Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1978. 7:137-73 Copyright © 1978 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY

AS POPULATION ECOLOGY

Alan C Swedlund

Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003

INTRODUCTION

.9611

The purpose of this essay is to review recent trends in historical demo­graphic research. Because the subject is broad and involves so many avenues of study I have imposed a unifying framework-one which views demo­graphic change in terms of population-environment interaction. First I discuss the relationship between historical demography and anthropology. In the second part of the paper some general concepts of population ecology are considered, including the elements of population analysis, the dimen­sions of resource availability, and the nature of population interactions. In the third section I focus on historical studies with emphasis on a specific set of research questions. These questions deal with fertility, mortality, and migration as both cause and consequence of environmental stress. The fourth section summarizes the work done to date and considers additional opportunities in historical demographic research. Anthropology is but one of many disciplines practicing historical demography. Rather than review what this discipline has accomplished to date, I propose to discuss a series of research areas in which anthropology and many other fields have con­tributed.

Closed systems of approximately constant size are so intuitively and analytically appealing that the early history of population science can al­most be characterized as a search for such systems. This is no less true in anthropology, where a tradition has long existed of attempting to discover societies of sufficient isolation and internal integration that the nature of human evolution and behavior could be grasped, closely inspected, and readily described. Enter into these pursuits the field of historical demogra­phy, a quasi-discipline that does not reside in any one academic tradition,

137 0084-6570/78/ 1015-0 137$0 1.00

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

138 SWEDLUND

and one which purports to study populations existing during the centuries of urbanization, colonialism, imperialism, and rapid, international migra­tion. The result is a somewhat awkward nexus of anthropological interest.

Something most current reviewers agree upon (e.g. 62, 125, l8 la) is that until recently the study of historical demography has been largely an induc­tive and highly descriptive: endeavor, not unlike the ethnographic tradition in anthropology. One major purpose was to characterize the populations of various towns and cities in the Western world, the Far East, and elsewhere. Indeed, the best of these reflect the qualities of the classic ethnographies in anthropology. A second major purpose was to understand and describe the demographic transitions which occurred in western Europe around the time of the industrial revolution.

Historical demography's major contributions to history have been in the development of the quantitative/statistical approach and in the: study of Iifeways of the common man and woman. Its major contributions to demog­raphy have been enlightenment regarding the nature of the demographic transition, development of techniques for small population analysis, and as a testing ground for theories of long-term demographic change of all types.

The potential of historical demography is, I think, still largely unrealized, and this is especially true in anthropology. The lack of possible applications in the study of preliterate aboriginal populations surely dampened our wide-scale adoption of an historical demographic approach. However, even in this area of research, ethnohistorians have demonstrated interesting po­tentials (e.g. 3 1 , 49). Rese:arch on peasant and other "complex" societies, and on a host of general problems in social and biological anthropology, can be greatly augmented by .attention to historical demographic materials.

In this essay I have chosen to discuss historical demography as a means of inference about human ecology. By human ecology I am referring to the study of systemic relationships between populations and resources as the primary focus. The central theme in this perspective is adaptation-how humans successfully or unsuccessfully adapt within their abiotic, biotic, and cultural environments. While this focus necessitates my ignoring reference to a vast amount of excellent literature on purely descriptive or unrelated research in historical demography, it permits the highlighting of various studies which are representative of virtually all aspects of work undertaken by historical demographers. It is only fair to mention here that most re­search has not been ecologically oriented and that many historians tread very cautiously around broad generalizations. In contrast, the cross-cul­tural and cross-populational perspectives of anthropology beg for meaning­ful links to be made betwc:en societies of varying size and complexity. The ecological approach represents one possible bridge across this difference in research objectives-one to which many historians may not subscribe.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 139

Recent concern has focused on the distinctions between historical demog­raphy and demographic history. Demographic history essentially has been equated with studies on the history of population while historical demogra­phy "can be defined as the application of modem methods of analysis to records assembled in the past for nondemographic purposes or at least for purposes that were different from those of present-day demographers" (1 84, p. 8). These distinctions may be useful for some purposes, but to reflect adequately the scope and vitality of research in historical population studies it is necessary to avoid definitions which are too limiting.

Rationale for the Study of Historical Demography

As a topic for study in population ecology historical demography may be little more than a source of data for the testing of any number of social and biological hypotheses, but it is also nothing less than one of the best sources of data for the longitudinal study of human social and biological change. There are problems, without question, and not the least of which is the most fundamental concern about the potential for enumeration errors in the data. But, as countless studies have shown, regularities in the life cycle, coupled with the adequate representativeness of many samples of historical data, provide us with a very large numbe.r of cases where reasonable and compa­rable results have vindicated our efforts.

This is not to say, however, that assumptions about the reliability of the data can easily be made. Much has been written about the methodological problems involved. It is not my intention or charge to review those problems here, but each investigator must attempt to satisfy rigorously a number of criteria pertaining to the validity of the data. Those pursuing historical research will find the writings of Wrigley (205, 206) Henry (99, 100) Glass & Eversley (72); Drake (52); Skolnick et al ( 163), Livi Bacci ( 132) and Lee (126) very useful.

Anthropologists are sometimes self critical for being "data rich" and "problem poor," but I would contest this notion (we may be problem poor but we are also data poor). While it is true that paleoanthropologists and prehistorians are frequently confronted with and confounded by a "wealth" of data, these data are by their very nature replete with many weaknesses, particularly for demographic research. What is the sampling universe? What are the sampling conditions? What relationships can be inferred from these largely technological remains? How do these relate to population variables? The biological and behavioral models that have been recon­structed in recent years are impressive indeed, and are clearly a tribute to the sophistication, skill, and diligence (and no doubt vivid imaginations) of paleoanthropological researchers.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

140 SWEDLUND

Anthropologists working in contemporary societies, often with nonliter­ate peoples, face analogous dilemmas of a more temporal nature ( 107). There are the problems of determining demographic structure where there may be no records, and where events are reckoned by a system quite distinct from the researcher's. Secondly, the time-specific nature of the observations often leaves one at a loss regarding the past factors contributing to the observed patterns.

Historical anthropology, and by extension historical demography, allevi­ates some but by no means all of the problems. For all the political, social, and other reasons one can cite for biases in historical data, demographic events tend to be much more completely recorded in historical sources than in most archaeological or ethnographic contexts. The objectivity of the records is no doubt increased, as van de Walle (184) notes, if the problem of the investigator is different from the purpose behind the original collec­tion of the data. Another important feature of written records is that there is often a very rich repository of social, economic, and other kinds of environmental information available to correlate with population charac­teristics. Relationships between demographic change and a host of other processes are possible to document.

Ultimately, it is often desirable to track a contemporary population his­torically to interpret current trends and it is in this style of research that we have recently witnessed some of the most important work in an­thropology. Studies in social (28, 71 , 161) and biological change ( 1 18, 201) have demonstrated the potential of this work.

Thus the selection of historical data as a source of inference on population seems most appropriate under conditions where the problem addresses processes of change. Selection could include any number of criteria and range of problems, but it does involve sacrific�s in experimental design, since events can only be reconstructed, not controlled. Figure 1 shows a simplified scheme of population options given a limitation of long-term or short-term chronologies.

Two population types are indicated as appropriate for short and long­term change, and thus obviously represent the best choices when processes involving both time frames are being investigated in the same study. Simula­tion (see 54, 55, 1 1 1) is, of course, best viewed as an adjunct to the study of "real" populations, for testing assumptions or conditions which are analytically intractable by other means. Simulation thus affords a useful approach to understanding questions arising about the other three forms, as has been demonstrated in historical studies (e.g. 36, 85), but depends on the development of reasonable parameter estimates derived from the "real" popUlations.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 141

CHANGE

Short Term Long Term

POPULATION

Prehistoric x

Historical X X

Contemporary X

Simulated X X

Figure J Population types for the study of change. X indicates the suitability of each type for either short or long-term change. Short term refers to years, decades, or a generation. Long term refers to mUltiple generations, centuries, or thousands of years.

In summary, the rationale for selecting an historical sample can be based on the desire to study an extinct society or institution that is no longer found in the same form, or because it represents the appropriate sample for the analysis of certain change processes. Historical demographic data deserve careful consideration in numerous situations, but are not a panacea to the data problems confronting all investigators.

POPULATION ECOLOGY

The definition of human ecology, the nature of the human ecological niche, and the place of ecological studies in anthropology have all been debated recently elsewhere (e.g. to, 89, 90, 145, 1 58, 1 87) and this debate will no doubt continue for some time in the future. It is not necessary to consider these issues in the context of the present discussion; a presentation of a few concepts will suffice.

It is conventional wisdom that all species, in order to survive, must be capable of reproduction equal to or in excess of mortality-survival of the species depends on it. The inherent, underlying strategy of populations should then be persistence; and biological and behavioral mechanisms evolve to help insure this persistence (164). In the face of unlimited re­sources, therefore, the tendency of all populations will be positive growth, and while these differ greatly in their maximum potential growth rates, all populations are capable of rapid growth and replenishment.

When a population is circumscribed with some finite environmental lim­its, potential population growth and persistence is then affected in at least two ways: 1 . density-dependent factors, and 2. density-independent factors affecting vital processes (60, 1 5 1). Density-dependent factors, as the term

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

142 SWEDLUND

suggests, are those which vary positively or inversely with increasing den­sity (e.g. food, disease). o.ensity-independent factors are those which may affect population growth or size, but their effects do not necessarily change as a function of density (e.g. elevation, temperature). Adaptation involves both voluntary and involuntary compensation and adjustment to these factors.

Wilson ( 199) speaks of "adaptive demography," a framework in which population structure and change is evaluated in terms of fitness and behav­ioral adaptation. This view of demographic change as adaptive response provides an integrative framework for population studies. An underlying assumption is that all populations are capable of responding demograph­ically to certain environmental conditions, but it is not an assumption that all popUlations will respond, or that all demographic responses are neces­sarily adaptive.

Underlying all population processes are the basic vital events: 1 . births (realized fertility or natality), 2. deaths (mortality), and 3. migration (movements). To these are frequently added: 4. fecundity (the potential fer­tility), 5. disease (morbidity), and 6. marriage (nuptiality), in the case of human populations. Figure 2 presents a schematic diagram of the dimen­sions of human population ecology. It integrates the elements traditionally incorporated in population studies, but is only one of many configurations that might be proposed. Any such scheme is limited by virtue of simplifica­tion and the somewhat rigid lines drawn, but the utility of the scheme is to focus attention simultaneously on at least three components of the re­search design. For a given study it ought to be possible to specify the number of cells in the matrix that are pertinent, and to select those that are most germane to a successful outcome of the study.

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The population characteJistics are conventional divisions of processes observed in virtually all populations. A particular problem could transcend all three. Growth and Size is based on the interaction of the birth rate, the death rate, and the net migration rate. Positive growth, decline, or equilibrium will be a function of these vital events. Distribution and density adds the dimensions of space and location. Composition and diversity includes all aspects of population structure and interpopulation structure, including genotypic, age, sex, and social diver­sity.

UNITS OF ANALYSIS The units of analysis are comprised of a hierarchy from individuals to higher levels of aggregation. Population characteristics can be analyzed at virtually all levels of aggregation, but a particular re­search problem may dictate selection of one or more units. The unit selected

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

A

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 143

B

MODERN MARKETS

Figure 2 A three-dimensional matrix of variables used in human population ecology. A. Population characteristics; B. Units of analysis; C. Levels of economic integration.

may often be dictated by the data available, but for any given problem some units will obviously be better than others.

LEVELS OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION This dimension is very impor­tant in cross-cultural analyses. The levels of economic integration proposed here are not intended to imply a linear sequence of cultural evolution. Rather, they serve as signals along a continuum of complexity in economic strategies. For nonhuman populations other categories of resource acquisi­tion and allocation obviously would be used. All categories of all three dimensions of the model can be treated independently of each other. How-

c

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

144 SWEDLUND

ever, it is assumed that higher levels of economic integration will involve increasingly larger units of population aggregation.

In summary, this greatly :.implified model is intended to suggest some of the logical relationships between population characteristics, units of analy­sis, and levels of economic I.::omplexity which exist in historical data. The scheme can h!!lp us focus on the organization of research. However, it cannot in itself generate research problems.

The Ecological Framework In an ecological framework no population entity (e.g. deme, village, species) operates independently of other entities. For analytical purposes we may choose to close the system with a single unit of a single species at a fixed point in time and space, but we must be aware of these limitations and their possible effects on our results.

Thomas (178, 179), Bennlett ( 10), Hardesty (90), and many others have developed models of human adaptation that are derived from population ecology. A first consideration is the presence of necessary resources (e.g. food, shelter, territory, mates) for the persistence of the population. Sec­ondly, the nature of the distribution of these resources within a given range or habitat is important. Many categories have been suggested; these are generally concerned with the diversity, density, and predictability of re­sources in space, coupled with the frequency, duration, and intensity over time (89, 112, 179). It must a.lso be emphasized, however, that the availabil­ity of resources for human populations is clearly affected by cultural vari­ability in the perception of resources, and by differential control of and access to resources by socioeconomic groups (e.g. class). Any utilitarian model must be capable of accommodating these behavioral factors. As Cowgill (35) and others note, political control can create false shortages or induce change where no apparent shortages exist.

To operationalize these categories in historical demographic research, a frequent strategy is to select one or a few resources that are critical in a given situation and to study the relationship between this variable(s) and popula­tion variables over time; for example, the widely researched inte�raction between availability of farmland and conditions of population growth (e.g. see 1 5, 57, 80). A second major consideration is the population's ability to survive and reproduce-to persist. Persistence, however, can refer to a variety of conditions, ranging from a very marginal sort of existence to considerable levels of growth and geographic expansion. Populations have a number of nondemographic, biobehavioral mechanisms with which they persist. Here I am concentra.ting on the demographic mechanisms as they pertain to the ability of populations to maintain themselves successfully

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 145

without radical alterations in structure or reductions in size. Population extinction, territorial abandonment, population instability (as opposed to flexibility), and extreme decline are all indicators of a failure to persist successfully.

If resources are very broadly defined to include all needs of the population in question, then the ability to survive depends upon access to resources and a population structure of adequate size and composition to insure renewal. These will be limited by (a) competition within and between populations, (b) predation and parasitism, and (c) environmental insults of abiotic origin (heat, cold, altitude etc) ( 179). However, there are other population interac­tions which are pertinent and do not necessarily limit access to resources. For example, mating between subdivided population units serves to main­tain genetic diversity within the units, redistribute effects of differential population growth and sex ratio imbalances, and create social alliances which may reduce competition and increase access to critical resources. Positive population interactions (sometimes referred to as symbiosis or mutualism) are also considered below.

The measure of adaptation is the ability of the population units to persist successfully. It does not mean simply homeostasis (or maintenance of a steady state) unless homeostasis refers to the ability to adjust and conform to new equilibrating conditions ( 10).

A third consideration is the nature of the population response itself. A few demographers ( 13, 149, 1 50) have argued or suggested that population can be seen as both cause and consequence in ecosystem change. Probably nowhere has this reached greater extremes in opinion than in the question of the relationship between population growth and agricultural develop­ment. In its most simplistic form this argument usually involves the ques­tion of whether population is the dependent or independent variable (e.g. see 15 , 9 1 , 92, 1 53, 1 54, 168). In the discussion below I will utilize historical studies to help elucidate some of the relationships involved in this question.

Because the capacity for population change includes both biological and cultural factors, and because it deals with the very acts of life and death, it can be considered one of the most fundamental measures of a society's "success." To what extent is a given society capable of making adjustments?

The traditional view of the demographic transition is that Stage I, typical of preindustrial societies, is characterized by high fertility and high and fluctuating mortality. This assumption is based on the belief that societies not in close contact with modem Western technology and ideology cannot easily control their demographic behavior. Uncontrolled fertility is checked by high mortality. Anthropologists (e.g. 53, 1 19, 144, 1 52, 174) have coun­tered that preindustrial societies have a number of mechanisms by which

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

146 SWEDLUND

fertility is reduced from the maximum and mortality is not necessarily extremely high.

Although the capabilities may vary, the present consensus is that any society is capable of making population adjustments. An important consid­eration in an adaptive framework, however, is to distinguish system re­sponses in terms of their underlying motivation. There are those responses which are involuntary and those which are voluntary. The latter imply a perceived interaction betwe(:n environment and population characteristics with a volitional response. The response can be one of modifying demo­graphic rates or the environment. Both involuntary and voluntary can be adaptive from a view which is external to the system, but only voluntary responses can be considered adaptive behavior from within the system-a sticky wicket that nonhuman population ecologists seldom worry about.

For human populations the nature and locus of a response can be very complex. This is especially true with fertility. Other reviewers (e.g. 19, 68, 69, 82, 95, 149, 193) have discussed the components of fertility. These components include biological factors (heredity, physiology, nutrition, lac­tation, disease, and other processes affecting ovulation, conception, and successful termination of a pregnancy) as well as behavioral factors (onset and duration of family formation period, behavior during this period in­cluding access and use of contraceptive technology and others). Modeling the nature or locus of responses can thus become a process of great elabora­tion.

Anillyzing demographic data within an ecological framework is but one of several approaches that have been undertaken in the past. Its adequacy should be evaluated in terms of the purposes underlying a particular study. This brief sketch of some of the considerations involved is intended to provide a background for the range of studies which follow.

TRENDS IN HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

A Brief History of History Other reviewers (62, 1 25, 1 8 1a, 1 84) tend to agree that the modern era of historical demography began in the 1950s and is perhaps most clearly marked with the pioneering studies done by the French. For example, the monograph on the village of Crulai (70) was an archetype for studies to follow in at least three ways: 1 . it introduced the methods of family reconsti­tution to a whole generation of demographers; 2. it was, above all, a village study in contrast to large, aggregate kinds of studies typical at this time; 3. it dealt with an ongoing research problem in historical demography­fertility behavior in eighteenth century Europe. A large number of commu-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 147

nity studies followed in France, England, Ireland, Italy, Germany, and somewhat later in Scandanavia, Eastern Europe, and North America. Many of these studies are presented or discussed in Chambers (20), Daedalus (40), Drake (52), Forster & Ranum (65), Glass & Eversley (72), Gordon (77), Hollingsworth ( lOS), Laslett & Wall (122), and Wrigley (205). In addition, studies of national populations were undertaken, often involving aggrega­tions of community level data, for example, Chambers (20), Drake (50), Knodel ( 1 14), Livi Bacci ( 13 1), van de Walle ( 1 83), and Wells (197). From these studies a number of themes have emerged which are now coming under systematic inquiry (e.g. see 76, 122, 124, 1 8 1 ). These themes include the study of the family and questions regarding the demographic transition as major topics of inquiry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Although innovation is a constant feature of research in historical demography, the methods and materials utilized have become quite well defined in recent years ( 1 86). Written sources clearly comprise the vast majority of materials. Tilly ( 18 1a) divides written documents into three main classes: (a) population enumerations, (b) regis­tration of vital events, and (c) by-products of private transactions. Most important of the population enumerations are, of course, local, regional and national censuses. Vital statistics (births, marital transactions, deaths) regis­tration, by both governmental and religious agents, make up the other major written source. Other public records frequently utilized are tax asses­sor's records, wills, probates and other court records, deed registries, maps, newspapers, and published secondary sources. Private sources are very numerous; most common are probably genealogies, wills, diaries, and ac­count books.

Material culture, including some with written documentation, comprise the remaining minority of source materials. Archaeologists have incorpo­rated an incredibly wide range of evidence into their analyses, including architectural remains, refuse heaps, gravestones, skeletal material, and even preserved food wastes (2, 41 , 42, 47, 174). Historical demographers often tend to discredit these sources ( 186), but material culture serves as an important adjunct to written documents.

Methods for data reduction and summarization generally have been of two major forms-aggregate and reconstitution. Aggregate methods in­volve traditional estimates of the incident of an event as a function of those exposed to risk or of those events observable at a given point in time. Total population counts are utilized whenever possible. Reconstitution is a method well suited to historical studies, and involves the nominal linkage of vital events by individual and family lineage (genealogies), often with accompanying social and economic data (see I, 100, 163, 206). Reconstitu-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

148 SWEDLUND

tion has allowed for very intensive investigation� of life histories and new opportunities to observe demographic behavior at the family level, an area that has been lacking in research in general demography until quite re­cently. Data are often analyzed by tracing cohorts of individuals through time (the life history approach). Reconstitution studies, in many respects, avoid the assumptions which are necessary in many time-specific demo­graphic models.

The specific techniques e:mployed in data summarization do not vary significantly from those utillized in demography, except that th.�y often involve a curious blend of demographic and inferential statistical tech­niques. Sampling problems, including those of size, make statistical analysis essential in many cases. Cohort analyses, transverse samples, and the usual rates, ratios, and tables of fe:rtility, nuptiality, mortality, and migration are all found in historical studi.es. Until recently model life tables were only available for relatively contemporary large populations (25), but models perhaps more reflective of the full range of historical popUlations have now been considered (2, 1 6, 45, 192).

WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

Actualizing research objectives from methods and materials involves the formulation of a research qu.estion and development of appropriate analyti­cal techniques. The utility and power of the historical demographic ap­proach is most clearly seen in community and regional studies. In these contexts the population events can be given nieaningful limits and environ­mental factors can be more readily isolated. To summarize a series of such studies, however, would tend to leave the reader with a disconnected and somewhat anecdotal portrayal of the topic. Perhaps the best solution to this problem is to consider some of the central issues traditionally addressed by researchers.

Individuals with perspectives apparently as different as Eversley (62) and Tilly ( 1 8 la) appear to agret: on the major question of historical demogra­phy; that is, the nature of population changes concurrent with economic expansion in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and especially the nineteenth centuries in Europe, North America, and of other colonized areas. Usually this question centers on the timing of the industrial revolution and/or the agricultural revolution in a locale, region, or country. Certainly there are other questions addressed, but the nature of "demographic transition" pervades the majority of re!;earch done to date. Reviews of the history of world population (e.g. 24, 43) tend to focus on this question as well. In North America, where mortality decline has not been so striking, emphasis

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 149

has been on fertility decline (26, 57, 58, 64, 156, 196, 208). However, in Europe aspects of fertility, mortality, and migration have all received con­siderable interest (5 1 , 61).

The question itself is a descriptive one. The demographic transition model describes three stages of development: 1 . high fertility and high mortality resulting in equilibrium, 2. a second stage in which mortality drops but fertility remains high, resulting in growth that can be very rapid, and 3. a return to equilibrium as a result of low fertility and low mOJ:-tality. While many of the features of demographic transition have occurred histor­ically, the stages are not always present or in the same sequence, different areas experience different transitions, and neither the Western world nor developing countries exemplify the model consistently ( 1 52, 154, 174, 1 80, 195, 196).

Nevertheless, the transition model is still popular and continues to have heuristic appeal (24, 1 67, 1 80). It will be useful to review here the separate trends involved in the historical interpretation of the demographic transi­tion, and to then reconsider the nature of the question in light of these trends and the ecological perspective.

REGULATION IN HISTORICAL POPULATIONS

Mortality Rates

TRENDS Studies in Europe tend to show high and fluctuating mortality in the medieval period, lasting until the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries when mortality begins to decline (80, 96, 105, 1 55, 205). However, there is considerable local variation at any given time (34, 70, 101 , 1 10, 204) and the decline occurred later in Eastern Europe (14).

In North America mortality trends are not nearly so well documented, but it appears that mortality has in general been comparatively low since colonization, with secular trends occurring in selected areas. The exception to these trends has been the extremely high mortality of aboriginal popula­tions occurring shortly after European contact (3 1 , 32, 49) and some urban epidemics. Slight improvements in life expectancy may have occurred in urban areas prior to 1 880, but these may have been offset by rural trends (59, 79, 102, 138, 139, 146, 1 65, 1 66, 1 88). After 1 880 mortality clearly declines (59).

Most of these studies refer to crude death rates as their principal measure, but in those studies where age-specific rates have been calculated it is seen that infant mortality, or at least mortality shifts in the first 5 years of life, have been the most significant in cases of mortality decline.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 50 SWEDLUND

CAUSES The causes of high mortality in Europe prior to 1 750 are gener­ally considered to be shortages of food and frequent epidemic crises. Natu­ral disasters play a minor contributing role. The relative importance of famine or disease has been argued (6), but studies (106, 1 35, 1 36) usually conclude that they are interrelated. Hollingsworth notes that in many areas a sequence of events can be observed where (a) a series of bad harv(:sts leads to (b) food shortages which are followed by (c) epidemic disease and high mortality. The wide-scale decline in mortality after 1750 apparently was caused by the European agricultural revolution which led to improvements in nutrition and alleviation of periodic crises. This "revolution" resulted from (a) improvements in agricultural technology, (b) importation and utilization of new crops, induding the potato, and (c) the development of large-scale trade networks between regions and with the outside world where colonization had takc!n place (97, 1 35, 190, 205). All of these factors contributed to a more predictable food supply in the event of local short­ages. Another significant trend was in the development of hygiene, whereas medical technology and public health policies apparently had little effect on this trend until relatively late in the nineteenth century (1 35). However, this view is not entirely accept(:d by demographers ( 1 85).

In North America mortality possibly declines somewhat in the early nineteenth century by virtue of improvements in the standard of living for urban dwellers. After 1 880, the effects of public health and medical arts are noted (59). By comparison with Europe, the general impression is one of low population densities, rare shortages of food probably occurring only in urban areas, and low mortality (97).

Fertility

TRENDS Although fertility is assumed to have been quite high prior to the nineteenth century in Europe, in fact, most studies indicate it was moderately high (e.g. completed family size of 5-8). Research suggests that fertility was "natural" within marriage, that is, the birth intervals between children and the termination of the child-bearing period do not indicate any effort at family limitation (70, 1 1 6, 167). Fertility is complicated by nuptial­ity, however, and fertility increase or decline can occur as a function of marriage age and duration of marriage. In at least two cases-Colyton, England (202) and parts of France (78, 98)-fertility decline occurred around the end of the eighteenth century. These changes may have oc� curred in part as a result of increased marriage age and celibacy (see 84), but conscious family limitation within marriage was also apparently in­volved, particularly in France. At this same time other European popula­tions may have actually been experiencing increases in fertility ( 1 8 1). By the

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 5 1

late nineteenth century fertility decline had become widespread in Europe and evidence suggests that birth control within marriage was commonly being practiced (1 16).

In North America there is evidence for a fertility decline occurring in the late eighteenth century in New England (79, 148, 166, 177), which becomes widespread in the 19th century (26, 59, 64, 208).

Because of the complexities involved in the analysis of fertility, a broad range of indices have been utilized to measure growth and decline. How­ever, crude birth rates, child/woman ratios, and completed family size are most commonly employed. Cohort studies and age-specific rates have pro­vided a better source of inference on the actual nature of declining fertility.

CAUSES The causes of a fertility decline in historical populations are usually posited as being based on resource limitations affecting family for­mation ( 18 1). These can be involuntary factors such as the need to gain economic independence prior to establishing a family, thus delaying age at marriage, or voluntary factors within marriage to maximize opportunities for children by limiting their numbers (58). Fertility increase is traditionally viewed as a response to labor shortage or needs or as mortality compensa­tion for children expected to die. It is also sometimes viewed as an involun­tary consequence of mortality decline and increased life expectancy. The costs and benefits of children have been considered (9, 56, 129, 130). The basis of these considerations is the argument that, in the face of change accompanying economic development or restricted resources, families con­sciously adjust their fertility behavior.

Migration

TRENDS Although many studies have been done on migration and local mobility, they have not often been linked into the demographic transition model [but see (2 10)]. Studies in Europe have revealed that mobility was much greater in preindustrial Europe than once thought, and considerable distances were covered by at least some classes in the population (190). The two major paths of migration in seventeenth to nineteenth century Europe were rural-to-urban movements in those countries that were urbanizing, and outmigration to colonized regions. Both of these trends served to alleviate population density in the communities of origin. Migration to the cities probably not only relieved population pressure in rural areas, but also replenished population in the cities where high mortality and low fertility may have been characteristic ( 12, 203).

In America immigration was a major feature of many areas between 1650 and the early 1900s, although the major movements occurred after 1 820.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

152 SWEDLUND

New waves of immigrants also participated in a considerable movement within the country to newly settled areas. This trend was often the reverse of the European pattern-that is, it was from urban port to rural or rural-to­rural.

CAUSES The cause of migration to the cities in Europe has been attributed to the lack of economic opportunities in agricultural areas and the presence of a large, landless population (67). Migration to America and other foreign countries was also strongly influenced by resource limitations in the home countries.

The expansion of the fmntier in North America was spurred primarily by the availability of cheap land (58, 59, 1 33). As urbanization developed in America after 1750, industrial centralization played an important role.

Putting mortality, fertility, and migration together, we can observe the overall trends in growth. From about 1 700 to 1 860 the American popula­tion grew at a rate slightly in excess of 3% per year while the population of Europe in the nineteenth century grew at less than half that (59, 156). It is interesting to note that the model of demographic transition was based on Europe, when the "developing" countries of Canada and the United States had the most impressive growth, and a poor reflection of the stages at best.

This review of the means of population regulation has glossed over a pervasive feature of the studies one encounters. That is the constant re­minder that there is much local or regional variability when a closer inspec­tion of the trends is undertaken. Moreover, by treating the three processes independently we have not seen their interaction in terms of the demo­graphic transition-but again, this would only show us that the stages have alternative timings in different areas.

The variability demonstrated by past populations with regard to vital rates caused one reviewer (6 1), after a penetrating and comprehensive article, to conclude that local conditions may not permit generalizations. He is right to this extent, one cannot generalize about the demographic transi­tion.

Rephrasing the Question In order to treat population processes of regulation more systematically, it is necessary to reformulate the traditional question in ways that provoke test implications. This can be accomplished most easily by posing questions on the directionality of influence between population and resources.

THE QUESTION has bc!en taken one step further analytically by limit­ing interest to stages of population growth and inquiring whether popula­tion pressure causes or results from economic change. Boserup (15) has

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 53

utilized this approach to account for agricultural development, while Habakkuk (83) describes other economic effects. Friedlander (67), Grigg (80), and others have noted that there also may be demographic effects such as fertility decline or migration. Problems with the question in this form are that it is hard to measure population pressure independently of the re­sponses it is supposed to produce ( 18 la), and the timing of events is often difficult to establish empirically ( 1 54).

Questions of population pressure become more tractable when we specify the nature of the pressure. Population pressure is not necessarily synony­mous with the ecological concept of carrying capacity, which refers to the maximum number of individuals that a given area will sustain. Population pressure refers to the presence of a "strain" (i.e. excessive need or demand) on one or more existing resources and can occur well below carrying capacity. It is not usually treated as a parameter, but its existence can be measured when: (a) in the case of nonrenewable resources the demand exceeds the supply, and competition for that resource exists (e.g. land), or (b) in the case of renewable resources when demand exceeds supply, the sustainable yield may decline due to consumption (e.g. grain). A general model can be developed deductively.

Resources can be viewed as relatively elastic or inelastic on the basis of their "renewability." Inelastic resources are those which tend to have a fixed supply or very little potential for increase. Supply and demand curves ( 160), utilized traditionally in economics and modified for our purposes, help to illustrate conditions of population pressure and likely responses. Zubrow (2 1 1) and others have modeled cases where the actual carrying capacity is reached. Regulation brought about when a population reaches carrying capacity is presumably a common occurrence in nonhuman populations and would perhaps be expected in extreme cases with human populations. Found (66) and others have considered general models for a single resource, but these tend to deal with conditions that only pertain in a modem market economy.

The model presented here considers pressure on a resource-specific basis, with the assumption that environmental stress on a critical resource can occur well below carrying capacity. It also alters the usual meaning of supply and "cost" so that a wider range of economic levels can be consid­ered. Supply usually refers to the ability of providers (farmers, distributors etc) to respond to consumer demand. Here the definition is relaxed to include the limits of the "environment" to supply needs and wants. Supply is therefore not only limited by the desire to produce but also by the ability to produce.

In most supply and demand models the resource is discussed in terms of its price to consumers. In the present discussion I use the term "cost,"

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

154 SWEDLUND

which is less biased and is intended to include anything from cash to the energetic costs of farm labor.

Examples of supply and demand curves are shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3A we see a dependent axis (labeled c) which refers to the cost of a given resource. This cost could be in terms of hours of labor needed to produce the resource, price to pay for the resource, etc. The independent axis (la­beled q) refers to the quantity of the resource. Line S refers to the supply slope. Line D refers to demand. When demand is equal to supply, then equilibrium is reached (point e). When demand is less than supply, quantity is high and cost is low. When demand is high, cost is also high, and quantity is low. The shape of the slope indicates cost relative to quantity.-at any point on the slope a given quantity has a specific cost. Relatively inelastic resources such as land will have very steep supply slopes, indicating that as cost increases, quantity of resource (i.e. land) increases very little (Figure 3A).

An upward shift of the supply slope (S') for a given resource indicates that costs have increased to produce the resource, with a decrease in quan­tity. Slope differences between different resources suggest their relative inelasticity. If the demand slope moves outward (D'), that is, increases (Figure 3B), as it would in the case of an increase in population (or possibly income), then equilibrium moves up the supply curve with the effect of creating a large increase in cost with a small increase in quantity.

In summary, we see that population pressure exists when the supply shifts to the left (Figure 3A supply is diminishing in relation to demand, e.g. sustainable yield is dropping) or the demand curve moves to the right (Figure 3B, demand is increasing in relation to supply, e.g. population is increasing). The change in cost per unit quantity can be modeled. At that time the "population pressure" requires a resource response or population response depends on the elasticity of supply. We can estimate the coefficient of supply elasticity;

1. if %dc<%dq, Es> 1 (dastic)-a small increase in cost will result in a large increase in quantity.

2. if %dc = %dq, Es = 1 (unitary elasticity)-a rise in cost will result in an equal rise in quantity.

3. if %�c>�q, Es< 1 (inelastic)-an increase in cost will result in little or no increase in quantity.

We would hypothesize that if a slight increase in cost (be that foraging time for hunter gatherers or labor intensification for agriculturalists) will

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 155

A c

I

B c

r -----------

e' e +--

\

e e' -+

\ \

,

s

D

\ \

s

,

, , , ,

D

D

q

q

Figure 3 Supply and demand curves. c = cost; q = quantity; S = supply slope; D = demand slope; e = equilibrium of supply and demand. S' refers to a decrease in supply resulting in increased costs for declining quantities. D' refers to an increase in demand with no change in supply, resulting in increased costs with only slight increase in quantities.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

156 SWEDLUND

significantly increase the quantity of the resource, then technological inno­vation or intensification constitutes an "adaptive" response. If the resource is relatively inelastic, then al response such as outmigration, fertility decline, or ultimately mortality may be the alternative adaptive responses. In either case the "cost" of a resoun�e response or population response can be com­pared relative to the potential gain in supply. Moving from I-to-3 we would expect a greater likelihood of a population response.

For example, we might consider the three resources grain, timber, and land. Grain is the most easily renewed and most elastic, land is the least renewable and basically im:lastic. I would expect innovation or intensifica­tion responses to be most appropriate in the case of short-term grain short­ages, and fertility and outmigration responses to be most appropriate in long-term land shortages. Such cases imply a perceived shortage by the members of the group in question. Such treatments of the data reflect the adaptive approach discussc!d above.

In empirical "reality" w(: can seldom be very precise about these relation­ships. Instead, we model a population trend of growth, decline, or station­ary conditions. We determine singular or combined effects of the vital rates, and we relate these to a number of "resource" variables. If the research question involves the effect of population variables on resources, then popu­lation trends become independent variables. If we are concerned with the effect of limited resources on popUlation, then resources are treated as independent variables. In identifying the variables to be tested, it is impor­tant to distinguish between those which are considered causal and those which are to be considen:d the mechanisms by which the change was brought about.

For example, a cause of population decline might be assumed to be shortage of land, the mechanism for decline might be outmigration. Fre­quently a change in population growth rates or overall size is affected by fertility, mortality, and migration. Thus, all three may be considered simul­taneously, or further refinements in the analysis may involve the separate treatment of each vital process. In the population pressure model all causal explanations should involve density-dependent factors.

In the study of human societies the question of population pr(:ssure has been most systematically and theoretically addressed with respect to fer­tility. This is not surprising. Of the three vital processes fertility clearly shows the greatest range in types of response mechanisms, and also seems to be one of the most logical processes in which conscious human incentives would be activated (migration being the other). In a recent review of fertility models and adaptation Temkin-Greener ( 176) notes that the alleviation of stress from population pressure can occur by: 1. increasing mortality, 2. outmigration, 3. decreasing fertility, 4. technological innovation,S. inten-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 57

sification of land, labor, and capital. Mortality and outmigration would seldom be assumed to be the "choice" of the available alternatives. Techno­logical innovation and economic intensification are short-term solutions which can be negated quickly if population growth is not checked and, as noted, are only appropriate when supply is elastic. Thus fertility provides the most logical, effective, long-term strategy to population pressure.

We have ample evidence of a fertility decline in Europe and North America during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Most of the evi­dence is from aggregate level data, and further inference on other levels would be most desirable, but the decline exists and is widespread. Many hypotheses exist to explain this decline. These recently have been subsumed and summarized by Lee (125), but many of these hypotheses derive directly from attempts to explain empirical cases and thus suffer from being limited in generality. What happens if we remove the questions from the data and consider them in the order we would most like to receive the information in an inductive approach? My suggestion is shown in Figure 4.

1 . Is there a decline? The first question we might ask in any case would be whether or not there is evidence for deceleration of the growth rate at some aggregate level. Secondly, is there an indication that fertility is an important element in the general decline?

2. What is the locus of the response? In order to assess proximal causes of the decline it will be important to know if there are particular population subclasses that show higher than average levels of fertility limitation­especially important would be socioeconomic classes, occupational classes, or religious groups. Moreover, it may be possible to detect individual, family, and kin group differences which reflect possible genetic, physiologi­cal, or behavioral bases. The utility of reconstitution methods and cohort analysis becomes clear at this stage.

3. How is it accomplished? Assuming the data are available, we might next attempt to determine the means by which fertility is being restricted; if the data are not adequate, we can go on to point 4. Fertility is affected by fecundity and behavioral factors; restriction will occur as a result of suppressing ovulation, delaying or otherwise interfering with conception, or interfering with fetal development and termination of pregnancy. Conscious limitation involves intentional manipulation of these factors and is usually indicated by "abnormal" or "unnatural" birth interval lengths and by termination of pregnancy by abortion. Natural limitation occurs when factors such as celibacy, marital age, marital separation, postpartum ame­norrhea through prolonged lactation, malnutrition, mortality, or other causes, limit births in a parity-independent way.

4. Is the decline resource based? Most important in the population pres­sure model is the question of whether or not the decline is associated with

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

158 SWEDLUND

I' EVIDENCE FOR DECLINE AT AGGREGATE LEVEL

CONTRACEPTlO

J ABORTION

ETC.

t / RESOURCE

o

t OF RESPONSE

MARITAL AGE CELIBACY

MALNUTRITION

PROLONGED LACT

MORTALITY

t LIMITATION ?

<$> I LAND FOOD SHELTER

INCOME OTHER

t �'AVIORAL MODEL

Figure 4 Flow chart for the analysis of population/resource interaction. Model begins with

observation of decline or deceleration of the growth rate (terms defined in text).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 59

a limited resource. The alternative resources could be many and varied, but the logical variables would be food, land, shelter, income, etc. The determi­nation that a resource is limited is not easy, of course, but often the indica­tors suggested above can be identified by plotting per capita or per adult ratios of the resource over time. A declining trend suggests demand is in excess of supply. This question is not only affected by the sheer availability of the resource, but also by what groups control access to the resources.

5. Is there a behavioral model which accounts for the locus (loci) of response and observed trends? .Finally, one should attempt to develop an explanation of the behaviors involved and test this model against other possible explanations. These might include microeconomic models of cost­benefit maximization within the family (9, 56, 1 30); changes in occupational status or the division oflabor (2 1), including changes in the status of women (33, 1 82); and factors of inheritance, mortality, and reproductive behavior.

The advantages to this approach are several. It is empirically general. It assumes that a shortage of certain resources can affect a fertility decline, but it does not specify the resources because there is no reason that they should be the same from one "habitat" to the next. Moreover, it does not specify the mechanisms of fertility response because there is no reason they should be the same in all places at all times-in fact, quite the opposite. But what the model does do is build upon the evidence so that the test implications are clear at each stage.

We know that declines occurred. We now understand a great deal about "natural fertility" (27, 69, 70, 84, 1 1 5-1 17, 125) and we also know that the effective means for conscious family limitation have existed for some time (103, 123, 177, 198).

With a few exceptions, we are lacking in general models that have been tested in such a rigorous way. One of the most notable exceptions is the work of Easterlin (57-59) and associates on the nature of fertility decline and land availability in the United States in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Virtually all facets of the model described here have been ex­plored, the trends have been duplicated in several areas by other investiga­tors ( 127, 134), and although problems remain (1 89), it is a well-reasoned and empirically tested case.

Easterlin first documents the fertility decline in the nineteenth century United States. On the basis of aggregate data and household data largely collected by others, he is able to show that fertility declines as availability of farmland decreases, and that the locus of response is probably the household. Easterlin then develops a behavioral model that asserts that the number of children a farm family will have depends on their ability to give these children a start in life. In a rural economy it means the value of farmland they can bequeath or purchase. Wells ( 195), Osterud & Fulton

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

160 SWEDLUND

( 148), and Temkin-Greener & Swedlund ( 177) have traced cohorts of women through time within an area and shown that family limitation probably incorporated both voluntary and involuntary mechanisms.

In summary, the nature of fertility decline as a function of population pressure (or resource availability) typifies the dissection and question refor­mulation of the demographic transition that may be essential if we are to go beyond the descriptive level. Historical populations provide excellent testing grounds for addressing the rephrased questions, and reconstitution permits close inspection of the timing and mechanisms involved. Today's developing countries provide excellent opportunities for the application of any wisdom that may derive from the endeavor.

THE UNQUESTION

Many following this review may have noted a topic conspicuous by its absence up to this point. That topic is the household, or the family, depend­ing on one's research orientation. The family has been the primary unit of study in historical demography. Indeed, in Wrigley's Population and His­tory (205) we are introduced to the family as a topic of study, unit of behavior, and focus for historical demography before we learn anything else about the general subject.

Many recent books (e.g. 39, 75-77, 88, 122, 1 28, 1 57) focus on the household or family as the central research problem. From a social histori­cal perspective there is nothing wrong with this, of course, but from a population ecological perspective the family is seen as a unit of anallysis, not the problem. The family is inherently interesting because it is the unit of reproduction, but there is no reason why a unit such as class or sex might not be just as appropriate fnr a given problem. Before we select the family as the unit of analysis w�: must determine if it is suitable to the ques­tion.

It has not escaped me that many researchers consider the structure and size of the household/family to be the question, but there are problems with this. If we are interested in the determinants or effects of household size and structure, then the question should be framed around the determinants or effects, not the structure. In this way the household can be treated as either a dependent or independe:nt variable, while avoiding purely descriptive statements.

There is one additional factor that makes this focus problematic" and that is change. A number of scholars emphasize the cyclical and developmental nature of the household and the family. They have made the process the problem. This better reflel;ts the transient nature of size and structure. Research most influential in this changing perspective has included that of

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 161

Berkner (1 1); Goody (73-75); Hareven (86, 87), Medik (1 37), and Shanin ( 162). Population ecologists [see Stearns (170)] have employed the life history approach to many problems with success, as have demographers.

If there was a question initially, it had to do with whether or not the nuclear family was a postindustrial phenomenon. Laslett (120, 121) has made significant contributions to the study of household and family by demonstrating that the traditional assumption of an evolution from large, extended families in preindustrial times to a small, nuclear family after the industrial revolution just is not borne out by the evidence. Goody (73, 74) has pointed out that the family as a unit of production, reproduction, and consumption should be adaptive and reflect quite variable cross-cultural patterns. Moreover, since the family ages, there is a developmental cycle which must be considered and which leads to further variation within the family. Hareven (86) argues that we should be cautious in using cross­sectional data, should view the family as process, and begin to think in terms of "family" time. Medik (1 37) has developed a model for viewing the family in varying economic contexts which illustrate the effects of protoindustriali­zation and capitalism on family formation. He argues that the mechanisms which govern household formation in traditional peasant households are thwarted by the development of cottage industries and increasing capital­ism.

As research has extended our knowledge of household size and structure at different times and in Eastern Europe (e.g. 39) and other parts of the world, we see that variability certainly exists. If we view the household as an adaptive unit, capable of responding to change, we would not expect otherwise. What all of these studies implicitly suggest is that in many cases the family is the most appropriate unit of analysis, but that household and family structure per Se are not the question.

OTHER QUESTIONS

The space in this essay devoted to questions surrounding demographic transition and related topics is representative of the attention paid to these in lieu of other questions. However, several other issues in population ecology have been addressed and some examples follow.

Harpending (93), Weiss ( 193), Morton ( 142), Cannings & Cavalli-Sforza (17), Harrison & Boyce (94), and Ward & Weiss (191) have recently re­viewed the literature on genetics and demography. Much of the research done in this field has made use of historical data on regional populations. Two areas of research have emerged: (a) the study of fitness and selection in relation to demographic rates, and (b) the effect of mating structure on the opportunities for gene flow and genetic drift. These studies in particular

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 62 SWEDLUND

range far afield from the traditional foci in historical demography, but are important areas of interest in biological anthropology.

Selection, Fertility, and Mortality

Studies in general population ecology emphasize, along with environmental factors, the role of genotypic differences within populations as a factor in population growth and size (7, 15 1). Genetic variants, interacting with environmental selective agents, result in differential fertility and mortality of the various genotypes. The overall growth rate of a population is affected by the genotype-specific growth rates of the constituents of the population. The apparent low heritability of fertility and mortality, and the relatively low selection coefficients on known genotypes, make the study of' selection in human populations difficult, although not impossible ( 19, 63, 104). It is usually necessary to have populations of very large size in order to be able to detect differences.

Nevertheless, several investigators have made use of data from historical populations to make inferences about the opportunity for selection (38) given the variability in vital rates (169). Genetic fitness is usually defined as the contribution of one genotype in a population relative to the contribu­tions of other genotypes pn�sent in the same population. Therefore, intensity of selection will be proportional to the variability in fitness [Fisher's Funda­mental Theorem of Natural Selection (63)]. Crow (38) has shown how to calculate the "Index of Total Selection" from the means and variances of fertility and mortality (see 38, 1 69, 191). This index measures actual genetic selection only when the m(�n-variance ratios are completely due to hered­ity, so that the index has been called the "opportunity for selection" or the "maximum opportunity for selection."

In spite of these weaknesses, the index can serve to illustrate the relative importance of the fertility a.nd mortality components and the changes in the relationships between thesle components over time. Analyses of historical data have been done by Crawford & Goldstein (37), Morgan ( 141), Swed­lund ( 171), and Spuhler ( 169), among others. Historical populations with characteristically moderate to high fertility and low mortality show low indices. In general this approach has not been very informative cross­culturally, but there are indications that the opportunity for selection through differential fertility has increased in recent years ( 169).

A more profitable approach in regard to the study of fitness in historical populations is probably to look at diseases with "known" coefficients of heritability and to study the varying disease responses (including fertility and mortality of cohorts and kin groups) in relation to survivorship in these

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 63

populations. Major projects involving this kind of analysis are currently under way, but only preliminary results are available (8a, 1 39, 194).

Mating Systems and Subdivided Populations

In an essay on the genetic structure of small populations, Harpending (93) comments that while research in this area has probably not contributed substantially to our understanding of genetic processes, it has made meth­odological and interpretive contributions to regional history. Studies utiliz­ing historical data have been done in England (29, 48, 94, 1 1 8, 1 59), Switzerland (109, 143), Italy ( 18, 1 63), Finland (140, 201 , 207, 209) and the United States (172, 175) among others. In each case the question has tended to be how breeding structure has changed gene frequencies over time. The results have been consistent.

In virtually all studies of subdivided populations, the inbreeding coeffi­cients have tended to drop over time, but also to have always remained at or below 0.05. Low levels of inbreeding do not mean, however, mobility over great distances. Most of the European data show that mating networks were local, involving mostly neighboring villages, and that gene frequency differences between villages were common. In these studies the gene fre­quencies are generally determined from the contemporary population and then reconstructed for the past on the basis of the mating structure. Marital distances-the distance a member of a given village travels to obtain a mate -are usually low. When mating frequencies are plotted over distance the curve tends to be leptokurtic. In studies of large national samples, such as that performed by Workman et al (201), the methodology has been worked out so that genetic differences at local, county, and district levels could be explained. In virtually all of these studies, local and regional variations usually can be accounted for by migration and sampling processes (gene flow and genetic drift). The low fitness differentials of the allelic variants sampled in the contemporary populations investigated make measurement of selection difficult but not impossible (200).

The utility of these studies goes beyond obtaining genetic inference, however. The methodologies developed are sensitive to other historical and environmental questions. For example, most analytical models depend on measures of distance, density, and matings and are not dependent on genetic data. Since these models are essentially measuring the direction and inten­sity of interaction between villages or other units, they could also be used to measure levels of social interaction, disease transport, economic interde­pendence, and other processes involving mobility (94). Indeed, geographers have used very similar models for these purposes.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 64 SWEDLUND

To be sure, there are many other questions that can be addressed from the ecological perspective. One of the more notable areas I have neglected is the research on locational theory and the economic development of regions (22, 23, 30, 108, 147, 1 73). This research, done primarily by eco­nomic geographers, is very amenable to and often depends on historical data. These and other areas provide constantly expanding opportunities for the application of materials and methods derived from historical demogra­phy.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Eversley (62) expresses consternation at the recent trends toward hypothe­sis testing and model building at the expense of intensive data gathering and treatment of each population as a special entity with unique experiences. Indeed, when one reads the community studies where demographic data are skillfully woven into the social fabric of a particular place in time, one can appreciate this concern. For example, studies such as Gautier & Henry (70), Anderson (5), and Laslett ( 120) in Europe, or those by Lockridge ( l 33a), Greven (79), Demos (46), Katz (1 13), or Gross (8 1) in North America make the data "come alive" in a way that is almost impossible in the more purely quantitative, ecological analyses. Eversley believes that the development of broad theoretical treatments may be premature at this time, but as Lee ( 125), Tilly ( I8 1a), Banks. (8), and others have argued, general models cannot be tested until they are developed. The claim that we do not have enough "good data" or "good descriptive studies" will always be heard­because it is true. However, I would maintain that the appropriate time for effective hypothetical-deductive approaches to problems is ever present, and reasonable tests can almost always be found. The alternative may be good history, but it is not science. Clearly it is desirable to have history as history, but it is also desirable to test the acceptability or falsifiability of hypotheses and theories.

In the preceding essay I have suggested that studies have remained largely descriptive. I offeJr some basic concepts utilized in population ecology and discuss their application. The nature of the demographic transi­tion is still the major question addressed by historical demographers. This question can be refined and reformulated to provide clearer test implications for future research-a framework for analyzing fertility decline is presented as an example.

It is my position that studies of the family and household tend to empha­size size and structure rather than process, with some notable exceptions, and that the result is a field! without clearly defined problems and research objectives--one where the unit of analysis has preceded the research ques-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 165

tion. This is not surprising. As Robert Wells (personal communication) notes, much research in historical demography probably has been dictated by the form in which the data were originally recorded.

Other questions discussed include the use of historical data for obtaining inference on selection and mating structure. While these studies have con­tributed much in the development of methodology, our understanding of human evolution has not increased substantially.

The insights gained about the nature of human mating systems in past populations have been in regard to mobility and the nature of interaction between populations. Adaptive questions normally have been addressed with aggregate data which sometimes mask important sources of variance. In the future, studies of differential fertility and mortality which use lineages and kin groups as the units of analysis may be of greater significance to evolutionary questions. Historical populations may provide one of the few opportunities to study the long-term differential success of "families" or lineages. This research, in turn, provides one of the few opportunities for testing the emerging ideology and theory of sociobiology (199). A number of hypotheses could be tested regarding the notions of how inclusive fitness and kin selection function. Geneticists (48, 1 59) and social historians (166) have developed approaches utilizing surnames. Although surnames are clearly not genes, inferences about genetic structure can be gained.

Historical studies have indicated repeatedly that population responds to environmental conditions (especially when we interpret these conditions broadly so as to include economic factors). In crisis situations this may well mean the Malthusian response of high mortality, but there is encouraging evidence from both preindustrial and postindustrial societies that groups adjust to their environment at levels well below crisis conditions. A combi­nation of voluntary and involuntary means is available ranging from de­layed marriage in times of economic stress to conscious contraception when immediate economic conditions or resource imbalances are perceived by the group in question. Perhaps nowhere has this been better indicated than in the American fertility decline of the nineteenth century. In discussing this decline, Easterlin (57) notes that we have learned something of practical relevance to developing countries-the kinds of responses possible with limited contraceptive technology and the conditions under which they may occur. Indeed, we are beginning to witness the onset of fertility declines in several developing countries today (4).

It is worth noting that the American fertility decline began with only a few possible exceptions, after the colonial period in American history. No doubt this was largely due to factors of economic development, some of which are directly attributable to the formation of a semi-independent, state economy. Is this pertinent today? Alland (3) and Tilly ( I 8 Ia) suggest that

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 66 SWEDLUND

it may be observed that those countries which have notable external influ­ences (i.e. unpredictable or uncontrollable) on their economies by private or public sectors tend to bt: ones with high fertility rates and they question this association. If one country depends on cheap labor from another, there is no real incentive to promote reduction in fertility because high fertility sustains cheap labor. Moreover, when labor is your commodity for ex­change, the strategy at tht: family level in such countries may well be to produce more labor by producing more children.

Several observers (4, 44, 174) have noted the factors which tend to promote fertility reduction. These include 1 . increasing educational levels, 2. increasing social mobility, 3. increasing urbanization, and 4. increasing the social status of women and encouraging their participation in the work force. Historical studies suggest to us that these should be closely tied to resource and economic conditions. Urbanization reduced fertility rates in the past, but it also raised mortality rates, and if rural fertility remains high, it may offset any gains made in urban areas. Increased participation in the job market, particularly by women, may reduce fertility in most situations; however, Levine (128) comes to an opposite conclusion for England in the seventeenth century. He believes that the increased opportunities for women to earn wages, through jobs created by protoindustrialization, low­ered the age at which economic independence from parents was reached. This, in turn, lowered marriage age and, by prolonging the reproductive period, raised fertility for a time. Obviously it depends on when in the life cycle of individuals and families the job opportunities exist.

These are some of the tantalizing but often confusing lessons of popula­tion history. The research i:s interesting in its own right, of course, but the utility of the research in addresssing general questions will only come when more general models are developed and population-resource relationships are more critically evaluated. No one should expect all populations to respond in the same ways to similar conditions at all times, but the limits of potential demographic responses, and the limited potential of renewing certain kinds of resources, should suggest a set of conditions under which various responses are seen as more or less adaptive. It is neither beyond the calculus of population science or the "rationality" of human biology and behavior to be able to understand, and even predict, such relationships.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research for this paper was in part made possible by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NICHD08979-03) and the National Science Foundation (BNS-76-83 12 :l). Margaret Gradie assisted with the bibliogra­phy and Richard Meindl with illustrations. I would like to thank the many

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 67

other colleagues and students who read and commented on drafts of this paper, especially Richard A. Easterlin, Nancy Folbre, John Knodel, Susan L. Norton, Robert Paynter, Daniel Scott Smith, Kenneth M. Weiss, Robert V. Wells, and Peter L. Workman. Their suggestions improved the paper; any errors or misinterpretations remaining are my own.

Literature Cited

1 . Acheson, E. D., ed. 1968. Record Link­age in Medicine. Edinburgh: Living­stone

2. Acsadi, G., Nemeskeri, J. 1970. History of Human Life Span and Mortality. Budapest: Academiai. 346 pp.

3. Alland, A. 1972. Cultural evolution: The Darwinian model. Soc. Bioi. 19(3): 227-39

4. American Association for Advance­ment of Science. 1 974. Culture and Population Change. Washington DC: AAAS

.

5. Anderson, M. 197 1 . Family Structure in 19th Century Lancashire. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 230 pp.

6. Appleby, A. B. 1973. Disease or fam­ine? Mortality in Cumberland and Westmoreland 1 580-1640. Econ. Hist. Rev. 26(2):403-3 1

7. Ayala, F. J. 1968. Genotype, environ­ment and population numbers. Science 1 62: 1 1 53-59

8. Banks, J. A. 1968. Historical sociology and the study of population. Daedalus 97(2):397-414

8a. Bean, L. L., May, L., Skolnick, M. 1977. The Mormon historical demogra­phy project: structure and data evolu­tion. Presented at Colloque Interna­tional de Demographique Historique, Florence, Italy

9. Becker, A. S. 1960. An economic analy­sis offertility. In Demographic and Eco­nomic Change in Developed Countries. Univ. Nat. Bur. Conf. Ser. No. I I , pp. 209-37 Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 536 pp.

10. Bennett, J. W. 1976. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. Oxford: Perga­mon. 378 pp.

1 1 . Berkner. L. K. 1972. The stem family and development cycle of peasant household: an eighteenth-century Aus­trian example. Am. Hist. Rev. 77:398-4 1 8

1 2. Blaschke, K. 1967. Bevolkerungsge­schichte von Sachsen bis zur industriel­len Revolution. (Mit 33 graphischen Darstellungen und Karten sowie 10

doppelseitgen Karten). Weimar: Boh­lau. 244 pp.

13. Bogue. D. J. 1 969. Principles of Demog­raphy. New York: Wiley. 9 1 7 ,Pp.

14. Borowski, S. 1968. DemographIC devel­opment and the Malthusian problem in the Polish territories under German rule, 1 807-1 914. In Population and eco­nomics, ed. P. Deprez, pp. 33-53. Win­nipeg: Univ. Manitoba Press

15. Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Chicago: Aldine. 1 24 pp.

16. Brass, W. 1971. On the Scale of Mortal­ity, pp. 69-1 10. London: Taylor & Francis. 1 67 pp.

1 7. Cannings, C., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1973. Human population structure. Adv. Hum. Genet. 4: 105-72. New York: Plenum

1 8. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1 969. Genetic drift in an Italian population. Sci. Am. 221 :30-37

19. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Bodmer, W. F. 1 97 1 . The Genetics of Human Popula­tions. San Francisco: Freeman. 965 pp.

20. Chambers, J. D. 1972. Population, Economy and Society in Pre-Industrial England. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press 1 62 pp.

2 1 . Chayanov, A. V. 1966. The Theory of the Peasant Economy (1925), ed. D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, R. Smith. Home­wood, Ill: Irwin

22. Chisholm, M. 1962. Rural Settlement and Land Use: An Essay In Loca­tion. London: Hutchinson Univ. Libr. 207 pp.

23. Christaller, W. 1 966. Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

24. Coale, A. J. 1974. The history of the human population. Sci. Am. 23 1(3): 40-5 1

25. Coale, A. J., Demeny, P. 1 966. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Popula­tions. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 871 pp.

26. Coale, A. J., Zelnik, M. 1963. New Esti­mates of Fertility and Population in the United States. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 1 86 p.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 68 SWEDLUND

27. Cohen, J. E. 1975. Childhood mortality, family size and birth order in pre-indus­trial Europe. Demography 12(1):35-55

28. Cole, J. W., Wolf, E. R. 1974. The Hid­den Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Village. New York: Aca­demic. 348 pp.

29. Coleman, D. A. 1977. The g.!ography of marriage in Britain, 1 820-1960. Ann. Hum. BioI. 4(2):101-32

30. Conzen, J. 1971. Frontier Farming in an Urban Shadow. Madison: Univ. Wis­consin

3 1 . Cook, S. 1973. The significance of dis­ease in the extinction of the New En­gland Indians. Hum. BioI. 45(3):485-508

32. Cook, S. F., Borah, W. 1971. Essays in Population History: Mexico and the Caribbean, Vol. I. Berkeley: Univ. Cali­fornia Press

33. Cott, N. 1977. The Bonds of Woman­hood: Woman 's Place in New England. 1 780-1835. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. 225 pp.

34. Cowgill. U. M. 1967. Life and death in the sixteenth century in the city of York. Populo Stud. 21(1):53-62

35. Cowgill, G. L. 1975. Popu]ation pres­sure as non-explanation. In Population Studies in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology: A Symposium. ed. A. C. Swedlund, pp. 127-3 1 . Soc:. Am. Ar­chaeol. Mem. 30

36. Crafts, N. F. R., Ireland, N. J. 1976. Family limitation and the English demographic revolution: a simulation approach. J. Econ. Hist. (Wilm.) 36(3): 598-623

37. Crawford, M., Goldstein, E. 1975. Demography and evolution of an urban ethnic community: Polish Hill. Pitts­burgh. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 43(1): 133-40

38. Crow, J. F. 1958. Some pos!;ibilities for measuring selection intensities in man. Hum. Bioi. 30: 1-13

39. Cuisenier, J. , ed. 1976. The Family Life Cycle in European Societies. The Ha­gue: Mouton

40. Daedalus. 1968. Issue on Historical Population Studies. Vol. 97(2). 676 pp.

4 1 . Deetz, J. F. 1977. In Small Things For­gotten. Garden City, NY: Anchor-Dou­bleday

42. Deetz, J. F., Dethlefsen, E. S. 1965. The doppler effect and archaeoloJgy: a con­sideration of the spatial aspects of seria­tion. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 2 1 (3): 196-206

43. Deevey, E. S. Jr. 1960. The human pop­ulation. Sci. Am. 203(12): 195-205

44. Demeny, P. 1974. The populations of the underdeveloped countries. Sci. Am. 2 3 1 : 148-60

45. Demonet, M., Dupaquier, .r., Le Bras, H. 1977. A repertory of stable popula­tions. See Ref. 1 24, pp. 297-336

46. Demos, J. 1 970. A Little Common­wealth: Family Life in Plymouth Col­ony. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 201 pp.

47. Dethlefsen, E. S. 1 969. Colonial grave­stones and demography. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 3 1(3):321-34

48. Dobson, T., Roberts, D. F. 1971. His­torical population movement and gene flow in Northumberland parishes. J. Biosoc. Sci. 3;193-208

49. Dobyns, H. F. 1 966. Estimating aboriginal American population. Curro Anthropol. 7:395-449

50. Drake, M. 1969. Population and Society in Norway. 1 735-1865. Cambridge; Cambridge Univ. Press. 256 pp.

5 1 . Drake, M. 1972. Perspectives in histori­cal demography. In The Structure of Human Populations. ed. G. A. Harri­son, A. J. Boyce, pp. 57-72. Oxford: Clarendon. 447 pp.

52. Drake. M. 1974. Historical Demogra­phy: Problems and Projects. Bletchley, England; Open Univ. Press

53. Dumond, D. E. 1975. The limitation of human population; a natural history. Science 1 87:7 1 3-21

54. Dyke, B. J., MacCluer, J. W. 1973. Esti­mation of vital rates by Monte Carlo simulation. Demography 19(3):383-403

55. Dyke. B. J .. MacCluer. 1. W .• eds. 1975. Computer Simulation in Human Popu­lations. New York: Academic. 5 1 8 pp.

56. Easterlin, R. A. 1966. On the relation of economic factors to recent and pro­jected fertility changes. Demography 3 : 13 1-5 1

57. Easterlin. R. A. 1 97 1 . Does human fer­tility adjust to the environment? Am. Econ. Rev. 61 :399-407

58. Easterlin, R. A. 1976. Population change and farm settlement in the northern United States. J. Econ. Hist. 36( 1 ):45-84

59. Easterlin. R. A. 1977. Population issues in American economic history: a survey and critique. In Recent Developments in the Study of Business and Economic History: Essays in Honor of Herman E. Kroos. ed. R. E. Gallman. Greenwich, Conn: Johnson.

60. Emlen, J. M. 1973. Ecology: An Evolu­tionary Approach. Reading, Mass: Ad­dison-Wesley. 493 pp.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 1 69

6 1 . Evcrsley, D. E. C. 1965. Population, economy, and society. See Ref. 72, pp. 23-69

62. Eversley, D. E. C. 1977. Book review of Population Patterns in the Past, ed. R. D. Lee. New York: Academic. Demog­raphy 14(4):539-48

63. Fisher, R. A. 1958. The Genetical The­ory of National Selection, Second Edi­tion. New York: Dover. 29 1 pp.

64. Forster, c., Tucker, G. S. 1972. Eco­nomic Opportunity and White American Fertility Ratios, 1800-1860. New Ha­ven: Yale Univ. Press

65. Forster, R., Ranum, 0., eds. 1976. Family and Society: Selections from An­nales Economics, Societies, Civilizations. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins Press

66. Found, W. C. 1 97 1 . A Theoretical Ap­proach to Rural Land-use Patterns. London: Arnold

67. Friedlander, D. 1 969. Demographic re­sponses and population change. Demog­raphy 6:359-81

68. Frisch, R. E. 1975. Demographic impli­cations of the biological determinants of female fecundity. Soc. Bioi. 22(1): 1 7-22

69. Frisch, R. E. 1978. Population, food in­take, and fertility. Science 199:22-30

70. Gautier, E., Henry, L. 1958. La popu­lation de Crulai, paroisse normand. Paris: INED. Travaux et Documents Cahier 33.

7 1 . Geertz, C. 1963. Agricultural Involu­tion: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley: Univ. California Press. 176 pp.

72. Glass, D. V., Eversley, D. E. C., eds. 1965. Population in History. London: Arnold. 692 pp.

73. Goody, 1. 1972. Domestic Groups. Reading: Addison-Wesley Modules An­thropol. 28: 1-32

74. Goody, J. 1972. The evolution of the family. See Ref. 122, pp. 103-24

75. Goody, J. 1976. Production and Repro­duction: A Comparative Study of the Do­mestic Domain. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1 57 pp.

76. Goody, J., Thirsk, J., Thompson, E. P. 1976. Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 421 pp.

77. Gordon, M., ed. 1973. The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective. New York: St. Martins. 428 pp.

78. Goubert, P. 1973. Historical demogra­phy and the reinterpretation of early modem French history: A research re­view. See Ref. 1 57, pp. 1 6-27

79. Greven, P. J. Jr. 1970. Four Genera­tions: Population, Land and Family in Colonial Andover, Massachusetts. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press. 329 pp.

80. Grigg, D. B. 1976. Population pressure and agricultural change. Prog. Geogr. 9:1 34-75

8 1 . Gross, R. 1976. The Minutemen and Their World. New York: Hill & Wang. 242 pp.

82. Haas, J. D., Harrison, G. A. 1977. Nu­tritional anthropology and biological adaptation. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 6:69-101

83. , Habakkuk, H. J. 1971. Population Growth and Economic Development since 1 750. Leicester: Leicester Univ.

, Press. 1 10 pp. 84. Hajnal, J. 1965. European marriage pat­

terns in perspective. See Ref. 72, pp. 101-43

85. Hammell, E. A., Wachter, K. W. 1977. . Primonuptiality and ultimonuptiality:

their effects on stem-family-household frequencies. See Ref. 1 24, pp. 1 1 3-34

86. Hareven, T. K. 1974. The family as pro­cess: the historical study of the family cycle. J. Soc. Hist. 7:322-29

87. Hareven, T. K. 1976. Modernization and family history: perspectives on so­cial change. J. Women Cult. Soc. 2(1): 1 90-206

88. Hareven, T. K., Vinovskis, M. 1979. Family and Population in 19th Century America. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. In press

.

89. Hardesty, D. L. 1975. The niche con­cept: suggestions for its use in studies of human ecology. Hum. Ecol. 3:7 1-85

90. Hardesty, D. L. 1977. Ecological An­thropology. New York: Wiley. 3 10 pp.

9 1 . Hamer, M. J. 1 970. Population pres­sure and the social evolution of agriCUl­turalists. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 26: 67-86

92. Hamer, M. J. 1975. Scarcity, the factors of popUlation and social evolution. See Ref. 1 53, pp. 123-38

93. Harpending, H. 1 974. Genetic structure of small populations. Ann. Rev. An­thropol. 3:229-43

94. Harrison, G. A., Boyce, A. J. 1972. Mi­gration, exchange and the genetic struc­ture of populations. In ThtfStructure of Human Populations, ed. G. A. Harri­son, . A. J. Boyce, pp. 128-45. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 447 pp.

95. Hawthorn, A. 1 970. The Sociology 0/ Fertility. London: Collier-MacMillan

96. Helleiner, K. F. 1965. The vital revolu­tion reconsidered. See Ref. 72, pp. 79-86

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 70 SWEDLUND

97. Henretta, J. A. 1973. Evolution of American Society, 1 700--1815. Lexing­ton, Mass: Heath. 242 pp.

98. Henry, L. 1965. The population of France in the eighteenth century. See Ref. 72, pp. 434-56

99. Henry, L. 1967. Manuel de demogra­phie historique. Geneva/ParIs: Librairie Droz.

100. Henry, L. 1968. The verifica.tion of data in historical demography. PopuL Stud. 22(1):61-81

1 0 1 . Herlihy, D. 1977. Death, marriages, births and the Tuscan economy (ca. 1 300(1550). See Ref. 124, pp. 135-64

102. Higgs, R. 1973. Mortality in rural America, 1 870-1920: estimates and conjectures. Explor. Econ. Hist. 1 9(2): 177-85 .

103. Himes, N. E. 1 970. A Medical History of Contraception. New York.: Schoken. 521 pp. 2nd ed.

104. Hiorns, R. W., Harrison, G. A. 1 970. Sampling for the detection of natural selection by age group genetic differ­ences. Hum. Bioi. 42(1):53.-64

105. Hollingsworth, T. H. 1969. Historical Demography. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press

106. Hollingsworth, T. H. 1973. Population crises in the past. In Resources and Pop­ulation, ed. B. Benjamin, P. R. Cox, J. Peel, pp. 99-108. New York: Academic. 1 8 1 pp.

107. Howell, N. 1973. The feasibility of demographic studies in "anthropologi­cal" populations. In Methods and Theo­ries of Anthropological Genetics, ed. M. H. Crawford, P. L. Workmlm, pp. 249-62. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico Press

108. Hudson, J. C. 1969. A localtion theory for rural settlement. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 59:365-81

109. Hussels, I. 1969. Genetic structure of Saas, a Swiss isolate. Hum. Bioi. 41 :469-79

1 10. Johnson, J. H. 1957. The population of Londonderry during the great Irish famine. Econ. Hist. Rev. 10 (2nd ser.):273-85

1 1 1 . Johnston, F. E., Albers, M. E. 1973. Computer simulation of d,�mographic processes. See Ref. 107, pp. 201-17

1 12. Jorde, L. B., Harpending, H. C. 1976. Cross-spectral analysis of rainfall and human birth rate: an empirical test of a linear model. See Ref. 191, pp. 129-38

1 13. Katz, M. B. 1975. The People of Hamilton, Canada West; Family and Class in a Mid-Nineteenth-Century City.

Harvard: Harvard Stud. Urban Hist. 381 pp.

1 14. Knodel, J. 1974. The Dec/ine ofFertility in Germany, 1871-1939. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press

1 1 5. Knodel, J. 1977. Breast-feeding and population growth. Science 198: 1 1 1 1-15

1 16. Knodel, J. 1977. Family limitation and the fertility transition: Evidence from the age patterns of fertility in Europe and Asia. PopuL Stud. 3 1 :21 9-49

1 17. Knodel, J. 1977. Naturalfertility in pre­industrial Germany. Presented at Meet. Popul. Assoc. Am., St. Louis

1 18. Kuchemann, C. F., Boyce, A. J., Harri­son, G. A. 1967. A demographic and genetic study of a group of Oxfordshire villages. Hum. BioL 41 :309-21

1 19. Kundstadter, P. 1972. Demography, ecology, social structure and settlement patterns. See Ref. 94, pp. 3 1 3-51

120. Laslett, P. 1965. The World We Have Lost. New York: Scribner. 280 Pl'.

121 . Laslett, P. 1972. Introduction: the his­tory of the family. See Ref. 122, pp. 1-89

122. Laslett, P., Wall, R., eds. 1972. Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 623 pp.

123. La Sorte, M. A. 1 976. Nineteenth cen­tury family planning practices. J. Psy­chohist. 4(2): 1 63-83

124. Lee, R. D., ed. 1 977. Population Pat­terns in the Past. New York: Academic. 376 Pl'.

125. Lee, R. D. 1977. Introduction. See Ref. 124, Pl" 1-17

126. Lee, R. D. 1977. Methods and models for analyzing historical series of births, deaths, and marriages. See Ref. 124, pp. 337-70

127. Leet, D. R. 1976. The determinants of the fertility transition in antebellum Ohio. J. Econ. Hist. 36(2):359-78

1 28. Levine, D. 1976. Family Formation in an Age of Nascent Capitalism. New York: Academic. 194 Pl'.

129. Liebenstein, H. 1957. Economic Back­wardness and Economic Growth. New York: Wiley

1 30. Liebenstein, H. 1975. The economic theory of fertility decline. Q. J. Econ. 89(1): 1-3 1

1 3 1 . Livi Bacci, M. 197 1 . A Century ofPor­tuguese Fertility. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 149 Pl'.

1 32. Livi Bacci, M. 1977. Can anything be said about demographic trends when only aggregate' vital statistics are avail­able? See Ref. 1 24, Pl'. 3 1 1 -36

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 17 1

1 33. Lockridge, K . A . 197 1 . Land, popula­tion and the evolution of New England society, 1630--1790; and an after­thought. In Colonial America, ed. S. Katz, pp. 466--91 . Boston: Little Brown.

133a. Lockridge, K. A. 197 1 . A New En­gland Town-The First Hundred Years. New York: Norton

1 34. McInnis, R. M. 1977. Childbearing and land availability: some evidence from individual household data. See Ref. 124, pp. 201-27

1 35. McKeown, T. 1976. The Modern Rise of Population. New York: Academic.

136. McKeown, T., Brown, R. A., Record, R. A. 1972. An interpretation of the modern rise of population in Europe. Popul. Stud. 26(3):345-82

1 37. Medik, H. 1976. The proto-Industrial family economy: the structural function of household and family during the transition from peasant society to in­dustrial capitalism. Soc. Hist. 1(3):291-316

1 38. Meeker. E. 1972. The improving health of the United States, 1850-1915. Ex­plor. Econ. Hist. 9(4):353-74

139. Meindl, R. S., Swedlund, A. C. 1977. Secular trends in mortality in the Con­necticut Valley, 1700-1850. Hum. Bioi. 49(3):389-414

140. Mielke. J. H., Workman, P. L. , Fell­man. J .• Eriksson. A. W. 1976. Popula­tion structure of the Aland Islands, Fin­land. Adv. Hum. Genet. 6:241-32l . New York: Plenum

141 . Morgan. K. 1973. Historical demogra­phy of a Navajo community. See Ref. 107, pp. 263-3 14

142. Morton, N. E., ed. 1973. Genetics of Population Structure. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press

143. Morton, N. E., Husse1s, I. 1970. Demography of inbreeding in Switzer­land. Hum. Bioi. 42:65-78

144. Nag, M. 1962. Factors affecting human flrtility in non-industrial societies. Yale Univ. Pub!. Anthropo!. 66

145. Netting, R. McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.

146. Norton, S. L. 1971 . Population growth in colonial America. A study of Ip­swich, Massachusetts. Popul. Stud. 25:433-52

147. Norton, W., Conkling, E. C. 1974. Land use theory and the pioneering economy. Geogr. Ann. 56B: 44-56

148. Osterud, N., Fulton, J. 1976. Family limitation and age at marriage: fertility decline in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. 1730--1 850. Popul Stud. 30(3):481-94

149. Petersen, W. 1969. Population. Lon­don: MacMillan. 735 pp. 2nd ed.

150. Petersen, W. 1975. A demographer's view of prehistoric demography. Curro AnthropoL 16:227-45

151 . Pianka, E. R. 1974. Evolutionary Ecology. New York: Harper & Row. 356 pp.

152. Polgar, S. 1972. Population history and population policies from an anthropo­logical perspective. Curro Anthropol. 1 3 :203-1 1

153. Polgar. S. 1975. Population Ecology and Social Evolution. Chicago: Aldine. 354 pp.

154. Polgar, S. 1975. Population, evolution and theoretical paradigms. See Ref. 1 53. pp. 1-25

ISS. Post, J. D. 1976. Famine. mortality and disease in the process of modernization. Econ. Hist. Rev. 29(1):14-37

156. Potter, J. 1965. The growth of popula­tion in America, 1700-1 860. See Ref. 72, pp. 63 1-88

157. Rabb, T. K., Rotberg, R. I., eds. 197 1 . The Family in History: Interdisciplinary Essays. New York: Harper & Row. 240 pp.

158. Rappaport. R. A. 197 1 . Nature, cul­ture, and ecological anthropology. In Man, Culture, and Society, ed. H. L. Shapiro, pp. 237-67. London: Oxford Univ. Press. 380 pp.

159. Roberts. D. F .• Rawling, C. P. 1974. Secular trends in genetic structure: an isonymic analysis of Northumberland parish records. Ann. HUm. BioI. 1 :393-410

160. Samuelson, P. 1973. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hili. 917 pp. 9th ed.

161. Schneider, J., Schneider, P. 1975. Cul­ture and Political Economy in Western Sicily. New York: Academic Press

162. Shanin. G. T. 1972. The A wkward Class. Oxford: Clarendon

163. Skolnick. M .• Cavalli-Sforza. L. L . •

Moroni, A., Sivi, E. 1976. A prelimi­nary analysis ofthe genealogy of Parma Valley. Italy. See Ref. 19 1 , pp. 95-1 1 5

164. Siobodkin, L . B " Rapoport, A . 1974. An optimal strategy of evolution. Q. Rev. Bioi. 49(3): 181-200

165. Smith, D. S. 1972. The demographic history of colonial New England. J. Econ. Hist. 32: 165-83

166. Smith, D. S. 1973. Population, family and society in Hingham, Massachusetts, 1635-1880. PhD thesis. Univ. Califor­nia, Berkeley, Calif.; Ann Arbor: Univ. Microfilms

167. Smith, D. S. 1977. A homeostatic demographic regime: patterns in west

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

1 72 SWEDLUND

European family reconstitution studies. See Ref. 124, pp. 19-5 1

168. Spooner, B. 1972. Population Growth: Anthropological Implications. Cam­bridge: MIT Press. 425 pp.

169. Spuhler, J. N. 1976. The ma.ximum op­portunity for natural selection in some human populations. In Demographic Anthropology, ed. E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 185-226. Albuquerque: Univ. New Mexico Press. 299 pp.

1 70. Steams, S. C. 1976. Life history tactics: a review of the ideas. Quartt:rly Review of the ideas. Q. Rev. Bioi. 5 1(1):3-47

1 7 J . Swedlund, A. C. 1 97 J . The genetic structure of an historical population: a study of marriage and fertility in Old Deerfield, Massachusetts. Univ. Mass. Dep. AnthropoL Res. Rep. ?

1 72. Swedlund, A. C. 1972. Observations on the concept of neighborhood knowledge and the distribution of marriage dis­tances. Ann. Hum. Genet. 35:327-30

1 73. Swedlund, A. C. 1975. Population growth and settlement pattern in Franklin and Hampshire counties, Mas­sachusetts 1650-1850. Soc. Am. Archa­eol. Mem. 30. pp. 22-33

1 74. Swedlund, A .• Armelagos, G. 1 976. Demographic Anthropology. Dubuque: Brown. 70 pp.

1 75. Swedlund, A. C., Temkin, Ii., Meindl, R. 1976. Population studies in the Con­necticut Valley: Prospectus. See Ref. 1 9 1 , pp. 75-93

1 76. Temkin-Greener, H. n.d. Fertility be­havior and the economics of family for­mation: Connecticut Valley 1 600--1 900. Univ. Massachusetts Dep. Anthropol. Unpublished ms.

177. Temkin-Greener, H., Swedlund, A. C. 1978. Fertility transition in the Con­necticut Valley: 1740-1850. Populo Stud. 3 1 (3). In press

178. Thomas, R. B. 1976. Energy flow at high altitude. In Man in the Andes ed. P. T. Baker, M. A. Little, PiP. 379-404. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 482 pp.

1 79. Thomas, R. B. 1978. Effects of change on high mountain human adaptive pat­terns. In High Altitude Geoecology. ed. P. Webber. Boulder, Colo: Westwood

1 80. Tietelbaum, M. S. 1975. Relevance of demographic transition theory for de­veloping countries. Science 1 88:420-25

1 8 J. Tilly, C., ed. 1978. Historical Studies 0/ Changing Fertility. Princeton: Prince­ton Univ. Press. 380 pp.

1 8 1a. Tilly, C. 1978. The historical study of vital processes. See Ref. 1 8 1 , pp. 3-55

1 82. Tilly, L. A., Scott, J., Cohen, M. 1976. Women's work and Europ/:an fertility patterns. J. InterdisCiplinary Hist. 4(3): 447-76

1 83. Van de Walle, E. 1 974. The Female Pop­ulation of France in the Nineteenth Cen­tury. Princeton: Princeton U niv. Press. 483 pp.

1 84. Van de Walle, E. 1976. The current state of historical demography. Public Daia Use 4:8-1 1

1 85. Van de Walle, E. 1977. Accounting for population growth; Review of T. McKeown, 1976, The Modern Rise of Population. Science 197:652-53

1 86. Van de Walle, E., Kantrow, L. 1974. Historical demography: a bibliograph­ical essay. PopuL Ind. 40:61 1-23

1 87. Vayda, A. P., McCay, B. J. 1975. New directions in ecology and ecological an­thropology. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 4: 293-306

1 88. Vinovskis, M. 1972. Mortality rates and trends in Massachusetts befiJre 1 860. J. £Con. Hist. 32: 1 84-2 1 3

1 89. Vinovskis, M. 1976. Socioeconomic determinants of interstate fertility differentials in the United St.ates in 1 850 and 1 860. J. InterdisCiplinary Hist. 6(3): 375-96

190. Wallerstein, 1. 1 974. The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and The Origins of the European World Economy in the 16th Century. New York: Aca­demic. 244 pp. Text ed.

1 9 J . Ward, R. H., Weiss, K. M. 1976. The demographic evolution of human popu­lations. In The Demographic Evolution o/Human Populations, ed. R. H. Ward, K. M. Weiss, pp. 1-24. London: Aca­demic. 158 pp.

192. Weiss, K. M. 1973. Demographic mod­els for anthropology. Soc. Am. Archa­eol. Mem. 27

193. Weiss, K. M. 1976. Demographic the­ory and anthropological inference. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 5:35 1-81

194. Weiss, K. M. 1978. Evolutionary per­spectives on human aging. In Other Ways of Growing Old. ed. P. Amoss, S.

Havre. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. In press

195. Wells, R. V. 1 97 J . Family size and fer­tility control in eighteenth-century America: a study of Quaker families. Populo Stud. 25:73-82

196. Wells, R. V. 1975. Family history and demographic transition. J. Soc. Hist. 9 : 1 -20

197. Wens, R. V. 1975. The Population of the British Colonies in America Before

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

HISTORICAL DEMOGRAPHY AS POPULATION ECOLOGY 173

1 776. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 342 pp.

198. Wells, R. V. 1977. Fertility control in nineteenth century America: a study of diffusion. technique and motive. Pre­sented at Conference on Historical Perspectives on the Scientific Study of Fertility in the US, American Acad­emy of Arts and Sciences, 1977, New York

199. Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap of Harvard. 697 pp.

200. Workman, P. L. 1969. The analysis of genetic polymorphisms. Hum. Bioi. 41 :97-1 14

201. Workman, P. L., Mielke, J. H., Nevan­linna, H. R. 1976. The genetic structure of Finland. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 44:341-67

202. Wrigley, E. A. 1 966. Family limitation in pre-industrial England. Econ. Hist. Rev. 19:82-109. 2nd ser.

203. Wrigley, E. A. 1967. A simple model of London's importance in changing En­glish society and economy, 1 650-1750. Past and Present 37:44-70

204. Wrigley, E. A. 1968. Mortality in pre­industrial England: the example from

Colyton, Devon, over three centuries. See Ref. 40, pp. 546-80

205. Wrigley, E. A. 1969. Population and History. New York: McGraw Hill. 254 pp.

206. Wrigley, E. A., ed. 1973. Identifying People in the Past. London: Arnold. 1 59 pp.

207. Yanase, T. 1962. The use of the Japa­nese family register for genetic studies. In The Use of Vital and Health Statistics for Genetic and Radiation Studies. Proc. seminar sponsored by United Na­tions and World Health Organization, Geneva 1 960. New York: United Na­tions. 259 pp.

208. Yasuba, Y. 1962. Birth Rates of the White Population in the u.s., 1800-1860. An Economic Study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press

209. Yasuda, N., Kimura, M. 1973. A study of migration in the Mishima District. Ann. Hum. Genet. 36:313-22

210. Zelinsky, W. 197 1 . The hypothesis of the mobility transition. Geogr. Rev. 6 1 :2 1 9-49

2 1 1 . Zubrow, E. B. W. 1975. Prehistoric Carrying Capacity: A Model. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. 143 pp.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 197

8.7:

137-

173.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a (U

SC)

on 0

4/09

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.