LTŠeima - tai pagrindinė visuomenės ląstelė. Ją tiriant galima rasti žinių apie daugelį gyvenimo sričių ir tendencijų. Ne išimtis ir lokalinės migracijos tyrimai. Kuriant šeimą buvo migruojama nedideliais atstumais, keičiama gyvenamoji vieta maršrutu kaimas-miestas ir pan. Joniškio ir Merkinės miestų lyginamoji analizė parodė, kad lokalinei migracijai įtakos turėjo ne tik Magdeburgo teisė, tačiau ir miesto / kaimo ekonominė padėtis, baudžiavos įsigalėjimas. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės miestų gyventojai nesibodėjo kurti šeimų su aplinkinių gyvenviečių gyventojais. Pastebima, kad migrantui kurti šeimą nebuvo paprasta. Migranto statusą mieste toks asmuo (nors ir kilęs iš miesto apylinkių) galėjo išlaikyti 3-4 metus. Kitas svarbus aspektas - tai migracijos kaip galimybės tirti Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės miestus pasitelkimas. Nesutariama, koks miestas Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje gali būti laikomas mažuoju. Nors prekymečiai, miesto teisinis statusas, gyventojų skaičius istoriografijoje aptarti, tačiau prie šių kriterijų būtų galima pridėti ir migracijos aspektą. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad miestas Europoje pirmiausia saistomas su uždara miestiečių bendruomene, miestiečių luomo atvirumas galėtų būti siejamas su mažojo miesto terminu. [Iš leidinio]
ENFamily is the essential building block of society. Researching family one can find information on many areas of life and their tendencies. This is also true about research of local migration. When creating a family people would often move short distances, change their residence from village to town, etc. One can argue that migration is a complicated social and cultural phenomenon. Processes of migration can also be closely related to the change of status, i.e. separation from the place of birth, transition (interaction with individuals from other towns, search for business partners), incorporation into the place of arrival (acquisition of property, marriage, citizens oath). The 18th century so-called closed domesticated nuclear family was relatively small to be very mobile. Notably, in this case mobility is related not only to geographical aspects but also to different ecotypes, regional economics and dynamic exchange between the centre and the periphery. Comparative analysis of Joniškis and Merkinė towns demonstrated that local migration was influenced not only the Magdeburg Law but also by the economic situation of towns / villages and the setting in of the serfdom. Townsmen of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not shy from arranging marriages with inhabitants of surrounding settlements. It is noted, that creating a family for a migrant was not an easy task. Such person could retain status of a migrant (even though coming from the neighbouring areas) for 3-4 years. Marriage was either conscious or subconscious way to maximize gains or minimize losses.Therefore marriages were desired among young people of similar wealth situation, and in case of marriages between individuals with differing statuses some strategies were applied, such as postponement of marriage, acceleration or delay of marrying age, form of the family, and marriages with widowers / widows. So, in case of townships marriages between citizens and individuals from neighbouring areas were possible, but it was necessary to build an economic foundation to ensure the wellbeing of the family. Individuals with no such base most often did not start families with citizens and were limited to their own locale or neighbouring settlements. Another important aspect is to see migration as an opportunity to research towns of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Still there is no agreement what town in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania could be considered a township. Even though fairs, legal status of towns and number of inhabitants have been discussed in historiography, these criteria could benefit from adding the aspect of migration as well. [From the publication]