A Felvidék településeinek nemzetiségi (anyanyelvi) adatai százalékos megoszlásban 1880–1941 (1996)

ELŐSZÓ

/ PREFACE With the help of the National Scientific Research Fund and taking into account changing circumstances, it is now possible to present the population structure by mother tongue and nationality of the localities of historical Hungary on the basis of population censuses, in publications containing time series. The first publication produced in 1991, was a volume 534 pages on the „Distribution of localities in Transylvania by nationality (mother tongue) (1850-1941)". Following this initiative, in early 1996 we published the data on ethnicity of the localities of Slovakia by nationality and mother tongue, according to the 1880, 1910, 1921 and 1930 population censuses. In addition, the relevant data of the 1941 Hungárián census on the localities reannexed to Hungary in 1938, were alsó included. In the preface to the volume on Felvidék data. I already made reference to somé important aspects worthy of mention. Without wishing to repeat these, a short presentation of somé difficulties encountered in the compilation of the present publication is given here. a) It is known that census publications - our sources - present the locality data in accordance with the administrative territorial division prevailing at the reference date of the given censuses. Our volume presents the time series of locality data according to the administrative divisions in force at the 1910 population census. Thus, generally we have not enumerated in detail the legal measures concerning the changes in administrative territorial division of the localities between 1880 and 1941. b) For a correct understanding and comparability of our data it should alsó be emphasized that the 1880, 1910 and 1941 census data are related to the mother tongue, while those of the 1919, 1921 and 1930 censuses concem nationality. It should be noted that the 1941 Hungárián population census contained a question on nationality, too, but, since the source was published in manuscript form and is virtually unavailable, we preferred not to include it. c) The country-level and régiónál data of our census sources contained in a detailed form the aggregated numbers of the population of different mother tongues and nationalities. On the other hand, the sources containing locality-level data included the most numerous ethnic groups only, with the other groups given in footnotes, which were not always in the same form. As a result, in our tables by localities we publish the size of the populations of Hungárián, Czechoslovak, Russian (Ruthenian), Germán and other mother tongue or nationality. The publication of the locality-level data on those of Russian (Ruthenian) and Germán nationality has been adapted to the given data sources. d) It should alsó be stressed that the 1921 and 1930 Czechoslovakian censuses published only the nationality of the citizens on the locality level. The distribution of the present population by nationalities was only published according to larger administrative areas and on country level. In this respect, too, we had to adapt our ambitions to the possibilities provided by the sources. e) The population size of the 1910 census aggregated according to the administrative division shows a slight difference from the totals of the census series. Taking into account the details of this, the possibility of random errors variation cannot be excluded either. Of course, these departures have alsó impacted on the percentage distributions. 9