b) But subsequently he was forced to find other explanations for the period 1700 - 1750: i) because he came to believe that the fall in mortality had commenced as early as 1700, despite a temporary rise in the 1730s, ii) and because these smallpox inoculation techniques date only from the mid-18th century iii) He dismisses purely economic arguments, i.e., rises in living standards, better nutrition, etc., on the grounds that the mortality fall was so general throughout the population c) His explanation: improved hygiene standards through reconstruction of family dwellings. i) For reasons that you will have to read for yourself, he contends that late 17th- and early 18th- century England experienced a boom in reconstruction of family dwellings that especially improved hygiene. ii) by building solid foundations and floors with brick, stone, or cement to replace the former standard dirt floors that had been breeding grounds for disease (since people had so commonly urinated and defecated on their dirt floors). iii) His view of the cause: a wave of fires that struck many English towns in this era, necessitating rebuilding, but in this new form. iv) But does this thesis apply to the upper class housing since he is seeking universal factors for all social – classes; v) How many English towns experienced this phenomenon? vi) and is not such a thesis still fundamentally economic in nature? d) Mortality: views Wrigley’s subsequent i) Subsequently, Wrigley became more willing to consider the importance of changes in mortality, while generally insisting that they had to be linked to nuptiality and fertility ii) the question of still-births: i.e., the effect of having children die at birth (1) The importance here is the link to what is known as the birth-interval: i.e., the duration of time between pregnancy and births (calculated on average for all women of the same age cohort) (2) indicates that a fall in the rate of still-births tends to be linked to a shorter duration for Wrigley’s evidence the birth-interval.
b) But subsequently he was forced to find other explanations for the period 1700 - 1750: i) because he came to believe that the fall in mortality had commenced as early as 1700, despite a temporary rise in the 1730s, ii) and because these smallpox inoculation techniques date only from the mid-18th century iii) He dismisses purely economic arguments, i.e., rises in living standards, better nutrition, etc., on the grounds that the mortality fall was so general throughout the population c) His explanation: improved hygiene standards through reconstruction of family dwellings. i) For reasons that you will have to read for yourself, he contends that late 17th- and early 18th- century England experienced a boom in reconstruction of family dwellings that especially improved hygiene. ii) by building solid foundations and floors with brick, stone, or cement to replace the former standard dirt floors that had been breeding grounds for disease (since people had so commonly urinated and defecated on their dirt floors). iii) His view of the cause: a wave of fires that struck many English towns in this era, necessitating rebuilding, but in this new form. iv) But does this thesis apply to the upper class housing – since he is seeking universal factors for all social classes; v) How many English towns experienced this phenomenon? vi) and is not such a thesis still fundamentally economic in nature? d) Mortality: Wrigley’s subsequent views i) Subsequently, Wrigley became more willing to consider the importance of changes in mortality, while generally insisting that they had to be linked to nuptiality and fertility ii) the question of still-births: i.e., the effect of having children die at birth (1) The importance here is the link to what is known as the birth-interval: i.e., the duration of time between pregnancy and births (calculated on average for all women of the same age cohort) (2) Wrigley’s evidence indicates that a fall in the rate of still-births tends to be linked to a shorter duration for the birth-interval.
04Population.docx