Revista de Historia Interdisciplinaria, l:4 (Primavera, 2020), 517–545.

The 50th Year: Special Essay 9

Myron P. Gutmann
Quantifying Interdisciplinary History: The Record
de (Nearly) Fifty Years The Journal of Interdisciplinary History
began publication in 1970, after the founding of quantitative history.
That transformation had already been underway for nearly two de-
cades, led by an early generation of quantitative political historians;
by the Annales school in France; by historical demographers in
Francia, Inglaterra, y los estados unidos; and by generations of eco-
nomic historians who had studied prices and moneys, among other
cosas. Other publications had emerged, beyond the Annales E.S.C.;
the Historical Methods Newsletter, Por ejemplo, began publication in
1967. The great innovation by the editors of the JIH lay elsewhere,
in a broad conception of what constituted an interdisciplinary ap-
proach to historical research, and the energy to find the authors
who were engaged in that research and who were ready to publish.
The development of quantitative approaches to history, especialmente-
cially during the critical decades of the 1950s through the 1970s, es
well documented elsewhere; it is not the main subject of this ar-
ticle. Anderson’s brief exploration and more developed discussions
por, among others, Bogue, Sewell, de Vries, y, más reciente,
Ruggles and Magnuson in the JIH’s winter issue of the anniversary
volume describe that experience. Historians interested in new
sources of information and in social-science theories and ap-
se acerca, and social scientists interested in historical problems

Myron P. Gutmann is Professor of History, University of Colorado, an elected Fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and former Associate Editor of the
JIH. He is the author of War and Rural Life in the Early Modern Low Countries (Princeton,
1980); Toward the Modern Economy: Early Industry in Europe (Nueva York, 1988); co-author with
jorge c.. Alter, Susan Hautaniemi Leonard, and Emily R. Merchant, "Introducción: Lon-
gitudinal Analysis of Historical-Demographic Data,” Revista de Historia Interdisciplinaria, XLII
(2012), 503–517.

This work was supported by the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado
Roca. The author thanks Lindy Schultz for help with assembling the database of JIH content;
George Alter, Vilja Hulden, and Emily Merchant for their review of a draft manuscript; y el
JIH’s editors for their suggestions and for years of friendship, mentoring, and collaboration.

© 2020 por el Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts y The Journal of Interdisciplinary
Historia, Cª, https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_a_01484

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

518

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

and long-term issues, converged in the 1950s and the 1960s to
argue for theoretical and empirical approaches that made increasing
use of quantitative materials and statistical analyses. The increased
quantification of social science, and the ever-greater capacity for
computation both encouraged and enabled this transformation,
which has continued throughout the last half-century and longer
as computational technology improved. Along the way, investigadores
have increased the size of their data sets, the sophistication of their
statistical analysis, and the breadth of topics that they engage,
moving from analysis of elections and legislators to large samples
of census data and to integration with spatial and environmental
información, all with ever-growing computational requirements.1

The development of quantitative approaches to historical re-
search and analysis was not without its critics, and its experience has
not been one of continuous growth. As early as 1962, Bridenbaugh
criticized quantitative approaches in his presidential address to the
American Historical Association, alongside his argument that
urban-born historians (probably a euphemism for immigrants and
their children) were unable to understand American life. Piedra
raised a different point in his 1979 artículo, “The Revival of Narra-
tivo,” in which he challenged the change of argument in historical
publications away from a narrative organization to one that dealt
with structures and questions, and the need for historical discourse
to return to arguments that were largely temporal. More recently,
Sewell eloquently described his own journey into and out of quan-
titative approaches, arguing for the value of what he calls cultural
strategies drawn from anthropology.2

Whatever the nature of the criticism, the hopes for quan-
titative approaches have not been achieved in the broader field

1 Margo Anderson, “Quantitative History,” in William Outhwaite and Stephen P. Tornero
(editores.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (Thousand Oaks, 2007), 248–264; Allan
GRAMO. Bogue, Clio & the Bitch Goddess: Quantification in American Political History (Beverly Hills,
1983); Jan de Vries, “Changing the Narrative: The New History That Was and Is to Come,"
JIH, XLVIII (2018), 313–334; William H. Sewell, Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social
Transformation (chicago, 2005); Steven Ruggles and Diana L. Magnuson, “The History of
Quantification in History: The JIH as a Case Study,” JIH, l (2020), 363–382.
2 Carl Bridenbaugh, “The Great Mutation,” American Historical Review, LXVIII (1963),
315–331; Lawrence Stone, “The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History,"
Past & Present (1979), 3–24. For comments and reactions, see Eric J. Hobsbawm, “The Revival
of Narrative: Some Comments,” Past & Present (1980), 3–8; de Vries, “Changing the Narrative”;
Sewell, Logics of History.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 519

of historical research. Although there is still plenty of research pub-
lished each year that makes use of quantitative data and methods, él
never succeeded in becoming a dominant force among North
American historians. The amount and importance of that research
have probably diminished since the 1980s, except in certain sub-
fields, particularly those that align with social-scientific approaches,
like historical demography and economic history, which continue
to animate the history of quantitative approaches to historical re-
buscar. The movement that began in the 1950s has persisted in
some ways but has flagged in others, especially in North America,
although Ruggles and Magnuson note a resurgence of quantitative
history in recent years.3

Although not exclusively engaged by quantitative approaches,
the JIH has from its very beginning supported the effort to quan-
tify historical evidence. This article looks at that history, both on
its own, and in the context of broader developments in historical
methodology. It asks how the JIH engaged with, and published,
articles that used quantitative data, how that engagement and pub-
lication has changed over nearly fifty years, and how developments
in the JIH are related to broader changes in the presentation of
historical data. Looked at through the lens of the JIH, quantitative
methods in interdisciplinary history have both changed drama-
tically during the past fifty years and stayed remarkably the same.
Such is the story told in this article. It examines the ways in which
quantitative approaches appear in the corpus of articles published
in the JIH and the ways in which they fit into the larger pattern of
how quantitative approaches to historical scholarship developed
throughout that same long period of time.

The argument revolves around three elements. The first two
are the rise and fall of quantitative methods in historical research—
a fact that the broader history summarized above already shows.
To what extent did quantitative approaches change over time,
both in terms of their proportion of articles in the JIH and in
the kinds of methods that they employ? Although the proportion
of quantitative articles published in the journal has not declined
noticeably over time, some attributes of the publication record
have changed substantially, in both interesting and important
maneras. That discovery entails looking beyond the proportion of

3 Ruggles and Magnuson, “The History of Quantification in History.”

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

520

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

articles that are quantitative and the methods that they use to
the topics covered and some characteristics of their provenance—
especially the number of authors, their place in the profession, y
the country where they work—to relate changes in the nature of
quantitative methods to transformations in the professions of his-
torical research, and in the character of the JIH itself.

THE JIH CORPUS The JIH has published 948 items in its first 49
volumes, not including review essays, book reviews, and correc-
tions for errata. Mesa 1 classifies those 948 items into five catego-
ries, reflecting the journal’s mix of content. The single largest
group of published items (779 in all, o 82 por ciento) are the research
articles—a category that combines both mainline articles and re-
search notes and includes content that is both substantive and
metodológico, and articles that appeared in special topical issues
or in general issues. Because research notes have appeared with di-
minished frequency in recent years, and represent a mix of sub-
stantive and methodological research, this article does not
attempt to distinguish them.

One of the special characteristics of the JIH is its relatively
frequent practice of publishing topical issues, which began with
its first volume, continued through a series based on conferences
organized by the editors, and culminates (to this point) with top-
ical numbers organized by specialists in a field. These special issues
generally included an introduction and sometimes comments on

Mesa 1 Type of Article, by Decade, Excluding Reviews and Errata

TYPE

Introduction to
special issue
Research articles
(including methods)
Synthetic articles

Comments on research
or synthetic articles
Comentario &
Controversy
Total

1970S 1980S 1990S 2000S 2010S TOTAL

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.

6
2.9

171
82.2
9
4.3
1
0.5
21
10.1
208

7
2.6

198
74.7
32
12.1
13
4.9
15
5.7

265

2
1.1

157
86.7
1
0.6
0
0.0
21
11.6
181

4
2.8

125
86.8
4
2.8
8
5.6
3
2.1

144

6
4.0

128
85.3
6
4.0
0
0.0
10
6.7

150

25
2.6

779
82.2
52
5.5
22
2.3
70
7.4

948

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 521

Mesa 2 Quantitative Analysis in JIH Articles by Decade (Research and

Methods Only)

1970S

1980S

1990S

2000S

2010S

TOTAL

Not quantitative

Quantitative

Total

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

63
36.8
108
63.2
171

63
31.8
135
68.2
198

64
40.8
93
59.2
157

57
45.6
68
54.4
125

32
25.0
96
75.0
128

279
35.8
500
64.2
779

the articles. The editors also published responses to articles and
reviews, and replies to those responses, under the category of
“Comment and Controversy.” Finally, this article classifies a small
group of publications as “synthetic” articles, each more a synthesis
and evaluation of prior literature than original research.4

The distribution of articles between quantitative and non-
quantitative (Mesa 2) has also changed over the years. An article
is classified as quantitative if it contained quantitative information,
drew conclusions from those data, and made use of the data
beyond one or two context-setting tables or graphs reporting

4 For introductions to special issues, see Jordi Martí-Henneberg and Daniel A. Tirado-Fabregat,
"Introducción: A New Look at the Origins of Economic Growth and Regional Inequality,” JIH,
XLIX (2018), 1–8; Theodore K. Rabb and Robert I. Rotberg, “History and Religion: Interpre-
tation and Illumination,” ibid., XXIII (1993), 445–451; ídem, "Introducción: Reevaluating the
Reformation: A Symposium,” ibid., 1 (1971), 379–380; for an example of a comment, Dennis
Romano, “Commentary: Why Opera? The Politics of an Emerging Genre,” ibid., XXXVI
(2006), 401–409. For a good example of the interdisciplinary dynamic at work in “Comment
and Controversy,” see Jerome Kroll and Bernard S. Bachrach, “Medieval Dynastic Decisions:
Evolutionary Biology and Historical Explanation,” ibid., XXI (1990), 1–28; the comment—Sumit
Guha, “Sociobiology and Human Social Behavior,” ibid., XXIII (1993), 849–853; y el
response—Kroll and Bachrach, “Sociobiology and Human Social Behavior: A Reply,” ibid.,
XXIII (1993), 854–857. For examples of synthetic articles, see Rabb, "Introducción: The Persis-
tence of the “Crisis,” ibid., XL (2009), 145–150; de Vries, “The Economic Crisis of the Seven-
teenth Century after Fifty Years,” ibid., 151–194; Anne E. C. McCants, “Historical Demography
and the Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,” ibid., 195–214; Peter Burke, “The Crisis in the Arts of
the Seventeenth Century: A Crisis of Representation?” ibid., 239–261; for synthetic articles in the
special issue, “Biography and History: Inextricably Woven” (XL:3), Rotberg, “Preface: Biography
and History,” ibid. (2010), vii–vii; ídem, “Biography and Historiography: Mutual Evidentiary and
Interdisciplinary Considerations,” ibid., 305–324; Janet Browne, “Making Darwin: Biography and
the Changing Representations of Charles Darwin,” ibid., 347–373; Lucy Riall, “The Shallow End
of History? The Substance and Future of Political Biography,” ibid., 375–397; Susan Ware,
“Writing Women’s Lives: One Historian’s Perspective,” ibid., 413–435.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

522

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

information published elsewhere. En general, nearly two-thirds of all
research and methods articles had quantitative content, pero el
proportion varied from decade to decade. The journal published
the smallest proportion of quantitative material in the 1990s and
2000s, but a sharp rebound occurred in the 2010s, when quantita-
tive content appeared in three-fourths of the 128 articles published
thus far. This interesting and important change merits further dis-
cussion later in this article.

A number of forces led to the smaller number of quantitative
articles in the 1990s and 2000s, and the resurgence in the 2010s.
Part of this change is a consequence of the reduction in interest—
especially among North American scholars—in quantitative ap-
proaches after the 1980s. Another part is a function of choices
that the editors made, specifically by organizing topical journal
issues with a small number of quantitative articles during those
años (especially one on social capital in 1999 and one on poverty
and charity in 2005). A third, highly correlated part comes from a
surge in articles, especially quantitative articles, from authors out-
side North America and the United Kingdom. That surge is a
function of what appears to be a combination of declining submis-
sions from North America and the United Kingdom and increased
interest in quantitative approaches outside those areas. The extent
of the change in the region where authors based their work will be
examined later.5

INTERDISCIPLINARY QUANTITATIVE METHODS SINCE 1970 Quantita-
tive methods in historical research have changed significantly since
the JIH first appeared in 1970, as is evident in the articles that the
journal published. Todavía, and probably not surprisingly, the content
of the journal (an average of about ten articles per year in the past
decade) cannot represent all academic publishing on historical
temas, but it can give us hints. By scrutinizing that content and
the various quantitative approaches therein, we can make infer-
ences about the evolution of quantitative methods in historical re-
search generally, as well as about the journal more specifically.
Although the change in quantitative methods is not linear, el

See the special issues “Patterns of Social Capital: Stability and Change in Comparative
5
Perspective,” JIH, XXIX (1999), 339–782; “Poverty and Charity: Judaism, Christianity, y
Islam,” ibid., XXXVI (2005), 347–522.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 523

four distinct elements in the development of quantitative methods
for interdisciplinary historical research are at least partly visible in
the JIH. These elements overlap in ways that could support a more
complex argument, but for the purposes of this study, this struc-
ture works well.

The first element is one that continues throughout the forty-
nine-year experience of the journal—the use of descriptive sta-
tistics, expressed in tables, graphs, and maps, or computed as an
índice, such as the Gini Index of inequality or something derived
from core demographic methods, such as a birth or death rate. El
second element emerged as technology changed and researchers
elevated their competencies and raised their expectations about
the articles that they read. This second stage saw new strategies
for managing data, especially for projects that involved multiple
sources of information. The third element is the adoption of
new statistical approaches, including more sophisticated sampling
strategies and an increase in the use of inferential statistics such
as correlation and regression, followed by the introduction of spa-
tial statistics to supplement simpler spatial approaches such as map-
ping. One of the interesting intersections in this history is the
contrast between the continued development of quantitative
methods, which has shown significant advances, and the fact that
overall interest in quantitative methods, especially in the United
States and Canada, has declined.

The fourth element, which is coming to the fore today, signals
opportunities for the future. The academic discipline of history has
begun to confront new sources of data, with new quantities of infor-
formación. More and more historical research is reliant on “big data,” as
it has come to be called, as well as on new approaches to traditional
sources (such as newspapers) under the rubric of “digital history” or
“digital humanities.” These new developments are starting to break
the mold in which the JIH was forged. The rise of big data has
moved quantitative methods beyond inferential statistics; with a uni-
verse of data at the ready, researchers do not need to infer the char-
acteristics of a population from those of a sample. Además, el
increasing interest in the digital humanities has broadened the context
in which quantitative methods can flourish, most notably by adopting
humanistic interpretations instead of defaulting to social-science
theory and methods. The journal has just begun to see these kinds
of sources, but what has been published is a glimpse into the future,

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

524
with the understanding that the JIH’s conception of what is inter-
disciplinary will continue to evolve.

ARTICLE SUBJECT MATTER AND QUANTITATIVE CONTENT The con-
tent of the JIH is wonderfully diverse. Topics range from art his-
tory to urban history, with many other fields of historical study
dotting the landscape. Mesa 3 displays the range of topics included
en el 779 research and methods articles published in the journal’s
first forty-nine volumes. The table is vastly simplified from the
reality of the journal’s content. The articles categorized as religion
are generally about religion, but those categorized as the arts include
the fine arts, música (including opera), y arquitectura. The cate-
gory labeled “social history, estado, movilidad & capital” is especially
diverse, both in content and method, including more kinds of social
analysis than just those named. Even with such large groupings, el
total is eighteen categories, plus a residual. The number of articles in
each category ranges from 9 (military and spatial & transportation) a
130 (economic labor-force history); the largest categories are eco-
nomic & labor-force (16.7 percent of the total); demographic
(13.4 por ciento); social history, estado & movilidad (12.1 por ciento); polit-
ical (9.1 por ciento); and family (7.3 por ciento).

The number and percentage of articles in any given category
vary considerably from decade to decade—a function of changing
historical tastes as well as the organization of conferences organized
by the editors or topical issues that focused a decade’s publication
in one direction or another. Some of the original topics in the jour-
nal have rapidly or slowly declined in importance—for example,
psychohistory (7.6 percent of articles in the 1970s but never more
than 1.6 percent thereafter), family history (de 12.3 por ciento a
1.6 por ciento), or political history (de 11.7 por ciento a 5.5 por ciento)—
whereas others have held their ground, including economic and
labor history, demographic history, and a combined category
called “health, medicine & nutrition” in this study.

The number of articles in some fields of study has ebbed and
flowed, possibly reflecting changes in academic interest but more
likely as a result of the choice of special topical issues, such as in-
ternational relations in the 1980s, the arts in the 1980s and the
2000s, or religion in the 1990s. All the same, many of the fields
that maintained their numbers through the years have also been
buoyed by conferences and topical issues, including social mobility

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

l
A
t
oh
t

S
0
1
0
2

S
0
0
0
2

S
0
9
9
1

S
0
8
9
1

S
0
7
9
1

3
.
3

9
.
4

1
.
2
1

5
3

5
.
4

3
2

0
.
3

6
.
2

0
2

4
9

8
3

6
2

4
.
3
1

4
0
1

0
3
1

7
.
6
1

7
5

3
.
7

4
4

5
6
.
5

8
.
7

6

7
.
4

7

5
.
5

7
.
1
1

5
1

7
.
4

6

0
1

4

1
.
3

1
1

6
.
8

1
3

6
.
1

2

2
.
4
2

1
1

6
.
8

2
.
3

4

2
.
1
1

8
1

4
.
4
1

4
1

6
.
1

2

0
.
4

5

1

8
.
0

8
1

0
.
6
1

0
2

4
.
4
1

6
.
5

8

7

4
.
6

5
.
4

7

6
.
0

1

5
.
8
1

9
2

9
.
1

3

8

1
.
5

6
.
0

1

2
.
7
1

7
2

4
.
3
1

4
1

1
2

9
.
8

7

5
.
4

0
.
0

0

1
.
6

5
1

6
.
7

4
1

2
1

1
.
7

4

0
.
2

0
.
2

4

7
.
4
1

7
.
0
2

3
1

6
.
6

1
4

7
1

6
.
8

9
2

9
.
2

5

9
.
2

5

6
.
4
1

5
2

6
.
0

1

0
.
0

0

9
.
5

1
.
1
1

9
1

0
1

9
.
9

3
.
2
1

1
2

7
1

6
.
0

1

mi
D
A
C
mi
D

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

yo
a
t
i
pag
a
C
&
y
t
i
yo
i
b
oh
metro

,
s
tu
t
a
t
s

,
y
r
oh
t
s
i
h

yo
a
i
C
oh
S

mi
r
tu
t
yo
tu
C
i
r
gramo
a
/
t
norte
mi
metro
norte
oh
r
i
v
norte
mi
/
mi
t
a

metro

i
yo

C

)
s
mi
yo
C
i
t
r
a

9

norte
a
h
t

r
mi
w
mi
F
(

r
mi
h
t
oh

yo
yo

A

s
t
r

A

norte
oh
i
t
i
r
t
tu
norte
&
mi
norte
i
C
i

d
mi
metro

,

h
t
yo
a
mi
h

mi
C
r
oh
F
–
r
oh
b
a
yo

&
C
i
metro
oh
norte
oh
C
mi

y
yo
i

metro
a
F

mi
C
i
t
s
tu

j

&
mi
metro

i
r

C

y
r
oh
t
s
i
h

yo
a
r
tu
t
yo
tu
C

C
i
h
pag
a
r
gramo
oh
metro
mi
D

)
y
yo
norte
oh

s
mi
yo
C
i
t
r

A

yo

y
gramo
oh
oh
d
oh
h
t
mi

METRO
d
norte
a

h
C
r
a
mi
s
mi
R

(

norte
oh
i
t
a
C
i
yo
b
tu
PAG

F
oh

mi
d
a
C
mi
D
y
b

,

h
C
r
a
mi
s
mi
R

F
oh

d
yo
mi
i
F

3

mi
yo
b
a
t

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

l
A
t
oh
t

S
0
1
0
2

S
0
0
0
2

S
0
9
9
1

S
0
8
9
1

S
0
7
9
1

mi
D
A
C
mi
D

6
.
2

0
2

8
2

9
5
.
3

2
.
1

9

1
.
9

3
.
2

8
1

8
1

3
.
2

1
7

8
1

3
.
2

2
.
1

9

2
.
2

7
1

8
.
0

6
.
1

2

3
.
2

3

1

7

5
.
5

8
.
0

3
.
2

0
.
0

6

7
.
4

6
.
1

2

0

3

1

8
.
0

0
.
0

0

6
.
1

2

1

9

2
.
7

2

6
.
1

6
.
1

2
.
3

4

2

0

0

8

4
.
6

3
.
1

3
.
1

2

6
.
0

1

2

2
.
0
1

6
1

0
.
0

2
.
3

5

0

1
1

0
.
7

2

3
.
1

0
.
0

0

1
.
7

0
.
2

4

5
.
0

1

4
1

9
1

6
.
9

2

0
.
1

0
.
2

4

5
.
0

1

5
.
0

5
.
1

3

1

2
.
1

2

7
.
1
1

0
2

2
.
1

2

7
.
1
1

3
1

0
2

6
.
7

4

3
.
2

8
.
1

0

0
.
0

2

3
.
2

4

9
7
7

0
0
1

8
2
1

0
0
1

5
2
1

0
0
1

7
5
1

0
0
1

8
9
1

0
0
1

1
7
1

0
0
1

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

q
mi
r
F

)
d
mi
tu
norte
i
t
norte
oh
C

(

3

mi
yo
b
a
t

s
norte
oh
i
t
a
yo
mi
r

yo
a
norte
oh
i
t
a
norte
r
mi
t
norte
I

yo

y
gramo
oh
oh
d
oh
h
t
mi

METRO

y
r
oh
t
s
i
h
oh
h
C
y
s
PAG

y
r
mi
v
a
yo
s

&
mi
C
a
R

norte
oh
i
gramo
i
yo
mi
R

y
r
a
t
i
yo
i

METRO

yo
a
C
i
t
i
yo

oh
PAG

norte
oh
i
t
a
t
r
oh
pag
s
norte
a
r
t

&

yo
a
i
t
a
pag
S

norte
a
b
r
Ud.

yo
a
t
oh
t

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 527

and social capital, climate history, demographic topics, and health
and nutrition.6

Articles in different fields of study (Mesa 4) had different
levels of quantitative content, ranging from one or two articles
(letras, international relations, psychohistory, and religion), to three-
fourths or more of all articles (climate/environment/agriculture,
crime & justice, demographic, económico & labor-force, método-
ology, política, y espacial & transportation). Más interesante,
sin embargo, is the extent to which the journal has consistently pub-
lished a mix of quantitative and qualitative articles even in fields in
which much of the interest has been quantitative—notably, en el
varied social-history topics (42.6 percent not quantitative), familia
historia (29.8 percent not quantitative), salud, medicine & nutri-
ción (45.5 percent not quantitative), and race & slavery (33.3 por-
cent not quantitative). This introduction helps us to understand
the starting point for quantitative methods, and the long stability
in descriptive findings based on quantitative data.

THE STARTING POINT: USING QUANTIFIABLE DATA AS HISTORICAL
EVIDENCE The starting point for understanding the use of quan-
titative methods in historical research and publication is based on
the fact that the most common forms of quantitative analysis and
data display included in JIH articles are the simplest—descriptive
tables, graphs, and maps, which represent tabulations of sums; dis-
tributions (medians, quartiles, etc.); or averages of data collected or
transcribed by the authors and their research assistants and col-
laborators. Even with changes in technology and the availability
of more sophisticated statistical tools, virtually every quantitative
article in the first forty-nine volumes utilizes these descriptive
estrategias. To the extent that authors venture further, they employ

6 The special topical issues in the fields mentioned are “The Origin and Prevention of
Major Wars,” JIH, XVIII (1988), 581–925; “The Evidence of Art: Images and Meaning
in History,” ibid., XVII (1986), 1–310; “Opera and Society,” ibid., XXXVI (2006), 319–738;
“Religion and History,” ibid., XXIII (1993), 445–660; “Social Mobility in Past Time,” ibid.,
VII (1976), 191–373; “History and Climate,” ibid., X (1980); “Hunger and History: The Impact
of Changing Food Production and Consumption Patterns on Society,” ibid., XIV (1983),
199–534; “Population and Economy: From the Traditional to the Modern World,” ibid.,
XV (1985), 561–779; “Patterns of Social Capital”; “Before the Pill: Preventing Fertility in
Western Europe and Quebec,” ibid., XXXIV (2003), 141–314; “Poverty and Charity”;
“Fertility, Mortality, and Family Formation during the Demographic Transistion,” ibid.,
XLII (2012), 503–675.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Mesa 4 Quantitative Articles by Field of Research (Research and Methodology

Articles Only)

NOT QUANTITATIVE QUANTITATIVE

TOTAL

All other (fewer than
9 artículos)
Arts

Social history, estado,
movilidad & capital
Climate/environment/
agricultura
Crime & justice

Cultural history

Demographic

Económico &
labor-force
Family

Salud, medicine
& nutrition
International relations

Metodología

Militar

Político

Psychohistory

Carrera & slavery

Religión

Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent

Espacial & transportation Freq

Urban

Total

Percent
Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent

16
61.5
37
97.4
40
42.6
6
17.1
5
21.7
10
50.0
10
9.6
22
16.9
17
29.8
20
45.5
19
95.0
7
25.0
3
33.3
16
22.5
16
88.9
6
33.3
17
94.4
0
0.0
12
70.6
279
35.8

10
38.5
1
2.6
54
57.5
29
82.9
18
78.3
10
50.0
94
90.4
108
83.1
40
70.2
24
54.5
1
5.0
21
75.0
6
66.7
55
77.5
2
11.1
12
66.7
1
5.6
9
100.0
5
29.4
500
64.2

26

38

94

35

23

20

104

130

57

44

20

28

9

71

18

18

18

9

17

779

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 529

relatively straightforward strategies for creating derivative indexes
from the raw data, most commonly those found in the demogra-
pher’s toolkit.

This consistency in the use of descriptively presented data
contradicts a counter-argument that appeared by the end of the
1970s, suggesting that what were then new historical research
strategies had run their course, as vividly presented in Stone’s
1979 artículo, “The Revival of Narrative.” Stone and others were
mistaken both because researchers found quantitative evidence es-
sential for some studies, and because quantitative evidence was not
ever going to be a substitute for other historical sources. Early
adopters were able to document changing conditions of life and
expressions of opinion through practices like voting in elections
and legislatures by mobilizing quantifiable information that could
be tabulated and represented efficiently and convincingly. Stone’s
complaint, después de todo, was more about the change of argument in
historical publications away from a narrative organization to one
that dealt with structures and questions, and the need for historical
discourse to return to arguments that were largely temporal.
Sin embargo, at the scale of the academic article, quantitative ev-
idence usually stands on its own, supporting an argument that is
thematic, structural, and interdisciplinary, and only infrequently
mixing quantitative and qualitative sources. What had changed
in the 1960s, and has continued to change ever since, is the avail-
ability of new technology that made it easier to manage data for
historical research and to tabulate and analyze those data for the
purposes of drawing conclusions and testing hypotheses.7

The role of descriptive presentations of data is clear in the cor-
pus of the journal. Much of the quantitative evidence presented in
the JIH is straightforward, essentially counts or sums of items col-
lected from a traditional source, such as wills or city directories, o
copied from published data, such as the census. The first substan-
tive article, in the first issue, is Thernstrom and Knights’ “Men in
Motion: Some Data and Speculations about Urban Population
Mobility in Nineteenth-Century America,” with tables of migra-
tion data; the next-to-last article in Volume XLIX is Li, Shelach-
Lavi, and Ellenblum’s “Short-Term Climatic Catastrophes and the

Piedra, “Revival of Narrative.” For comments and reactions, see Hobsbawm, “Revival of

7
Narrative: Some Comments”; de Vries, “Changing the Narrative.”

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

530
Collapse of the Liao Dynasty (907–1125): Textual Evidence,” with
rich graphical representations of climate and societal change de-
signed to support an argument about their relationships. Between
those examples are many others (cerca de 500 in all). Good examples
of one prominent category of analysis, the use of probate inven-
tories to capture wealth inequality, are Nash’s “Urban Wealth and
Poverty in Pre-Revolutionary America” (volume VI), which exam-
ines the ways that Boston’s poor differed from its rich; Shammas’
“How Self-Sufficient Was Early America?" (volume XIII), cual
looks at evidence in probates for the tools that allowed families to
be self-sufficient; and Urdank’s “The Consumption of Rental
Property: Gloucestershire Plebeians and the Market Economy,
1750–1860” (volume XXI), which examines the likelihood of
rural testators owning rental property in England in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (and uses both descriptive statistics and
regression analysis).8

In addition to the descriptive presentation of quantitative ev-
idence, authors throughout the journal’s history have often found
it necessary to manipulate the data to produce a well-understood
índice, statistic, or indicator. One of the most common indicators
that appears in the historical and contemporary literature about so-
cial inequality is the Gini coefficient, which allows researchers to
compare the extent of economic inequality; it fits well with the
research based on wills or probates just discussed. These measures
are represented in the JIH corpus by, Por ejemplo, Warden’s study
of Boston (volume VI) and Main’s study of Massachusetts and
Maryland (volume VII), in the context of a wide variety of data
about early America. Valuable as the Gini Index is, demographic
rates and ratios, plus the life table, are the most common set of
constructed indicators in quantitative historical research. Tal como,
they are well represented in the JIH. These methods appear as
early as Wells’ “Demographic Change and the Life Cycle of

Stephan Thernstrom and Peter R. Knights, “Men in Motion: Some Data and Speculations
8
About Urban Population Mobility in Nineteenth-Century America,” JIH, 1 (1970), 7–35;
Yali Li, Gideon Shelach-Lavi, and Ronnie Ellenblum, “Short-Term Climatic Catastrophes
and the Collapse of the Liao Dynasty (907–1125): Textual Evidence,” ibid., XLIX (2019),
591–610; Gary B. Nash, “Urban Wealth and Poverty in Pre-Revolutionary America,” ibid.,
VI (1976), 545–584; Carole Shammas, “How Self-Sufficient Was Early America?” ibid., XIII
(1982), 247–272; Albion M. Urdank, “The Consumption of Rental Property: Gloucestershire
Plebeians and the Market Economy, 1750–1860,” ibid., XXI (1990), 261–281.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 531

Mesa 5 Use of Core Demographic Methods, by Decade (Research and

Methods Articles)

DECADE 1970S 1980S 1990S 2000S 2010S TOTAL

No core demographic
methods used
Core demographic
methods used
Total

Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent

92
85.2
16
14.8
108

117
86.7
18
13.3
135

73
78.5
20
21.5
93

57
83.8
11
16.2
68

87
90.6
9
9.4
96

426
85.2
74
14.8
500

SOURCE JIH Content Database. In this article, core demographic methods are defined as birth,
death, marriage, and migration rates; infant mortality and illegitimacy rates (which are actually
ratios); and the life table.

American Families” (volume II), and as recently as Bonneuil and
Fursa’s “Learning Hygiene: Mortality Patterns by Religion in the
Don Army Territory (Southern Russia), 1867–1916” (volumen
XLVII).9

As Table 4 muestra, research about historical populations and
families together constitute a significant part of the JIH corpus
(roughly one in five of all 779 artículos, and an even larger fraction
of all articles that include quantitative evidence). Apenas 15 por-
cent of all quantitative articles feature core demographic measures
as a primary indicator (Mesa 5), a figure that would be higher if
articles with inferential statistics based on those demographic measures
were the primary method. The distribution of articles that use core
demographic methods over time is also included in Table 5, cual
shows their relatively high representation, peaking in the 1990s
and declining in the 2010s as the journal moved to other topics.

The main point in this discussion is that quantitative methods
have been consistently employed in the journal from its founding
to the most recent issues, and that the most common methods
have been the most straightforward—descriptive tables, graphs,
and maps, and indexes computed and presented in a way that is
readily understandable to readers. These patterns should not
surprise us, but they should show the significant stability in the

9 GRAMO. B. Warden, “Inequality and Instability in Eighteenth-Century Boston: A Reappraisal,"
JIH, VI (1976), 585–620; Gloria L. Main, “Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from
Probate Records of Massachusetts and Maryland,” ibid., VII (1977), 559–581; Robert V.
Wells, “Demographic Change and the Life Cycle of American Families,” ibid., II (1971),
273–282; Noël Bonneuil and Elena Fursa, “Learning Hygiene: Mortality Patterns by Religion
in the Don Army Territory (Southern Russia), 1867–1916,” ibid., XLVII (2017), 287–332.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

532

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

quantitative methods presented in the journal, as they are in the
rest of the general-purpose historical literature.

CHANGING TECHNOLOGY: NEW WAYS TO MANAGE INFORMATION AND
THE MOVE FROM DESCRIPTIVE TO INFERENTIAL STATISTICS The
emergence and continued importance of quantitative approaches
to historical writing in the JIH and other publications is tightly
linked to the availability and improvement of computing technol-
ogia, both hardware and software. The work of historical re-
searchers who have learned how to use these new technologies
is reflected in the journal, especially in the early years. From its
inception, the JIH published articles, reviews, and research notes
employing and otherwise dealing with quantitative methods; a
series of articles and reviews in its early issues chronicled the
development of quantitative methods, the use of computers, y
the opportunities for new insights. Those articles and reviews set
the tone for the following years. After the early volumes, basic
methods appeared less frequently in the journal as they became
more widespread, and other publishing venues emerged. By that
punto, the explanation of methods had become integrated within
articles that were primarily substantive in their content.10

Much of the discussion about methods in the journal and
other publications focused on how to manage data. The classic ex-
ample of a challenge to data management is record linkage, a topic
that shows up in the journal’s first issue in an article by Winchester
and later in an article about sampling by Phillips in volume IX.
This subject has been absent from the journal ever since, a pesar de
an upsurge in interest in record-linkage approaches due to new
volumes of data and new technologies. Articles about managing
data and incorporating new technologies have appeared sporadi-
cally in the journal, most visibly in a couple of articles about

10 For methodological publications in the early years, see Ian Winchester, “The Linkage of
Historical Records by Man and Computer: Techniques and Problems,” JIH, 1 (1970), 107–124;
Stephen E. Fienberg, “A Statistical Technique for Historians: Standardizing Tables of Counts,” ibid.
(1971), 305–315; mi. Terrence Jones, “Ecological Inference and Electoral Analysis,” ibid., II (1972),
249–262; Michael B. katz, “Occupational Classification in History,” ibid., III (1972), 63–88; j.
Morgan Kousser, “Ecological Regression and the Analysis of Past Politics,” ibid., IV (1973),
237–262; Robert P. Swierenga, “Computers and Comparative History,” ibid., V (1974),
267–286; Richard Jensen, “The Microcomputer Revolution for Historians,” ibid., XIV
(1983), 91–111. By volume XIII, Rabb could write a methodological synthesis, “The Devel-
opment of Quantification in Historical Research,” ibid., XIII (1983), 591–601.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 533

capture-recapture approaches, but as historical research has
evolved, this theme has not been one of the JIH’s primary focuses.
Managing data and dealing with technology have moved to more
specialized journals, such as Historical Methods (successor to the
Historical Methods Newsletter), and to specialized books about
computers and data management for historical research.11

Even though specific articles about the use of computers or
the manipulation of complex data are no longer published in
the journal, the fruits of that work continue to appear. In many
casos, linked records lead to longitudinal data collections that allow
researchers to follow the experiences of a person, a family, or even
a piece of property over time, capturing its experiences and its re-
sponses to internal and external stimuli. Many social and spatial-
mobility studies have used linked data (as did Thernstrom and
Knights in the first volume). One of the most widely discussed
record-linkage activities is family reconstitution, which has gener-
ated numerous longitudinal data collections, and multiple articles
in the JIH over the years. Family reconstitution and its extensions
(Por ejemplo, research using a mix of sources beyond church reg-
isters or continuous registers of population) lend themselves to a
variety of analytical approaches, starting with core demographic
rates and the life table but also statistical regression models with

11 These early articles were specifically about computers and methods: Swierenga, “Com-
puters and Comparative History”; Jensen, “The Microcomputer Revolution for Historians.”
For record linkage in the JIH, see Ian Winchester, “The Linkage of Historical Records by
Man and Computer: Techniques and Problems,” JIH, I (1970), 107–124; Juan A.. Phillips,
“Achieving a Critical Mass While Avoiding an Explosion: Letter-Cluster Sampling and Nom-
inal Record Linkage,” ibid., IX (1979), 493–508; for more recent record linkage literature,
published elsewhere, Martha Bailey et al., “How Well Do Automated Linking Methods Per-
forma? Lessons from U.S. Historical Data,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
Serie, No. 24019 (2017), disponible en https://www.nber.org/papers/w24019; Angela R.
Cunningham, “After ‘It’s Over over There’: Using Record Linkage to Enable the Recon-
struction of World War I Veterans’ Demography from Soldiers’ Experiences to Civilian Pop-
ulaciones,” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, LI (2018),
203–229; Gerrit Bloothooft et al. (editores.), Population Reconstruction (2015), disponible en https://
www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319198835; for capture-recapture, Julie M. Flavell and
Gordon Hay, “Using Capture-Recapture Methods to Reconstruct the American Population
in London,” JIH, XXXII (2001), 37–53; Gidon Cohen, Lewis Mates, and Andrew Flinn,
“Capture-Recapture Methods and Party Activism in Britain,” ibid., XLIII (2012), 247–274;
for general sources of quantitative methods for historians, Charles H. Feinstein and Mark
tomás, Making History Count: A Primer in Quantitative Methods for Historians (Nueva York,
2002).

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

534

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

various names, including proportional-hazards models and event-
history regression.12

Beginning in the 1990s, these more advanced methods of
longitudinal data analysis began to appear in the journal, de este modo
connecting the second element in the conceptualization above (im-
proved computation) with the third (advanced statistical methods),
primarily correlation and regression. Van Poppel’s 1998 article in
volume XXVIIII uses proportional-hazards regression models to
show the factors that were most important in determining the tim-
ing and extent of remarriage for Dutch widows, widowers, and di-
vorcees. The upshot was that most people remarried but that their
chances of remarriage varied by sex (men more than women), edad
(younger women most likely to remarry), religión, and the causes of
the previous marriage’s dissolution (divorcees were likely to re-
marry, even more than the widowed). A steady flow of articles
based on these data and methods followed, even a complete special
issue (which I co-edited)—“Fertility, Mortality, and Family For-
mation during the Demographic Transition”—with six articles
about fertility, mortality, and child abandonment in Europe and
the United States.13

The appearance of regression-based techniques in demo-
graphic analysis in the 1990s is part of a longer-term trend in the
JIH and elsewhere, in which an increasing proportion of quantita-
tive articles make use of advanced and multivariate statistical tech-
niques, often extending to the area of inferential statistics in which

12 For the connections between family reconstitution and event-history analysis, ver
Gutmann and George Alter, “Family Reconstitution as Event-History Analysis,” in David
Sven Reher and Roger Schofield (editores.), Old and New Methods in Historical Demography
(Nueva York, 1993), 159–177; for work on longitudinal analysis, Peter A. Baskerville and Kris
mi. Inwood (editores.), Lives in Transition: Longitudinal Analysis from Historical Sources (Montréal,
2015).
13 Frans van Poppel, “Nineteenth-Century Remarriage Patterns in the Netherlands,” JIH,
XXVIII (1998), 343–383. See also from the special issue, Nora Bohnert et al., “Offspring Sex
Preference in Frontier America,” ibid., XLII (2012), 519–541; Mathew Creighton, Christa
Matthys, and Luciana Quaranta, “Migrants and the Diffusion of Low Marital Fertility in
Bélgica,” ibid., 593–614; B. A. R. Eugercios, “Releasing Mother’s Burdens: Child Abandon-
ment and Retrieval in Madrid, 1890–1935,” ibid., 645–672; Julia A. Jennings, Allison R.
sullivan, y j. David Hacker, “Intergenerational Transmission of Reproductive Behavior
during the Demographic Transition,” ibid., 543–569; Rebecca Kippen and Sarah Walters,
“Is Sibling Rivalry Fatal? Siblings and Mortality Clustering,” ibid., 571–591; Rosella Rettaroli
and Francesco Scalone, “Reproductive Behavior during the Pre-Transitional Period: Evi-
dence from Rural Bologna,” ibid., 615–643.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 535

Mesa 6 Use of Correlation and Regression, by Decade (Research and Methods

Artículos)

DECADE

1970S

1980S

1990S

2000S

2010S

TOTAL

No correlation or
regression used
Correlation or
regression used
Total

Freq
Percent
Freq
Percent

88
81.5
20
18.5
108

101
74.8
34
25.2
135

62
66.7
31
33.3
93

37
54.4
31
45.6
68

60
62.5
36
37.5
96

348
69.6
152
30.4
500

the researchers analyzed a data sample to estimate the characteris-
tics of the milieu from which it was drawn. This information is
evident in the data of Table 6, which shows the number of re-
search and methods articles that featured correlation or regression
methods (o ambos). The number of such articles increased steadily
from the 1970s (18.5 por ciento) to the 2000s (45.6 por ciento), antes
decreasing to some extent in the journal’s content during the
2010s. The data reported in the table are simplified in a significant
way; they consolidate various approaches to regression, depending
on the structure of the data, the kind of outcome possible, y el
software used. Even with that caveat, the findings are meaningful.
The data in Table 6 show a trend, culminating in the estab-
lishment of multivariate correlation and regression as an expected
part of the toolkit that quantitatively oriented historical researchers
bring to their problems. Sin embargo, it is important to note that
the earliest issues of the journal had articles with regression and cor-
relation—Tilly’s in volume II, Kousser’s in volume IV, Vinovskis’ in
volume VI, and Luria’s in volume VII. These four articles are char-
acteristic of the journal, both early and later in its history, by the di-
versity of their subject matter—political conflict, political (voting and
legislative) análisis, población, and social status/mobility.14

The opportunities offered by new technology and innovative
forms of interdisciplinary analysis have generated new strategies for
historical research and writing, which found representation in the

14 Louise A. Tilly, “The Food Riot as a Form of Political Conflict in France,” JIH, II
(1971), 23–57; Kousser, “Ecological Regression and the Analysis of Past Politics”; Maris A.
Vinovskis, “Socioeconomic Determinants of Interstate Fertility Differentials in the United
States in 1850 and 1860,” ibid., VI (1976), 375–396; Daniel D. Luria, “Wealth, Capital, y
Fuerza: The Social Meaning of Home Ownership,” ibid., VII (1976), 261–282.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

536
JIH. Beyond an increase in advanced statistical methods, the JIH’s
interest in interdisciplinary approaches has brought a variety of
new angles. Regression was the burgeoning area of methodolog-
ical activity in the 1990s and 2000s, but spatial analysis, the envi-
ambiente, and climate were the areas of innovation in the 2010s.
Some of these new areas of emphasis required new modes of
quantitative analysis—especially spatially oriented regression and
the integration of climate data with other aspects of life—and
others required new strategies for data management and visualiza-
ción. The journal has been substantially recast in the process.15

IDENTIFYING THE WRITERS OF QUANTITATIVE HISTORY—WHERE THEY
Something interesting happened to the JIH in
LIVE AND WORK
the 2010s; Mesa 7 helps to understand what it was, distributing
el 778 research articles published in the journal by decade and
by the country of residence of the first author of each article.
The first author is the focus in this analysis, mainly because it is
not easy, nor necessarily valuable, to determine how much weight
to assign multiple authors. It is difficult to know exactly, sin embargo,
what it means to be the first author in a journal with content as
diverse as that of the JIH. Some articles follow a model in which
the first author is the one who has done the most work, but other
models exist, including the economics model that lists all authors
in alphabetical order, or the practice in some scientific labora-
tories of naming the most senior author either first or last. Eso
caveat aside, selecting the first author is no more problematic than
making some other choice. Evaluating every author somehow
might be the ideal option, but it is difficult, to the point of being
prohibitive.

Ver, Por ejemplo, the special issue “Railways, Population, and Geographical Information
15
Sistemas,” JIH, XLII (2011), 1–157. See also these articles on environmental issues: Geoff
Cunfer and Fridolin Krausmann, “Adaptation on an Agricultural Frontier: Socio-Ecological
Profiles of Great Plains Settlement, 1870–1940,” ibid., XLVI (2016), 355–392; John Haldon
et al., “The Climate and Environment of Byzantine Anatolia: Integrating Science, Historia,
and Archaeology,” ibid., XLV (2014), 113–161; Michael McCormick et al., “Climate Change
during and after the Roman Empire: Reconstructing the Past from Scientific and Historical
Evidencia,” ibid., XLIII (2012), 169–220; Ulf Buntgen and Lena Hellmann, “The Little Ice
Age in Scientific Perspective: Cold Spells and Caveats,” ibid., XLIV (2014), 353–368. Para
contexto, see Ian Gregory, Donald A. DeBats, and Donald Lafreniere (editores.), The Routledge
Companion to Spatial History (Londres, 2018); Gregory and Paul S. Ell, Historical GIS: Technol-
ojos, Methodologies, and Scholarship (Nueva York, 2007).

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 537

Mesa 7 Articles in the JIH, by Country of First Author and Decade (Investigación

Articles Only)

DECADE

1970S 1980S 1990S 2000S 2010S TOTAL

Australia/
New Zealand
Asia/Africa/Americas

Europa (includes
Pavo)
Israel

Reino Unido

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

2
1.2
2
1.2
3
1.8
0
0.0
10
5.9

3
1.5
4
2.0
10
5.1
2
1.0
14
7.1

6
3.8
3
1.9
6
3.8
7
4.5
15
9.6

United States/Canada Freq.

Total

Percent
Freq.

153
90.0
170

165
83.3
198

120
76.4
157

6
4.8
1
0.8
18
14.4
3
2.4
14
11.2
83
66.4
125

5
3.9
6
4.7
54
42.2
3
2.3
12
9.4
48
37.5
128

22
2.8
16
2.1
91
11.7
15
1.9
65
8.4

569
73.1
778

What is striking in Table 7 is the steady decline in contributions
from Canada and the United States, falling from 90 percent in the
1970s to about two-thirds in the 2000s before dropping precipi-
tously in the 2010s to little more than one-third. Al mismo tiempo,
contributions from all other regions increased, but those from
European countries, including the United Kingdom, accounted
for more than half of all articles during the most recent decade.
Mesa 8 adds more to the story by allowing us to categorize articles

Mesa 8 Quantitative Articles by Country of First Author

NOT QUANTITATIVE QUANTITATIVE TOTAL

Australia/New Zealand

Asia/Africa/Americas

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

Europa (includes Turkey) Freq.

Israel

Reino Unido

United States/Canada

Total

Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

6
27.3
4
25.0
21
23.1
7
46.7
27
41.5
214
37.6
279
35.9

16
72.7
12
75.0
70
76.9
8
53.3
38
58.5
355
62.4
499
64.1

22

16

91

15

65

569

778

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

538

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

by country and whether they are quantitative or not. Articles with
first authors from Israel, the United Kingdom, and North America
were less likely to be quantitative than those from the rest of the
world, especially from Europe.

The simplified list of regions in Table 9 shows the role of
country of origin by decade in temporal detail. Two conclusions
stand out. Primero, the United States and Canada, together with the
countries in all other regions (África, Asia, Australia, New Zealand,
and the rest of the Americas apart from the United States and Canada)
were more likely than the enlarged European region to publish
quantitative material in the 1970s and 1980s but less likely in the
1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Segundo, the upsurge in quantitative
publication during the 2010s came from all regions, the enlarged
European region being the most important contributor.

Another aspect of article authorship tells an interesting story
about the changing role of multiple authors in interdisciplinary re-
buscar, and their contributions to quantitative approaches to that re-
buscar. Larger teams of researchers are largely responsible for the
recent trends toward new varieties of interdisciplinary history with
their ever-bigger databases. Projects that require expertise in, decir, cli-
mate and environment, as well as population, might require the input
of ecologists, meteorologists, and demographers, all with a taste for
solving historical problems. Similarmente, data projects with tens or hun-
dreds of millions of cases can require a team of researchers with a mix
of expertise in data management and statistical analysis, together with
an understanding of historical context. En años recientes, the authorship,
and the content, of the journal has leaned heavily in that direction.
Mesa 10, which reports the distribution of number of authors
for JIH research and methods articles by decade, confirms that the
nature of interdisciplinary historical writing has changed over time.
The proportion of articles with a single author declined slowly from
the 1970s to the 2000s, and then fell rapidly in the 2010s, to fewer
than half of all articles. Al mismo tiempo, the number of articles with
two authors increased slowly; in the 2010s, the number of articles
with three or more authors took a dramatic leap. Mesa 11 muestra
that the relationship between number of authors and quantitative
content is also interesting. Articles in the journal with a single author
are slightly more likely to have quantitative content than not,
whereas those with two or more authors are highly likely to have
quantitative content (nearly five out of six).

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

7

6
.
3
6

4
5

3
.
8
7

9
.
2
7

5
3

t
oh
norte

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

4

4
.
6
3

5
1

7
.
1
2

1
.
7
2

3
1

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

7

0
.
0
0
1

1
.
7
5

4
.
9
4

1
4

0
2

t
oh
norte

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

0
.
0

0

9
.
2
4

6
.
0
5

2
4

5
1

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

4

4
.
4
4

9
1

9
.
7
6

3
.
8
5

0
7

t
oh
norte

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

5

6
.
5
5

9

1
.
2
3

7
.
1
4

0
5

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

6

7
.
5
8

5
1

7
.
7
5

1
.
9
6

4
1
1

t
oh
norte

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

1

3
.
4
1

1
1

3
.
2
4

9
.
0
3

1
5

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

t
oh
norte

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

5

0
.
0
0
1

8

5
.
1
6

1
.
2
6

5
9

0
.
0

5

0

5
.
8
3

9
.
7
3

8
5

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

yo
mi
a
r
s
I

t
norte
mi
C
r
mi
PAG

a
d
a
norte
a
C

.
q
mi
r
F

/
s
mi
t
a
t
S

d
mi
t
i
norte
Ud.

.
q
mi
r
F

/
mi
pag
oh
r
tu
mi
/
k
Ud.

.
q
mi
r
F

s
norte
oh
i
gramo
mi
r

r
mi
h
t
oh

s
0
1
0
2

s
0
0
0
2

s
0
9
9
1

s
0
8
9
1

s
0
7
9
1

mi
d
a
C
mi
D
d
norte
a

r
oh
h
t
tu
A

t
s
r
i
F

F
oh

y
r
t
norte
tu
oh
C
y
b

s
mi
yo
C
i
t
r

A

mi
v
i
t
a
t
i
t
norte
a
tu
q

9

mi
yo
b
a
t

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

540

| M Y R O N P. GU T M A N N

Mesa 10 Number of Authors, by Decade

DECADE

1970S

1980S

1990S

2000S

2010S

TOTAL

Single author

Two authors

Three or more
autores
Total

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

149
87.1
15
8.8
7
4.1

171

163
82.3
29
14.7
6
3.0

198

127
80.9
26
16.6
4
2.6

157

95
76.0
24
19.2
6
4.8

125

61
47.7
34
26.6
33
25.8
128

595
76.4
128
16.4
56
7.2

779

The profile of the authors who wrote articles published in the
journal is illuminating beyond the question of nationality and
number of authors. In the early years, quantitative methods seem
to have been primarily the province of younger researchers cross-
ing disciplinary boundaries, mastering the technical skills associated
with computers, and learning about statistics. Was that the case? Si
entonces, has it continued? To answer those questions, this article distills
all the different types of statuses held by the journal’s authors into
six categories. This strategy is both labor-intensive and imprecise;
the diverse nationalities of the journal’s contributors complicates
comparisons of academic status. It entails converting the position
held by each author at the time of publication, as given in each
published article, to its equivalent in the U.S. academic-status hi-
erarchy, using the best information available.

The results in Table 12 lend support to the hypothesis that
researchers earlier in their career appear to be more likely to pub-
lish quantitative work. The most significant difference is between

Mesa 11 Quantitative Articles, by Number of Authors

NOT QUANTITATIVE QUANTITATIVE

TOTAL

Single author

Two authors

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

Three or more authors Freq.

Total

Percent
Freq.
Percent

253
42.5
19
14.8
7
12.5
279
35.8

342
57.5
109
85.2
49
87.5
500
64.2

595

128

56

779

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Q U A N T I F Y I N G IN T E R D I S C I P LI N A R Y H I S T O R Y

| 541

Mesa 12 Quantitative Articles by First Author Status (Based on the U.S.

Academic Status System)

NOT QUANTITATIVE QUANTITATIVE TOTAL

Professor or equivalent

Associate professor
or equivalent
Assistant professor
or equivalent
Instructor or post-
doctoral fellow
Non-faculty (non-
academic, pure research
posición, library, archivo)
Alumno

Total

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent

133
46.0
61
33.9
49
29.0
9
28.1
22
30.6

5
13.5
279
35.8

156
54.0
119
66.1
120
71.0
23
71.9
50
69.4

32
86.5
500
64.2

289

180

169

32

72

37

779

the senior writers (A NOSOTROS. full professors) y estudiantes; others lie
roughly in the middle. That finding is interesting on its own but
difficult to interpret without taking time into account. muchos de
the authors who were students or junior faculty at the beginning
of the journal’s history have passed through the academic ranks by
now (many are retired, and some have died). Did the later senior
faculty give up their quantitative ways? Some of the answer is in
Mesa 13, which reports the distribution by decade (combining all
the non-teaching ranks because of their small numbers). The table
generally confirms that full professors were less likely to publish
quantitative articles than were all the other academic ranks, incluso
in the 2010s, when full professors were more likely to do so than
previamente, and everyone else was, también.

INTO THE FUTURE: BIG DATA AND THE NEW DIGITAL HISTORY The
world of interdisciplinary history and its quantitative elements
have changed continuously over the nearly fifty years of the JIH’s
existence. New approaches continue to emerge, and the journal
continues to both welcome and encourage them. Two fairly
new developments are worth notice. The first is the emergence
of “big data,” reflecting the availability of huge data sets that num-
ber in the tens or hundreds of millions of data items and are often

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
j
i

/

norte
h
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

yo

F
/

/

/

/

5
0
4
5
1
7
1
7
0
2
7
1
9

/
j
i

norte
h
_
a
_
0
1
4
8
4
pag
d

.

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

2
.
3
6

4
.
7
7

3
1

5
.
6
7

8
.
8
6

3
3

6
.
4
8

1
1

4
2

4
2

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

t
oh
norte

8
.
6
3

4
1

7

6
.
2
2

4

5
.
3
2

5

3
.
1
3

6

4
.
5
1

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

1
.
9
6

8
.
7
7

4
.
7
6

9
2

2
.
2
7

2
1

6
.
0
7

3
1

8
2

8
3

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

t
oh
norte

9
.
0
3

7
1

8

2
.
2
2

4
1

6
.
2
3

5

8
.
7
2

5

4
.
9
2

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

8
.
5
6

5
.
4
7

5
3

4
2

9
.
4
6

8
.
3
4

1
2

8
.
0
8

4
1

5
2

.
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

t
oh
norte

2
.
4
3

5
.
5
2

2
1

1
.
5
3

2
.
6
5

8
1

3
1

3
1

5

2
.
9
1

I

I

mi
V
t
A
t
t
norte
A
Ud.
q

5
.
2
5

1
.
7
5

7
2

0
.
5
4

8
.
0
5

0
3

2
.
5
6