The preserved nominal documentations of the mid-19th century censuses are the most important out of the archive sources of Torna county: the listings of the 1850 and 1857 “Austrian” censuses and the house-registers of the 1869 census which was executed by the Hungarian statistical office. The registers of the censuses of 1857 and 1869 indicate the names of the family-members and each co-residing members of the house who were present at the moment of the census. The register consisted of the house-number, the numbers of the households, the names and gender of the members of households, the year of birth, the religious denomination of the members of the household, the occupation and columns for presence and absence. The 1869 census included additional questions about the domicile (resident/stranger), birthplace and literacy. The censuses listed the number of domestic animals house by house, besides in 1869 all the economic buildings belonged to each house were conscribed. This article presents the additional findings of a regional historical-demographic research project. In addition to a critical analysis of the different sources and presentation of the methodology used for the research, it also presents a few conclusions based on the investigation of rural migration, migratory routes and migration networks. The source-critique should have been extended not only for the data-correction of sources and the shortages or mistakes of census-data produced by the census-takers, but for the critical analysis of the occupational terms and the household unit (‘co-resident party’) as well, since for the establishment of the consistency of the source-group and for the reliable comparative analysis a “common denominator” should have been found among the “interpretations” and different use of concepts of the census-takers which differed from each other (slightly or considerably) in the majority of the settlements. On the basis of the number of the residents and non-residents (“strangers”) determined from the census registers the proportion of migration cannot be reliably revealed, since the practice and classification of domicile from the part of the census-takers showed huge variations in the majority of settlements. Another possible way for studying the migration was to examine the population by the distribution of birthplaces. The advantage of the 1869 census that the birthplace of all the registered persons was indicated. In this analysis, however, the author deals primarily with the sources of inaccuracy in the 1869 censuses and the examination of the absent resident and the present non-resident (“strangers”) population.

The preserved nominal documentations of the mid-19th century censuses are the most important out of the archive sources of Torna county: the listings of the 1850 census and the house-registers of the 1869 census. The registers of the census of 1869 indicate the names of the family-members and each co-residing members of the house who were present at the moment of the census. The register consisted of the following data about each member of the household: gender, marital status, year of birth, religious denomination, occupation, residence, presence and absence, birthplace and literacy-level. A nominal-level database could have been established based on the nominal household registers of the 1869 census, extended to 37 villages and one market-town (21.000 persons). With the use of the detailed census data the marriages can also be examined in local and regional level as well (local endogamy/exogamy, ethnic-denominational homogamy/heterogamy). There was no column for the ethnicity on the sheets of the 1869 census survey, so by relying on the preserved results of the 1850 census and some complementary sources the ethnic composition of the two districts could have been revealed. The proportion of the Hungarians was similarly high in both of the Upper and Lower districts (84% and 86%), that is, after the settlement and immigration of the Poles, Ruthenes (Rusyns) and Slovaks in the 18th century the predominantly Hungarian character of the region remained unchanged. There were altogether two settlements with mixed ethnic groups in the mid-19th century: in Barakony besides the Ruthenian inhabitants (141 heads) there were 108 Hungarians, in Rákó besides the 309 Slovak heads 72 persons confessed themselves Hungarian. Mainly in the 18th century settled the Poles in Derenk, the Ruthenians in Horváti and the Slovaks in Szentandrás which had remained as homogeneous ethnic groups till the mid-19th century. The only exception is Falucska where the vlach Ruthenian settlers arrived in the 15th century. The comparison of the ethnic data of the 1850 and 1881 censuses confirmed the necessity of correcting the 1881 census in this field, and it proved the inadequacy of the language-based ethnic listings for revealing the real dimensions of the ethnic groups and minorities. The ratio of religious denominations of the population in Torna county can be determined from the nominal census registers. The Roman Catholic and the Reformed (Calvinist) Churches were dominant in both of districts, altogether they represented 88% in the Upper District and 92% in the Lower District. In the Upper District 59% of the inhabitants belonged to the Roman Catholic church, 29% to the Reformed Church, while in the Lower District the ratio of the reformed was 51%, the Roman Catholic 41%. In the Upper District the number of Uniates (Greek Catholic Church) was relatively high (7%), who were predominantly Ruthenes of Falucska and Horváti. In the Lower District the Ruthenes were belonged to the Greek Catholic Church, the greater part of them lived in Barakony, and a smaller part in Rákó. The proportion of the Israelitic Jews was 4% in both districts. Out of the protestant denominations the ratio of the evangelicals (Lutherans) represented approximately 1% in both districts, the majority of them was migrant settler. After determining the ethnic and denominational composition of the county the author focused on the marriage practice and strategies of the non-Hungarian ethnic groups of the county (Poles, Ruthenes, Slovaks) in a micro-level analysis. There are significant variances between the examined six villages. The goral Poles in Derenk maintained an archaic structure of the settlement where the clan-character dominated (close kin groups lived side by side). Local son-in-laws could not have been perceived inside the blocks of the clans. This strategy aimed at preserving the plots and the viability of the local family economies. For this reason the ratio of the locally exogamous marriages was relatively high (35,2%) and a significant-level of out-migration could have been revealed. In Falucska the efforts for the maintenance of an ethnic homogamy led to an almost complete isolation from the other settlements of the county. It is really surprising that the descendants of the vlach (shepherd) Ruthenes did not marry from the other Ruthenian (Rusyn) groups of the county (Barakony, Horváti). The marriage practice of Falucska shows that the ethnocultural and linguistic differences were so strong between the Ruthenes of Falucska and Horváti and Barakony that the population of the village turned primarily toward the partner-settlements outside the county, especially toward the descendants of vlach Ruthenian communities in Gömör and Szepes counties (Uhorna, Porács etc.). The Rusyns of Barakony and Horváti were in the stage of linguistic assimilation (acculturation) in the mid-19th century. Barakony was the most opened community of all where the ratio of the locally exogamous marriages (45,8%) was much higher than the endogamous ones (30,5%). The more homogeneous Ruthenian population of Horváti gave rise to a significantly higher ratio of local endogamy. Both communities maintained very strong marriage-connections with the Rusyn Greek Catholics of Borsod county (Viszló, Rakaca, Irota, Galvács etc.) and had (together with Rákó) the highest ratio of mixed marriages between Greek and Roman Catholics (28,8% and 25,4%). A high ratio of locally endogamous marriages (59–60%) was characteristic for the Slovaks of Rákó and Szentandrás. The proportion of out-migration to the settlements of the county and the ratio of married males and females were comparable with the Poles of Derenk. The two Slovak communities linked together with strong marriage bonds, but the marriages between Szentandrás and Derenk were frequent too. Modern national identity or a firm group-identity could not have been revealed in the examined ethnic communities. Besides the consciousness of the common origin and the linguistic-cultural community there could have been perceived the denominational-cultural frontiers and the differences of language/ dialect/ between the Poles, Rusyns and Slovaks.

In the second part of his study the author examines how the landownership and the marriages influenced the continuity of artisan families and the mobility of the individual artisans in the market town. With the help of a nominative data base the life courses of the individual artisans and the artisan families could be followed "from appearance to disappearance". The method made possible the reconstruction of artisan households (1857, 1869), the study of demographic behaviour and life-cycles of artisan families, the examination of transmission of property and handicraft. In the course of the research two sub-groups of artisans proved the most stable: partly the offsprings of the "old market town families" (with small plots of land but embedded into the local social network), partly the one- or two-generational migrant-families where the artisan could have managed to marry a bride of Torna-origin and purchase a larger plot of land. By examining the household structure and the life-cycles of the artisan families the author concludes that the census registers can be used for household reconstruction to only a limited extent. The results so far show that in cases where census-takers in the 1857 and 1869 census distinguished a number of related co-residentparties (Wohnpartei) within the same house, in the case of the market town this did not always reflect the reality of the economic and property entities constituted by these families (especially the landowner artisans). After reconstructing the artisan households and analysing the family life-cycles the findings have shown the significance of complex households, especially of the stem family form in the household cycles of land-owning families (larger plots), while the landless or smallholder artisan families went under more simple phases during the course of their life-cycle.

This article presents the first findings of a local community research. In addition to a critical analysis of the different sources and a detailed presentation of the methodology used for the reconstruction of the group of artisans, it alsó presents a few conclusions based on the comparative use of quantitative sources. The first part of the analysis is based on nominal record linkage of personal data in various quantitative archive sources and is aimed at determining the number of people living mainly or at least partly on handicraft. In the course of local research the author used various listings of artisans (within and outside guilds) from 1852 and the nominal registers of the 1857 and 1869 censuses as main source types. In between these three static cross-sections (1852, 1857 and 1869), the parish registers as main supplementary source could be used to create a nominal link with the census registers and to achieve a dynamic analysis. With the help of the registration of domestic animals (1857, 1869) and the nominative cadastral land-registers (1884) the connection between handicraft and landownership could have been examined. After the multi-source identification of craftsmen, it became clear that the employment nomenclature of 1857 census can be used to only a limited extent and with great caution because of its feudal character. In the course of the census the primary ranging principle was based on the status of land and house ownership (Grundbesitzer-colonus, Haus- und Rentenbesitzer-inquilinus, Taglöhner~subinquilinus) independently on the reál employment. In the coming second part of the analysis the author will examine the continuity and change of the artisan-families in the society of the markét town and the organisation of their households.