|
Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995
TD {text-align: center; FONT-SIZE: 0.8em; font-family: time}
TH {FONT-SIZE: 0.8em; font-family: time}
Árpád Varga E.
Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and
1995
Original title: "Erdély magyar népessége
1870-1995 között"
Published in Magyar Kisebbség 3-4, 1998 (New series IV),
pp. 331-407.
Translation by Tamás Sályi
Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell
Published by Teleki László Foundation.
Budapest, March 1999
Occasional Papers 12
(Editors Nándor Bárdi, László Diószegi,
András Gyertyánfy)
[Download]
The aim of this study is to contribute to the elaboration of the demographic
history of present-day Transylvania by publishing sources partly or completely
unexplored until now. The study therefore provides information about the
demographic history of ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania focusing on three
major aspects, the first of these aspects being dealt with more comprehensively
than the other two. Firstly (after an outline of the official statistics
available), changes in the number of ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania
over the last one and a quarter centuries are examined with regard to the
natural and real increase in the total population. Next, urbanisation,
as a major modifier of the ethnic picture, is analysed statistically, with
a focus on migrations which follow urbanisation, especially the influx
of Romanians from the Transcarpathian region.(These chapters rely on the
following studies: Varga E. 1994b; 1994a, 1997.) Since a new approach to
the sources has been used, it was considered appropriate to include detailed
technical and methodological explanations and several figures. Owing to
the limited scope of the present study there is no detailed analysis of
the development of the population in terms of location (areas, settlements,
density): nor does the study discuss changes in social structure and other
demographic features - partly due to the shortage, or absence, of information.
These are outlined in the final chapter (an expanded and modified version
of an article published in Hitel 3, 1996) and are based on the 1992 census,
which reflects recent conditions.
Main demographic sources
In order to examine ethno-demographic tendencies in the territory of
present-day Transylvania, major "officially authentic" data sources can
be obtained partly from the Hungarian censuses carried out between 1869
and 1910 and in the year 1941 (in the northern part of divided Transylvania),
and partly from the Romanian censuses conducted after Romania took over
the territory. Before modern censuses, only that taken by the Austrians
for military purposes in 1850/51 provides direct, fully authentic information
about ethnic relations, since it included questions relating to nationality.
However, these detailed figures only refer to historical Transylvania.
The politically cautious 1869 census did not yet include questions about
nationality but did take account of religion. If we look at the religious
distribution of the population and bear in mind contemporary estimates,
we can attempt to give approximate figures for ethnic proportions at the
time of the census. From 1880, the Hungarian censuses obtained information
about nationality by means of questions concerning native language - that
is, the language spoken most readily and most fluently. In addition, these
surveys also revealed how many people in different ethnic and religious
groups spoke languages other than their mother tongue. The range of languages
involved in the process therefore became wider and wider at each new survey.
In 1941, Hungarian experts even included a direct nationality criterion
in the questionnaire. Summaries of the census results always presented
detailed figures regarding the distribution of native languages (or nationalities)
and religions even in villages, and the living conditions of the different
nationalities were outlined in tables.
In the enlarged Romania, the first nationality survey was carried out
during the 1930 census. Previously, in 1919, the temporary Transylvanian
Governing Council had organised data collection in the Hungarian territory
occupied by the Romanian army. One and a half years later in Transylvania,
which by that time had been adjudged to Romania by the Great Powers, the
local under-secretary of state for the Ministry of the Interior carried
out a census for public administration purposes. Of the 1919 census, which
was based on reports made by parish councils, only provisional county data
have been preserved. Nevertheless, these data covered population distribution
in terms of both nationality and religion. The 1920 census, which also
covered nationality, was published in a collection of data on settlements.
In these censuses a rather vague, politically motivated criterion, that
of "descent according to people", was used to determine nationality. The
procedure was often simply based on an analysis of names, or alternatively
ethnic status was identified with religion. The same criterion, which was
not completely free of racist connotations, was applied by the Romanian
Ministry of the Interior in 1927 in its attempt to conduct "a general survey
of the population" on a national basis. The statistical office's refusal
to co-operate meant that the hastily carried out registration was doomed
to failure, and detailed figures were never published.
The census conducted in 1930 met international statistical requirements
in every respect. In order to establish nationality, the compilers devised
a complex criterion system, unique at the time, which covered citizenship,
nationality, native language (i.e. the language spoken in the family) and
religion. While no information was requested regarding knowledge of other
languages questions were deliberately posed regarding the possession of
an "understanding" of Romanian. The publication of the census results was
somewhat delayed, but the data were abundant and included figures for ethnic
and religious distribution in each village. The two volumes containing
details of occupational groups at local (village, town) level according
to nationality, as well as an analysis of schooling at local levels, represent
an important source of information. The 1941 census, prepared with the
same accuracy, included a survey of multilingualism for the first time
in the history of Romanian censuses. However, due to the war these results,
like many others, remained unprocessed. Only major local data concerning
the "ethnic origin" of the population were issued.
The first census in Romania after World War II was conducted in 1948,
together with an agricultural survey which was intended to prepare the
way for land collectivisation. Some of the demographic results from this
census, which was similar to previous censuses in terms of its study criteria,
were processed later, but only major preliminary data regarding the size
and native-language distribution of the population in counties and towns
were published. Afterwards, a census based on a Soviet model was conducted
in 1956, followed by others using more modern methods and more substantial
study programmes in 1966, 1977, and 1992. Information was requested on
nationality and mother tongue on each occasion, and in 1992 even religion
was once again included after an absence of forty-five years. Of these
data, however, local- (village-) level figures were only published for
1966, and for decades the volumes were unavailable to the public. Thus,
until recently, the 1956 ethnic and native-language data, broken down according
to medium-sized administrative units and towns, and still relatively detailed,
formed the basis of post-war Romanian nationality statistics. It is generally
agreed that these statistics provide a more accurate picture of the real
conditions than do the data of a decade later. Both the 1956 and the 1966
census reports (comparing the urban and rural population at county level,
and, in 1966, at rajon and town level, too) reveal a correlation between
nationality and native language. In 1956, data concerning social structure
and education among the different nationalities were elaborated at county
level according to settlement type. In 1966, the social distribution of
different ethnic groups was given only in a national breakdown, whereas
education related figures were also published in a county breakdown. The
1966 census was unique in that it contained questions on both place of
residence and place of birth, since data were grouped according to date
of arrival in the place of residence. A knowledge of the date of change
of residence provides a rough idea of how periods of internal migration,
which significantly modify the ethnic map, can be differentiated in time.
In addition, a comparison of county figures provides an illustration of
the territorial distribution of migrations in certain periods.
The real ethnic data of the 1977 census were only revealed one and a
half decades later. Until that time, only the extremely distorted county-level
figures were available, which were unsuitable for in-depth analysis. The
delayed publication of the real figures and the absence of any village
breakdown or other details are regrettable, since the ethnic picture provided
by the 1977 census in Transylvania is relatively authentic and can be compared
most easily to the 1956 data. However, place of birth statistics in the
1977 census, which were obtained at the halfway point of the peak of migration
fever, still provide important information about the direction and extent
of internal migrations over the previous decade.
The 1992 census was carried out at a time when the turbulence following
the collapse of the previous political system - a collapse which had been
accompanied by enormous external and internal population movements - had
already abated. An analogy with the surveys conducted after the war would
seem obvious. The ethnic consequences of this "tabula rasa" are summarised
in a special volume which gives details of population distribution according
to nationality, native language and religion. In addition, the overlapping
of nationality and native language, as well as of nationality and religion,
is illustrated numerically in a county breakdown according to settlement
type. (Correlations are also included between nationality and native language
in a breakdown for towns.) It also provides, although in a national breakdown
only, a comprehensive picture of the demographic conditions of the different
ethnic groups, a unique occurrence in the history of Romanian ethnic statistics.
Although the 1992 village-level ethnic and religious data have not yet
been published, they are available to researchers.
In the Hungarian censuses, data for military personnel were not processed
at village level before 1900. The retrospective tables given here therefore
show the number of civilians present in 1880 and 1890; the number of both
civilians and military personnel in 1910; and, in 1900, both the number
of civilians and the total population. Given that the military population
was relatively small (only 0.6 to 0.7 per cent in the territory in question),
this does not greatly affect the comparability of these periods. The Romanian
censuses give a figure for the resident population, from which those who
have been "temporarily" present, and to which those who have been "temporarily"
absent, over an extended period of time, are subtracted and added respectively.
This fine adjustment means that the quantitative difference between the
resident population and the population actually present is insignificant.
In 1956, the total resident population registered was 8,620 persons fewer
than the number of inhabitants present (in towns, 11,781); and in 1966,
the resident population was 2,184 persons fewer (208 more in towns). A
comparison of the 1977 census figures and the population returns published
in statistical yearbooks reveals that, as a result of an increase in internal
population mobility, in 1977 nearly 130 thousand more inhabitants (in towns,
300 thousand) were registered in Transylvania than had been estimated previously,
based on the resident population recorded in 1966. The difference was particularly
striking in the so-called "closed" towns, in which settling was subject
to the obtaining of a permit. Subsequently, in official statements the
criteria were adjusted to the real situation and, in addition to the resident
population defined above, the number of inhabitants with a registered permanent
address was taken rather than the number of persons present. The population
actually present has, in practice, been referred to as the "resident population"
in statistical returns since 1977. In 1981, the number of persons actually
present was 96,313 higher (in towns, 246,903) than the number of persons
with a permanent residence in the same place; and in 1992, the figure was
45,107 persons (in towns, 130,708) higher.
The Hungarian Statistical Office provided demographic data with reference
to religion (from 1890 to 1893), and later (in 1897, and from 1900 to 1918)
to native language also. (An analysis of mixed marriages was included from
the beginning of this century.) The figures were given at local administrative
level until 1912 (or until 1915 for natural population changes with respect
to native Hungarians), and at regional level between 1913 and 1918. Local-administration-level
data on emigration and remigration were published between 1899 and 1915.
Emigrants were registered from the beginning of this period, and remigrants
from 1905, on the basis of native language, homeland and destination. Every
year between 1920 and 1937, with some minor interruptions, the Romanian
statistics service published the main results of population changes with
respect to denomination according to region and type of settlement. The
ethnic data regarding natural population changes are available for the
period between 1920 and 1923, and between 1933 and 1942. (From 1934 the
data are also available at county level and include monthly figures.) Figures
showing the natural growth of the different nationalities were also published
between 1931 and 1939 at county level, and in both parts of Transylvania
after its division according to the Vienna Award. International migration
statistics (emigration, immigration and remigration with respect to nationality,
citizenship and country) were first published annually between 1926 and
1942, and this practice was resumed after the 1989 changes (emigration
data according to nationality have been recorded since 1975; data with
respect to destination from 1980; and remigration figures according to
nationality or provenance from 1990). The key figures for population changes
with respect to nationality have not been published in Romania for two
generations, although some minor information has been leaked occasionally.
Population development in Transylvaniabetween 1869 and 1995
Population development in present-day Transylvania from 1869 to the
present is illustrated in Table 1. (The table contains basic data published
in census reports and statistical yearbooks as well as figures relating
to different areas and periods which are required for the calculation of
population changes.)
Table 1
Population development in Transylvania 1869-1995
31 Dec. 1869a
4,224,436
25 Jan. 1948g
5,748,546
31 Dec. 1880a
4,032,851
1 Jan. 1956
6,219,600
31 Dec. 1890a
4,429,564
21 Feb. 1956
6,232,312
31 Dec. 1900a
4,840,722
1 Jan. 1966
6,727,900
31 Dec. 1900
4,874,772
15 March 1966
6,736,046
31 Dec. 1910b
5,262,495
1 Jan. 1966h
6,711,456
31 Dec. 1910
5,259,918
15 March 1966h
6,719,555
1919
5,208,345
5 Jan. 1977
7,500,229
Dec. 1920c
5,114,214
1 July 1977i
7,531,130
Dec. 1920d
5,133,677
1 July 1985i
7,915,841
29 Dec. 1930
5,548,363
1 July 1989i
8,033,633
31 Jan., 6 April 1941e
5,912,265
7 Jan. 1992
7,723,313
31 Jan., 6 April 1941e,f
5,910,974
1 July 1992
7,709,627
25 Jan. 1948
5,761,127
1 July 1995
7,646,926
Italics: calculated values
a Civilian population.
b Taking an undivided number of inhabitants in border settlements.
c Data for Battyánháza (Óbéb),
Cenei/Csene, Soca/Karátsonyiliget, Comloşu Mic/Kiskómlós, Checea/Kőcse,
Lăţunaş/Lacunás, Jamu Mare/Nagyzsám, Beba Veche/Óbéb, Pustiniş/Öregfalu,
Cherestur/Pusztakeresztúr, Uivar/Újvár, Jombolia/Zsombolya occupied by
Serbia, and those of Iam/Jám are missing. Busenje/Káptalanfalva, Jaša Tomić/Módos,
Medja/Párdány, belonging to Yugoslavia at present, are included.
d Figure relating to final borders and based on the 1910
settlement data listed above, according to
the 1930 administrative situation (without the 1,151 inhabitants of Coşna/Kosna
and Cârlibaba Nouă/Radnalajosfalva).
e Data for the Romanian
parts of Tiszalonka/Lunca la Tisa/Luh and Técső/Tyacsiv in Máramaros/Maramureş
county are not known, so the two parts are included with the 1930 figures.
f According to the 1930 and 1948 administrative situation.
g 1956 administrative situation.
h Present administrative situation.
i Official data based on the 1977 census without illegal emigration.
Sources:
Magyarország népessége községenként (...)
az 1869. évi népszámlálás alapján, táblázat. A magyar korona országaiban
az 1881. év elején végrehajtott népszámlálás főbb eredményei (...) 1882:
pp. 9-331. A magyar korona országainak helységnévtára 1892: pp. 18-656.
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1902: pp. 280-455, 1912: pp. 280-457, 581-629.
Popa - Istrate 1921: p. 156. Martinovici - Istrati 1921: pp. 7-52. Recensământul
general al României din 29 decemvrie 1930 1938: pp. XXXII-XXXIII. Recensământul
general al populaţiei României din 1941 6 aprilie (...) 1944: p. XI. Az 1941.
évi népszámlálás (...) 1947: pp. 498-690. Golopenţia - Georgescu 1948: pp.
39-41. Biji - Nichita 1957: p. 11. Recensămîntul populaţiei din 21 februarie
1956. Rezultatele generale 1959: p. 4. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor
din 15 martie 1966 1968: Volumes relating to counties in Transylvania.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966 1969: p. 2.
Measnicov - Trebici 1978: p. 31. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor
din 5 ianuarie 1977 1980: p. 6. Anuarul
statistic al Republicii Socialiste România 1986: p. 13. Recensămîntul populaţiei
şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992 1994: p. 1. Anuarul statistic al României
1990: p. 52, 1993: p. 686, 1995: p. 748.
Because of the geopolitical situation in the region, it is worth studying
the comprehensive figures for population growth in conjunction with the
figures for the historically connected neighbouring territories (Table
2). In those territories which were taken from Hungary and attached to
Romania population growth between 1870 and 1992 can be regarded as average
for Europe. Over the last century or more the number of inhabitants in
these territories has almost doubled, as has the population of present-day
Hungary. During the same period, the number of Romanian citizens living
in the Transcarpathian region has more than tripled. Population growth
in the three regions was also different before World War I. In the Transcarpathian
region, for instance, real population growth was three times higher than
in Transylvania. (This was partly due to the demographic crisis in the
1870s, when the population decreased by 5 per cent in present-day Transylvania.)
The population of Transylvania increased slightly over the subsequent four
decades, and the 1948 figure indicates a stagnation compared with the figures
for Hungary and Transcarpathia. The slower growth was caused by wars: population
growth in the period including World War I was more modest, and during
the Second World War, the decrease was significantly higher than in Hungary
or in the Transcarpathian region. In the subsequent three and a half decades,
however, there was a significant increase in the Transylvanian population,
with the average annual growth rate exceeding the comparable Hungarian
rate, and, between 1970 and 1980, even the figure for Transcarpathia This
upward trend changed to a negative trend at the end of the 1980s. The Transylvanian
population was somewhat smaller in 1992 than at the beginning of the previous
decade. Meanwhile, Hungary's population also started to decrease, and the
growth rate of the Transcarpathian population was also one-third of the
figure of a decade earlier.
Table 2
Population development in Transylvania, Hungary, and the Transcarpathian
region 1870-1992a
Year
Population (x thousand persons)b
Index (1870 = 100)
Average annual growth or decrease (%)c
Trans-sylvania
Hungary
Trans-carpathia
Trans-sylvania
Hungary
Trans-carpathia
Trans-sylvania
Hungary
Trans-carpathia
1870
4,224.4
5,011.3
4,500.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-
-
-
1880
4,032.9
5,329.2
4,750.0
95.5
106.3
105.6
-0.42
0.56
0.54
1910/12
5,260.0
7,612.1
7,507.0
124.5
151.9
166.8
0.88
1.18
1.41
1930
5,548.4
8,685.1
8,732.4
131.3
173.3
194.0
0.27
0.66
0.84
1941
5,912.3
9,316.1
10,202.9
140.0
185.9
226.7
0.63
0.70
1.51
1948/49
5,761.1
9,204.8
10,111.5
136.4
183.7
224.7
-0.37
-0.15
-0.13
1956
6,232.3
9,861.0
11,257.1
147.5
196.8
250.2
0.97
1.15
1.33
1970
7,032.6
10,322.1
13,220.0
166.5
206.0
293.8
0.84
0.30
1.12
1980
7,725.0
10,709.5
14,476.4
182.9
213.7
321.7
0.94
0.37
0.91
1990/92
7,723.3
10,374.8
15,060.3
182.8
207.0
334.7
0.00
-0.32
0.34
Italics: estimated values
a According to present borders. Transylvania
and the Transcarpathian region are separated according to administrative
borders at the time of the censuses.
b Population as of the date of the censuses which were usually
carried out at about the same time. Exceptions are 1970 and 1980 for Transylvania
and the Transcarpathian region where mid-year figures are given, and 1956
for Hungary, where the value calculated refers to conditions at the beginning
of the year. The initial figures for Transylvania and also for present-day
Hungary are from the beginning of the year in which the censuses were carried
out. The same figure for the old Romanian kingdom was calculated at the
end of the year.
c Growth or decrease since the previous date. Figures are taken
from the middle of the period.
The population development outlined above can be shown in greater detail
in a breakdown reflecting the sources of real population growth (that is,
natural growth and migration). These factors are given in Table 3 for Transylvania
and in Table 4 for Transcarpathia, a region which has also had strong demographic
links with Transylvania.
Table 3
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
in Transylvania
between 1869 and 1995
Period
Real
Naturala
Difference between real and natural growth
Real
Natural
Difference between real and natural growth
growth or decrease(-)
growth or decrease(-)
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
1870-1880b,c
-191,585
-55,280d
-136,305
-4.2
-1.2
-3.0
1881-1890b,e
396,713
432,479d
-35,766
9.4
10.2
-0.8
1891-1900b
411,158
403,026d
8,132
8.9
8.7
0.2
1901-1910
387,723f
477,437
-89,714
7.6
9.4
-1.8
1911-1920
-125,090g
140,800h
-265,890h
-2.4
2.7
-5.1
1921-1930i
414,700
482,508
-67,800
7.7
9.0
-1.3
1931-1941i,j
362,611
386,865
-24,254
6.3
6.7
-0.4
1941-1948i,j
-149,847
125,000k
-274,900l
-3.7
3.1
-6.7
1948-1955m
471,050n
...
...
10.0
...
...
1956-1965
508,300o
481,487
26,800
7.8
7.4
0.4
1966-1976p
788,773r
715,423
73,350
10.1
9.2
0.9
1977-1985s
415,612t
374,422
41,190t
6.3
5.7
0.6
1985-1989s
117,792t
140,782
-22,990t
3.7
4.4
-0.7
1989-1991s
-310,320
41,030
-351,350
-15.7
2.1
-17.8
1992-1995s
-76,387
-34,355
-42,032
-2.8
-1.3
-1.5
Italics: calculated values
a Calendar years.
b Civilian population.
c Real decrease allowing for probable lack of data in the 1880
census: approx. 162 thousand. Natural decrease without unregistered victims
of the cholera epidemic: approx. 90-100 thousand. Accordingly, migration
loss: approx. 60-70 thousand.
d In the case of counties divided by the border: calculated
values.
e Allowing for probable lack of data in the 1880 census, real
growth: approx. 367 thousand. Accordingly, migration loss: approx. 65 thousand.
f Real growth was calculated using the undivided population
in settlements divided by the border.
g Real growth was calculated by taking the 1920 population between
confirmed borders.
h Without war victims. If war victims are included, real growth
changes to a decrease of 29.7 thousand persons, and migration loss amounts
to 95.4 thousand.
i Within the 1930 administrative borders.
j Between censuses.
k Estimated value in North Transylvania
(in related areas in Ugocsa/Ugocea and Máramaros/Maramureş counties and,
in 1944, in the whole of North Transylvania).
l Difference between immigration and emigration + war
loss.
m According to 1956 administrative borders.
n Between 25 January 1948 and 1 January 1956.
o Between 1 January 1956 and 1 January 1966.
p According to present administrative borders.
r Between 1 January 1966 and 5 January 1977.
s Based on the population between two censuses with mid-year
figures and taking half of the natural growth in the year in question.
t Using officially calculated data based on the 1977 census,
without illegal emigration.
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1893b: pp. 70-73*. Magyar statisztikai
évkönyv 1874-1875, 1877-1880, 1893-1916/1918.
A népmozgalom főbb adatai községenként 1828-1900 1980: pp. 28-35, 44-51,
90-99, 110-119, 1984: pp. 30-51, 78-99. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények
1913: pp. 280-459. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1911-1920. Manuilă 1938:
p. 796, 1929: pp. VIII, XI, XV. Anuarul statistic al României 1928-1939/1940.
Magyar statisztikai évkönyv 1941-1942. Statisztikai negyedévi közlemények
1942-1944: 1-2. Thirring 1943: p. 358. A népmozgalom főbb adatai községenként
1901-1968 1969: pp. 62-67, 124-129, 184-199, 314-319,
376-381, 436-451. Buletinul demografic al României May 1940-January/February
1948. Comunicări statistice 1947: p. 5-6. Anuarul demografic al Republicii
Socialiste România 1967: pp. 22, 82, 1974: pp. 144, 238. Anuarul statistic
al Republicii Socialiste România 1975-1986. România. Date demografice
1994: pp. 124, 188. Anuarul statistic al României 1990-1996.
Table 4
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
in the Transcarpathian region
between 1930 and 1995
Period
Real
Naturala
Difference between real and natural growth
Real
Natural
Difference between real and natural growth
growth or decrease(-)
growth or decrease(-)
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
1931-1941b
1,471784
1,312,912
158,872
15.1
13.5
1.6
1941-1948b
-92,653
258,350
-351,000c
-1.3
3.7
-5.0
1948-1955d
1,109,300e
...
...
13.1
...
...
1956-1965
1,117,000f
1,283,490
-166,500
9.5
10.9
-1.4
1966-1976g
1,692,807h
1,835,255
-142,448
11.6
12.6
-1.0
1977-1985i
749,314j
943,151
-193,837j
6.1
7.7
-1.6
1985-1989i
308,936j
366,553
-57,617j
5.1
6.1
-1.0
1989-1991i
-31,209
111,264
-142,473
-0.8
2.9
-3.8
1992-1995i
-52,697
-19,317
-33,380
-1.0
-0.4
-0.6
Italics: calculated values
a Calendar years.
b Between censuses.
c Difference between immigration and emigration +war loss.
d According to 1956 administrative units.
e Between 25 January 1948 and 1 January 1956.
f Between 1 January 1956 and 1 January 1966.
g According to present administrative borders.
h Between 1 January 1966 and 5 January 1977.
i Based on the population between two censuses with mid-year
figures and taking half of the natural growth in the year in question.
j Using officially calculated data based on the 1977 census,
without illegal emigration.
Sources:
Between 1931-1940: Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România
1974: pp. 142, 236. From 1941 on the same as in Table 3.
The first column of Tables 3 and 4 gives real population growth or decrease
in different periods within changing administrative borders. The second
column gives the values for natural growth and decrease as a result of
the difference between the number of live births and deaths. If we substitute
the missing data with an estimated value reflecting between 26 and 28 per
cent of the national natural growth rate in Transylvania, we find that
natural growth in Transylvania between 1948 and 1955 may have coincided
with real population growth. The third column gives the difference between
real and natural growth in different periods. This figure provides information
regarding fluctuations resulting from internal and external migration,
and, from 1911 to 1920 and from 1941 to 1947, includes both military and
civilian losses (since demographic figures did not include victims of war).
A certain distortion of the migration figures in the 1970s and 1980s, due
to shortcomings in data processing, should be taken into consideration
(THIRRING 1963, p. 229; KATUS 1980, p. 271). Thus the real migration difference
during these periods is smaller than that indicated in the table.
The data illustrate that, until recently, natural population growth
was a determining factor in Transylvania's real population growth, apart
from the period affected by the epidemic in the early 1870s and some war
years. The different factors causing natural population changes in both
regions are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania from
1866 to 1995
Period
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth or decrease
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth or decrease
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
1866-1869a,b
608,218
484,171
124,047
37.6
29.9
7.7
1870-1880a
1,729,344
1,784,624
-55,280
38.1
39.3
-1.2
1881-1890a
1,775,238
1,342,759
432,479
42.0
31.8
10.2
1891-1900a
1,785,674
1,382,648
403,026
38.5
29.8
8.7
1901-1910
1,799,824
1,322,387
477,437
35.5
26.1
9.4
1911-1914
748,450
531,923
216,527
34.9
24.8
10.1
1915-1918
355,792
511,319
-155,527
16.5
23.7
-7.2
1919-1920
310,734
230,934
79,800
30.1
22.4
7.7
1921-1930
1,623,808
1,141,300
482,508
30.4
21.4
9.0
1931-1940
1,442,417
1,054,722
387,695
25.2
18.4
6.8
1941-1943c
360,770
306,430
54,340
20.3
17.2
3.1
1945-1947
364,722
310,337
54,385
21.0
17.9
3.1
1956-1965
1,134,174
652,687
481,487
17.5
10.1
7.4
1966-1976
1,515,087
799,664
715,423
19.4
10.2
9.1
1977-1985
1,131,893
741,720
390,173
16.3
10.7
5.6
1986-1988
371,179
262,575
108,604
15.5
11.0
4.5
1989-1991
321,025
263,568
57,457
13.4
11.0
2.4
1992-1995
328,305
370,449
-42,144
10.7
12.1
-1.4
Italics: calculated values
a Based on calculated values in counties divided
by the border.
b Omitting data referring to the Banat military border territory.
c Based on values calculated in
the parts of Ugocsa/Ugocea and Máramaros/Maramureş belonging to Transylvania.
Sources: as for Table 3.
Table 6
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in the Transcarpathian
region from 1871 to 1995
Period
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth or decrease
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth or decrease
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
1871-1880a
...
...
...
35.6
31.3
4.3
1881-1890a
...
...
...
42.4
28.3
14.1
1891-1900a
...
...
...
41.1
29.,2
12.0
1901-1910b
2,604,194
1,683,621
920,573
40.2
26.0
14.2
1911-1915b
1,570,474
912,904
657,570
42.3
24.6
17.7
1921-1930b
3,199,045
180,4654
139,4391
39.5
22.3
17.2
1931-1940
3,193,793
1,888,998
1,304,795
32.8
19.4
13.4
1941-1947
1,681,040
1,414,570
266,470
23.6
19.9
3.7
1956-1965
2,297,572
1,014,082
1,283,490
19.5
8.6
10.9
1966-1976
3,136,509
1,301,254
1,835,255
21.5
8.9
12.6
1977-1985
2,274,676
1,291,212
983,464
17.5
9.9
7.6
1986-1988
768,959
487,411
281,548
17.1
10.8
6.3
1989-1991
638,540
482,584
155,956
14.0
10.6
3.4
1992-1995
665,458
694,502
-29,044
11.0
11.5
-0.5
Italics: calculated values
a Estimated value.
b In the territory of the Old Kingdom (Oltenia, Muntenia, Moldavia
and Dobrudia between 1921 and 1930).
Sources:
Between 1871 and 1900: Gheţău 1997a: p. 29.
Between 1901 and 1930: Anuarul statistic al României 1922-1933.
From 1931: as in Tables 3 and 4.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Hungary entered the
second phase of the so-called calculated demographic transition. This model
implies that in the first phase, where traditional demographic conditions
prevail, high birth and death rates result in a relatively low rate of
natural growth of between 5 and 10 per thousand. The mortality rate then
decreases while the birth rate remains unchanged or decreases slightly,
so the population growth rises to between 10 and 15 per thousand. In the
third phase, the birth rate decreases continually and therefore, with an
unchanged mortality rate, population growth also decreases. In Hungary
the demographic acceleration developed later than in Western Europe. Another
difference was that, almost parallel with the decrease in the mortality
rate, the birth rate also decreased. This near coincidence meant that there
was scarcely any second-phase provisional population increase. The second
phase was also delayed due to the devastating cholera epidemic in the 1870s
and a famine which decimated the population at the same time, both of which
struck the east of Hungary as it was then, particularly Transylvania. Natural
population changes in present-day Transylvania as it entered the second
phase of the demographic transition (in the last two decades of the nineteenth
century) show that the fall in the birth rate, which was somewhat more
marked than the similar national (Hungarian) figure, was larger than the
fall in the mortality rate. This trend changed for the better only in the
decade preceding World War I, and then again for a short time in the early
1920s, the latter reflecting normal post-war population changes. The low
number of births during World War I had a significant negative impact on
demographic changes. This appeared not only as a direct loss (in Transylvania
between 350 and 400 thousand fewer children were born than would normally
have been expected), but also as a later deficit resulting from the lower
number of potential parents. By the time those generations affected by
the war-related birth deficit reached child-bearing age between 1931 and
1940, the live birth rate had decreased considerably, which, accompanied
by the new war-related birth deficit (although much smaller than the earlier
one), contributed to a fall in the number of babies born between 1956 and
1965. (Previously, between 1948 and 1955, taking the natural population
growth estimated above and calculating a somewhat lower mortality rate
in Transylvania than the national average, the live birth rate must have
been higher by 3 to 4 per thousand, that is, over 20 per thousand.) At
the same time the mortality rate gradually decreased, stagnating at around
10 per thousand before slowly increasing again. Altogether, natural population
development in present-day Transylvania has been marked by a high degree
of instability in terms of birth rate, influenced by several factors. Accordingly,
the relatively progressive values of between 9 and 10 per thousand for
the population growth rate at the beginning of the century were only reached
after the wars and, following radical measures introduced by the state
to increase birth rates, at the turn of the 1960s. Apart from the negative
records reached during the war years, natural population growth reached
its lowest levels in the 1930s and 1980s, and in recent years the national
trend has become a fall in the population level resulting from a falling
live birth rate and a rising mortality rate. The demographic transition
described above occurred in the Transcarpathian region after a delay of
three decades. Live birth rates were higher and mortality rates were usually
lower here than in Transylvania. During the demographic depression in the
1930s, for example, the average natural population growth in the Transcarpathian
region was twice as high as in Transylvania, and even after 1948 it was,
for three decades, between 3 and 3.5 per thousand higher than the respective
Transylvanian figure. The negative balance of migration after 1956 (resulting
in a positive balance in Transylvania), indicates that after World War
II significant numbers out of the high population in the Transcarpathian
region had moved westwards through the Carpathians to establish new homes.
Population development with respect to nationalities and the number
of Hungarians between 1869 and 1992
The demographic metamorphosis in Transylvania is closely connected with
changes in the number of its major components, that is, the various nationalities.
An outline of this metamorphosis is given below, focusing on the population
development among Hungarians and Romanians in different periods. Changes
in relations between nationalities and religions can be seen in Tables
7 and 8.
Table 7
The number of different ethnic groups according to native language
and nationality in Transylvania between 1869 and 1992*
Index number (starting population = 100)
Year
Total
Hungar.
Roman.
German
Jewish, Yiddish
Other
Gypsy
Ukrain.
Serbian
Croat.
Slovak.
1869a
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0b
...
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0c
100.0
1880a,d
95.3
9.2
92.0
100.0b
...
105.6
107.3
86.3
115.0e
...
115.8
1890a
104.7
113.9
99.3
109.8b
...
111.3
116.4f
89.0
102.0
81.4c
124.6
1900a
114.3
134.9
107.1
114.3b
...
94.2
54.5
107.8
100.5
38.1
131.1
1900
115.2
136.2
107.6
115.5b
...
95.3
54.5
109.0
102.4
38.8
132.2
1910
124.2
157.2
113.3
112.0b
...
115.5
110.5
137.0
110.2
23.4
137.3
1919
123.7
131.0
119.8
102.4
100.0
98.2
...
...
...
...
...
1920
121.3
124.1
117.5
109.2
105.9
89.6
...
...
...
...
...
1930
131.1
140.3
129.5
107.4
65.0
103.3
79.4
144.6
89.3g
...
174.4h
1930
131.1
128.2
128.5
108.0
104.3
150.1
198.5
179.5
91.5g
...
201.5h
1941
139.7
164.9
132.4
106.3
48.3
139.6
...
...
...
...
...
1948
136.2
140.4
150.5
65.8
17.5
93.2
...
...
...
...
...
1956
147.7
153.5
163.9
74.2
5.7
86.6
69.4
175.6
92.1i
...
83.6
1956
147.7
148.1
162.8
73.3
25.6
119.5
142.5
191.1
95.6i
...
102.2
1966
159.6
154.5
184.0
74.5
0.7
86.0
58.3
219.4
87.1i
...
86.5
1966
159.6
151.8
183.6
74.1
7.9
102.1
89.4
223.6
91.8i
...
96.6
1977
178.1
160.7
209.6
69.3
4.6
143.8
223.7
259.2
70.3i
90.6c
93.5
1992
183.4
153.9
234.2
18.2
0.2
113.2
154.0
290.1
69.3e
...
80.5
1992
183.4
152.4
228.9
21.7
1.6
186.4
368.5
305.3
59.4
49.1
86.0
*Within present administrative borders
Bold type: native languageNormal type: nationality
Italics: calculated values
a Civilian population.
b Including Yiddish native speakers.
c Croatians, Crassovanians.
d Those unable to speak are divided proportionally among the
nationalities.
e Serbians, Croatians, Crassovanians.
f According to the 1893 census of Gypsies the figure is 273.3.
g Serbians, Croatians, Slovenians.
h Czechs, Slovakians.
i Serbians, Croatians, Slovenians, Crassovanians.
Table 8
The number of different denominations in Transylvania between 1869 and
1992*
Index number (Starting population = 100)
Year
Total
Orthodox
Greek Catholic
Roman Catholic
Calvinist
Lutheran
Unitarian
Jewish
Other
1869a
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1880a
95.3
92.7
93.5
99.8
96.4
95.8
102.6
116.5
82.6
1890a
104.7
98.5
104.1
113.0
108.2
101.2
110.6
143.3
66.5
1900a
114.3
104.9
113.6
126.9
120.8
107.7
119.4
173.7
47.2
1900
115.2
105.4
114.1
128.3
122.0
108.8
120.3
174.9
48.3
1910
124.2
111.7
124.2
138.8
134.2
113.4
127.2
200.9
94.7
1919
123.7
112.9
128.1
128.3
133.3
115.2
124.8
189.1
258.6
1930
131.1
119.5
138.1
132.6
134.6
118.7
126.6
212.9
1033.7
1992
183.4
333.3b
20.8b
120.5
154.0
24.4
140.7
3.1
7480.0
*Within present administrative borders
a Civilian population.
b Combined figure for Orthodox and Greek Catholics: 213.8.
According to the estimation made by Elek Fényes, the renowned
Hungarian descriptive statistician (FÉNYES 1839-1840; 1842, p. 52b),
it can be stated that in the 1830s and 40s a total of 62.3 per cent
of the population of present-day Transylvania were Romanian, and only 23.3
per cent were native Hungarian speakers. At the time of the 1869 census
it is estimated that the proportion of Hungarians and Romanians was 24.9
per cent and 59 per cent respectively (VARGA E. 1997, p. 61). (Of the 3.3
per cent decrease in the proportion of Romanians, 1 per cent occurred among
native Gypsy speakers who were regarded as Romanians by Fényes.)
The change in ethnic proportions was most striking in the Tisza/Tisa-Maros/Mureş
region, where the ratio of Romanians decreased by nearly 12 per cent in
four decades, while the ratio of Hungarians and Germans increased by almost
the same percentage due to resettlement in Banat.
As shown in Table 7, changes in the proportion of Romanians were greatly
influenced by the demographic catastrophe of the 1870s. The number of Romanians
fell by 200 thousand between 1869 and 1880, and two-thirds of this decrease
was caused by the demographic crisis of the decade (the remaining third
being due to migration and assimilation). Thus, in one decade the proportion
of Romanians fell by a further 2 per cent, almost as much as during the
previous three to three and a half decades (excluding the decrease caused
by the separation of the Gypsies). During the same period the proportion
of Hungarians within the total population increased by 1 per cent, despite
a slight fall in their actual number, to reach 25.9 per cent.
According to official native-language statistics between 1880 and 1910
the proportion of Hungarian native speakers continued to increase the most
rapidly, in Transylvania as in all other parts of the country. The growth
rate here was not only twice as high as that of the population as a whole,
but it was also 3.7 per cent higher than the national average for their
rate of increase (calculated without Croatia-Slavonia). As a consequence,
the proportion of Hungarians increased from the 25.9 per cent of 1880,
to 31.6 per cent by 1910, while the proportion of Romanians decreased from
57 to 53.8 per cent.
The significant changes in the ethnic spectrum in Hungary at the turn
of the century can be explained by three factors: 1. The natural population
growth of Hungarians was higher than that of non-Hungarian nationalities;
2. The proportion of Hungarians emigrating was lower than the proportion
of non-Hungarians; and 3. Some non-Hungarians and most immigrants were
assimilated to the Hungarians (KATUS 1982, p. 18). These statements are
true with respect to the territory of present-day Transylvania. There was
yet another phenomenon which contributed to the fact that the proportion
of Hungarians in Transylvania increased more rapidly than the national
average: a positive balance of internal nationality exchange in certain
administrative units. The factors outlined above are illustrated with demographic
data from the last decade before World War I, which is more or less relevant
to the present territory as well.
As Table 9 shows, between 1901 and 1910 the number of Hungarian native
speakers increased far more rapidly than the total population (a higher
figure was only recorded in contemporary statistics for Ruthenians and
Slovakians, both very small in number). Half of the total natural growth
occurred among Romanians and 36.3 per cent among Hungarians. The high natural
increase with respect to Hungarians was partly due to their relatively
lower mortality rate, and partly due to the slightly higher than average
birth rate, although this was still proportionally lower than the Romanian
birth rate. The mortality rate among Romanians was highest of all the nationalities
(apart from a few fragments of ethnic groups not specified here). It is
for this reason that the number of Romanians increased considerably more
slowly than the number of Hungarians, despite the fact that the Romanian
birth rate was higher at the time.
Table 9
Live birth rates, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania
according to native languages
between 1901 and 1910
Native language
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth or decrease
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth or decrease
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
Total
1,799,824
1,322,387
477,437
35.5
26.1
9.4
Hungarian
559,552
386,109
173,443
36.1
24.9
11.2
Romanian
1,009,140
770,325
238,815
36.6
27.9
8.7
German
177,498
125,849
51,649
30.9
21.9
9.0
Other
53,634
40,104
13,530
28.8
21.5
7.3
Italics: calculated values
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények
1905: pp. 178-183, 340-345, 1907b: pp. 184-193, 346-355, 1910: pp. 184-193,
346-355, 1916a: pp. 244-249, 460-465. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1901-1910.
A comparison of the data for natural and real population growth highlights
further phenomena affecting the unequal proportions in terms of population
increase among the different nationalities. The difference between the
two numbers indicates the balance between external and internal migration
in the territory at the time as well as the negative or positive effects
of assimilation for the nationalities in question.
Table 10
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
in Transylvania
between 1901 and 1910
Native language
Real
Natural
Difference between real and natural growth
Real
Natural
Difference between real and natural growth
growth or decrease
growth or decrease
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
Total
387,723
477,437
-89,714
7.6
9.4
-1.8
Hungarian
224,787
173,443
51,344
14.5
11.2
3.3
Romanian
144,854
238,815
-93,961
5.3
8.7
-3.4
German
-17,438
5,649
-69,087
-3.0
9.0
-12.0
Other
35,520
13,530
21,990
19.1
7.3
11.8
Italics: calculated values
As shown in Table 10, only real growth among Hungarians and other native
speakers is higher than their natural growth. (The positive balance among
other native speakers indicates the increase in the Gypsy population on
the territory of historical Transylvania compared with the 1900 figures.
The increase is due to the appearance of nomadic Gypsies, and to different
self-identification among Gypsies in 1910 at the expense of other nationalities,
mainly Romanians.) The negative Romanian and German balance is the result
of massive emigration. Statistics suggest that in the period examined above
emigration among the Romanian population was in proportion to their numerical
ratio; while the Hungarians were under-represented, and the Germans over-represented,
in terms of emigration in the present-day territory of Transylvania. The
emigration deficit with respect to Romanians in the period, taking unregistered
immigration into account, was 80 thousand (KOVÁCS 1912, p. 798)
or, allowing for some hidden population changes (e.g. Gypsies becoming
statistically independent), somewhat less, but below 60 thousand (VARGA
E. 1977, p. 77).
In terms of Hungarian native speakers, between 1880 and 1910 the population
gain above their natural growth in the region was between 180 and 200 thousand,
while Romanian losses were between 130 and 150 thousand, depending on whether
we take the birth rate figures of the last decade as retrospectively relevant,
or calculate with the more balanced earlier figures for nationality growth.
The Romanian losses were mostly due to emigration, which increased dramatically
in the 1980s, especially in southern counties of historical Transylvania
and became a mass movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. Hungarian
population gains, on the other hand, included a migration surplus. However,
the exact value of this cannot be determined, since we are unable to give
a balance of internal population exchanges between administrative units
with respect to the present borders. Nevertheless, the attraction of certain
central points giving rise to migration among regions is well known. In
Krassó-Szörény/Caraş-Severin and Hunyad/Hunedoara
counties, where natural population growth was originally low, mining areas
and rapidly developing industrial centres attracted Hungarians from a distance.
Thus, in three decades their number multiplied between 4.7 and 4.2 times.
The proportion of Hungarians therefore increased from 1.9 per cent to 7.2
per cent, and from 5.1 to 15.5 per cent for the two areas respectively.
A massive increase can be seen in certain areas of Temes/Timiş and
Torontál counties (the number of Hungarians increased 2.5 times,
their proportion growing from 8 per cent to 16.6 per cent). In Arad county,
where the increase in proportions was average, the number of Hungarians
also grew rapidly (the figure in 1910 is 1.8 times higher than in 1880,
with their proportion rising from 22.3 per cent to 29 per cent). Similar
data are available in Kolozs/Cluj county (1.7 times higher with the proportion
increasing from 33.2 to 38.9 per cent); in Szatmár/Satu Mare and
Ugocsa/Ugocea (where the proportion increased from 44.4 to 55.1 per cent);
and in the Bihar (Bihor) area, where the proportion of Hungarians rose
from 39.8 to 44.4 per cent in spite of the high birth rate among local
Romanians. The rise in the number of Hungarian native speakers in Máramaros/Maramureş
also deserves attention: the number of Hungarian native speakers here increased
2.1 times over thirty years, and the proportion grew by 5 per cent to reach
19.4 per cent in 1910. At the same time, the serious local economic and
social crisis in Szeklerland is well demonstrated by the fact that here,
in the smaller language area of the eastern periphery of the country, in
Csík, Háromszék and Udvarhely counties, the population
increase among Hungarians fell far behind even the Transylvanian average
because of losses resulting from migration.
The population growth and the changes in ethnic proportions outlined
above were also influenced by the fact that assimilation enlarged the Hungarian
population. The main areas in which this process occurred were the rapidly
developing towns, with those assimilated being individuals who had become
estranged from their original, homogenous ethnic blocks, and who had drifted
far away from their place of birth and were rising into the middle class.
Hungarian expansion due to assimilation is illustrated by the process during
which the denominations became more Hungarian.
Table 11
The number of Hungarian native speakers per denomination between 1880 and
1910
Period
Total
Orthodox
Greek catholic
Roman catholic
Calvinist
Lutheran.
Unitarian
Jewish
Other
(x 1,000 persons)
1880a
1,009.4
11.2
31.6
366.8
468.2
23.6
52.4
54.4
1.2
1880a,b
1,046.1
11.6
32.7
380.6
485.0
24.5
54.3
56.2
1.2
1890a
1,201.2
13.0
42.3
434.6
547.2
26.0
58.8
77.5
1.8
1900
1,438.5
20.9
63.3
530.9
622.6
30.7
64.5
104.3
1.3
1910c
1,663.2
25.2
82.3
632.2
685.8
35.8
68.0
132.0
1.9
Index number (Starting population = 100)
1880a,b
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1890a
114.8
111.4
129.5
114.2
112.8
106.1
108.2
137.9
145.9
1900
137.5
179.7
193.7
139.5
128.4
125.3
118.6
185.8
101.6
1910c
159.0
217.4
251.9
166.1
141.4
146.0
125.1
235.0
154.5
a Civilian population.
b Those unable to speak are divided proportionally among the
nationalities.
c Value calculated with regard to the undivided population in
settlements divided by the border.
Sources:
A magyar korona országaiban az 1881. év elején végrehajtott
népszámlálás főbb eredményei, némely hasznos házi állatok (...) 1882: pp.
508-623. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1893a: pp. 256-307, 1907a: pp.
354-387, 1916b: pp. 248-281.
The growth index in Table 11 vividly illustrates that the number of
Hungarian native speakers belonging to "non-Hungarian" churches increased
much more rapidly than the number of Hungarian native speakers in general,
whereas the population growth among those who belonged to typically Hungarian
churches (Calvinists, Unitarians) was below the average. Among Hungarian
native speakers the highest increase was among Greek Catholics, followed
by Hungarian Jews and members of the Orthodox Church. According to data
for specific local areas, the Hungarian language gained ground in the Câmpia
Ierului/Érmellék area, in Szatmár/Satu Mare and Ugocsa/Ugocea
counties; to a smaller extent in Szeklerland among Greek Catholics; in
Bihar/Bihor among Orthodox believers; around Nagykároly/Großkarol/Carei
and Szatmárnémeti/Sathmar/Satu Mare; in Banat among Roman
Catholic Germans; and among the Jewish population in general. The expansion
of the Hungarian language did not make any real changes to the language
borders, except in the Szatmár/Sathmar/Satu Mare - Ugocsa/Ugocea
area, where the 1910 census revealed that the outlines of the Hungarian
language area were more clearly defined, as Greek Catholic Romanians and
Ruthenians and Roman Catholic Germans had exchanged their native languages
for Hungarian. The adoption of Hungarian was most intensive among the Yiddish
speaking Jews who arrived in a steady stream from Galitia and Bukovina
from the middle of the century and among whom the growth rate was very
high. The number of Hungarian native speakers belonging to the Jewish community
in Transylvania increased two and a half times by 76 thousand persons between
1880 and 1910. Among native Hungarian speakers, during the three decades
about 40 per cent of the population gain above the natural increase (80
thousand persons) was a result of assimilation. Two-fifths of those assimilated
were originally Orthodox and Greek Catholics, another two-fifths were Jewish,
and the rest were made up of Germans in Szatmár/Sathmar/Satu Mare
and Banat, as well as some smaller nationalities.
The ethno-demographic tendencies around the time of the 1910 census
were dramatically reversed after World War I as a consequence of the change
in political supremacy. Intensive emigration up to the beginning of the
war and war losses (see MIKE 1927, p. 627; WINKLER 1919, pp. 31-34) virtually
counterbalanced the demographic gain among Hungarians in the second decade
of the century. At the end of 1918, as the Romanian occupation resulted
in a flow of refugees, the number of Hungarians in Transylvania started
to fall. Up to December 1920, a total of 154.3 thousand persons arrived
in Hungary from the occupied territory (THIRRING 1938, p. 390). At the
time of the Romanian census in 1920, the number of those remaining who
had been registered as Hungarian native speakers in the 1910 census could
not have been much higher than 1.5 million. However, the census recorded
200 thousand fewer ethnic Hungarians than could be expected. The deficit
was found mainly in border counties and major centres of migration, but
the census modified the ethnic proportions in all those areas in which
high numbers of Hungarian native speakers belonging to "other religions"
were living. In order to achieve politically motivated "statistical justice",
the organisers took back the whole of the assimilation gain in the number
of those speaking Hungarian that had been recorded earlier by the Hungarian
censuses, something which had undoubtedly reflected their delayed ambitions
to create the nation state. The first official Romanian census reproduced
the conditions of the decades prior to the 1910 census, while being forward
looking at the same time. This is proved by the fact that the basic nationality
proportions registered then did not change essentially in the subsequent
decade.
According to official statistics, in the first four years of the new
regime 25.1 per cent of the total natural population growth occurred among
Hungarians, and 57.2 per cent among Romanians (Table 12). A significant
fall in the mortality rate and a rise in the birth rate after the war meant
that the total population increased at the same rate as between 1911 and
1914 (although the live birth rate did not reach the level of ten years
earlier). However, the decreasing natural growth rate, and especially the
birth rate among Hungarians (compared with earlier periods and other nationalities)
predict an unfavourable demographic change in this respect.
Table 12
Live births, deaths and the natural population growth in major ethnic groups
in Transylvania
between 1920 and 1923
Nationality
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand*
Total
676,413
465,784
210,629
32.6
22.4
10.2
Hungarian
161,336
108,438
52,898
30.1
20.2
9.9
Romanian
413,050
292,635
120,415
34.9
24.7
10.2
German
65,456
43,544
21,912
30.0
20.0
10.0
Jewish
19,501
10,530
8,971
26.5
14.3
12.2
Other
17,070
10,637
6,433
26.8
16.7
10.1
*Mid-period population based on the nationality results
of the census conducted in December 1920 with natural population growth
added to and deducted from the census respectively, according to missing
refugees (the 1920 natural growth is divided proportionally among nationalities).
Source:
Istrate 1925: p. 115.
Population development according to ethnic groups between 1921 and 1930
can only be given indirectly, by means of the demographic data with respect
to denominations.
Table 13
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania according
to denominations
between 1921 and 1930
Denominat.
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
1921-1928
1921-1928
1921-1928
1921-1930
1921-28
1921-30
1921-28
1921-30
Number of persons
Annual average per housand
Total
1,308,612
926,202
382,410
483,846
31.1
22.0
9.1
9.1*
Orthodox
444,729
343,443
101,286
131,027
30.0
23.2
6.8
7.0
Greek Cath.
375,807
242,929
132,878
171,100
36.7
23.7
13.0
13.2
Roman Cath.
210,141
153,740
56,401
6ion are just over half of the figure
mentioned above. This phenomenon can be explained by overlappings among
nationalities and denominations (a large number of ethnic Romanians can
be found in historically Hungarian churches and there are also a lot of
ethnic Hungarians in Romanian churches).
Indexes for education reveal that the proportion of persons with further
education qualifications is very low among Hungarians in the twelve years
and above age group (only 3.6 per cent compared with 5.1 per cent among
the population as a whole and 5.3 per cent among Romanians) (Table 35).
Apart from the fact that a quarter of persons with further education qualifications
are concentrated in the capital (excluding Bucharest the proportion of
professionals is a mere 4.2 per cent), the following factors should be
borne in mind: a controlled policy to produce an artificially low number
of Hungarian professionals and, more importantly, massive emigration among
Hungarian graduates. Hungarians are represented more proportionally among
secondary-school leavers. The proportion of Hungarians with basic qualifications
(the equivalent of the senior level of a first school) is better, that
is, higher than the national average and the Romanian average. The proportions
of Hungarians with no school education and of illiterate Hungarians are
also better, in this case much lower than the Romanian average and the
national average.
Table 35
The number of 12-year-old and above ethnic Hungarians according to school
qualifications in Romania
in 1992 and the corresponding national, Transylvanian and ethnic Romanian
figures
School qualificatiohese figures can then be used to calculate what proportion of the natural
growth between 1921 and 1930 occurred in the two major ethnic groups within
each denomination (see KOVÁCS 1929). The result shows that out of
the total natural population growth of 483.8 thousand persons, an increase
of 141.4 thousand persons (29.2 per cent) occurred among Hungarians, and
double this figure, that is, 277.6 thousand persons (57.4 per cent), among
Romanians. (If we adjust this result, which is optimal from a Hungarian
point of view, to Romanian data collection practices based on the concept
of "descent according to people", and accordingly subtract Jewish persons
and include Orthodox Hungarian native speakers among Romanians, the Hungarian
share in the natural population increase is reduced to approximately 115
thousand persons, while the Romanian share increases to 290 thousand persons.)
In order to calculate (even conditionally) the population balance with
respect to Hungarians, migration losses also have to be taken into consideration.
Between 1921 and 1924 there was an increase of 42.8 thousand in the number
of Transylvanian refugees registered in Hungary. According to the official
Romanian emigration statistics, the emigration, immigration and remigration
balance with respect to ethnic Hungarians or Hungarian citizens was -8.7
thousand persons between 1926 and 1930. The real number of Hungarian emigrants
was increased by those who were regarded as non-Hungarian - for example,
Jews and Germans. Emigration was particularly intensive in the first half
of the decade, but we have only incomplete information from this period
(STATISTICĂ EMIGRĂRILOR DIN ROMÂNIA 1923, DIE SIEBENBÜRGISCHE
FRAGE 1940, p. 223). With this in mind, however, it is no exaggeration
to estimate that the deficit in the number of Hungarians emigrating from
Transylvania over ten years amounts to at least 60 thousand persons. This
number is nearly as high as the negative balance of the real and natural
population growth of the region illustrated in Table 3. The census in late
December 1930 found a maximum of 80 thousand, or, allowing for the "decent
according to people" criterion 55 thousand, more Hungarians in Transylvania
than could be estimated for 1920, or than the figure recorded in the census.
The nationality returns in the census, which stated that the number of
Hungarians had increased to 1,353.3 thousand, just fulfil these low expectations.
The figure of 1,480.7 thousand for native speakers is closer to the estimation
based on the 1910 data, although this is still 100 thousand fewer than
1.6 million, the figure generally accepted by moderate Hungarian statisticians
(RÓNAI 1938, p. 97, 1939, p. 351; SCHNELLER 1940, p. 492). Interestingly
enough, in 1910 the total number of those whose identity was subject to
controversy (Hungarian native speakers belonging to the Jewish, Greek Catholic,
and Orthodox denominations, and Germans who became Hungarian in Szatmár)
amounted to 264.1 thousand. This figure was roughly the same as the difference
between the estimated 1.6 million mentioned above and the number of Hungarians
registered by the 1930 census. Of these, 127.2 thousand spoke only Hungarian,
while 114.5 thousand had Hungarian as their native language but also knew
another language which, because of their denomination, was taken to be
their "original" language. The number in this latter group is approximately
equivalent to the shortfall from the figure for native language.
The data for population changes with respect to denominations in Transylvania
between 1931 and 1935 are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
Live births, deaths and natural population growth according to denominations
in Transylvania
between 1931 and 1935
Denomination
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
Total
732,462
531,567
200,895
25.9
18.8
7.1
Orthodox
247,770
195,649
52,121
25.3
20.0
5.3
Greek Catholic
228,324
144,255
84,069
32.0
20.2
11.8
Roman Catholic
108,858
84,460
24,398
22.7
17.6
5.1
Calvinist
82,904
60,992
21,912
23.4
17.2
6.2
Lutheran
30,033
21,744
8,289
21.6
15.6
6.0
Unitarian
8,304
5,777
2,527
23.9
16.6
7.3
Jewish
17,594
12,492
5,102
18.0
12.8
5.2
Baptist, Advent.
6,245
3,190
2,335
28.7
18.0
10.7
Other
2,430
2,288
142
*
*
3.1
Source: Anuarul statistic al României 1933-1937/1938.
The regional breakdown reveals that the most favourable figures for
natural population growth for all the denominations, with the exception
of Jews and Greek Catholics, were recorded in the territory of historical
Transylvania. Even the positive birth rate among the Orthodox community
reaches 8.2 per thousand here. The same figure for Roman Catholics and
Calvinists is 8.4 per thousand and 7.2 per thousand respectively. The birth
rate among Greek Catholics is highest in the Crişana/Körös
and Maramureş/Máramaros areas (12.2 per thousand). In Banat,
a further fall in the originally low birth rate meant that not only the
Jewish community and the Unitarian and Greek Catholic segments, but also
the dominant Orthodox denomination began to experience a natural decrease
(an annual average of -0.9 per thousand). The Banatians, too (and the Germans
in particular), among whom the birth rate was traditionally low, reduced
the average natural population growth among Roman Catholics with an annual
figure of 0.6 per thousand. It is once again instructive to look at denominational
data in order to demonstrate ethnic differences in population changes,
as well as to check demographic statistics with respect to nationality.
Using the method applied above, the natural population growth among Hungarians
over half a decade can be established as 51.7 thousand persons (or 41.7
thousand if the "descent according to people" criterion is used), while
the same figure for Romanians is 128.6 thousand or 134.8 thousand. As Table
15 indicates, according to this method the number of Romanians actually
increased during this time. The population growth among those officially
regarded as ethnic Hungarians is higher than expected, since the calculation
based on denominations produces a lower value than the real one due to
the low birth rate among the Germans.
Table 15
Live births, deaths and natural population growth according to nationality
in Transylvania
between 1931 and 1939
Nationality
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
1934-1939
1934-1939
1931-1935
1931-1939
1934-1939
1934-1939
1931-1935
1931-1939
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
Total
858,531
627,061
231,470
200,922
365,151
24.7
18.0
6.7
7.1
7.1
Romanian
548,515
392,899
155,616
130,903
241,661
27.1
19.4
7.7
8.0
8.1
Hungarian
180,160
133,299
46,861
44,813
77,592
21.3
15.8
5.5
6.5
6.2
German
66,013
55,429
10,584
8,891
16,925
19.8
16.6
3.2
3.2
3.4
Jewish
20,305
14,957
5,348
5,695
9,113
18.3
13.5
4.8
6.3
5.5
Russ., Ukr.
8,271
4,983
3,288
2,752
5,014
34.2
20.6
13.6
14.4
14.1
Other
35,267
25,494
9,773
7,868
14,846
24.7
17.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
Sources:
Anuarul statistic al României 1935/1936-1939/1940.;
Buletinul demografic al României May 1939-April 1940. Manuilă 1940: pp.
95-103.
The annual natural population growth rate among ethnic Hungarians between
1931 and 1933 was still 7.5 per thousand, but over the next six years it
fell by 2 per thousand, thus increasing the shortfall compared with Romanians
from 1.3 per thousand to 2.2 per thousand. Thus the tendency of the 1920s
towards the equalisation of the growth rate in the two ethnically dominant
Transylvanian nationalities seems to have gained strength up until the
early 1930s when it turned into a new inequality, this time to the advantage
of the Romanians. The growth rate among Hungarians fell from 11.2 per thousand
(the rate between 1901 and 1910), to less than half that figure, that is,
5.5 per thousand. At the same time, the fall in the Romanian growth rate
was only 1 per thousand, and the natural growth rate among the Romanian
population still reached an annual figure of 7.7 per thousand. (However,
this value was extraordinary only by Transylvanian standards, since the
Romanian growth rate amounted to 12.6 per thousand over the whole of Great
Romania.) Although the ethno-demographic statistical records were distorted
to some extent due to the lack of a clearly standardised criterion system,
they basically followed major tendencies. They demonstrate that the demographic
turn-around with respect to the two nationalities described above was due
to the disproportionately large difference between the fall in birth rates,
since the decrease in mortality rates was more or less equal (compared
with the first decade of the century the Hungarian rate fell by 9.1 per
thousand, and the Romanian rate by 8.5 per thousand). The annual birth
rate among Hungarians was 14.8 per thousand lower than it had been three
decades earlier. The same Romanian value was only 9.5 per thousand lower.
This phenomenon was probably also brought about by the accumulated population
losses among Hungarians, since the wave of refugees fleeing to Hungary
after the war compounded the decreasing birth rate caused by the low number
of those of child-bearing age (although this factor should not, of course,
be exaggerated). The annual average for Hungarian natural growth is only
higher than the Romanian figure in Banat (4.1 per thousand) where the number
of Romanians was falling at the time (-1.2 per thousand). On the other
hand, it is remarkable that the natural population growth rate among Romanians
(10.3 per thousand) was 1.5 times higher than that among Hungarians (6.7
per thousand) even in the territory of historical Transylvania, whereas
in the Crişana/Körös and Maramureş/Máramaros
areas the rate was 2.5 times higher (8.6 and 3.2 per thousand respectively).
This suggests that we should be cautious when interpreting these data.
Such a great difference can only be explained by the fact that the architects
of the demographic statistics followed the practice of the 1930 census
and based their figures on the obscure "descent according to people" criterion.
With this in mind, and correcting the data with regard to denominations,
it can be seen that from the natural growth of the total Transylvanian
population between 1931 and 1940, which amounted to 386.8 thousand persons,
some 250 thousand persons (64.6 per cent) may have been Romanian and another
100 thousand (25.8 per cent) Hungarians. According to the official nationality
registration, the number of Hungarians increased to 1,430.9 thousand, during
a period in which demographic tendencies were officially regarded as undisturbed
(MANUILĂ 1940, p. 97). However, allowing for the data of the 1910
Hungarian census concerning native speakers, and following the argument
outlined above, we obtain a figure of 1.7 million.
The period between 1931 and 1941 was concluded by a further change in
political supremacy. Since the Second Vienna Award resulted in mutual population
movements in the region, it seems advisable to draw the ethnic picture
of divided Transylvania allowing for the new border. Figures for natural
population changes detailed in this way also demonstrate that this border,
running from the western edge of present-day Romania to the southern curve
of the Carpathians, lies along a demographic break-line dividing the fertile
north and north-west of Transylvania from the southern and south-western
parts where population growth was decreasing (see Table 16).
Table 16
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania between
1931 and 1941*
Territory
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Live births
Deaths
Natural growth
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
North
702,149
467,930
234,219
28.0
18.7
9.3
South
759,398
606,752
152,646
22.8
18.2
4.6
*Between 1 January 1931 and 31 January 1941 in North Transylvania,
and 1 January 1931 and 31 March 1941 in South Transylvania
Sources:
Thirring 1943: p. 358. Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste
România 1974: pp. 142, 236. Buletinul demografic al României May-July 1941.
Table 17, illustrating real and natural population growth according
to major ethnic groups, reveals that the Hungarian census in North Transylvania
in late January 1941 practically reconstructed the ethnic and native language
situation as it had been before Trianon. The reasons behind this phenomenon
are almost impenetrably complex. According to the registration made by
the Central Office for the Control of Foreigners 100 thousand Hungarian
refugees had arrived in Hungary from South Transylvania by the date mentioned
(A ROMÁNIAI MENEKÜLTEK FŐBB ADATAI 1944, p. 410), which
is also indicated by the real and natural population balance. Most of them
sought refuge in the north, and almost as many persons arrived in the reannexed
territory as moved to the Trianon territory from South Transylvania (STARK
1989, pp. 72, 74). As a result of these migrations, North Transylvanian
Hungarians increased by almost 100 thousand. In order to "compensate" for
this, a great number of Romanians were obliged to leave North Transylvania.
Of them, some 100 thousand had left by February 1941 according to the incomplete
registration of North Transylvanian refugees carried out by the Romanian
government (TEROAREA HORTHYSTO-FASCISTĂ 1985, p. 143). Besides this,
a fall in the total population suggests that a further 40 to 50 thousand
Romanians moved from North to South Transylvania (including refugees who
were omitted from the official registration for various reasons). If the
difference between real and natural population growth in the two main ethnic
groups is adjusted according to migration gain and loss respectively, the
population balance among Hungarian native speakers becomes +160 thousand,
while the Romanian figure is -90 thousand. These values reflect returns
which differ from the previous census, that is, a reassimilation gain among
Hungarians, and a disassimilation among Romanians. The Hungarian assimilation
gain is made up of losses on the part of other groups of native speakers,
as shown in the last column of Table 17. The figures reveal that more than
half of the persons recorded as Yiddish native speakers in 1930 returned
to the community of Hungarian native speakers. This tallies with the corresponding
figures of the 1910 census. Yiddish, then recognised as a special German
dialect, was spoken by 40.2 thousand Jewish persons who had German as their
native language in the counties in question in 1910 (with respect to present-day
Transylvania), whereas there were 48.5 thousand Yiddish speakers in North
Transylvania in 1941. The changing of language was most typical among Romanians,
nearly 90 thousand of whom were added to the total number of Hungarian
speakers. As for nationality, the Hungarian gain is much higher than gain
based on native language: that is, over 300 thousand. On the other hand,
behind this figure were instances, many of them in Máramaros/Maramureş
and Szatmár/Satu Mare counties, where in dozens of settlements many
of those who had declared themselves as Romanian now identified themselves
as Hungarian, even though they did not speak Hungarian at all (not did
they in 1910). The 1941 Romanian census data with respect to Hungarians
in South Transylvania are quite correct, since most ethnic groups whose
identity was debated were found north of the border and were thus recorded
by the Hungarian census. Their number was between 160 and 300 thousand,
the range being somewhat wider than ten years earlier.
Table 17
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
according
to native language and nationality in North and South Transylvania
between 1930 and 1941a
(x 1,000 persons)
Major ethnic groups
Number of persons
Real
Naturalb
Difference between real and natural growth
in 1930
in 1941
growth or decrease(-)
a. In North Transylvania according to native
language
Total
2,393.3
2,578.1
184.8
234.2
-49.4
Hungarian
1,007.2
1,344.0
336.8
80.0
256.8
Romanian
1,165.8
1,068.7
-97.1
138.0
-235.1
German
59.7
47.3
-12.4
1.5
-13.9
Yiddish
99.6
48.5
-51.1
3.5
-54.6
Other
61.0
69.6
8.6
11.2
-2.6
b. In North Transylvania according to nationality
Total
2,393.3
2,578.1
1,84.8
234.2
-49.4
Hungarian
912.5
1,380.5
468.0
62.0
406.0
Romanian
1,176.9
1,029.0
-147.9
146.0
-293.9
German
68.3
44.6
-23.7
4.2
-27.9
Jewish
138.8
47.4
-91.4
10.0
-101.4
Other
96.8
76.6
-20.2
12.0
-32.2
c. In South Transylvania according to nationality
Total
3,155.0
3,332.9
177.9
152.7
25.2
Hungarian
440.7
363.2
-77.5
21.1
-98.6
Romanian
2,031.0
2,274.6
243.6
110.2
133.4
German
475.6
490.6
15.0
13.3
1.7
Other
207.7
204.5
-3.2
8.1c
-11.3
Italics: calculated values
a In North Transylvania on 31 January 1941,
in South Transylvania on 6 April 1941.
b Values based on nationality figures until 1939. When native
language is recorded, it is corrected by estimation.
c Of this Jewish: -1 thousand.
Sources:
Thirring 1943: p. 358. Anuarul demografic
al Republicii Socialiste România 1974: pp. 142, 236. Manuilă 1992: p. 145.
Buletinul demografic al României May 1940-July 1941.
The population balance during World War II can be calculated by comparing
the 1941 and 1948 census returns with natural population growth in the
period. The result shows a real deficit of 275.6 thousand persons in terms
of the total population. This is the balance of the total losses and gains
among the different ethnic groups. The number of North Transylvanian Jews,
three-quarters of them Hungarian, is established at between 90 and 100
thousand (SEMLYÉN 1982, Part 6 p. 9; ERDÉLY TÖRTÉNETE
1986, p. 1757). Another 100 thousand may represent the number of Germans
who fled to the West with the withdrawing Hitlerist troops. Some 90 to
100 thousand Germans were sent as workers to the Soviet Union by the Romanian
government to repair war damage. Most of them did not later return to their
homeland, but settled in Germany or Austria (ILLYÉS 1981, pp. 28-29).
The number of Hungarians leaving Transylvania for good in subsequent waves
is also estimated at between 100 and 125 thousand by different sources
(STARK 1989, p. 73). The sum of these losses is higher than the figure
based on the population balance mentioned above. Consequently, another
segment of the population experienced a significant migration gain, for
which no precise figures can be given without knowing details of military
losses. This gain obviously enlarged the Romanian population and contributed
to an estimated real increase of 400 thousand persons (as regards native
language), because of which the proportion of Romanians, which had been
almost stagnant until then, rose by 9 per cent to reach two-thirds of the
population at the time of the 1948 census. The number of Hungarians in
Transylvania fell from 1,743.8 thousand to 1,481.9 thousand during this
period according to the census. The difference of over 260 thousand persons
and their natural population growth between the two censuses went to produce
the total population deficit of Transylvanian Hungarians, which includes
those who were killed on the fronts or as prisoners of war, the civilian
victims of deportations, military actions and reprisals, as well as those
leaving the country for good. All that can be deduced from this deficit,
relying on different sources, is the number of refugees, expatriates and
deportees, that is, a total of 200 thousand. Not having any (even approximate)
data, about the other Hungarian victims of war, we can only presume that
these losses did not exceed the Hungarian natural population increase in
the seven years. Theoretically, these losses must have been the remaining
60 thousand missing from the officially established number of Hungarian
native speakers. Owing to the destruction of Hungarian Jews, this deficit
is much smaller than could be ascertained from previous Romanian censuses.
The difference still indicates uncertainties in the estimation due to incomplete
data about human losses. On the other hand, it also witnesses to the survival
of earlier reflexes such as repeated attempts to separate members of certain
population groups with dual ethnic identity (mostly denominations using
Greek rites, as local data show) from Transylvanian Hungarians.
Over the next eight years, as shown in the 1956 census, native language
proportions did not change in practice in Transylvania. Within the same
administrative borders the number of Hungarian native speakers increased
by 137 thousand, and the number of Romanian native speakers by 339.8 thousand
between 1948 and 1956. The Hungarian real annual population growth was
11 per thousand, that is, 1 per thousand higher than the total population
increase, even slightly exceeding the 10.8 per thousand Romanian annual
population growth. Part of the Hungarian population growth seen in the
1956 census derives from a verifiable positive change in declarations of
nationality compared with the 1930 and 1948 censuses. It is obvious from
regionally analysed data that the Hungarian population growth rate in Transylvania
is above the average primarily in the north-west border region, except
in present-day Hunedoara county where a higher rate occurred due to remigration
into the mining area. In the north-west, once the territory of Szatmár/Satu
Mare) and Szilágy/Sălaj counties, the number of Hungarian
native speakers increased by an annual 16.1 per thousand, while the same
figure for local Romanians, well-known for their high birth rate, was only
7.5 per thousand. (The source of the 1956 data adjusted to previous administrative
units is László Sebők's Transylvanian historical-statistical
gazetteer. Computerised database, L. Teleki Foundation Library and Documentary
Service, Budapest.) A closer study reveals that this unique outcome in
the history of Romanian censuses was due to the fact that ethnic groups
that had earlier broken away from the Hungarian native-speaking community
now returned to it - although, as shown in later censuses, only temporarily.
Because of this temporary assimilation gain for the Hungarians, their natural
population growth was lower than the real increase, although we do not
know how much the birth rate differed from the average in the region, since
there are no figures for the period.
Ethnic relations were challenged, but, with respect to the Hungarian
and Romanian positions at least, were only slightly modified along earlier
break-lines, by the repeated changes in political supremacy. A real rearrangement
of the ethnic spectrum has occurred since the 1956 census. As shown in
Supplementary Table 1, in 1956 the Hungarian population had once again
reached, for the first time since the beginning of Romanian censuses, approximately
the same levels as registered in 1910. Their proportion of the total population
had even increased (compared with 1930) with respect to the nationality
breakdown, nor did it fall below the lowest value recorded until that time
(in 1869) with respect to native speakers. Moreover, their position in
North Transylvania remained unchanged, even in the towns, compared with
1930; there was even improvement in certain areas, whereas the proportion
of Romanians barely retained its two-thirds share. At that time the increase
in the proportion of Romanians was mostly due to their intensive expansion,
which meant their replacing those masses of Hungarians who, although not
forming compact groups, had left or had been forced to leave Transylvania.
This expansion was primarily experienced in southern counties along the
traditional "industrial axis", and in German settlements already in the
process of being deserted (especially in Banat and North Transylvania,
around Bistriţa/Bistritz/Beszterce - Reghin/Säschisch-Regen/Szászrégen,
so it did not, in fact, occur at the cost of Hungarians.
In the three and a half decades since that time, however, the proportion
of Romanians in terms of native speakers has increased by another 9.8 per
cent and by 8.6 per cent with respect to nationality. Thus, at the time
of the 1992 census, about three-quarters of the Transylvanian population
was made up of Romanians. The ratio of Hungarian native speakers (which
is not far above that of ethnic Hungarians) has decreased by a further
5 per cent, and consequently in 1992 only one-fifth of the population was
Hungarian. These changes, however, cannot be followed in detail, as the
demographic data do not contain a nationality breakdown. An ethno-demographic
approach can only rely on regional demographic publications to some extent,
although it is clear from earlier corresponding data that it can be misleading
to relate population growth rates in the different counties directly to
their nationality ratios and then to project these values onto a national
level. Information leaked sporadically suggests that the population increase
among ethnic Hungarians in the last decades has been checked, unlike in
earlier periods, by a higher than average mortality rate. (Between 1934
and 1939, when the birth rate among ethnic Hungarians was 3.4 per thousand
lower than that in Transylvania as a whole and 5.8 per thousand lower than
the same Romanian figure, a relatively satisfactory level of growth among
Hungarians was ensured by a mortality rate 2.2 per thousand lower than
the Transylvanian average and 3.6 per thousand below the Romanian figure.)
In 1965, when the national birth rate fell to an extremely low 14.6 per
thousand in Romania, and to 14.2 per thousand in Transylvania, the live
birth rate among Hungarians in Transylvania was 12.8 per thousand, while
the Romanian figure was 14.5 per thousand (ANUARUL DEMOGRAFIC 1967, p.
53). Thus the Hungarian birth rate was only 1.4 per thousand lower than
the Transylvanian rate and 1.7 per thousand lower than the Romanian average.
In that year (using calculations based on the mother's nationality), out
of the 20,812 Hungarian new-born babies, 20,675, that is, 99.3 per cent,
were born in Transylvania. Over the next eleven years the number of babies
born to Hungarian families was approximately 336 thousand (SEMLYÉN
1980a, p. 49), 333.5 thousand of whom must have been born in Transylvania
if we accept the ratio mentioned above. Taking a mean proportion of the
values of the two censuses we obtain a birth rate of 18.8 per thousand,
which roughly corresponds with the Transylvanian average. During this period
the Hungarian population increased by 93.6 thousand persons in Transylvania,
an annual growth rate of 5.3 per thousand. From the figures for live births
and the 5.3 per thousand average real population growth between 1966 and
1977, we obtain, by a simple calculation, a mortality rate of 13.5 per
thousand, that is, 3.3 per thousand higher than the Transylvanian average.
However, there is no reason why we should accept this speculative result
as probable. Relying on demographic data between 1966 and 1985 in counties
where Hungarians formed a majority or lived in great numbers, we can only
suppose that as Hungarian birth rates in Transylvania slowly sank below
the average, mortality rates approached, or sometimes exceeded the average
(VARGA E. 1994c, pp. 80-81). Official information concerning the natural
population changes among Hungarians was only provided quarter of a century
later, when the national demographic situation had become critical: the
official version is that Hungarian mortality rates over the whole country
increased to 14.8 per thousand in 1992, while the birth rate reached only
9 per thousand (GHEŢĂU 1993). Although this alarming fact
effectively documents the dramatic outcome of nationality inequalities
in the process of demographic transition, it does not enable us to draw
definite conclusions about conditions a few decades earlier.
Owing to the forty-five year blockade on information on the natural
population growth of particular nationalities and its structure, we can
only rely on the real population development figures recorded in the censuses
when reviewing the dramatic changes that occurred in ethnic relations between
1956 and 1992. It is clear from Table 18 that the number of ethnic Hungarians
between 1956 and 1977 increased by only 132.7 thousand, thus Transylvanian
Hungarians did not increase more in these two decades than during the previous
eight years. It is also worth mentioning that the 1977 census documentation
flagrantly distorts the original records (NYÁRÁDY 1983, VARGA
E. 1996b) and takes only 1,651.3 thousand "ethnic Hungarians and native
speakers" into account. Thus it acknowledges the existence of just 93 thousand
(only 35 thousand as native speakers) more Hungarians in Transylvania than
recorded twenty-one years earlier by the 1956 census. Bearing in mind the
chaotic, contradictory nature of the publications, earlier doubts about
the ethnic data supplied by the Romanian statistical service would seem
to be justified. It is not therefore surprising that this period saw the
highest number of different estimations regarding the number of Transylvanian
and Romanian Hungarians. Using general population trends and church registrations,
Hungarian specialists usually put this figure at between 2 and 2.2 million
in the 1980s, immediately before the beginning of mass emigration, flight
and natural population decrease (DÁVID 1982; NYÁRÁDI
1983; SÜLE 1988; ANTAL 1989; KOCSIS-KOCSISNÉ 1991; KLINGER
1991; SEBŐK 1992).
Members of the general public who were keen to know the facts were faced
with a "fait accompli" in the 1992 census, which, contrary to even moderate
expectations, registered a serious fall in the number of ethnic Hungarians
compared with the previous census. The decrease of 87.1 thousand (or 89
thousand nation-wide) can only partly be explained by emigration. According
to data from the Ministry of the Interior, 63,427 ethnic Hungarians had
left Romania legally since the previous census (ANUARUL STATISTIC 1993,
p. 143). Taking the results of the two censuses, natural population growth
and official emigration statistics, we find that the real migration loss
for Romania was at least twice as high as officially registered (VARGA
E. 1994a, pp. 196-197). (This was partly due to the omission of many Romanian
citizens who were abroad at the time the census was carried out.) Thus
the number of Hungarians who had either left the country for good or who
were merely away from the country must have been higher than mentioned
before. Taking the multiplier referred to above, it probably reached 100
thousand. However, not even this can explain the population deficit among
Hungarians recorded in the census, since their natural increase must have
compensated to a great extent for the losses caused by permanent or temporary
emigration. Allowing for natural population growth and migration, the Bucharest
Statistical Service registered 1,753.2 thousand Hungarians in Romania on
1 January 1988 (FEHÉR KÖNYV 1991, p. 2). (These records suppose
a natural population growth of 63.5 thousand relying on the 1977 census
which recorded 1,712.8 thousand ethnic Hungarians, and they take the number
of persons emigrating between 1977 and 1987 as 23.1 thousand. In this case,
the annual rate of population increase among Hungarians would be 3.4 per
thousand compared with the 5.5 per thousand average for the total Transylvanian
population.) If we reduce this officially established value by 40.3 thousand,
that is, the number of emigrants between 1988 and 1991, and by a further
35 thousand, being the probable number of unregistered illegal emigrants,
we still obtain a total of 1,680 thousand Hungarians - a figure that should
have been found in Romania by the 1992 census. In fact, the census only
registered 1,625 thousand Romanian citizens as belonging to the ethnic
Hungarians. Although natural population growth has turned into a decrease
in Romania as well, and although this change must have occurred somewhat
earlier among Hungarians, it is not likely that the population gain among
Hungarians in Romania, which had accumulated up to the end of the 1980s,
vanished in a few years. All this considered, the number of Hungarians
in Romania recorded at the time of the census is at least 50 thousand fewer
than can be calculated taking the 1977 census as a basis and allowing for
natural and mechanical population changes. The deficit can be attributed
to different declarations of nationality from those given in the previous
census, that is, assimilation (or reassimilation) shifts: one-third of
the deficit seems to have gone to enlarge the German and Gypsy communities,
and two-thirds were probably included among Romanians.
Table 18
The real population growth and decrease among Hungarians, Romanians and
the population in Transylvania
between 1948 and 1992*
Period
Total
Romanian
Hungarian
Total
Romanian
Hungarian
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
1948-1956
483,766
339,785
137,008
10.0
10.8
11.0
1956-1966
503,734
520,951
39,136
7.7
12.0
2.5
1966-1977
780,674
644,414
93,610
10.2
12.2
5.3
1977-1992
223,084
480,296
-87,125
1.9
5.9
-3.5
*Between two censuses, according to the territorial system
valid at the end of the decade. Native language test 1948-1956, nationality
test 1956-1992.
Major data for city developmentand for the flow of Transcarpathian
Romanians into Transylvania
Supplementary Table 2, tracing the development of ethnic relations in
Transylvanian towns, illustrates that ethnic structures, weakened by repeated
changes in political supremacy, were modified fundamentally only by the
city explosion during the "second urbanisation" based on massive industrialisation.
An outline of the process is given here, with a focus on the nation-wide
migration which brought great masses of Romanian people into towns, as
well as on the large-scale population exchange between the two great regions
of the country.
The sources of twentieth-century urban population growth in Transylvania
are illustrated in Table 19.
Table 19
The sources of urban population growth in Transylvania between 1900 and
1944a
Period
Real
Natural
Migration difference
Administration changesb
Annual average growthc
growth or decrease (-)
1901-1910
124,650
21,714
79,895
23,041
20.1
1911-1920
38,985
-12,483d
55,606e
-4,138
5.5
1921-1930
241,872
18,960f
132,228
90,684
28.7
1931-1941
190,226
5,951g
169,321
14,954
18.0
1941-1948
-34,740
...
...
-1,839
-3.1
1948-1956
634,940
...
...
243,070
27.4
1956-1966
625,525
136,770
351,260
137,494
30.1
1966-1972h
623,325
...
...
240,556
36.8
1972-1976h
555,957
150,000
405,960
-
37.7
1977-1981h
424,293
165,040
259,250
-
25.0
1981-1985h
316,007
115,395
200,612
-
19.1
1985-1989h
269,598
...
...
59,184i
15.2
1989-1991h
-138,852
485,36
-187,388
-
-12.4
1992-1994h
3112
10,177
-7,065
-
0.3
Italics: calculated values
a Real growth between censuses; natural growth
broken down into calendar years.
b Number of persons in settlements that were declared towns,
or were attached to or separated from towns at the beginning of the period.
c Real population growth compared with mid-period figures per
thousand
d Between 1911 and 1918, and in 1920.
e Difference between immigration and remigration minus war losses.
f Between 1 January 1931 and 1 April 1941 (in North Transylvania
between 1 January 1931 and 1 August 1940).
g Taking the mid-year population for the years between the two
censuses and half of the population growth in the year in question.
h Newly established towns with end-period numbers.
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1902:
pp. 280-455, 1912: pp. 280-457, 1913: pp. 280-459. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei
1911-1920. Martinovici - Istrati 1921: Dicţionarul comunelor. Manuilă 1929:
pp. VIII, XI, XV. Anuarul statistic al României 1922-1939/1940.
Ionescu 1927: pp. 57-62. Recensământul general al populaţiei României din
29 decemvrie 1930 1938: pp. XLII, 116, 224, 234, 276, 416, 440. Buletinul
demografic al României May-November 1940, Mai-July 1941. Recensământul
general al Româniai din 1941 6 aprilie 1944: pp. 1-270. Az 1941. évi népszámlálás 1947: pp. 498-690. Recensămîntul
populaţiei din 21 februarie 1956 1960: pp. 17-158. Recensămîntul populaţiei
şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966 1968: Volumes relating to Transylvania.
Cucu - Urucu 1967: Supplementary Table. Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste România 1973-1986. Recensămîntul
populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977 1980:p. 616. Recensămîntul
populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992 1994: p. 1. Anuarul statistic
al României 1990-1995.
Urbanisation was dynamic in the first decade of the century as well,
although the rate of increase was more modest than later because of the
lower number of newly established towns. Nearly two-thirds of the growth
was a result of immigration. The ratio of migration increase to natural
population growth was 4:1. A total of 100.8 thousand Hungarians (81 per
cent), or 88 thousand (86.6 per cent) not counting newly established towns,
contributed to the growth in urban population during the decade, and their
natural population growth reached 22.6 thousand persons. The difference
between the two figures is due to migration and assimilation gains among
Hungarians. The shift in ethnic proportions following the change of supremacy
can partly be attributed to forced reassimilation. (In the 1920 census,
for example, 91.1 thousand urban Jews, whose mother tongue was Hungarian,
were registered as ethnic Jews.) However, it was also caused by flight
and by the changeover in terms of state administration, officials and the
liberal professions, as well as by an influx of Romanians coming from rural
areas into the towns. Those settlements which became towns were mostly
made up of Romanians or were mixed even at that time. Some of the migration
gain experienced in the 1930s was temporary, since it included refugees
who had been forced to leave their homes and who were lodged in towns on
both sides. However, the fact that 53.5 per cent of migration gain was
concentrated in the narrow strip of the South Transylvanian industrial
area, in the towns of Braşov/Brassó, Sibiu, Hunedoara, Caraş-Severin,
Timiş/Temes-Torontal and Arad counties, was a sign of permanent change.
Obvious parallels can be found between urbanisation trends during the
peaceful years before World War I and after World War II as far as proportions
are concerned. In both cases, the proportion within urbanisation of those
belonging to the dominant nation was much higher than their proportion
in the existing urban population. The Hungarian share in urban population
growth between 1901 and 1910, calculated within the same administrative
system, was 86.6 per cent, while the same figure for Romanians was 88.5
per cent between 1956 and 1966, and 87.3 per cent between 1966 and 1977.
Between 1977 and 1992, the population growth among Romanians exceeded that
of the whole country in towns as well. As Hungarian historians clearly
show, towns at the turn of the century were "furnaces of assimilation to
the Hungarians". This demographically true statement about the dominance
of the official language is true for later periods as well, in so far as
an overwhelming majority of Transylvanian towns are now furnaces of assimilation
to the Romanians. The only difference - a difference which cannot be ignored
- is the intensity of these trends. Urban population growth in the first
decade of the century was a mere 101.6 per thousand (apart from in newly
established towns), while the same figure increased to 488 thousand after
1956. Over the next eleven years it rose to 938.7 thousand, and in mid-1989
it reached 950.7 thousand. Two-thirds of this tremendous growth was the
consequence of migration into towns, at least until the mid-1980s.
As an after-effect of the massive migration, the growth capacity of
towns also increased. The impact of the environment in pushing down birth
rates was delayed: in small- and medium-sized towns open to migration,
and even in relatively "closed" big cities with a large proportion of autochthonous
population, the higher birth rate among the newcomers remained dominant
for some time (SEMLYÉN 1980b, p. 194). From the 1970s on, as shown
by a comparison of Tables 5 and 20, in towns (and city-like settlements)
live birth rates approached the national average. As a result of relatively
high birth rates and mortality rates far above the average, the source
of natural population growth gradually shifted to urban areas. Between
1956 and 1966, between 70 and 75 per cent of natural population growth
occurred villages (including settlements regarded as urban at the time
but which were, in fact, rural). This ratio fell to between 55 and 60 per
cent between 1966 and 1977, and dropped to between 20 and 25 per cent between
1977 and 1992. In this latter period rural areas entered the phase of natural
decrease from the original 40 to 45 per cent level.
Table 20
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvanian towns
between 1900 and 1994a
Period
Live births
Deaths
Natural growthor decrease(-)
Live births
Deaths
Natural growthor decrease(-)
Number of persons
Annual average per thousand
1901-1910
176,806
155,092
21,714
28.0
24.6
3.4
1911-1914
78,169
65,690
12,479
28.1
23.6
4.5
1915-1918
45,600
71,893
-26,293
16.1
25.3
-9.3
1920
17,923
16,592
1,331
24.8
23.0
1.8
1921-1925
87,843
76,131
11,712
23.2
20.1
3.1
1926-1930
88,524
81,276
7,248
19.1
17.5
1.6
1931-1939
153,414
145,808
7,606
17.6
16.7
0.9
1956-1965b
366,705
199,124
16,7581
14.0
7.6
6.4
1972-1976b
309,084
140,654
168,430
17.7
8.1
9.6
1977-1985b
605,686
304,568
301,118
16.2
8.1
8.1
1989-1991
174,785
112,302
62,483
12.8
8.2
4.6
1992-1994
132,927
121,720
11,207
10.0
9.2
0.8
a According to administrative units at the
end of the period.
b Including city-like settlements and together with fringe settlements.
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1913:
pp. 280-459. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1911-1920. Manuilă 1929: pp.
VIII, XI, XV. Anuarul statistic al României 1922-1939/1940. Ionescu 1927:
pp. 57-62. Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1967: pp.
22-24, 82-84. Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste România 1973-1986.
Anuarul statistic al României 1990-1995.
The demographic "ruralisation" of the urban population was caused by
the growing number of incoming Romanians, many of them from the Transcarpathian
region. The only exception to this rule was Szeklerland. The returns with
respect to migration deficits in a regional breakdown suggest a massive
influx of people from the Transcarpathian region. (A summary of the related
data from Tables 3 and 4 can be found in Table 21.)
Table 21
The migration balance in the present territory of Romania
according to the two main regions
(x 1,000 persons)
Perioda
Romania
Transcarpathia
Transylvania
1901-1910
...
...
-89.7
1911-1920b
...
...
-265.9
1921-1930
...
...
-67.8
1931-1941
134.6
158.9
-24.3
1941-1948b
-625.9
-351.0
-274.9
1948-1955
-130.2
...
...
1956-1965
-139.7
-166.5
26.8
1966-1976
-69.2
-142.5
73.3
1977-1989c
-233.2
-251.4
18.2
1989-1991
-493.8
-142.5
-351.3
1992-1995
-75.4
-33.4
-42.0
a Migration balance based on the population
on 1 January (registered by census in 1941, 1948, 1977 and 1992; in 1989
and 1995, mid-year figures).
b Difference between immigration and emigration + war losses.
c Based on official data following the 1977 census, excluding
illegal emigration.
Official records reveal a continual migration deficit in the country
since the end of World War II. Between 1956 and 1989, migration loss in
the Transcarpathian region exceeded the national value, while Transylvania
had a migration gain despite the fact that a large proportion of emigrants
(especially Jews, Germans and Hungarians) had left Transylvania. The deficit
caused by these emigrations was apparently compensated by people coming
from the former Old Kingdom. Including these, the immigration gain from
the Transcarpathian region from 1948 to 1955 can be estimated at between
35 and 40 thousand; from 1965 to 1976 at between 120 and 125 thousand;
and from 1977 to 1989 at 250 thousand, thus totalling nearly half a million
over the whole period. The number obtained in this way can be further increased
by several tens of thousands with regard to officially unregistered legal
emigration, as well as ethnic Romanians leaving Transylvania before 1976.
The real number of those arriving in Transylvania is even higher than this,
since it also includes people coming from the Transcarpathians who moved
into places previously inhabited by those moving to the Transcarpathian
region. The real weight, that is, the direct and indirect demographic importance
of Transylvanian inhabitants originating from the Transcarpathian region,
can be outlined using census data with respect to place of birth (Table
22).
Table 22
The population of Transylvania according to place of birth and habitation:
1930, 1966, 1977, 1992
(Number and percentage)a
Year
Totalpopulation
Born in present place of habitation
Born elsewhere in the country
Otherb
In the same county
Elsewhere in Transylvania
In Trans-carpathia
Total
1930
5,548,363
4,105,376
74.0
788,695
14.2
414,855
7.5
68,650
1.2
170,787
3.1
1966
6,719,555
4,333,885
64.5
1,078,816
16.1
791,427
11.8
397,373
5.9
118,054
1.7
1977
7,500,229
4,640,685
61.9
1,329,210
17.7
916,289
12.2
532,905
7.1
81,140
1.1
1992
7,678,206
6,174,802 80.4
876,752
11.4
573,986
7.5
52,666
0.7
Of these, number of persons living in towns
1930
963,418
400,124
41.5
215,552
22.4
214,576
22.4
44,466
4.6
88,700
9.2
1966c
2,619,925
1,075,900
41.1
617,226
23.5
542,450
20.7
304,247
11.6
80,102
3.1
1977
3,558,651
1,499,878
42.1
891,960
25.1
672,488
18.9
435,254
12.2
59,071
1.7
1992
4,344,939
3,167,464 72.9
657,633
15.1
482,318
11.1
37,524
0.9
a 1930, 1966, 1977: population
actually present; 1992: those with a registered permanent address.
b Born abroad or did not respond.
c According to the administrative units introduced in 1968.
Sources:
Recensământul general al populaţiei României
din 29 decemvrie 1930 1940: pp. XXXIV-XXXVII, XLII-XLIX. Recensămîntul
populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966 1970: pp. 2-9, 18-25. Recensămîntul
populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977 1980: pp. 696-701,
720-725. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992 1994:
pp. 112-123, 130-141.
It can be seen that in 1930 only 68,650 persons born in the Transcarpathian
region were living in Transylvania. Four and a half decades later this
number rose to 532,905. On the other hand, in 1930 some 176,381 persons,
(289,791 in 1977) born in Transylvania were registered in the Transcarpathian
region. Thus the migration balance for Transylvania was still negative
in 1930, but later it became positive. The outstandingly detailed publication
containing 1966 data, which sets out domestic population changes up until
that date with reference to period as well, also helps clarify the picture
(see Table 23).
Table 23
Dates of residence changes in Transylvania in the 1966 census according
to place of birth
Date of changing place of residence
Before1945
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
1960-1966
No response
Total number
Living in Transylv., born in Transc.
33,425
39,073
51,721
72,161
181,847
19,146
Living in Transc., born in Transylv.
77,069
17,170
25,932
27,358
| |
