¹ Berkner, Lutz K, “The Stem Family and the Development Cycle of the Peasant Household: An Eighteenth Century Austrian Example,” American Historical Review 77 (1972): 398–418;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMichael, Mitterauer, “Zur Familienstruktur in ländlichen Gebieten Österreichs,” in Beiträge zur Bevölkerungs- und Sozialgeschichte Österreichs, ed. Heimold, Helczmanovszki (Munich and Vienna, 1973), 168–222.Google ScholarSee also Josef, Ehmer and Albert, Müller, “Sozialgeschichte in Österreich. Traditionen, Entwicklungsstränge und Innovationspotential,” in Sozialgeschichte im internationalen Überblick, ed. Jürgen, Kocka (Darmstadt, 1988), 109–40;Google ScholarKarin, Hausen, “Familie und Familiengeschichte,” in Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland, ed. Wolfgang, Schieder and Volker, Sellin, vol. 2 (Göttingen, 1986), 64–89, esp. 68;Google Scholar and Iggers, Georg G., Geschichtswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1993), 63.Google Scholar On Czechoslovakia, see Eduard, Maur, “Problémy demografické struktury Čech v polovině 17. století” (Problems of the demographic structure of Bohemia in the seventeenth century), Československý časopis historický 19 (1971): 839–70.Google Scholar For Hungary, see Rudolf, Andorka, “La prevention des naissances en Hongrie dans la region Ormánság depuis la fin du XVlIIe siècle,” Population 25 (1971): 63–73;Google Scholaridem, “Paraszti családszervezet a 18.-19. században” (Peasant family structures in the 18th and 19th centuries), Ethnographia 86 (1975): 340–67;Google Scholar and Tamás, Faragó, “Háztartásszerkezet és falusi társadalomfejlödés Magyarországon 1787–1828” (Household structures and the development of the rural population in Hungary, 1787–1828), Történeti Statisztikai Tanulmányok 3 (1977): 105–214.Google Scholar

² Jan, Horský and Eduard, Maur, “Die Familie, Familienstrukturen und Typologie der Familien in der böhmischen Historiographie,” Historická demografie (hereafter, HD) 17 (1993): 7, 14 (hereafter, “Familie”)Google Scholar On Hungary, see Rudolf, Andorka and Tamás, Faragó, “Pre-industrial Household Structure in Hungary,” in Family Forms in Historic Europe, ed. Richard, Wall, Jean, Robin, AND Peter, Laslett (hereafter, Forms) (Cambridge, 1983), 281–305;Google Scholar and Tamás, Faragó, “Formen bäuerlicher Haushalts- und Arbeitsorganisation in Ungarn um die Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation in ländlichen Gesellschaften, ed. Josef, Ehmer and Michael, Mitterauer (Vienna, 1986), 103–83.Google Scholar On Austria, see, however, the materials in Birgit, Bolognese-Leuchtenmüller, Bevölkerungsentwicklung und Berufsstruktur, Gesundheits- und Fürsorgewesen in Österreich 1750–1918 (Vienna, 1978);Google Scholar and Kurt, Klein, “Die Bevölkerung Österreichs vom Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Beiträge, ed. Helczmanovszki, 47–112.Google Scholar For a case study, see Peter, Becker, Leben und Lieben in einem kalten Land (Frankfurt am Main, 1990), esp. 128ff.;Google Scholar and Jean-Paul, Lehners, “Die Pfarre Stockerau im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,” in Beiträge, ed. Helczmanovszki, 373–401.Google Scholar

³ Hareven, Tamara K, “Family History at the Crossroads,” Journal of Family History (hereafter, JFH) 12 (1987): 9ff.;Google Scholaridem, “The History of the Family and the Complexity of Social Change,” American Historical Review 96 (1991): 95–124;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHausen, , “Familie und Familiengeschichte”;Google ScholarLawrence, Stone, “Past Achievements and Future Trends: The Family History in the 1980s,” in The New History: The 1980s and Beyond, ed. Rabb, Theodore K. und Rotberg, Robert I. (Princeton, N.J., 1982), 51–87;Google ScholarWrigley, E. A., “Population History in the 1980s,”Google Scholar in ibid., 207–26. See also Mendels, Franklin F., “Proto-industrialization: The First Phase of the Industrialization Process,” Journal of Economic History 32 (1972): 241–62;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPeter, Kriedte, Hans, Medick, AND Jürgen, Schlumbohm, Industrialisierung vor der Industrialisierung. Gewerbliche Warenproduktion auf dem Land in der Formationsperiode des Kapitalismus (Göttingen, 1977);Google Scholartranslated by Beate, Schempp under the title Industrialization before Industrialization: Rural Industry in the Genesis of Capitalism (Cambridge, 1981);Google Scholaridem, “Proto-industrialization Revisited: Demography, Social Structure, and Modern Domestic Industry,” Continuity and Change (hereafter, C&C) 8 (1993): 217–52;Google Scholar and Jürgen, Schlumbohm, “‘Proto- industrialization’ as a Research Strategy and a Historical Period: A Balance Sheet,” in European Proto-industrialization, ed. Ogilvie, Sheilagh C. and Markus, Cerman (Cambridge, 1996): 12–22.Google Scholar

⁴ Vol 1, no. 4 (1996) of The History of the Family, guest edited by Karl Kaser, is titled Household and Family Contexts in the Balkans and deals exclusively with the Balkan family.Google ScholarSee also Karl, Kaser, “Ahnenkult und Patriarchalismus auf dem Balkan,” Historische Anthropologie 1 (1993): 93–122;Google Scholaridem, Hirten, Helden, Stammeskämpfer. Ursprung und Gegenwart des balkanischen Patriarchats (Vienna, 1992);Google Scholar and idem, Familie und Verwandtschaft auf dem Balkan (Vienna, 1995).Google Scholar For a critique of Kaser, see Maria, Todorova, “Slava und Zadruga,” Historische Anthropologie 1 (1993): 123–29,Google Scholaron the basis of her Balkan Family Structure and the European Pattern: Demographic Developments in Ottoman Bulgaria (Washington, D.C., 1993).Google Scholar

⁵ Michael, Mitterauer, “Geschlechtsspezifische Arbeitsteilung und Geschlechterrollen in ländlichen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas,” in Aufgaben, Rollen und Räume von Frau und Mann, ed Jochen, Martin and Renate, Zoepfel (Freiburg, 1989), 819–914;Google Scholar and idem, Familie und Arbeitsteilung. Historischvergleichende Studien (Vienna, 1992) (hereafter, Arbeitsteilung).Google Scholar For cross-cultural comparison, see, for example, the studies in Michael, Mitterauer, Historisch-anthropologische Familienforschung. Fragestellungen und Zugangsweisen (Vienna, 1990);Google Scholaridem, “Christianity and Endogamy,” C&C 6 (1991): 295–333;Google Scholar and idem, “The Customs of the Magicians, in Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science: The History of Attitudes to Sexuality, ed. Roy, Porter and Mikulai, Teich (Cambridge, 1994), 231–50.Google Scholar On youth, see Michael, Mitterauer, Sozialgeschichte der jugend (Frankfurt, 1986);Google Scholaridem, Arbeitsteilung, 301ff.;Google Scholar and Michael, Mitterauer and Reinhard, Sieder, The European Family: Patriarchy to Partnership from the Middle Ages to the Present, trans. Karla, Oosterveen and Manfred, Hörzinger (Chicago, 1982);Google Scholaroriginally published as Vom Patriarchal zur Partnerschaft. Zum Strukturwandel der Familie (Munich, 1977).Google Scholar On the family, see Reinhard, Sieder, Sozialgeschichte der Familie (Frankfurt, 1987).Google Scholar On aging, see Josef, Ehmer, ed., Alter und Generationenbeziehungen (Vienna, 1998);Google Scholaridem, Sozialgeschichte des Alters (Frankfurt, 1990);Google Scholaridem, “The ‘Life Stairs’: Aging, Generational Relations, and Small Commodity Production in Central Europe,” in Aging and Generational Relations over the Life Course, ed. Hareven, Tamara K. (Berlin, 1996), 53–74;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHelmut, Konrad, ed., Der alte Mensch in der Geschichte (Vienna, 1982);Google ScholarErhard, Chvojka, “‘So müssen die Alten dahinter an der Ofenbank thun…’. Die historische Entwicklung der Großelternrolle vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1994).Google Scholar

⁶ Jan, Horský, “Historická antropologie” (Historical anthropology), HD 17 (1993): 241–70.Google Scholar

⁷ See Peter, Laslett and Richard, Wall, eds, Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972), 1–89. Laslett lays out his typology in his introduction.Google Scholar

⁸ Studies using the Laslett typology include Rudolf, Andorka and Sandor, Balazs-Kovdcs, “The Social Demography of Hungarian Villages in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (with Special Attention to Sárpilis, 1792–1804),” JFH 11, no 2 (1986): 169–92;Google Scholar and Andorka, and Faragó, , “Pre-industrial Household Structure.”Google ScholarSee also Berkner, , “Stem Family”;Google ScholarMichael, Mitterauer, “Komplexe Familienformen in sozialhistorischer Sicht,”Google Scholar in idem, Historisch- anthropologische Familienforschung;Google Scholaridem, “Familiengröße— Familientypen—Familienzyklus,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975): 226–55;Google ScholarPeter, Schmidtbauer, “The Changing Household: Austrian Household Structure from the Seventeenth to the Early Twentieth Century,” in Forms, 347–78;Google Scholar and Reinhard, Sieder, “Strukturprobleme der ländlichen Familie im 19. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 1 (1978): 173–217.Google Scholar

⁹ John, Hajnal, “Two Kinds of Pre-industrial Household Formation Systems,” in Forms, 65–104.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See the review of Laslett and Wall's Household and FamilyGoogle Scholar by Berkner, Lutz K, “The Use and Misuse of Census Data for the Historical Analysis of Family Structure,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 5, no. 4 (Spring 1975): 731–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMichael, Anderson, Approaches to the History of the Western Family, 1500–1914 (London, 1980), summarizes Laslett's approach, as well as the criticisms by Berkner and others.Google Scholar

¹¹ Berkner, , “Stem Family”;Google Scholaridem, “Use and Misuse”; Mitterauer, , “Familiengröße”Google ScholarSee also Michael, Mitterauer and Reinhard, Sieder, “The Developmental Process of Domestic Groups: Problems of Reconstruction and Possibilities of Interpretation,” JFH 4 (1979): 257–84;Google Scholaridem, “The Reconstruction of the Family Life Course: Theoretical Problems and Empirical Results,” in Forms, 309–45.Google Scholar

¹² See Josef, Ehmer, “The Vienna Data Base on European Family History,” in Data Bases in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ed Allen, E. A. (Osprey, Fla., 1985), 113–16;Google Scholar and Iggers, , Geschichtswissenschaft, 63.Google Scholar

¹³ The leading proponent of this method has been Michael Mitterauer; see Historisch-anthropologische Familienforschung;Google Scholaridem, “Auswirkungen von Urbanisierung und Frühindustrialisierung auf die Familienverfassung an Beispielen des Österreichischen Raums,” in Sozialgeschichte der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas, ed Werner, Conze (Stuttgart, 1976), 53–146;Google Scholar“Formen ländlicher Familienwirtschaft. Historische Ökotypen und familiale Arbeitsorganisation im Österreichischen Raum,” in Familienstruktur, ed. Ehmer and Mitterauer, 185–323 (hereafter, “Familienwirtschaft”);Google Scholar and Mitterauer, and Sieder, , “Developmental Process.” Other authors who have used these same ideas include Franz Eder, Geschlechtsproportion und Arbeitsorganisation im Lande Salzburg (Vienna, 1990);Google ScholarThomas, Held, “Rural Retirement Arrangements in Seventeenth- to Nineteenth-Century Austria: A Cross-Cultural Analysis,” JFH 7 (1982): 227–54;Google ScholarSchmidtbauer, , “Changing Household”;Google ScholarSieder, , “Strukturprobleme”;Google ScholarGertrud, Ostrawsky, “Zur Gesindefrage im ländlichen Raum. Die Auswertung von historischen Personenstandslisten am Beispiel der Pfarre Maria Langegg im Dunkelsteinerwald,” Unsere Heimat 52 (1981): 265–73.Google ScholarSee also Hausen, , “Familie und Familiengeschichte.”Google Scholar

¹⁴ Brown, James O, “Family Structure and the Economy: Lower Austria, 1788–1848” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1995).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Laslett, “Introduction,” in Household and Family, ed Laslett and Wall, 1; idem, “The Stem-Family Hypothesis and Its Privileged Position,” in Statistical Studies of Historical Social Structure, ed. Wachter, Kenneth W., Hammel, Eugene A., and Peter, Laslett (New York, 1978), 89;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLaslett, and Hammel, E. A., “Comparing Household Structure over Time and between Cultures,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (1974): 73–109.Google ScholarSee also Berkner's, “Stem Family”;Google Scholaridem, “Use and Misuse”;Google Scholaridem, Inheritance, Land Tenure, and Peasant Family Structure: A German Regional Comparison,” in Family and Inheritance in Rural Western Europe, ed. Jack, Goody, Joan, Thirsk, and Thompson, E. P. (Cambridge, 1976), 71;Google Scholar and idem, “Peasant Household Organization and Demographic Change in Lower Saxony (1689–1766),” in Population Patterns in the Past, ed. Lee, Ronald D. (New York, 1977), 53.Google ScholarOther work includes Michel, Verdon, “The Stem Family Toward a General Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 10 (1979): 81–105;Google ScholarWilliam, Douglas, “The Famille Souche and Its Interpreters,” C&C 8, no. 1 (1993): 87–102.Google Scholar On the stem family in Austria, see Mitterauer, , “Auswirkung von Urbanisierung”;Google ScholarMitterauer, and Sieder, , “Developmental Process”; Held, , “Rural Retirement”;Google ScholarHermann, Rebel, “Peasant Stem Families in Early Modern Austria: Life Plans, Status Tactics, and the Grid of Inheritance,” Social Science History 2 (1978): 255–91;Google Scholar and Schmidtbauer, , “Changing Household.”Google Scholar

¹⁶ Peter, Laslett, The World We Have lost (New York, 1965);Google ScholarBerkner, , “Stem Family.”Google Scholar

¹⁷ See the introduction to Mitterauer, and Sieder, , European Family, x.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Brown, “Family Structure.”

¹⁹ See especially Held, , “Rural Retirement,” for a comparison of Austrian communities;Google ScholarRebel, , “Peasant Stem Families”;Google Scholar and Gertrud, Ostrawsky, “Die Zusammensetzung der Hausgemeinschaften in der Pfarre Maria Langegg im Dunkelsteinerwald, 1788–1875” (PhD. diss., University of Vienna, 1979).Google Scholar

²⁰ Held, , “Rural Retirement,” esp 249;Google ScholarMitterauer, , “Vorindustrielle Familienformen. Zur Funktionsentlastung des ‘ganzen Hauses’ im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,”Google Scholar in idem, Grundtypen alteuropäischer Sozialformen (Stuttgart, 1979), 35–97;Google Scholaridem, “Peasant and Non-peasant Family Forms in Relation to the Physical Environment and the Local Economy,” JFH 17, no. 2 (1992): 139–59, esp. 149ff.Google Scholar

²¹ Mitterauer, and Sieder, , “Developmental Process” and “Reconstruction”Google Scholar

²² See Iggers, Geschichtswissenschaft, 63;Google ScholarMichael, Mitterauer, “Familie im Spannungsfeld gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungstendenzen,” Beiträge zur historischen Sozialkunde 23 (1994): 94–118;Google Scholaridem, “‘Das moderne Kind hat zwei Kinderzimmer und acht Großeltern’ Die Entwicklung in Europa,” in Familie im 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Michael, Mitterauer and Norbert, Ortmayer (Frankfurt, 1997);Google Scholar and Mitterauer, and Hareven, Tamara K., Entwicklungstendenzen der Familie (Vienna, 1995).Google Scholar

²³ Eric, Fügedi, “The Demographic Landscape of East-Central Europe,” in East Central Europe in Transition, ed Antoni, Mączak, Henryk, Samsonowicz, and Peter, Burke (Cambridge, 1985), 47–58;Google ScholarMaur, , “Probtémy demografické struktury”;Google Scholaridem, “Populaˇní vývoj českých komornich pan ství po válce třicetileté” (Population development on Bohemian cameral estates after the Thirty Years' War), Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et historica 3 (1972): 9–80;Google Scholaridem, “La structure démographique de la Bohême après la guerre de trente ans,” HD 7 (1974): 29–98;Google Scholaridem, “Populační důsledky třicetileté války” (Population consequences of the Thirty Years' War), HD 12 (1987): 137–52.Google Scholar On the use of the 1651 population registers as a source, see Eliška, Cánová, “Soupis poddaných podle víry a studium historické rodiny,” Archivní časopis 42 (1992): 28–34;Google Scholar and Lenka, Matušikova and Alena, Pazderová, “Alterszusammensetzung der Kinder im Verzeichnis der Untertanen nach dem Glauben vom Jahre 1651,” HD 17 (1993): 53–63.Google Scholar

²⁴ Jan, Horský, “Příspćvek ke studiu venkovské poddanské čeledi v 16–18. století (panství Třebon—sonda)” (A contribution to the study of rural subject servants in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries [Třeboň estate—samples]), Archivní časopis 43 (1993): 145–65;Google ScholarHorský, and Miloš, Sládek, “Rodinné, socialní a demografické poměry v poddanských vsích na panstvi Třeboň v letech 1586 a 1651” (Family, social, and demographic conditions in subject villages on the Třeboň estate in 1586 and 1651), HD 17 (1993): 71–109;Google ScholarMiloš, Sládek, “Čeled na Třeboňských panstvích v polovině 17. století” (Servants on the Třeboň estate in the middle of the seventeenth century), HD 11 (1987): 51–96;Google Scholar“Familie,” 13;Google ScholarOtto, Placht, Lidnatost a společenská skladba českého státu v 16.-18. století (Population density and social structure of the Bohemian state in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries) (Prague, 1957), 37;Google ScholarJosef, Petráň, Poddaný lid v Čechách na prahu třicetileté války (The subject common people in Bohemia on the threshold of the Thirty Years' War) (Prague, 1964), 170f.Google Scholar

²⁵ Pavla, Horská, “Historical Models of the Central European Family: Czech and Slovak Examples,” JFH 19 (1994): 104;Google Scholar see also idem, “Rodinná strategie ve vesnici Záblati na třeboňtském panství (1661–1820)” (Family strategy in the village of Záblati on the Třeboň estate), HD 17 (1993): 131–52.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ludmila, Fialová, “K vývoji obyvatelstva přirozenou menou v českých zemích v 17 a 18. století” (The development of the population in the Czech lands in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), HD 18 (1994): 127–66;Google ScholarLumír, Dokoupil and Ludmila, Nesládková, “K základním tendencím vývoje populace Moravy od třicetileté války do revoluce 1848” (On the basic tendencies of population development in Moravia from the Thirty Years' War to the Revolution of 1848),Google Scholaribid., 105–14.

²⁷ See Horský, and Sládek, , “Rodinne,” 71–109;Google Scholar and Eliška, Cánová, “Population of the Třeboň Dominion,” HD 13 (1989): 33–58Google Scholar

²⁸ Eliška, Cánová, “Složení domácností v Čechách v roce 1651” (Household composition in Bohemia in 1651), HD 16 (1992): 63–66;Google ScholarHorská, , “Historical Models”;Google ScholarJan, Horský, “Příspěvek ke studiu rodinných struktur v Čechách v 16 století” (A contribution to the study of family structure in sixteenth-century Bohemia), in Jihočeský sborník historicitý 62 (1993): 50–56;Google Scholar “Familie,”22f.; Jan, Horský, Eva, Sedláčková, and Markéta, Seligová, “Ein einheitliches ‘altes demographisches Regime’ oder die Bildung eines demographischen Verhaltens zu ‘Ökotypen,’” HD 20 (1996): 57–91 (hereafter, “Regime”);Google ScholarEva, Rumlová, “Demografická a sociální struktura obyvatelstva panství Dymokury v polovině 17. století” (Demographic and social structure of the inhabitants of the Dymokura estate in the mid-seventeenth century), HD 17 (1993): 153–99;Google ScholarMarkéta, Seligová, “Příspěvek ke studiu rodinných struktur v Čechách v polovině 17. století (panství Děč—sonda)” (Contribution to the study of the family structure in Bohemia in the mid-seventeenth century),Google Scholaribid., 111–30; idem, “Obyvatelstvo děčánskélio panství v poloviné 17. století podle věku a rodinného stavu” (Population of Deěín estate in the mid-seventeenth century by age and marital status), HD 19 (1995): 23–37;Google Scholaridem, “Die Entwicklung der Familie auf der Herrschaft Decín in der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts unter Berücksichtigung seines wirtschaftlichen Charakters,” HD 20 (1996): 119–75.Google Scholar

²⁹ “Regime”; Seligová, , “Pěíspěvek”;Google Scholaridem, “Obyvatelstvo děčínského panství”;Google ScholarOgilvie, Sheilagh C and Markus, Cerman, “The Bohemian Census of 1651 and the Position of Inmates,” Historie sociale 28 (1996): 333–46.Google Scholar

³⁰ Dana, Stefanová, “Mobilita podružské vrstvy Snaha o její definici. Mikrostudie poddanské vesnice Luh” (Mobility of the inmate levels: Attempt at a definition. A microstudy of the subject village of Luh), Časopis národního muzea, series A, 164 (1995): 51–60.Google Scholar

³¹ Jirí, Langer, “Forma rodiny mezi dvěma typy domacností předindustriální společností v západních Karpatech” (Family form within two types of households in preindustrial society in the Western Carpathians), HD 16 (1992): 87–96;Google Scholaridem, “Household—Social Environment—Ecotypes,” Ethnologia Europae centralis. 2 (1994): 43–55Google ScholarSee alsoCánová, , “Slození domácností,” 63–66;Google ScholarHorská, , “Historical Models”; and “Familie,” 13–15.Google Scholar

³² Marta, Botíková, “Rolćnicka rodina na južnom Slovensku” (The peasant family in southern Slovakia), in Stredoeuropske kontexty ćudovej kultury, ed Jan, Michálek (Bratislava, 1995), 132–37;Google Scholar“Familie,” 18;Google ScholarJan, Horský;, “Ältere Diskussion über die Zadruga und das Familien-Eigentums-Unteilbare in Böhmen,” HD 17 (1993): 37–51;Google ScholarJozef, Kandert, “K problematice výzkumu ekotypu rodiny na Slovensku” (Problems in researching family ecotypes in Slovakia), in Stredoeuropske kontexty ćudovej kultury, ed. Michálek, 138–43; Sona Švecová, “Hospodárske zóny, ich spolećenstvo a kultura” (Economic zones, their society and culture),Google Scholar in ibid., 106–16; idem, “Spoločníci v Čičmanoch” (The household members in Čičmany), Národopisný věstník československý 1 (1966):78–96;Google Scholaridem, “Dva typy tradičnej rolncickej rodiny v Československu” (Two types of traditional peasant family in Czechoslovakia), Český lid 76 (1989): 211ff.;Google Scholaridem, “A szlovák és a cseh parasztecsalád” (The Slovak and the Czech peasant family), Ethnographia 102 (1991): 89–119.Google Scholar

³³ Andorka, and Faragó, , “Pre-industrial Household Structure,” 294;Google ScholarFaragó, , “Formen.”Google Scholar

³⁴ Rudolf, Andorka, “The Historical Demography of a Proper Hungarian Village: Atány in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” JFH 19 (1994): 322–24;Google ScholarAndorka, and Balazs-Kovács, , “Social Demography,” esp 173–74 (quote).Google ScholarSee also Andorka, and Faragó, , “Pre-industrial Household Structure,” 295f.Google Scholar

³⁵ Eduard, Maur, “Wirtschaftliche, soziale und demographische Entwicklung Böhmens 1648–1740 Eine Zusammenfassung” (University of Vienna, “Working Paper des Projekts ‘Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen,’” no. 8, 1996);Google ScholarEliŠka, Cánová and Pavla, Horská, “Obyvatelstvo obce Bćevnova v církevních pramenech z let 1652–1800” (The population of the village Břevnov in parish sources from the years 1652–1800), Ada Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et historica 3 (1972): 81–100;Google ScholarLadislav, Dusek, “Obyvatelstvo Budyně nad Ohří v letech 1701–1850” (The population of Budyně n. O. in the years 1701–1850), Usteck´y sborník historický, 1985, 143–239;Google Scholar“Familie,”13;Google ScholarPetr, Muzík, “Obyvatelstvo města Domažlic v letech 1601–1830” (The inhabitants of the town Domažlice in the years 1601–1830), Sborník archivních prací 36 (1986): 103–207;Google ScholarJosef, Ehmer, Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur, ökonomischer Wandel. England und Mitteleuropa in der Formationsperiode des Kapitalismus (Göttingen, 1991), 16f.Google Scholar

³⁶ Horská, , “Historical Models,” 99–106; “Familie,” 22f.Google Scholar

³⁷ Surveys in Andorka, “Historical Demography.”Google Scholar

³⁸ Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation im frühindustriellen Wien (Vienna, 1980);CrossRefGoogle ScholarMichael, Mitterauer, “Zur familienbetrieblichen Struktur im zünftischen Handwerk” in Wirtschafts- und sozialgeschichtiiche Beiträge Festschrift für Alfred Hoffmann, ed. Herbert, Knittler (Vienna, 1979), 190–219;Google Scholaridem, Arbeitsteilung, 256ff.;Google Scholaridem, “Familienwirtschaft”;Google ScholarEder, , Geschlechtsproportion;Google ScholarFaragó, , “Formen.”Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Mitterauer, , “Geschlechtsspezifische Arbeitsteilung”Google Scholaridem, Arbeitsteilung See also Schmidtbauer, , “Changing Household,” 372.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For selected examples, see Mitterauer, , “Familienwirtschaft,” and Mitterauer and Sieder, “Reconstruction” Schmidtbauer describes changes in the presence of children over time;Google Scholarsee Schmidtbauer, , “Changing Household,” 369. A dissertation looks at the contribution of child labor by analyzing popular autobiographies;Google Scholarsee Maria, Papathanassiou, “Zur ökonomischen Funktion der Kinder ärmerer Schichten in Österreich” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1996).Google ScholarSee also Mitterauer, , “Familienwirtschaft,” 255ff.Google Scholar

⁴² Mitterauer, and Sieder, , European Family, 103.Google Scholar

⁴³ Mitterauer, , “Familiengröße,” 233–34;Google Scholaridem, “Familienwirtschaft,” 255.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Michael, Mitterauer, “Servants and Youth,” C&C 5, no 1 (1990): 11–38;Google ScholarEhmer, , Heiratsverhalten;Google ScholarNorbert, Ortmayer, “Late Marriage: Causes and Consequences of the Austrian Alpine Marriage Pattern,” in The European Peasant Family and Society: Historical Studies, ed. Rudolph, Richard L. (Liverpool, 1995), 49–63.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Seligová, , “Příspěvek”;Google ScholarStefanová, “Mobilita podružské vrstvy.”Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Mitterauer, , “Familienwirtschaft”;Google ScholarOrvar, Löfgren, “Peasant Ecotypes: Problems in the Comparative Study of Ecological Adaptations,” Ethnologia Scandinavia, 1976,100–13.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See “Regime.”Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten;Google ScholarOrtmayer, , “Late Marriage.”Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Michael, Mitterauer, Ledige Mütter Zur Geschichte unehelicher Geburten in Europa (Munich, 1983);Google Scholaridem., “Familienformen und Illegitimität in ländlichen Gebieten Österreichs,” Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 19 (1979): 123–88.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ SeeJosef, Grulich, “Zu ausgewählten Aspekten des Familien- und Lebenszyklus,” HD 20 (1996): 9–56;Google Scholaridem., “Poddanská nemovitost a dědické pravo na Taborsku Vresecká rychta v letech 1625–1825” (Subject property and inheritance law in the Tabor region, 1625–1825), Jihočeský sborník historický 65 (1996): 34–42;Google ScholarHorská, , “Rodinná strategie”;Google ScholarEduard, Maur, “Dasbäuerliche Erbrecht und die Erbschaftspraxis in Böhmen im 16–18. Jahrhundert,” HD 20 (1996): 93–118;Google Scholar and Markéta, Seligová, “Die Entwicklung der Familie auf der Herrschaft Děčínin der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts,”Google Scholaribid.., 119–75.

⁵¹ See Dana, Stefanová and Hermann, Zeitlhofer, “Alter und Generationsbeziehungen in Böhmen Ein Vergleich der Ausgedingstruktur nord- und südböhmischer Dörfer 1650–1750,” in Alter, ed. Ehmer; Hermann Zeitlhofer,Google Scholar“Das Ausgedinge am Beispiel der südböhmischen Pfarre Kapličky (Herrschaft Vyšší Brod) 1700- 1738,” jihočeský sborník historicitý 65 (1996): 43–63.Google ScholarFor Austria, see Ehmer, ed., Alter;Google ScholarEhmer, and Müller, , “Sozialgeschichte”;Google Scholar and Konrad, , Der alte Mensch.Google Scholar For Hungary, see Rudolf, Andorka, “Household Systems and the Lives of the Old in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Hungary,” in Aging in the Past: Demography, Society, and Old Age, ed. Kertzer, David I. and Peter, Laslett (Berkeley, Calif., 1995), 129–55.Google Scholar

⁵² Mitterauer, , “Familiengröße”;Google Scholaridem., “VorindustrielleFamilienformen,” 35–97;Google Scholaridem., “Peasant and Non-peasant Family Forms,” 139–59,149ff.

⁵³ Michael, Mitterauer, “Auswirkungen der Agrarrevolution auf die bäuerliche Familienstruktur in Österreich,” in Historische Familienforschung, ed Michael, Mitterauer and Reinhard, Sieder (Frankfurt, 1982), 241–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Mitterauer, , “Zur familienbetrieblichen Struktur,” Arbeitsteilung, “Vorindustrielle Familienformen,” and “Auswirkungen von Urbanisierung”;Google Scholar and Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation and Heiratsverhalten.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ In the course of such projects, the “Dokumentation lebensgeschichtlicher Aufzeichnungen” was installed at theInstitut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte (Institute of Economic and Social History) at the University of Vienna Together with the Vienna Data Base, the institute thereby houses one of the largest source collections related to family history in Europe. For the Dokumentation,Google Scholar see Christa, Hämmerle, “ ‘Ich möchte das, was ich schon oft erzählt habe, schriftlich niederlegen.’ Entstehung und Forschungsaktivitäten der Dokumentation lebensgeschichtlicher Aufzeichnungen in Wien,” Bios 4 (1991): 261–78;Google ScholarGünther, Müller,“ ‘Vielleicht hatte es einen Sinn, dachte ich mir…’. Über Zugangsweisen zur popularen Autobiographik am Beispiel der Dokumentation lebensgeschichtlicher Aufzeichnungen in Wien,” Historische Anthropologie 5 (1997): 302–18.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ogilvie and Cerman, eds, European Proto-industrialization;Google ScholarMilan, Myska, “Proto-industrialization in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia,”Google Scholar in ibid.., 188–207; Ludmila, Kárníková, Vývoj obyvatelstva v českých zemích (Population development in the Czech lands) (Prague, 1965).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See “Regime” See also Hermann, Zeitlhofer, “Textile Verbindungen. Lebensformen und Heiratsverhalten der Waldviertler Heimweber im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert,” in Kulturen an der Grenze, ed. Andrea, Komlosy and Frantisek, Svátek (Vienna, 1995), 131-39;Google Scholar and idem., “Das Ausgedinge.”

⁵⁸ Berkner, Lutz K, “Family, Social Structure, and Rural Industry: A Comparative Study of the Waldviertel and the Pays de Caux in the Eighteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1973);Google ScholarArno, Fitz, “Die Frühindustrialisierung Vorarlbergs und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Familienstruktur” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1981);Google ScholarMitterauer, , “Auswirkungen von Urbanisierung”;Google Scholaridem., “Familienwirtschaft”; Zeitlhofer, “Textile Verbindungen.”Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation;Google ScholarMarkus, Cerman, “Proto-industrialization in an Urban Environment: The Case of Vienna, 1750–1857,” C&C 8 (1993): 281–320.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Rudolph, Richard L, “The East European Peasant Household and the Beginnings of Industry: East Galicia, 1786–1914,” in Ukrainian Economic History: Interpretative Essays, ed. Koropeckyi, I. S. (Cambridge, Mass., 1991), 338–82, esp. 369ff.;Google ScholarEhmer, , Heiratsverhalten, 144–48.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hammel, E. A., “The Zadruga as Process,” in Household and Family, ed. Laslett and Wall, 335–73;Google ScholarPeter, Laslett and Marilyn, Clarke, “Houseful and Household in an Eighteenth Century Balkan City,”Google Scholar in ibid.., 375–400; Halpern, Joel M., “Town and Countryside in Serbia in the Nineteenth Century,”Google Scholar in ibid.., 401–27; Kaser, , “Ahnenkult und Patriarchalismus”;Google Scholaridem., Hirten, Helden.Google Scholar

⁶² See Todorova, , “Slava und Zadruga” and Balkan Family Structure See also Michael, Mitterauer, “Family Contexts: The Balkan in European Comparison,” in Household and Family Contexts, ed. Kaser; and Kaser, Familie und Verwandtschaft.Google Scholar

⁶³ However, the research on the Balkan family carried out by the “Balkan family project” at the Department of History of the University of Graz also uses quantitative analyses of the traditional kind.Google Scholar