children under 1 year per 1000 births. And how many children under 1 year of age died in absolute numerical terms, at least for 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 babies born died before the age of one year - 6 million 186 thousand 400 children !!! WHY IS THIS NOT A REAL GENOCIDE !!! Lovers of Tsarist Russia have something to say?

I think the question is rhetorical ...

But that's not all. To conclude my consideration of the mortality rate of children under 1 year old in the Russian Empire, I will give one more very useful comparison (N.A. Rubakin "Russia in figures" (St. Petersburg, 1912):

“The following table shows the place that Russia occupies among other nations of the world in terms of the mortality rate of its children.

In 1905, out of 1000 births 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 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;
In New Zealand - 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 countries, the mortality rate 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, relating to 1901, not only in comparison with European, but also with all states (excluding one Mexico, where the coefficient reaches 30.4) belongs to the sad primacy in terms of the loss of the largest number of babies during the first year their lives in comparison with the number of those born in the same year, namely, for 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 born - 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-running" camp try to comment on this somehow. And I'll see what they do ...

On this, I consider the question of infant mortality among infants under 1 year closed.

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

“... in 1905, out of every 1000 deceased of both sexes in 50 provinces of European Russia, 606.5 deceased were accounted for by children under 5 years of age. 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 infant mortality for babies under 1 year old.

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

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

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

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

Summarizing the result for 50 provinces of European Russia for 1867-1881. - 423 children (up to 5 years old) died per 1000 births.

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

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

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

From 1867-1881 to 1908-1910 the mortality rate of children under 5 years of age 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 has decreased, there is a group of governorates where changes in mortality were relatively insignificant, as well as a group of provinces where infant mortality has increased.

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

1867-1881

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

1887-1896

500 and 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 grown, where the infant mortality rate for children under 5 was 500 (or more) deaths per 1000 births. I am almost sure that if we raise the mortality data for the provinces of the Russian Empire, where the famine of 1891-1892 took place, it turns out that it is these provinces that lead in mortality among children under 5 years of age. Somehow I will deal with this issue, but for now we will continue.

1908-1910

500 or more children have not died 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, albeit extremely small, is still there. The provinces, where 500 or more children under 5 died per 1000 born, no longer exist, there are more provinces where less than 300 children under 5 died per 1000 born, but with all this, the number of provinces where died from 400 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 Figures" (St. Petersburg, 1912):

“… In some corners of the Kazan province in 1899-1900, in some public schools there was no admission of students, since those who were supposed to enter school this year“ became dead ”8-9 years ago, in the era the great national disaster of 1891-1892, which, however, is not the greatest, but many of which in Russian history. "

And further. I deliberately do not want to talk and write much 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 of age. Whoever is interested can read about it from Bezgin “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 in passing.

So, the main reasons for the high infant mortality in tsarist Russia were: - unsanitary conditions caused by the living conditions of the peasantry and city residents, and in this regard, constant outbreaks of infectious diseases (especially in summer). Here, for example, is a small quote from the "Explanatory note to the report of the state control on the execution of the state list and financial estimates for 1911" (SPb., 1912.S. 194-200):

“As a result of the survey of the cities of Kiev, 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 pollution of the water supply system with sewage. " If such a situation was observed in the largest cities of the Russian Empire, then what was it where there was no running water at all, and where the culture of everyday life was at the level of dirty chicken huts (who do not know - the majority peasant huts drowned "in black". Source - Bezgin “Peasant everyday life. Traditions of the late 19th - early 20th centuries ")?

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

True, as always, somewhere in between. This article will help you better understand what was the life expectancy of people in different eras.

The oldest world and the first people

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

Ancient human anatomy

The way of life of ancient people

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

Life span of primitive man

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 a primitive community and a 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 took place during the healing process. The first "drugs" appeared;
Stage 3 - the collapse of primitive communities. At this stage of development, medical practice finally began to form. People have learned to treat 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 insignificant diseases, which today do not cause any concern and are treated in one day. A man died in the prime of his strength without having time to live to old age. The average human duration 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 question of sterile cooking methods. In medieval Europe, the swine flu epidemic claimed tens of thousands of lives. In the 14th century, the plague pandemic that broke out in Asia wiped out a quarter of Europe's population.

Medieval man's lifestyle

Life expectancy in antiquity and the Middle Ages

In ancient Greece, people did live for an average of 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 in Greece the first so-called "hospitals" were already formed.

The same can be said about Ancient Rome. Everyone knows about the powerful Roman soldiers who served in the empire. If you look at the ancient frescoes, then in each of them you can recognize some god from Olympus. Immediately one gets the impression that such a person will live a long time and will remain healthy throughout his life. But statistics suggest otherwise. The UOJ in Rome was barely 23 years old. The average duration throughout the Roman Empire was 32 years. So the Roman wars weren't all that healthy? Or are incurable diseases to blame for everything, from which no one was immune? It is difficult to answer this question, but data taken from more than 25,000 epitaphs on the gravestones of cemeteries in Rome speak of just such numbers.

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

Late Middle Ages

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

XXI Century

The question of our connection with nature has arisen sharply before mankind. 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 the environment, while others, on the contrary, believe that the more we move away from nature, the more we extend the period of stay in the world. Let's consider this issue in more detail.

Medicine and healthcare in the 21st century

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

Life expectancy today

Statistics show that in different countries where the culture of a healthy lifestyle is instilled in citizens from childhood, the mortality rate is significantly lower than in countries where this is not given due attention.

Life expectancy in different eras (video)

Quite often there is a statement that in the Russian Empire everyone died by the age of 30 and that 30-year-olds were considered old. It 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. There is evidence of what was the life expectancy for those who survived childhood.

In the first volume of Boris Mironov's book "The Russian Empire: From Tradition to Modernity" there is a table like this:

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

In 1890 Vladislav 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 Reussian Empire, the results of which were 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 20 years old, on average, had to live another 41.13 and 41.22 years, respectively, which means 61 years total.

Comparative results of the tables of Bortkevich and Novoselsky: