Part I: Structure and Meaning
E. A. Hammel
Kenneth W. Wachter
Department of Demography
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 642 9800 [voice]
(510) 643 8558 [fax]
firstname.lastname@example.org [email for Hammel]
email@example.com [email for Wachter]
Hammel, E. A. and Kenneth W. Wachter, 1995, The Slavonian Census of 1698. Part I: Structure and Meaning, European Journal of Population.
Microsimulation, other demographic tools, and evidence of history and ethnography are used to evaluate an important 17th century household census. Linguistic, ethnographic, and internal evidence allow adjustment of anomalies in census categories. Microsimulation based on historically and ethnographically plausible rates and household formation scenarios produces simulated households in accord with those of the adjusted census. Results permit estimation of the true population of the region, of the kinship and age composition of households under frontier conditions, and the probable future composition of households as the frontier stabilized and land shortage began to exert pressure for greater density and household complexity. Part I concentrates on historical, ethnographic, and linguistic evidence.
Keywords: historical demography, family and household, kinship composition,
Indirect estimation is always a two-way process, back and forth between calculation and textual interpretation. Brunt's (1971:117-20) calculations with proportions by age and sex led him to conclude that the Roman Imperial Census under Augustus must have included women and children and excluded infants; this conclusion induced him to reinterpret the words introducing the counts in the ancient sources. Likewise, our calculations suggest new interpretations for some of the language in the 1698 census documents.
The process of inferring totals which the census does not give is closely related to the task of assessing the plausibility of the information which it does give. With the 1698 census there is pervasive uncertainty as to whether kin of certain types are absent in the census because they were not counted or because they were not present, or because the kinship terms mean more than they seem. Such questions can never be settled with certainty. However, in this case, we believe that we have found reasonable solutions to the major puzzles raised by the census, solutions which are consistent with the data and compatible with the constraints of demographic plausibility. We would not of course deny the uncertainty of this and similar historical enterprises that are obliged to navigate, often by a kind of dead reckoning, between conflicting dangers in a fog of obscure information, enjoying only an occasional glimpse of a guiding star or a headland in the data.
This analysis is in two separately published parts (at the suggestion of the
Editor and anonymous reviewers). The first part describes and evaluates one of
the most important and controversial censuses of early modern Europe, the 1698
Austrian Census of Slavonia in what has recently become the independent country
of Croatia (1991). Historical, ethnographic, and linguistic information are
the core of this evaluation and reveal serious problems in any literal
interpretation of the listings. The second part develops a methodology of
re-estimation of the structure and membership of censused households, using
microsimulation techniques, and goes on to estimate the partly counted and
uncounted population of the region in 1698. While the approach here employed
is of course specific to the empirical data at hand, we expect that the general
approaches in these papers can be applied quite widely to nominative census
listings from the past, as long as comparable independent information is
We address the issue of household composition apparent in the census and use the tools of historiography, ethnography, and demography to inquire into the reasonableness of the census and what it may tell us about life on the edge of Catholic Europe in a period still feudal in its economic and political organization. (Civil serfdom was abolished in Croatia-Slavonia in 1848; military serfdom in the Croatian border facing the Ottomans ended only in 1871, and full civil status was not achieved until 1881.) Because the 1698 census is regarded as a foundation for the understanding of the social and demographic history of this historically pivotal frontier region (Gelo and Krivosic 1990, Mazuran 1988, Stipetic 1988), it is important to maximize the amount of quantitative information that can be gleaned from it and to assess which aspects of the text can be taken at face value and which require deeper interpretation.
There are two facets to the importance of the document. First, it was taken only 22 years before the date of the first parish records that are still preserved from central Slavonia (Cernik parish) and provides a baseline for analysis of a corpus of over 200,000 baptisms, marriages, and burials c. 1714-1900 that show early evidence of fertility control (Hammel 1984, Hammel 1985, Hammel 1990b, Hammel 1993, Hammel 1995, Hammel and Kohler 1995). Second, it provides evidence for the construction of the historical legitimacy of the modern Croatian state in the region or conversely for counter-claims by other ethnic groups that would deny that legitimacy. The ethnic heterogeneity that led to the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991 is already manifest in the census of 1698.
Some "reading" of this census is unavoidable. No scholar imagines that it can be taken as a complete listing of all members of the population. It must be that some categories of persons have been excluded. No one is listed as a wife, and the number of listed women per listed man is only 0.26. The average number of listed "sons" and "daughters" per household is only 1.47, which is much too low for a high-fertility population like this one, as evidence from parish records c. 1720-80 suggests. Historians generally assume that children under age 15 were not listed and that married women were not listed unless they were widowed heads of households, but they caution that the social evaluation of age may have played a role. Our analysis, spelled out in later sections, lends support to this view. But historians have not come to grips with what other categories may or must have been excluded, and with what the total membership of households should have looked like, counting unlisted and listed members together. These are the questions we address.
Throughout, we depend heavily on an extensive corpus of historical and ethnographic investigation, some of it going back to as early as the 1760s in Habsburg Croatia or to the 14th Century in mediaeval or Ottoman Serbia, but especially on materials published by Croatian ethnographers since 1896. These materials are especially consistent in their depiction of traditional household formation, and they accord well with the anthropological literature on patrilineally organized societies.
Initial scrutiny of the recorded census reveals two great puzzles in a territory characterized then and later by the strong patrilineal extended and fraternal joint household organization at least later typical of this part of the Balkans.
* Why are there no brothers listed as coresident kin in the first 14 (eastern) districts visited by the census commission, whereas brothers are listed in the last three (western) districts (the Brothers Puzzle)?
* Why is the number listed as "daughters" so sizable a fraction of the number listed as "sons", especially if daughters only included the unmarried and sons included married and unmarried alike (the Sons and the Daughters Puzzle)?
Other, related puzzles also exist, for example the complete absence of listed
sisters or sons-in-law, and these will also be addressed.
The Ottoman advance deep into Pannonia after their overwhelming victory at Mohacs in 1526 is thought to have emptied Slavonia of much of its Croatian Catholic peasantry. From Bosnia and Serbia into this population vacuum between 1526 and 1683 flowed large numbers of islamicized Slavs, Turks, and other ethnic groups. Some unknown and disputed proportion of the native population remained. There also came large numbers of Orthodox (and some Catholics) of pastoral economy, known as Vlachs. The word "Vlach" has complex meanings. Here it is best understood as "pastoralist" or "inmigrant." Most Vlachs were Orthodox, but some were Catholic, a distinction that in modern times would be read as Serbian versus Croatian. (See Rothenberg 1966 :16). The remaining Croatian nobility on the fringes of the Alpine zone (e.g. near Graz) and west of the Ilova to the Adriatic, thence around the shoulder of Bosnia about to Zadar began to organize a military defense zone about 1525 in the vicinity of Senj, into which they invited refugees from Bosnia, many of whom were Orthodox, to serve as military serfs who received land in return for perpetual military service (Fig. 2). At the same time (1526), the Croat nobles recognized the suzerainty of the Habsburgs. By the last part of the 16th century administration of the Border fell to the Inner Austrian Estates (Styria, Carniola and Carinthia), although the Croatian feudatories continually struggled to maintain their own control of the region. By the 1680s the military zone included the highlands from a point north of Knin and west of the modern border of Bosnia north to the Kupa, thence east to the Ilova, then in a northward extension west of the Ilova to the Drava, protecting Zagreb. In 1683 when the removal of the Ottomans from Slavonia began, the Croatian feudatories assumed direct control of Regiments V and VI (the "Banska" regiments, i.e. under control of the Croatian Ban, or king), although general military policy was still set by the Austrians. The Border was subsequently extended to the Danube by 1718 and afterwards into the Carpathians. The Transylvanian regiments were decommissioned after 1848 and the Croatian Border was reunited with Civil Croatia only in 1881. Vestiges of its social organization, e.g. communal ownership of forest, remained in force until 1945.
Codification of the direct subordination of the Border population to the Emperor appeared in the Statuta Valachorum ("the law of the Vlachs", herinafter SV) in 1630. Rothenberg (1966 :11) claims that the SV recognized the traditional joint family household (zadruga, Hauskommunion) as the "recipient of the land grant". This is far from certain; Rothenberg's source (Sucevic 1953) notes only that the Vlachs lived in joint family households. Indeed, Article 8 of the SV explicitly gives shares in the estate to children of both sexes, an idea quite contrary to the exclusively agnatic inheritance of South Slavic customary law under which women do not inherit real property or stock. It also reveals an expectation of primogenitural inheritance typical of Germanic stem family organization.
"Starb ein Hausvater kinderlos, so hatte der nächste Verwandte mit der hinterlassenen Witwe der Wirtschaft vorzustehen. Hinterliess dagegen der Erblasser auch Kinder, dann leitete die Wittwe mit dem Formund oder Curator die Wirtschaft und auch das jüngste Kind hatte mit den übrigen Geschwistern ohne Unterschied des Geschlechtes das ungeschmälerte Recht auf den ihm zufallenden Erbteil" (Vanicek 1875:94).
Prof. Karl Kaser (personal communication and 1986, 1994a, 1994b) has kindly shared his insights on the legal status of the joint family and notes that the uskoci (guerilla fighters, Bordermen) of the Zumberacka Gora (Sichelberger Uskoken) received special feudal privileges in 1535 and lived in joint family households, but the privileges accorded them make no mention of zadruga ownership or inheritance. Only in 1737 with the establishment of the Hildburghausen reforms are zadruga ownership and the inheritance practices of customary law recognized. Habsburg military officers at the local level were certainly familiar with the joint household organization of their soldiers, especially since the regions west of Karlovac were than, as now, preponderantly Orthodox, among whom joint family organization is clearly traditional from the mediaeval Serbian evidence. That portion of the Border running north from the Sava to the Drava just east of Zagreb had a lower proportion of Orthodox. Whether the distinct civil administrators of the Hofkammer in Vienna or even of the Inner Austrian Estates understood this organization, being familiar only with administration of the Alpine Slavs, is moot. As we will see, a possible misunderstanding about the status of persons within joint households may have contributed to curious discrepancies in the listings.
Before the historic Ottoman defeat at Vienna in 1683, the population of Slavonia is thought to have been about 200,000. After seven years of destructive fighting following 1683, the subsequent Ottoman defeat within Slavonia in 1691, and the flight of the Muslim population and some of its allies, the number is said to have been only about 40,000 (Mazuran 1988:40). A formal peace was achieved in 1699 with the Treaty of Carlowitz (Karlovci), but relations between the interested superpowers (Austria, Venice, and the Porte) were not settled until the Treaty of Pozarevac in 1718. The exact ethnic/religious composition of the remnant population is unknown, although most Croatian historians seem to assume that it was mostly Catholic and Croat. The region was then flooded presumably by mostly Catholic migrants from other regions of Croatia and Hungary, and by Christian refugees from Bosnia, many of whom were Orthodox. Especially important was a strong flow of 30,000 Orthodox refugee families who crossed into Habsburg territory from Serbia in 1690 after the Austrian defeat and the failed Serbian uprising incited by the Habsburgs at Pec (in Kosovo-Metohija) in 1689. These Orthodox refugees were resettled mostly in southern Hungary and the eastern apex of Slavonia and in the more western regions near the Ilova River. By 1698 the population of Slavonia itself is thought to have reached between 65,000 and 80,000 (Gelo and Krivosic 1990:17, Mazuran 1988:42), implying an annual increase between 5 and 10 percent from 1691 to 1698. Gelo and Krivosic (1990:21) give the population in 1780 as 380,700, so that the growth rate from 1698 to 1780 would have slowed to between about 1.5 and 2 percent. Rothenberg's work on the Military Border (1960 , 1966 ) and Capo's (1990, 1991) and Gelo and Krivosic's (1990) analyses of family names suggest that growth before about 1700 was driven mostly by migration but after 1780 mostly by natural increase, migration having slowed except into a few towns. The growth rate after cessation of the migration flow was a few percent per annum. We conjecture from these data that we might expect about 2 percent per annum in crude natural increase around the time of the census in 1698.
One consequence of the Ottoman defeat was an enlargement of the Border (Fig. 2). The Croatian Sabor (Assembly) raised its own troops after 1683 and by 1690 had liberated the region south of the Kupa and from about the Glina to the Sava-Una confluence; thereafter the Croatian feudatories were in control of this region, although it was considered part of the overall Border organization. The Habsburgs extended the border in a narrow strip on the left bank of the Sava from the Una eastward, eventually (by the Treaty of Pozarevac in 1718) to the Danube (and ultimately into Transylvania). Part of the task of the census of 1698 was to decide where the northern boundary of the military zone should be. The military authorities wanted that zone to be as wide as possible, while the civilian authorities (who were in actual charge of the census) wanted that zone to be narrow, leaving as much reconquered territory as possible as spoils to be divided among favorites of the Court or sold to the highest bidder among the magnates.
The shifting tides of humanity 1683-1698 must stand as one of the most
substantial population turnovers in early modern Europe (Stipetic 1988).
Strong traces of the resulting ethnic differences remain even today in the
dialect distributions and political conformations of the area.
The census listed (with supposedly standardized omissions) the members of households by category of kinship with the household head, the number of inquilini ("lodgers") in each household and that of the sons and daughters of such lodgers, by district by village, together with their productive assets, down to the individual beehive. Some villages or blocks of households within them are shown as having migrated from Bosnia, and such origin is also often evident in familial names, e.g. Bosnyak. As noted earlier, historians generally assume that children under age 15 were not listed, and married women were not listed unless they were widowed heads of households. There are 82 widows, or two percent of the households. Fully a third (28) of the widows are in the city of Pozega.
In a long account for each settlement, apparently based on a standard protocol since the paragraphs are consistently numbered, the census reported the history of settlement during the Turkish period and the recent war, the military role of the population, their religious affiliation, their needs, their feudal obligations, and limits on productivity such as the quality of land, insufficiency of cattle for plowing, and so on.
An example of a household listing is the following from the village of Jazavica in the district of Kraljeva Velika near the Ilova-Sava confluence in the west:
Marko Philipovich, fratres 2, filii 1, filiae 2, equi 3, boves 4, vaccae 3, vituli 3, oves et caprae 15, porci 10, alvearea 7, vineae fossorum 2, tritici jugera 8, hordei jugera 1/2, avenae jugera 1/2, milii jugera 4, currus foeni 6, terrae incultae jugera 5. (Mazuran 1988:541).
Marko Filipovic, brothers 2, sons 1, daughters 2, horses 3, oxen 4, cows 3, calves 3, sheep and goats 15, swine 10, beehives 7, vine rows 2, yokes of wheat 8, yokes of barley 1/2, yokes of oats 1/2, yokes of millet 4, haycarts 6, yokes of fallow land 6.
By contrast is another kind of household from the village of Ternovac in the district of Erdut along the shores of the Drava in the east:
Vukovan Ternovazan, sessio 1, filii 1, equi 3, boves 3, vaccae 3, vituli 3, porci 15, frumentum jugera 14, hordei jugera 2, avenae jugera 2, kukuruz jugera 1, inquilini 2, filii inquilini 4.
Vukovan Ternovacan, sessions of land 1, sons 1, horses 3, oxen 3, cows 3, calves 3, pigs 15, grain 14, barley 2, oats 2, maize 1, lodgers 1, lodger's sons 4
Mazuran's tabulation (1993:29-30) shows 464 occupied and 165 unoccupied
villages (pagus desertus) in 28 named regions, and 6,613 households
containing 385 brothers, 3,949 sons, 2,725 daughters, and 1,368
inquilini.8 Our own analysis is based not on his summary
tabulations (which are themselves probably based on the village level summaries
in the census) but on the detailed household level data for 4,453 households in
those 330 villages in 17 districts for which the recording gave information on
the kinship relation of residents to the household head.,  The missing districts are
concentrated at the north end of the Drava valley. Because of this
concentration it is possible that there is some selection bias in the corpus.
The Drava valley was the main route for armies moving between Belgrade and
Vienna and probably suffered equally from the Ottomans and the Habsburgs.
However, there is no reason to think that the northern end of the Drava valley
was affected more severely than the southern, which is represented in the
There is not a single instance of the naming of a person of a generation older than the head of household. Thus there are no fathers, no mothers, no uncles, even though surviving mothers and debilitated elder males were surely coresident with sons or nephews who had assumed headship. That means either that the census takers must always have taken a male of the senior generation, or failing that a widow, as the head of household, or that they did not count males beyond some age or in some condition of disability unless they were solitaries or in isolated spousal pairs.
How can we account for such discrepancies? We wondered whether this important
census should be consigned to the dustbin, or whether there was some way to
Were the kinship terms employed to designate persons defined by the immediate genealogical denotation of the Latin words? Were the Latin words glosses on Slavic kinship terms but still interpretable in a narrow genealogical context? Were the Latin words, on the other hand, convenient glosses for socially defined categories? In other words, does filius mean precisely a child of the head, or does it mean a lineally related male member of the household one or more generations below that of the head of household, or even just a junior male? Does fratres mean exactly a male child with the same parents as the head, or any collateral male relative of the same generation as the head? Does filia mean a female relative analogous to filius in any of the senses given above for filius, or can it also mean any unmarried female in the house who is a jural minor, thus including persons that would have been listed as soror (sister) if that word had been used anywhere in the census?
Everything that anthropologists know about kinship usage would suggest that the kinship terms used in the census would have broad, rather than narrow meanings. Exactly how broad the meanings were, we cannot say, but some aspects of the local culture and language, and some features of the internal structure of the census are informative.
Where "son" is given in the listings, it appears not only after the head of the household but also after any brothers that may be listed. Since "nephews" are not listed by the literal Latin term (nepos), we conclude that "son" means the son of either the head of household or of any listed brothers, so that "son" in the census means sons plus nephews. We also note that in South Slavic joint family organization the sons of coresident brothers are socially equivalent, and that the term for "brother's son" in some dialects (sinovac) is a linguistic derivative of the term for son (sin). If people were reported in Slavic but noted in Latin, these effects might easily appear. For all of these reasons we consider filius in the census to mean at least sons plus nephews of the head. The clinching argument is the positional one from the census listings: head, brothers, "sons." One could go further by including grandsons under the social rubric of sons, but we do not explicitly make that extension. Parallel arguments (except for the linguistic derivative of brother's son from son) apply to filia (daughter), and we consider filia in the census to mean at least daughters plus nieces of the head. Further consideration of the meaning of filia will be pursued below.
The term fratres (brother) occurs in the census only in the three westernmost districts. (See the example of the Philipovich household given earlier.) It is not found in the other fourteen. In these fourteen there are many "lodgers" listed (inquilini), but no "lodgers" are listed in the three westernmost districts (see the example of the Ternovazan household listed earlier). There is only one exception to this distribution: in one village in one eastern district verging on the western three, where "lodgers" are listed; there is one listed brother in one household, but there are no lodgers in that household. The geographical distribution of lodgers and brothers is thus completely disjoint. We propose that the Austrian census takers, familiar with a stem family system of the Alpine regions in which non-inheriting sons could stay on with their inheriting brother as Knechte (farmhands), usually classified coresident brothers as lodgers. They could have done so even if they were familiar with the zadruga form of organization, provided that they did not fully appreciate that all males were equal coparceners in the zadruga estate, regardless of which one was the head. The exceptions to the general absence of brothers all occur in the area enumerated by census work group I, headed by the unlucky Gabriel Hapcz (see above). Indeed, the change from lodgers to brothers occurs exactly in the village of Podborje, where the inhabitants obliged Mr. Hapcz to wait. We suppose that for almost all of their tour this work group used the same definitions as other work groups, changing the terminology only at the end, perhaps because they decided to use the kinship term rather than the misapplied status term to describe the relationship. Whether the near-revolt of the populace altered their linguistic or cultural sensitivity can only be a matter of amused speculation. For our purposes, we therefore classify "lodgers" as "brothers", "lodger's sons" as "sons", and "lodger's daughters" as "daughters." If there were truly unrelated lodgers in households in the eastern zone, our equivalencing will overestimate brothers in that zone, but we think probably not by much. In later times Austrian military administrators managing land allotments and supervising the organization of zadrugas sometimes did oblige unrelated persons to coreside in order to maintain sufficient military strength on the homestead, but such arrangements were rare.
Beyond this we note that in the local Slavic dialects of the time (and indeed in many of them today such as in standard Serbian), siblings and cousins are denoted by the same word. Both a brother and a male cousin are brat (cognate with English "brother), and both a sister and a female cousin are sestra (cognate with English "sister"). (See notes 11-13.) Socially, male cousins of the head in a joint household are equivalent to his brothers. If counts of people were reported in Slavic and glossed in Latin, these effects could easily occur. For all of these reasons, we consider the Latin gloss, fratres, to be equivalent to the Slavic brat, and to mean not only brothers (and lodgers, as indicated earlier) but also male cousins.
Finally, and with some trepidation, we reconsider the Latin filia, which we have held to mean both "daughter" and "niece", analogously to filius. It will be remembered that there are no sisters as such listed in the census, although some must have existed at countable ages. We propose that it is reasonable to consider the Latin filia as a gloss for all countable unmarried women. There is no direct linguistic or structural evidence internal to the census for this terminological merger, contrary to the situation for the other interpretations above. Nevertheless, the merger is ethnographically reasonable, since all unmarried daughters, nieces, and sisters were jural minors in their household and expected to depart it on marriage. All nubile women, in this sense, are "daughters of the lineage" (Hammel 1957, Hammel 1968 , Lounsbury 1964). There is some indirect linguistic evidence even though the Slavic terms for sister (sestra) and daughter (kci, kcer, cerka) are distinct and never confused. The husbands of daughters and of sisters are known by a single Slavic kinship term (zet); that is, son-in-law and brother-in-law are identically named; sisters and daughters are the wives or potential wives of identically named men. We would not suggest this terminological merger if any "sister" (soror) had been listed as such in the census at all, but none were, and the interpretation seems not unreasonable. To accommodate this possibility, we later present both interpretations of the census counts, in one of which filia means daughters and nieces, and in the other of which it means these plus sisters. In either of these instances, we could include granddaughters under the social rubric of daughters, but we do not do so explicitly here.
The results of these re-readings of the text are shown in Table 2. We propose
that these linguistically and ethnographically informed "readings" of the
census text do much to resolve the Brother's Puzzle, the Son's Puzzle, and the
Daughter's Puzzle. The outcome is an "adjusted census", in which the
counts of persons are affected only insofar as "lodgers" are merged with
"brothers", and the children of lodgers are merged with "sons" and "daughters".
It is the interpretation of these counts that is most changed, a shift
that has meaning when we go on in Part II to compare the simulation results
with the census and use these interpretations to aggregate the exactly
classifiable computer-simulated coresidents into the categories we think were
intended by the census takers.
As a first step in the rehabilitation of the census for scholarly study we reconsidered the meanings of the kinship terms as reported in Latin. Some were given broader meanings on the grounds of structural features of the listings (filius as son plus nephew, filia as daughter plus niece). Some were given broader scope on the grounds of the meanings of the Slavic glosses in Serbo-Croatian (fratres = brat as brother plus cousin). An extension of filia = daughter plus niece plus sister was proposed on the basis of the legal status of unmarried females in patrilineal systems and tentatively implemented. A plausible extension of filius = son plus nephew plus grandson (and similarly for filia) was considered but not implemented.
These qualitative steps transform the census listings into a more reasonable and believable corpus, better in accord with the expectations generated by ethnography and history. In Part II of our enterprise we will turn to microsimulation techniques to obtain more precisely drawn quantitative expectations of coresident kin, using a range of plausible demographic scenarios and the most likely household formation scenario and census protocol. From those results we will go on to estimate the population that was counted only by enumeration of household heads rather than by coresidents in households and to estimate the population that was indicated only by counts of households or villages. The results accord closely with population counts estimated by other means by Croatian historians and lead us to consider other processes such as migration, the instability of large households, and the need to combine very small households in the turbulent environment at the close of the 16th century when a temporary peace with the Ottomans was within grasp.
Mean Numbers of Expectable Kin in Households in the Empirical Census
Sons Daughter Brother Siste Grandchildre Nephews Niece Cousins s s rs n s East 0.85 0.633 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 West 0.90 0.486 0.524 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total 0.87 0.604 0.412 0 0 0 0 0 9
Lodgers Lodger's Lodger's Head's Wives Son's Wives Sons Daughters East 0.368 0.011 0.006 0 0 West 0.040 0.001 0.000 0 0 Total 0.295 0.009 0.005 0 0
Daughter's Brother's Nephew's Niece's Brother's Husbands Wives Wives Husbands Wives East 0 0 0 0 0 West 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0
Census data are for the 3 western and 14 eastern districts. (See Fig. 1.)
Mean Numbers of Expectable Kin in Households in the Adjusted Census
Sons plus Lodger's Sons Daughters plus Lodger's Lodgers plus (Sons and Nephews) Daughters (Daughters and Brothers (Brothers Nieces) and Male Cousinse ) East 0.870 0.639 0.368 West 0.907 0.486 0.564 Total 0.888 0.609 0.707The italicized kinship terms suggest what the census categories really might have included.Acknowlegements
This research was supported by grant DBS-9120159 from the National Science Foundation and grant RO1 HD 29512 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of NIH, and by the facilities of the Department of Demography, the Institute of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, the Institute for the Study of Ethnology and Folkloristics and the Archive of Croatia, both of Zagreb. None of these institutions is responsible for the data or interpretations found in this paper.
Bogisic, V., 1874, Gragja u odgovorima iz razlicnih krajeva slovenskog juga. (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb).
Brunt, P. A., 1971, Italian manpower 225 BC-AD14 (Clarendon Press, Oxford).
Capo, J., 1990, Economic and demographic history of peasant households on a Croatian estate, 1756-1848. Doctoral dissertation (Demography, University of California, Berkeley).
Capo, J., 1991, Vlastelinstvo Cernik: gospodarstvene i demografske promjene na hrvatskome selu u kasnome feudalizmu (Institut za Etnologiju i Folkloristiku, Zagreb).
Engel, F. S., 1971 (1786), Opis kraljevine Slavonije i vojvodstva Srema, Zbornik Matice Srpske za Knjizevnost i Jezik XIX, 289-356.
Gelo, J., and S. Krivosic, 1990, Razvitak stanovnistva na tlu hrvatske (Ekonomski Fakultet, Institut za Ekonomska Istrazivanja, Zagreb).
Halpern, J. M., 1958, A Serbian village (Columbia University Press, New York).
Halpern, J. M., and D. Anderson, 1970, The zadruga, a century of change, Anthropologica 12, 83-97.
Halpern, J. M., and R. A. Wagner, 1984, Time and social structure: a Yugoslav case study, Journal of Family History 9, 229-244.
Hammel, E. A., 1957, Serbo-Croatian kinship terminology, Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 16, 45-75.
Hammel, E. A., 1965, An algorithm for Crow-Omaha solutions, American Anthropologist 67, 118-26.
Hammel, E. A., 1968 , Alternative social structures and ritual relations in the Balkans (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
Hammel, E. A., 1972 , The zadruga as process, in: P. Laslett (ed.) Household and family in past time (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 335-73..
Hammel, E. A., 1976 , Some mediaeval evidence on the Serbian zadruga: a preliminary analysis of the chrysobulls of Decani, in: R. F. Byrnes (ed.) Communal families in the Balkans ( University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame) 100-115..
Hammel, E. A., 1977, Reflections on the zadruga, Ethnologia Slavica VII, 141-151.
Hammel, E. A., 1980a, Household structure in 14th century Macedonia, Journal of Family History 5, 242-73.
Hammel, E. A., 1980b, Sensitivity analysis of household structure in medieval Serbian censuses, Historical Methods 13, 105-118.
Hammel, E. A., 1984, Opadanje fertiliteta u vojnoj krajini Hrvatske (Anthropological Society of Croatia and Ethnological Society of Croatia, Zagreb, 1984).
Hammel, E. A., 1985, Short term demographic fluctuations in the Croatian military border of Austria, 1830-47, European Journal of Population , 265-90.
Hammel, E. A., 1990a, Demographic constraints on the formation of traditional Balkan households, in: A. Laiou (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Papers: Marriage and the Family in Byzantium, vol. 44, Washington, D.C.) 173-180..
Hammel, E. A., 1990b, The early decline of fertility in Slavonia, Studia Ethnologica 2, 143-162.
Hammel, E. A., 1993, Censored intervals in family reconstitution: a sensitivity test of alternative strategies with historical Croatian data, in: D. Reher and R. Schofield (ed.) Old and new methods in historical demography (Clarendon University Press, Oxford) 125-44..
Hammel, E. A., 1995, Economics 1: Culture 0. Fertility change and differences in the northwest Balkans 1700-1900, in: S. Greenhalgh (ed.) Rethinking reproduction: culture and political economy in demographic behavior (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 115-258..
Hammel, E. A., and D. Soc, 1973, The lineage cycle in southern and eastern Yugoslavia, American Anthropologist 75, 802-814.
Hammel, E. A., and H.-P. Kohler, 1995, Kinship-based resource sharing in the agrarian economy of frontier Slavonia, 1698: evidence from an early census (Social Science History Association, Chicago, 1995).
Hume, D., 1752, On the Populousness of ancient nations: Essays, moral, political, and literary , ).
Ilic Oriovcanin, L., 1846, Narodni slavonski obicaji , Zagreb).
Kaser, K., 1986, Freier Bauer und Soldat. Die Militarisierung der agrarischen Gesellschaft in der kroatisch-slawonischen Militargrenze (1535-1881) , Graz).
Kaser, K., 1994a, The Balkan joint family household: seeking its origins, Continuity and Change 9, 45-68.
Kaser, K., 1994b, The Balkan joint family: redefining a problem, Social Science History 18, 243-269.
Laiou-Thomadakis, A. E., 1977, Peasant society in the late Byzantine Empire: a social and demographic study (Princeton University Press, Princeton).
Lounsbury, F., 1964, The formal analysis of Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies, in: W. H. Goodenough (ed.) Explorations in cultural anthropology (McGraw-Hill, New York) 351-394..
Lovretic, J., and B. Juric, 1897, Otok: narodni zivot i obicaji, in: (ed.) Zbornik za narodni zivot i obicaje u juznih slavena, vol. II (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb) 91-459..
Mazuran, I., 1988, Popis naselja i stanovnistva u Slavoniji 1698. godine, Vol. 2, Radovi Zavoda za Znanstveni Rad u Osijeku (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Osijek).
Mazuran, I., 1993, Stanovnistvo i vlastelinstva u Slavoniji 1736. godine i njihova ekonomska podloga, Radovi Zavoda za Znanstveni Rad u Osijeku (Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Osijek).
Moacanin, F., and M. Valentic, 1981, Vojna krajina u Hrvatskoj , Zagreb).
Morgan, L. H., 1870, Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family , Washington).
Pavicic, S., 1953, Podrijetlo hrvatskih i srpskih naselja i govora u Slavoniji, Vol. 47, Djela (Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb).
Pavlicevic, D., Editor, 1984, Vojna krajina (Sveucilisna Naklada Liber, Zagreb).
Reljkovic, M. A., 1973 (c. 1760), Satir, ili divji covik, Zbornik stihova i proze XVIII stoljeca (Matica hrvatska, Zagreb).
Rothenberg, G. E., 1960 , The Austrian military border in Croatia, 1522-1747, Vol. 48, Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, (University of Illinois Press, Urbana).
Rothenberg, G. E., 1966 , The Austrian military border in Croatia, 1740-1881 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
Shah, A. M., 1974, The household dimension of the family in India; a field study in a Gujarat village and a review of other studies (University of California Press, Berkeley).
Smiciklas, T., 1891a, Dvijestagodisnjica oslobodjenja Slavonije. Drugi dio: Spomenici o Slavoniji u XVII. vijeku (1640-1702), Vol. XI, 2, Djela (Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb).
Smiciklas, T., 1891b, Dvijestagodisnjica oslobodjenja Slavonije. Prvi dio: Slavonija i druge hrvatske zemlje pod turskom i rat oslobodjenja, Vol. XI, 1, Djela (Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb).
Stipetic, V., 1988, Predgovor, in: I. Mazuran (ed.) Popis naselja i stanovnistva u Slavoniji 1698. godine, vol. 2, Radovi Zavoda za Znanstveni Rad u Osijeku (Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, ) ..
Sucevic, B. P., 1953, Razvitak `Vlaskih Prava' u Varazdinskom generalatu, Historijski Zbornik 6, 33-70.
Todorova, M. N., 1993, Balkan family structure and the European pattern: demographic developments in Ottoman Bulgaria (American University Press, Washington, D.C.).
Tomasevich, J., 1955 , Peasants, politics and economic change in Yugoslavia (Stanford University Press, Stanford).
Valentic, M., 1981 , Vojna krajina i pitanje njezina sjedinjenja s Hrvatskom 1849-1881 , Zagreb).
Vanicek, F., 1875, Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. I (Kaiserlichen-Königlichen Hof u. Staatsdrückerei, Vienna).
Winner, I. P., 1971, A Slovenian village: Zerovnica (Brown University Press, Providence).