Russian
| English
"Куда идет мир? Каково будущее науки? Как "объять необъятное", получая образование - высшее, среднее, начальное? Как преодолеть "пропасть двух культур" - естественнонаучной и гуманитарной? Как создать и вырастить научную школу? Какова структура нашего познания? Как управлять риском? Можно ли с единой точки зрения взглянуть на проблемы математики и экономики, физики и психологии, компьютерных наук и географии, техники и философии?"

«THE BURDEN OF GRANDEUR: THE WELL-BEING OF THE RUSSIAN POPULATION IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ACCORDING TO THE ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA» 
Boris N. Mironov

The eighteenth century is one of the most brilliant centuries in the history of Russia. The resounding victories over Sweden and Turkey allowed Russia to strengthen her position on the shores of the Baltic and Black seas, to annex Poland, Baltic lands and the Crimea and ensured the rank of a great military power for her. Russia built up not only a powerful Army and Navy but also a national industry. Art, sciences and education were developing, foreign- and home-trade turnovers were growing, the economy was getting commercialised and considerable economic growth was evident. Some scholars even believe that at the turn of the nineteenth century in terms of national income per capita Russia neared Britain. Much has been written about successes. But the issue of the material conditions of the people is still being neglected. Were these victories accompanied by the growth of the well-being of the population or, on the contrary, were achieved at its expense? That is question to which I am trying to find answer in this article.

Materials and processing procedure

The conditions of sources with reference to Russia of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries does not allow us to use such traditional indicators of well-being as national income per capita, incomes of various social classes and the level of inequality among them as well as real wages. But even if such indicators were at our disposal they would be obviously insufficient to characterise the material conditions of the people. The peasantry which comprised about 90 per cent of the population had week ties with the market of goods and labour. The lion’s share of products the peasants consumed they produced in their own households selling a small part of agricultural produce to get money required for the payments of taxes and quitrent to the state and landlords. In terms of the way of life the greater part of the not numerous urban population (in the early eighteenth century nearly 13 per cent of the country’s population resided in towns and in the late eighteenth century – 8 per cent) did not differ much from peasants and was also engaged in agriculture. Owing to this fact, in order to solve the problem set we shall use the information about the variations in the stature of male conscripts. Stature variations are a good proxy of changes in the biological status of the population and for Russia of the eighteenth century are also a fairly reliable indicator of well-being and standard of life since in pre-industrial Russian society more than half of peasant’s income was spent to maintain the biological status. According to the earliest and reliable budget inspections of 1877-1883 (at that time the way of life in the countryside appreciably changed towards the diversification of requirements) peasants engaged mainly in agriculture spent on the maintenance of the biological status nearly 54 per cent of their income (including 40 per cent on nutrition, 14 per cent on clothes and dwelling) and those engaged mainly in home industry – 78 per cent (60 per cent on nutrition, 18 per cent on clothes and dwelling).

To assess variations in the biological level of life we have information on the stature of 57,549 recruits born in 1700-1799 and called up in 1731-1835. The compulsory military service was introduced in 1699 and extended to all taxable population in 1705. Unfortunately they began to measure the stature after the introduction of the minimum height standards in November 1730. Before this time they never measured the stature in Russia. From 1730 to 1799 there were 50 recruitments, in the first third of the nineteenth century – 26 more, on the average 2 recruitments every 3 years, although sometimes there were 2 recruitments a year. Not all of the official recruit lists have been preserved. But owing to the fact that recruits were aged from 16 to 35 and sometimes older the information available allows us to form a notion of stature variations for each year of the century. The information on stature was related to those who were medically examined and recruited. Their number varied from 14 thousand in 1730 to 132 thousand in 1796 and about 200 thousand in 1830s. Before the introduction of the universal compulsory military service in 1874 they recruited peasants (83-92 per cent of the population) and the lower strata of the urban populations – burgers (3-7 per cent of the population). For the nobility (2 per cent of the population) before 1762 military service was compulsory and since 1762 – voluntary. As a rule, they served as officers. The clergy (1.5 per cent of the population) was exempted from the service and not numerous bourgeoisie had the right to pay off from military service. Thus, throughout the century the social composition of recruits was stable – 95-97 per cent were peasants of various categories.

In due course basic requirements to stature and age varied insignificantly: stature not less than 160 cm, age 17-35 years. This considerably facilitates the comparison of data for various years (se Table 1).

Table 1. Variations of Minimum Height Requirements and Age Requirements for Recruits of the Regular Russian Army in 1730–1874, centimetres

1730 1731 1736 1741 1757 1766 1825 1840 1845 1854 1874
Minimum Height Requirements for the Recruits of 20 and over, centimetres 160.0 160.0 157.8 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 157.8 155.6 153.4
Minimum Height Requirements for the Recruits under 20, centimetres 160.0 155.6 155.6 142.2
Age Requirement, years 15–30 15–30 15–30 17–35 20–35 17–35 18–35 20-35 20-35 20-35 20

During protracted wars they called up recruits aged from 16 to 50, of stature 1-5 cm below standards, in exceptional cases without restrictions. For example, in 1788 during the Russo-Turkish war it was permitted to recruit volunteers without stature restrictions. This creates some difficulties when data for various years are compared but the difficulties should not be exaggerated, however. First, information on the stature of recruits called up in the years when indulgence was in effect is relatively small in the overall data base. Secondly, the maximum lessening of requirements during Russo-Turkish war lowed the average height of recruits by 1.8 cm. Thirdly, the drop in requirements to height was often caused by actual decrease in the stature of the population. In the last case it was not the decrease in the height of recruits that caused the standards changes, but the drop in standards resulted from the decrease in stature.

Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii . Sobranie pervoe (St. Petersburg: Vtoroe otdelenie Sobstvennoi e. v. kantseliarii, 1830), Vol. 22, № 16681. An accurate assessment of stature and age is an important issue. At all enlistment offices recruits were measured with the aid of a stature measuring device delivered from the Military Board. It was a tin-bound wooden plank with a scale marked in old Russian measures – arshin (71.7 cm), vershik (4.445 cm), fourth and eighth parts of vershok (0.556 cm). At both ends the scale was sealed up with the seal of the Military Board.During medical examination recruit was stripped to the skin, put to the plank, his back against the scale, a ruler was put on the top of his head and his measure was taken. The accuracy of measurement was not regulated by instructions and depended, probably, on the honesty of examiners: in some cases they confined to ? of vershok (2.3 cm), in others – to ? vershok (the most frequent version) and still in others – to ? vershok (0.6 cm). The medical examination of recruits was made at day time, from daybreak till two o’clock in the afternoon. Examination with candles was prohibited. On the one hand, the examiners had a stimulus to increase one’s stature for a bribe in order to accept a person who did not meet the requirements. On the other hand, they had a stimulus to decrease one’s stature in order to insure themselves against an accusation of increasing one’s stature since during the day man’s stature alters by 2 cm. On the arrival at the place of their service recruits were measured for the second time and a deliberate distortion of one’s stature was revealed. If the stature turned to be lower the prescribed standard the recruit could be sent back at the expense of the examiners. And if the stature turned to be higher then the fixed in the official list, there were no consequences for the examiner since the Army was interested in tall soldiers. The wish to avoid problems led to the fact that examiners had a tendency to understate the actual stature. The repeated measuring showed that the understating was within the range from 0.5 to 2.2 cm. No claims to that were laid before selection committees. The case of correct assessment of age was worse. Instructions demanded verification of age with the documents of censuses which had been regularly taken since 1719 or with registers of births which had been kept more or less regularly by parish priests since the 1730s. Verification of age with documents was somewhat burdensome for officials. The case was aggravated by the fact that in the eighteenth century the administrative and territorial

The Central State Archive of the Navy division was altered several times, and owing to this the materials of the latest census taken in one district were often kept in the archives of another district and it was indeed difficult and sometimes impossible (for example, because of a fire – rather a frequent occurrence) to find the required document. That is why in dubious cases they turned to the documentary examination of age but in most cases confined themselves to questioning inquiring of people not about their birth-date but about their age. As a result, as it usually happens when census are taken in traditional societies with a low level of literacy (in Russia in the eighteenth century literacy among peasants did not exceed 1 per cent) people preferred age ending in 0 or 5 (the so called problem of age accumulation), were fond of the figure 33 (the age of Christ), men exaggerated their age. The Whipple index of age accumulation varies from 175 to 250. Being aware of this peculiarity the selection committee officials apparently were likely to understate the age of recruits than to overstate it. In 1790 it was allowed to recruit carpenters from Kostroma province for the Black sea fleet with no restrictions on their age and stature but with one requirement: they should be healthy and fit for service. On the arrival at the place of service a contingent of 180 recruits was measured and questioned about their age. The remeasured stature turned out to be 1 cm higher (generally speaking it is normal since man’s stature varies during the day) and according to questioning, age turned out to be 10 years higher than that stated in the official lists. In the course of verification it was found out that the age of 35 recruits was indeed distorted. According to official lists it was on the average 30 years, according to questioning at the place of service – 58 years and according to the documents – 37 years. As they abolished qualification for recruits it was an exceptional case of age distortion which revealed typical errors made in stature measurement and age assessment. In selection committees they understated both stature and age; stature insignificantly as it could be easily verified by the second measuring, but age – sometimes significantly as it often stated after questioning and it was more difficult to verify it. Age distortion requires special care when using stature annual data and compels us to prefer five-year and ten-year data in which the problem of age accumulation is largely eliminated. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the quality of measurement of recruits largely improved – the accuracy of measurement heightened up to 1/8 vershok (0.6 cm) and age was by all means verified with documents. And correspondingly the accuracy of data relating to the last third of the eighteenth century was in principle higher than that previous period.

The age structure of recruits in different years varied. For example, among recruits born in 1700-1709 the share of persons called-up and measured at the age 16-19 years was 14 per cent, at the age of 20-23 years – 55 per cent, at the age of 24 and over – 31 per cent and among recruits born in 1760-1769 – 23, 40 and 37 correspondingly. Since in Russia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries men grew up till the age of 27 the stature of recruits born in the same year will be largely conditioned by the following: at what age they were recruited and measured. In order to eliminate the age bias in the sample let us calculate the weighted mean height of cohort (by analogy with standardised demographic coefficients) basing on the standard relationship among the ages at which recruits were measured when called-up (the standard relationship was calculated from all data for the eighteenth century):

Age

16–19

20–23

24–27

28+

%

23

43

19

15

A check on the character of the distribution of stature data over years, five year and ten year periods showed that in appreciably most cases the distribution of individual statures is close to normal and this enables us to use the Quintile Bend Estimator computer program (hereafter referred to as QBE program) for the assessment of the average stature in the entire population on the basis of the truncated sample.

Thus, the accuracy of data on the stature and age of recruits selected by recruit committees in the eighteenth century was not ideal; however, it was on such a level which allows us to use them for a scientific analysis. Common inaccuracy in stature measurement is within the limits of random sampling errors. Inaccuracy in age assessment is neutralised if average 5-year and 10-year data used and the problem of truncated statute data can be solved with the use of the QBE procedure. Now we turn to the analysis of stature data (see Table 2 and Figure 1).

Results and their discussion

Table 2. The Stature of Russian Recruits by Year of Birth, 1700–1799, by 5-year cohorts, centimetres gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Voenno-morskogo flota) and the Archive of the Military-Historical Museum of the Artillery, the O ngin J ers and the Intercommunication (Arkhiv Voenno-istoricheskogo muzeia artillerii, inzhenernykh voisk i voisk sviazi). The sources never used by anybody.

Years of Birth

Recruits of Age

All recruits

16-19

20-23

24-27

28+

x

x

x

x

N

x

1700-1704

163.6

165.1

164.3

165.5

202

164.7

1705-1709

162.8

164.2

164.4

165.1

870

164.1

1710-1714

162.7

163.6

163.4

164.8

2426

163.5

1715-1719

161.5

163.2

164.2

164.3

1790

163.2

1720-1724

159.5

162.6

164.3

165.0

1620

162.6

1725-1729

162.5

163.4

163.5

164.5

546

163.4

1730-1734

164.6

164.0

164.3

164.6

2259

164.3

1735-1739

164.6

164.1

165.0

165.3

5176

164.6

1740-1744

164.3

165.5

164.6

164.5

1415

164.9

1745-1749

164.3

164.6

165.1

165.2

2929

164.7

1750-1754

163.3

163.7

164.9

162.1

2295

163.6

1755-1759

163.0

163.8

163.8

162.4

3680

163.4

1760-1764

163.4

163.8

162.8

163.2

3861

163.5

1765-1769

163.1

162.8

163.8

165.4

6230

163.4

1770-1774

161.0

163.1

165.1

163.2

6951

163.0

1775-1779

162.7

164.5

163.9

161.9

4585

163.6

1780-1784

163.7

162.1

161.8

161

1914

162.2

1785-1789

159.1

160.6

161.8

160.8

2380

160.5

1790-1794

159.0

160.8

160.5

160.7

2959

160.3

1795-1799

158.2

159.8

160.0

160.1

3161

159.5

N = Number of observations in the sample. x = Raw mean of the sample.

Let us make a reservation, that the obtained statistical results and correspondingly the conclusions made on their basis are of a preliminary character. The work on the formation of the data base has not yet been completed. In addition to the lack of information and gaps in data for some years several samples have regional bias. In consequence of this the sample Russian mean is either overestimated or underestimated as compared with population mean depending on what regions and to what extent are represented in the sample. For example, according to our sample data the mean stature of a 16-19 year cohort in 1785-1789 decreased by 4.6 cm in comparison with 1780-1784. This improbable result is explained by the fact that the sample for 1780-1784 includes recruits from southern fertile provinces inhabited by the tall Ukrainian people and the sample for 1785-1789 includes recruits from Northern Great Russian provinces with shorter people. Later on the problem of a regional bias will be solved with the application of the stratified sample. More attention deserve such methodical problems as the effect of minimum height standards, testing the divergence of the sample distribution from normality and others.

As seen from Table 2 in 1700-1724 the weighted sample mean stature regularly decreased and within 25 years diminished from 164.7 to 162.3, by 2.1 cm. In 20 years which followed, from 1725 to 1744, there has been an opposite trend and owing to it in 1740-1744 the stature of recruits slightly exceeded the level of the early eighteenth century – 164.9 cm. In the following 55 years stature began to decrease again and in 1795-1799 it was only 159.5 cm – by 5.2 cm less than the level of 1700-1704 and by 5.4 cm less than the level of 1740-1744. Hence it follows that the biological standard of living of the population declined in 1700-1724 and 1745-1799 and it rose in 1725-1744. Let us consider factors which could account for such dynamics. The hypothesis for the serious effect of epidemiological environment should be declined right away since it was stable during the period under study. From the point of view of the frequency and intensity of epidemics the period from 1725 to 1744 when the biological status rose was not much better than two other periods from 1700 to 1724 and from 1745 to 1799 when the status declined. This is proved by the general mortality coefficient (although the demographic statistics of the eighteenth century was very approximate) which did not differ much from the coefficients of the first half of the nineteenth century when the biological status of population was higher than in the second half of the eighteenth century: in 1738-1744 for rural population it was 41 per cent, for urban population – 54 per cent, in 1779-1783 — correspondingly 30 and 41 per cent, in 1807-1815 – 36 and 51 per cent, in 1851-1859 – 39 and 53 per cent. Consequently, the variation of the stature of recruits in the main were due to an increase in labour costs and worsening of consumption among lower social classes which were called up for military service. Direct information on working hours and consumption for the eighteenth century is not available that is why let us turn to indirect one – to agricultural production, prices, obligations, and taxes.

In 1696-1796 in European Russia on a territory within the boundaries of 1696 nearly 21.4 mln hectares of land were cleared from woods and put into an agricultural turnover. Owing to this the share of land under ploughed fields, meadows and pasture rose from 20 to 31 per cent. In European Russia sown area extended 2.5 times whereas population increased 2.2 times (taking into account people living on territories annexed in the eighteenth century). However area under crop extended even more owing to the transition from two-field system to three-field one and from long disused land system to regular fallow land one. It is clearly seen from the following data: in 1763-1796 in European Russia sawn area extended 1.5 times whereas in 1780-1800 crops increased 1.6 times and according to some estimates even 2 times. Since no serious technical innovation were introduced into agriculture it is reasonable to assume that this required an increase in labour costs on the part of the peasantry. An increase in crops resulted in an increase in agricultural produce. Before the 1770s grain harvests rose also owing to raising yield capacity. In 1696-1763 crop area extended 1.7 times, yield capacity rose 1.3 times, consequently corn harvests increased 2.2 times whereas population increased 1.8 times (see Table 3).

Table 3. Size and Distribution of Land Resources in Eighteenth-Century European Russia, Crop Capacity and Population

Year

Plough-land

Meadows and Pastures

Forest

Total

Crop capacity*

Population, million

1,000 Hectares

1696

31, 976

67, 068

213, 416

405, 091

3.4

13.0

1725

41, 848

66, 296

213, 958

418, 219

4.0

16.2

1763

53, 865

63, 308

205, 890

423, 128

4.4

23.5

1796

81, 359

76, 650

217, 322

485, 465

3.2

38.2

Intensive cultivation of land without proper application of fertilisers and decrease in fallow fields resulted in a decline in yield capacity in the last two decades of the eighteenth century in the main agricultural regions nearly by 25 per cent (see Table 4).

Table 4. Output/Seed Rations for the Major Grains in Central Russia in the Eighteenth Century, by Decades

Grain

1710s

1720s

1730s

1740s

1750s

1760s

1770s

1780s

1790s

Rye

2.9

3.6

3.2

4.3

3.7

4.7

4.2

3.3

3.1

Wheat

3.9

3.7

3.9

3.6

3.3

3.8

4.3

3.2

3.0

Oats

2.7

4.1

3.3

3.8

3.5

4.5

4.8

3.4

3.6

Barley

3.9

4.5

4.0

3.7

4.3

4.7

4.2

3.5

3.1

Due to the fall in yield capacity grain output began to lag behind the increase in crops but all the same was ahead of the population growth: in 1780-1804 population increased by 19 per cent, total grain output – by 28 per cent, that is by 8 per cent per capita. Thus the production of grain, the main foodstuff, outstripped population growth and contributed to the increase in labour costs on the one hand and to the growth of the main foodstuff production on the other hand. However, the total number of cattle decreased and the decline in fodder supply in particular is indicative of that: in 1696-1763 meadows and pastures area decreased by 6 per cent and in 1763-1796 increased only by 21 per cent whereas population – by 63 per cent (se Table 3).