Household Boundaries and Kinship Networks in Historical Family Reconstitution

在过去的时间里，通过采用家庭重建方法，利用出生、婚姻和死亡的记录（通常来自教区登记册），人口过程的研究得到了极大的发展。然而，这种方法是相当有限的和种族中心主义的。它很少把核心家庭以外的人联系起来，通常假定这个家庭是一个家庭。它很少把两代人以上的人联系起来。它从来没有检查随机字符的变体重组从相同的基本数据。它很少通过审查户口登记册等普查类记录来交叉验证事件记录的重建。这最后一个缺陷是由于户口登记册是由已经重组的家庭组成的，如果一个人的分析兴趣仅限于同居群体，就没有必要进一步研究。这个项目是一个探索性的和冒险的奋进，以测试教区记录的家庭重建的最佳性，使用c。225，000份关于1700-1900年斯拉沃尼亚中部洗礼、婚姻和葬礼的记录。 这项研究将利用教会的家庭人口普查，现在是机器可读的，可以匹配到不同的事件数据的重建。它还将测试重构，以找到实现与人口普查最佳匹配的重构规则。 这项工作是探索性的，因为它是审查亲属关系在婚姻家庭和大家庭之外的作用的必要的第一步。这是历史人类学人口学的一个重大进步。这是有风险的，因为没有人做过，虽然在某些方面的初步试验是有希望的，但不知道与人口普查的交叉验证是否真的有效。这一建议的学术价值包括将严格的人类学和结构功能观点应用于历史人口变化中经济和社会因果关系的讨论。 这一提议的更广泛的影响是，所有基础和处理后的数据都将作为公共产品在互联网上提供。算法和代码将可用，以适应其他研究人员自己的数据集。这将促进其他历史和人类学人口统计学家采用这些方法，超越普通学术出版物所能达到的效果。

The study of demographic processes in past time was greatly advanced by the adoption of family reconstitution methods using records of birth, marriage, and death, usually from parish registers. However the methodology is quite limited and ethnocentric. It rarely links persons beyond the nuclear family, and usually assumes that that family is a household. It rarely links persons beyond two-generations. It never examines the stochastic character of variant reconstitutions from the same basic data. It rarely cross-validates the reconstitution of event records by examination of census-type records such as household registers. This last failing results from the fact that household registers are composed of already reconstituted families and that if one's analytical interest is limited to the coresidential group there is no need to go further. This project is an exploratory and risky endeavor to test the optimality of family reconstitution of parish records, using c. 225,000 records of baptisms, marriages, and burials from central Slavonia, 1700-1900. This research will take advantage of ecclesiastical household censuses that are now machine-readable and can be matched to varying reconstitutions of the event data. It will also test the reconstitutions to find the reconstitution rules that achieve the best match with the censuses. The work is exploratory because it is a necessary first step toward examination of the role of kinship beyond the conjugal family and beyond the extended household. It is a significant advance in historical anthropological demography. It is risky because no one has done it, and although preliminary trials in some aspects are promising, it is not known if the cross-validation with the censuses will actually work. The intellectual merit of this proposal includes the application of a rigorous anthropological and structural-functional point of view into discussions of economic and social causality in historical demographic change. The broader implications of this proposal are that all of the underlying and processed data will be available on the Internet as a public good. The algorithms and code will be available, to be adapted by other researchers to their own datasets. This will enhance the adoption of these methods by other historical and anthropological demographers, beyond what could be achieved by ordinary scholarly publication.