[ Austro-Hungarian
Cross-Index
]
[ Ethnic, Religious, National
Index
] [ Location (Address) Index
]
[Map Room]
[ Master IndexPage ]
[ FEEFHS FrontPage ]
[ Web Site Index ]
AUSTRIAN CENSUS RETURNS
1869 - 1910
WITH EMPHASIS ON GALICIA
By
Johnathan Shea, A.G.
Reprinted from the Journal of the Polish Genealogical Society
of the NorthEast", Vol 7, No. 1 (1990) with the full
authorization of the copyright owner.
© copyright 1997, Polish Genealogical Society of the
Northwest and Jonathan Shea, all rights reserved; HTML coding
© copyright 1997 by FEEFHS, all rights reserved
First Reprinted Here: 4 November 1997
At an 1853 conference in Brussels of the International
Statistical Congress, attendees debated the introduction of
decennial censuses in each of the participating nations, which
would be based on identical principles. The uniformity was
sought by the statisticians in order to facilitate country-to-
country comparisons and date sharing. Identical forms and model
instructions were proposed, and it was decided that the censuses
should take into account the entire population of each
nation.
The uniformity proposed by the conference committees never became
a reality, but the issue of conducting censuses was, at the very
least, brought to the consciousness of the governments of the
participants.
The Hapsburg Monarchy decided to incorporate some of these
recommendations in an 1857 census which fell far short of
expectations. Only in 1869 did the manner and form of the census
begin to comply with the conference recommendations. As such,
1869 is considered to be the year that a new era of census-taking
began in the Austro-Hungarian empire. The 1869 census was the
first "name" census, where individual names and surnames of
inhabitants were recorded.
In the censuses taken in 1869, 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910 the
actual census form contained nearly identical categories and
columns for responses. The only distinctions were the graphic
layout of the form and minor details in the instructions. The
only exception to the uniformity of the returns was that the 1890
census added two questions on housing.
The principal columns included the following:
(1) Sequence number -- Each residential unit visited was assigned
a sequence number under which all the inhabitants of this unit
were listed, including tenants, borders, and those who formed
part of the household but were not physically present.
(2) Surname, Name -- Full name was required, including any
nicknames, titles, etc. The only defect encountered with this
category was that surnames were not standardized in the earlier
censuses, most notably among the Jewish population.
(3) Sex -- A check mark was placed in the appropriate
category.
(4) Year of birth -- In 1900 this was expanded to year, month and
day of birth. This question posed certain problems. Males
wishing to evade or shorten military service provided
intentionally inaccurate responses. In many cases a birth
certificate was asked for by the census taker to confirm data.
In certain Jewish communities, this type of documentation was not
extant. At any rate, birthdates or years should be viewed with
some skepticism.
(5) Place of birth -- In many cases a district, rather than the
actual village, was required, thus more searching may be needed
to discover the actual birthplace.
(6) Affiliation -- The name of the district was entered here, i.
e., the district to which the individual belonged. The Galician
district, as an organ of territorial self-government, was an
administrative unit of residents in effect, and each citizen had
to be official registered in a district. Potential problems
occurred here with Gypsies and other people with no permanent
place of residence.
(7) Religion -- Adherents of a given religion stated so in this
column. Atheists or persons with no formal religious affiliation
were free to declare themselves as such.
(8) Family status -- Akin to a question on civil status, this
column recorded if a person was single, married, widowed, or
divorced. Note that the government recognized only religiously
sanctioned marriages and divorces were accorded legal status only
among non-Catholics.
(9) Language -- Many statistical analysts and historians consider
this to be the most vaguely presented and imprecise question on
the census. Only Austrian citizens were required to answer this
question, which distracted from the claim that it was a total and
general census.
Eight languages were listed as possibilities here: German,
Czech-Slovak-Moravian -- obviously considered one language by the
census's designers, which in fact is linguistically imprecise --
Ukrainian, Polish, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Italian, and
Romanian. Yiddish is not listed, a language used by the bulk of
the Jewish population. Jews were assigned a language, based on
the dominant language in their area of residence.
It is surmised that the intent of this question was to arrive at
a statistical analysis of the ethno-cultural grouping of the
population in the Empire. However, this question failed to
provide the kind of accurate statistics which had been hoped for.
Also not addressed here was the problem of multilingual
individuals: if only one language could be recorded, which should
it be? This point was the potential cause for much misreporting
in this category in places of mixed population, such as Eastern
Galicia, where intermarriage of Poles and Ukrainians was not
unknown. Therefore, information from this part of the Census
should be treated with great caution.
(10) Vocation (employment) -- This category was also deemed
unsatisfactory by census analysts, who cited sparse and imprecise
instructions to the census takers, thus resulting in incorrect or
semi-accurate information. Guidelines were not given in great
enough detail to classify a given profession.
(11) Type of job -- The exact type of vocational activities
exercised in a given profession were enumerated here to provide
supplemental data to the previous question.
(12) Other income -- The sources of any income outside that
earned in a respondent's principal means of support were detailed
here.
(13) Literacy -- The census taker was to check the applicable
skill, reading and/or writing, in the space provided. There was
no specific place to indicate illiteracy. Therefore if this
column is left blank, the researcher is left to speculate whether
his ancestor was in fact unable to read or write or if the blank
column was due to the carelessness of the enumerator or the
latter's inability to determine such information.
(14) Mental and physical defects -- This column was deleted in
the 1900 census.
(15) Present or absent -- This question indicated whether the
persons listed in the family unit were actually residing there or
not. In the case of absences, the enumerator was to list whether
the absence was temporary or permanent. It is said that, if
aware of the census date, some individuals absented themselves
intentionally for a variety of reasons.
(16) Place of residence of absent persons -- Here the census
taker was to indicate the name of the district, if it was in the
same county; the name of the county, if the person was in Galicia
or the name of crownland within Austria-Hungary. For persons
living in other nations, the name of the country was
provided.
(18) Farm animals.
In 1890 a question regarding the relationship of persons in each
unit to the head of household was also introduced. The methods
by which the census was to be taken were set forth in a decree of
March 29, 1869, and supplementary information was issued in
subsequent years by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
In Galicia, high-ranking local officials gave additional
instructions prior to each census. First stage preparations were
done by the _starosta,_ which included verifying that all the
geographical place names in his district were accurate, preparing
all necessary documents -- including the birth records of men of
draftable age -- and choosing the paid enumerators.
The latter were usually priests, teachers, and retirees with a
high enough level of education to perform the task as required.
As can be expected, politicians employed nepotism, favoritism,
etc., and endeavored to promote self-serving interests by
selecting individuals who they felt would be subservient to their
future goals. (Sound familiar?)
This selection process in the later census years had distinct
ethnic overtones, especially in areas of mixed population. For
example, if the local census commissioner happened to be
Ukrainian, he would endeavor to see that as many of the
enumerators as possible were Ukrainians as well.
The censuses were taken in the first weeks of January of the
designated year. All homes in the territory assigned to the
enumerator were to be visited, and the forms were to be filled
out in conjunction with the head of the household. The presence
of the other members of the household was not required. This, of
course, was a prime opportunity for the commission of errors,
especially if the household's head was providing data for distant
relatives, in-laws, or non-related boarders.
After an enumerator completed the forms for his assigned area,
they were sent to the highest-ranking official in the District
Government office by the census commissioner. It was this
official's duty to check the accuracy of the data, choosing a
random sample. More thorough and complete verification took
place in the office of the _starosta_ by specially appointed
information verifiers _(rewidenci)_ who performed their task
using census returns from preceding years, birth registers, and
other documents. Here the most glaring errors were investigated
and, if necessary, corrected, such as sudden changes in the
religious or linguistic composition of a village. At times, a
second census was taken of a given village or area by employees
of these offices and not by locals.
In larger cities such as Krakow and Lwow enumerators did not
always visit homes. Residents were provided with forms to fill
out themselves and return by January 4. As with modern-day
censuses in any country, one always has to wonder if everyone was
counted and if the responses sent in by the residents themselves
were as accurate or complete as those garnered in the presence of
the census worker. Another observation may also cast some
suspicions as to the completeness of enumeration in village
areas. Because the census was taken in January, there were
instances that the census workers simply skipped isolated
homesteads located far from the village proper. The trip through
the snow and ice just didn't seem worth the effort!
Printed statistics of the information obtained from the census
returns was then frequently printed for use by government
agencies. In summary, the Austrian censuses, despite their
shortcomings, are an excellent tool to learn not only about
individuals but also other aspects of their collective lives many
years ago.
END
0 - 0 - 0
[Austro-Hungarian Cross-Index]
[Ethnic, Religious, National
Index]
[Location (Address) Index]
[Map Room]
[Master IndexPage]
[FEEFHS FrontPage]
[Web Site Index]