How long did our ancestors live: historical facts and opinions of scientists. Life expectancy of people

The following graph covers a larger period of time and shows how wonderful 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 - the Romans and Greeks. As in the previous case, identification of people by time was based on their dates of birth.

Average life expectancy in Ancient Greece in the 6th-3rd centuries BC. was 73.3 years. The number is simply unreal. Even in the first half of the 20th century, Europeans lived less on average. Of course, these statistics do not take into account people in dangerous professions, such as the military, where life expectancy is below average. However, this disadvantage is compensated by the virtual absence of women in this sample, who traditionally live longer than men. In any case, none of this matters, 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. Even though the Greek statistics are based on just over fifty people, the differences between the two groups are statistically significant, suggesting that Western Europeans certainly lived shorter lives than the ancient Greeks. The reliability of this conclusion is as high as before - less than one percent (the lower this figure, which shows the likelihood of a researcher’s error, the higher the reliability).

The main idea that I try to convey in critical writing on history is that the generally accepted chronology of historical events was composed at a relatively late time, around 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 the time immediately preceding it. To do this, we will make statistics for smaller periods of time, half a century. And for a clearer picture, we will limit the sample only to representatives of Western Europe.

The above graph shows that the highest rates occurred in the second half of the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries. After this, in the second half of the 18th century, an unjustified decline occurred. As before, the indicated time periods correspond to the dates of birth of the people for whom the statistics were carried out. Therefore, the phenomenon of reduced life expectancy applies to people 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 preceding half-century periods in more detail.

Average life expectancy in the first half of the 18th century was 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 much compared to previous comparisons and may not seem significant. Therefore, let us 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 obtained figures 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 number 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 equal to 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 at a superficial glance it is noticeable that they are distributed differently in them. Thus, in the first group, the number of people who did not live to reach the age of 50 is greater than those who died between the ages of 50 and 60. In the second - on the contrary, moreover, those who died under the age of 50 are half as many as 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 mid-17th to the mid-18th centuries, on average, naturally lived longer than those who were born in the next fifty years. What underlies this pattern is unclear. From the perspective of traditional history, this question will remain unanswered, because we are talking about the relatively recent past of Western Europe. It has been well studied, and there are no global epidemics or other large-scale disasters that could affect the decrease in life expectancy. Maybe just before that, for some reason, it suddenly became higher than normal, and then decreased to the natural level? But these reasons are also unknown to science.

The only interpretation of the obtained result 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 no one wrote down real dates of birth back then; no one needed it. Then, when the chronology was calculated, the dates of life of famous people were also invented. And it just so happened that these fictitious dates slightly increased the natural life expectancy for that time.

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

I found a very interesting book and it contains some statistics about life expectancy and infant mortality in the second half of the 18th century.

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

This is a description of one of the long-livers. Natural selection at its finest.

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

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

Women have always lived longer than men.

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

And then the centenarians lived mainly in the mountains.

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

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

Vitamin deficiency is a terrible thing.

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

And again this is the curse of cities.

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

Progress in medicine was slowly taking place.

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

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

Addition :

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

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

The post was written as part of the cycle -.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that after the above statistics, no one will want 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 child mortality in general, and infants under 1 year of age in particular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here Rashin helped us:

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

I think the question is rhetorical...

But that's not all. In conclusion, considering the mortality rate of children under 1 year of age in the Russian Empire, I will give another 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 globe in terms of the mortality of its children.

In 1905, out of 1000 births, the following died before the age of 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;
There are 68 children in New Zealand.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1867-1881

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

1887-1896

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

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

1908-1910

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

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

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

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

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

I will dwell on this issue only briefly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ancient world and the first people

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

The times of the primitive communal system still occupy most of the history of our species. This was the era of the formation of man as a social being and as a biological species. It was during this period that methods of communication and interaction were formed. Languages ​​and cultures were created. A person learned to think and make reasonable decisions. The first rudiments of medicine and healing appeared.

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

Ancient human anatomy

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

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

Lifestyle of ancient people

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

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

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

Lifespan of primitive man

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

There are three stages in the formation of primitive medicine:

• Stage 1 – formation of primitive communities. People were just beginning to accumulate knowledge and experience in the field of healing. They used animal fats, applied various herbs to wounds, and prepared decoctions from ingredients that came to hand;
• Stage 2 – development of the primitive community and gradual transition to their collapse. Ancient man learned to observe the processes of the disease. I began to compare the changes that occurred during the healing process. The first “medicines” appeared;
• Stage 3 – collapse of primitive communities. At this stage of development, medical practice finally began to take shape. People have learned to 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 minor diseases, which today do not cause any concern and can be treated in one day. A person died in the prime of his strength before reaching old age. The average lifespan of a person in prehistoric times was extremely low. Everything began to change for the better in the Middle Ages, which will be discussed further.

Middle Ages

The first scourge of the Middle Ages was hunger and disease, which still migrated from 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 preparation methods. In medieval Europe, a swine flu epidemic claimed tens of thousands of lives. In the 14th century, a plague pandemic that broke out in Asia wiped out a quarter of Europe's population.

Lifestyle of a medieval man

What did people do in the Middle Ages? 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 fight wars for ideology, for ideas, for religion. If earlier man fought with nature, now he fought with his fellow men.

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

Life expectancy in antiquity and the Middle Ages

The wretched state in which medicine was in ancient times and the Middle Ages, many diseases that were incurable at that time, meager and terrible nutrition - all these are signs that characterize the early Middle Ages. And this is not to mention the constant strife between people, wars and crusades that 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 to be 55 years old.

In ancient Greece, people lived on average 29 years. This does not mean that in Greece a person lived to be twenty-nine years old and died, but this was considered old age. And this despite the fact that at that time the first so-called “hospitals” had already been formed in Greece.

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

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

Late Middle Ages

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

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

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

Modernity and our days

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

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

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

XXI Century

Humanity is faced with an acute question about our connection with nature. The ecological situation on the planet began to deteriorate sharply against the backdrop of the twentieth century. And many were divided into two camps. Some believe that new diseases appear as a result of our disregard for nature and the environment, while others, on the contrary, believe that the more we move away from nature, the more we extend our stay in the world. Let's consider this issue in more detail.

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

Medicine and healthcare in the 21st century

But this is the price we pay for progress. Modern man lives many times longer than his distant ancestors. Today medicine works wonders. We have learned how to transplant organs, rejuvenate 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 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 in those countries where 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. There is no need to hunt, no need to make fire, no need to be afraid of dying from a cold. Today man lives and accumulates wealth. Every day he does not survive, but makes his life more comfortable. Goes to work, rests on weekends, has the opportunity to choose. He has all the means for self-development. People today eat and drink as much as they want. They don't need to worry about getting food when everything is in the stores.

Life expectancy today

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

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

Statistics show that in different countries where 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.

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

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

About life expectancy in different eras (video)