Quantifying mobility in early modern Europe: the challenge of concepts and data

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)

Jan and Leo Lucassen deserve tremendous credit for their effort to quantify mobility in historic societies that did not maintain public migration statistics and, moreover, for a long time period and for the whole of Europe.¹ Their article goes far beyond a critique of the 'mobility transition hypothesis'. The Lucassens not only demonstrate the high degree and the rich diversity of geographical mobility in early modern Europe; they also refute any idea of linear trends in the history of mobility. One of the most exciting of their results is, in my view, the evidence for varying rhythms of levels of mobility throughout early modern times, both in respect to migration types and to immigration/emigration regions. Their approach to quantifying early modern migration reveals previously unknown structures of mobility in pre-industrial Europe. This will intensively stimulate research and discussions in migration history in Europe and beyond.

My commentary concentrates on three themes. First, I will discuss some basic methodological decisions made by the Lucassens. Second, I will look at types of migration and migratory groups that are not treated in sufficient depth by the Lucassens, or that need additional discussion: rural-to-rural migration, migration to cities, and tramping artisans. Finally, I would like to discuss a point of accord between the Lucassens and modernization scholars, including proponents of the 'mobility transition hypothesis' - namely the assumption that 'there was indeed a sharp jump in the level of migration after 1850' and that the 'period 1850-1900 was indeed spectacular'.² Even if most migration historians would subscribe to this hypothesis, the topic is much more complicated and the evidence is not as clear as it might seem upon initial inspection.

Conceptual framework

My first argument concerns the conceptual framework and definitions used by Jan and Leo Lucassen for making calculations. Definitions that are as precise as possible are certainly indispensable for quantitative historical analysis. Furthermore, quantification requires the choice of particular concepts, methods, and clear-cut variables at the expense of others. Therefore, the authors make two basic choices. First, they concentrate on a particular type of migration only, namely on 'cross-community migration' as understood by Patrick Manning. Second, they decided to count the number of migrants and not of migratory acts...