GERMANNA History Notes Page #090

(This Page Was Last Modified Wednesday, 06-Apr-2011 15:52:12 MDT.)

Search John's Notes, or This Entire Web Site.

This is the NINETIETH page of John BLANKENBAKER's series of Short Notes on GERMANNA History, which were originally posted to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Discussion List.  Each page contains 25 Notes.

(See bottom of this page for Links to all Notes pages.)
This Page Contains Notes 2226 through 2250.

GERMANNA History Notes
Page 90

(If the text on this and other pages on this website isn't large enough, click here to see how to increase the size.)
(If you wish to print only part of this page, and not the entire page, click here for instructions.)

Nr. 2226:

The requirement in Pennsylvania that records be made of the foreign immigrants to Pennsylvania has created a general misconception that such records were made for all ports in the colonies.  This is far from the actuality.

How did the ships' captains regard the passengers?  As just so much freight.  In fact, I believe that they used the word "freights" to describe the general category of passengers.  A captain might say that he had a hundred freights meaning he had a hundred passengers.  The manifest of his load might read as one gross of knitted stockings, twelve chairs, one hundred freights, etc.  He would expect to arrive with all of non-passenger freight but, if he lost no more than 15% of his passenger freights, he might feel that it had been a successful voyage.

Now, the descendants of the Second Colony described the voyage on the ship Scott with Capt. Tarbett as hard.  They said there was a great loss of life due to the food being consumed while they were in London waiting for Tarbett to be released from Debtors� Prison.  So I thought we might take a look at how the emigrants from one German village, Neuenbuerg, fared.  In this particular village we have a good record of the emigrants:
(*=Head of Family)

*Cyriacus Fleischmann,
Anna Barbara Fleischmann.

*Hans Nicholas Blankenbuehler,
Apollonia Blankenbuehler,
Maria Barbara Blankenbuehler,
Zacharias Blankenbuehler.

*Hans Matthias Blankenbuehler,
Anna Maria Blankenbuehler,
Hans Jerg Blankenbuehler.

*Hans Balthasar Blankenbuehler.

*Johannes Thomas,
Anna Maria Blankenbuehler,
Hans Wendel Thomas,
Anna Magdalena Thomas.

*Johann Georg Scheible,
Maria Eleonora Scheible,
Anna Martha Scheible,
Anna Elisabetha Scheible,
Anna Maria Scheible.

Of these nineteen names, which are a sizeable sample of the Second Colony immigrants, only one has no record in Virginia.  That is Maria Barbara Blankenbuehler, the daughter of Hans Nicholas and Apollonia Blankenbuehler.  I am assuming that the appearance of a name on the head right list of Alexander Spotswood means that they arrived in Virginia.  Technically, by the law this should be the case.

Incidentally, we have no proof that John Thomas and this family arrived in 1717.  It is logical that they would come with the rest of Mrs. Thomas family, namely the Blankenbakers, but we just do not have positive proof.  We do know all of the members above did arrive at some time.
(04 Jan 06)

Nr. 2227:

The first Germans, in any sizeable quantity, came to Pennsylvania in a locality that, surprisingly, became known as Germantown, just outside Philadelphia in the 1680's.  There were additions to this group of urban Germans.  A small group of rural Germans, led by Hans Herr, came in 1709 on their own and they settled to the west of Philadelphia, in what is now known, incorrectly, as Pennsylvania Dutch country.  Of the great numbers that emigrated in 1709, Pennsylvania and Virginia got none, except as noted just now.  Emigration slowed to a trickle for a few years with the group from Nassau-Siegen in 1713 being the largest.  Then in 1717, about one thousand Germans decided to emigrate.  Most of these went to Pennsylvania.  A group of about eighty odd Germans who wanted to go to Pennsylvania was highjacked and taken to Virginia by Capt. Tarbett on the ship Scott.

Through all of this period, and for a few years thereafter, the Germans would go to Rotterdam or Amsterdam in Holland and find a ship to take them to London.  In London, they would look for a ship to take them to America.  Only British ships could take them on to America.  The owners of these ships soon realized that if they were to get a load of "freights", it would be best to meet the Germans in Holland.  The English laws required that a ship to America had to leave from an English port so the ships would stop at the southern English ports like Cowes, South Hampton, or Plymouth, which was much more convenient than London, which would have been out of the way.  This also afforded them the opportunity of stocking up on food and water from an English source.

Members or descendants of the Second Germanna Colony made a statement which implied that they took a ship to London and in London they found another ship, the Scott.  This is what we would expect from the practices of that day.  So the first place that the Germans encountered Andrew Tarbett was in London.

Since he had lost a ship to the pirates off the coast of Virginia, he had, first, to give testimony to Alexander Spotswood concerning the conditions of this.  Spotswood was very eager to stamp out piracy, especially just of the coast of Virginia.  So the testimony of victims of pirates was taken and sent to England to get a more active response there to combat piracy.  Spotswood was so active in this that the Admiralty, who regarded everything that happened on the seas as their field, became disturbed.

Andrew Tarbett had to return to England and find another ship there.  Probably he was limited in his choice to smaller ships, especially this late in the season.  Perhaps some of the shippers on his lost ship were upset.  I am not sure about maritime law, but on the basis of the lost goods he may have been committed to Debtors� Prison.
(05 Jan 06)

Nr. 2228:

There was an interaction between the Germans on the east side of the Blue Ridge Mountains (which they called the Great Mountains) and the Germans in the Shenandoah Valley.  In fact, all of the Germans in the Colonies interacted and were aware of the other Germans throughout the other Colonies.  Though letters were very expensive and many Germans were not literate, they were surprisingly well informed.  The principal means of communication was verbal, as travelers would pass on the news to their hosts.  The hosts would be glad to give a supper and bed to someone who could tell them some of the news of the world.

When the second pastor of the German Lutheran Church, Samuel Klug, started his work in Virginia about 1739, he traveled to the Shenandoah Valley, where he preached, baptized, and held communion.  The Moravian missionaries said that they could make very little headway in Virginia, including the Shenandoah Valley, because of the efforts of Klug.  This was hard work though, crossing the Great Mountains when the roads were primitive, and being away from home.  Later, another German pastor, Henkel, whose home was in the Shenandoah Valley, came over the Blue Ridge to preach in the Robinson River Valley to the Lutherans, Reformed, and the English.  So as people went across the hills, they would inform people on the other side of what was happening.  The topics might be religion, war, land, love, you name it.

One of my favorite incidents of the interaction is recorded in the "Hebron" Baptismal Register.  Georg Trumper and his wife Margaretha (Utz) had their son Andreas baptized on 17 Nov 1776.  The sponsors were Georg Utz, Jun., and his wife (Margaret Weaver).  Georg Utz was the cousin of Margaretha Trumper.  Since the Trumper name was not considered a Germanna name, I was especially interested in this case.  Who was he?  Eventually, a correspondent was able to help me.  His name was usually given as Trumbo, or sometimes as Drumbo.  He lived on the far side of the Shenandoah Valley, in what is now West Virginia.

The story that the descendants have, and there is little reason to doubt them, is that George Trumbo had gone over the mountains, to the east, on business.  There he met Margaret Utz whom he married.  Probably they returned to his home area and when Andreas came along, they took him to her home church to have him baptized.  Or it may have been that she went home to her mother as Andreas� time was approaching.  Margaret may have remained a couple of months until Andreas was strong enough to travel.  Before they left, he was baptized by Rev. Franck.  (We should not assume that George Trumbo was present at the baptism; at it was not a requirement for the parents to be present.)

We see that religion, war (especially the French and Indian War), love, and business, especially land, were factors influencing cross mountain travel.
(09 Jan 06)

Nr. 2229:

As further evidence of the interaction between the Germans on the two sides of the "Great Mountains", which are now known as the Blue Ridge Mountains, let me cite some land records.

Deobald Christler had a grant for 437 acres in 1755 on the South Fork of the Shenandoah River adjacent to Zachary Blancumbaker and Michael Blancumbaker.

Michael Plankenbeker of Culpeper Co. was granted 254 acres on South Fork of the Shenandoah River in Frederick Co. in 1761 adjacent to Hoffman.

Harmon Spilman of Culpeper Co. was granted 358 acres on Cabbon Creek, a branch of Hogs Creek, in Frederick Co.

It is mentioned that 210 acres had been surveyed on Blue Ridge in Frederick Co. for James Yowell in 1752.

Jacob Holtzclaw of Prince William Co. had 407 acres in Augusta Co. in 1750.

Jacob Holtzclaw of Prince William Co. had 104 acres in Augusta Co. in 1752 adjacent to his other land.

Even earlier than these grants, John Paul Vaught/Vogt moved to the Valley.  His son-in-law Christian Clemmons moved about the same time.  Both had patents in the Robinson River Valley.

Lodowick Selser had 370 acres in Augusta Co. in 1750 on South Fork of Shenandoah River adjacent to ....Rudy Moick (Mauck, Mauk, or Mock).

Lawrence Garr of Culpeper Co. had 290 acres in Augusta Co. adjacent Mathias Selser in 1751.

The name Mary Selser occurs in the German Lutheran Church in the RRV baptism lists as the wife of Samuel Lederer (1776 and in 1778).

This list could be amplified several times; here it is only meant to give some evidence of the interactions of the Germans on both sides of the Great Mountains.  I would be remiss for not mentioning the Yagers as outlined by Jan Creek in Beyond Germanna.
(10 Jan 06)

Nr. 2230:

Recently, the question was asked whether any Germanna families moved to Pennsylvania, and especially to southwest Pennsylvania.  The answer is yes.

Johann Friederick Baumgartner was baptized 5 June 1706 in Schwaigern.  His mother was the sister of Johann Michael Willheit.  Joh. Fried. Baumgardtner arrived in Philadelphia in 1732 and he moved to the Robinson River Valley.  He married Catherine of unknown surname.  Joh. Fried.�s sojourn in Virginia was cut short by his early death in 1740.  Catherine married secondly John Deer.

They (the Baumgardners) had five children:

Dorothy married Robert Fleshman and they moved to Greenbrier Co., then in Virginia, but now in West Virginia.

A second child, Adam, married Elizabeth Clore.  He, too, died very young, leaving only one heir, Jesse.  (Elizabeth married secondly John Becker.) Jesse moved to Washington Co., Pennsylvania, where he married Elizabeth Dolby/Dalbey and raised a family of nine children.

(Two of the sons of Joh. Fried. and Catherine never married.)
Joel died of smallpox and he left his land to his mother and then to his brother Frederick.

The other bachelor son, George, had land in Washington Co., Pennsylvania, which he sold in 1786.

The fifth child of Joh. Fried. and Catherine, Eve/Eva, married Mordecai Boughan.  Eve was born posthumously of her father's death and does not appear in his will, but John Deer�s will calls her the sister of Dorothy.

[Jesse, the grandson of Joh. Fried. and Catherine Baumgartner and the son of Adam, also was born posthumously of Joh. Fried.'s death.  His mother, Elizabeth (Clore) Baumgartner, and her second husband, John Becker, brought Jesse for baptism where it is not noted that John Becker was not the father of Jesse.  Other documents prove Adam was the father of Jesse.]

Thus, there were descendants of Baumgartners and Clores in southwest Pennsylvania.  These Baumgartners generally became known as Bumgarners.  Jesse�s wife, Elizabeth Delbey, lived to be 95.  By then, she had outlived eight of her nine children.
(11 Jan 06)

Nr. 2231:

Most early history books on Washington Co., PA, refer to the Hupps, Bumgarners, and Teagardens as among the earliest land owners in the region.  One historian, Crumrine, says that Everhart Hupp and George Bumgarner from Culpeper Co., VA, came together before 1769, when an old survey record cites land to Hupp.  The land was on the north bank of the Ten Mile Creek near to the Monongahela River.

The origin of the Hupps is unknown, with some claims being made for Holland, for a location near the Swiss border, and for Bavaria.  A large number today seem to live in the area of Baden-Wuerttemberg where so many of the Second Germanna Colony came from.  The Ortssippenbuchen from this area list names which might have been the origin of the name Hupp.  For example, the Diefenbach Ortssippenbuch lists a Hipp.  If I remember correctly, the Ortssippenbuch for Oeberwisheim-Neuenbuerg lists several Hipps or similar names.

A possible tie to Neuenbuerg is interesting in that the wife of Everhart Hupp was Margaret Thomas, the daughter of Michael Thomas.  Michael was the son of John Thomas and Anna Maria Blankenbuehler from Neuenbuerg.  Perhaps this marriage harkens back to a tie in the "old country".  I also believe that the "Teagarden" name can be found in this same area of Germany.

Everhart Hupp did not live in the Robinson River Valley.  Instead, he lived in the area which became Rappahannock County; however, the distance is not far from the RRV.  (This is one of the cases where the designation of Robinson River Valley does not exactly include the locations of the Second Colony and the extended or later families.)

So descendants of the Thomas and Blankenbaker families are to be included in those who moved to southwestern Pennsylvania.  In the case of the Thomas family, this is even more positive for Michael Thomas, and many members of his family moved to southwestern Pennsylvania.  Our best history of this move is given in statements by Abraham Thomas, the son of Michael.  Abraham states that as a young boy, he and his brother drove a herd of sheep from Virginia to southwest Pennsylvania.  He mentions that he had a sister already living there, which is presumably Margaret.

Several, but not all, of the people who moved to this area of Pennsylvania later moved to Kentucky going down the Ohio River.  Abraham tells of his own experience in doing this.  So not all of the people who left the original Germanna communities for Kentucky went by way of the Cumberland Gap.  Some of them took the northern route by way of the Ohio River.  (Abraham Thomas� story is a matter of a public record and had been told here in part.)
(12 Jan 06)

Nr. 2232:

Among the people who moved to southwestern Pennsylvania, I have mentioned Abraham Thomas.  He married Susannah Smith of Culpeper, and since others of the Smiths moved to Kentucky, it may be that the Smiths were temporary sojourners in Pennsylvania.  Susannah Smith was the daughter of Adam Smith, the son of John Michael Smith, Jr., and Anna Magdalena Thomas.  Anna Magdalena was the aunt of Abraham Thomas, so Susannah Smith was a first cousin once removed from Abraham Thomas.

Margaret Thomas has been mentioned by family historians as "the first white women west of the Monongahela".  Klaus Wust, at the First Germanna Seminar, highlighted the importance of the intra-European migrations, prior to the trans-Atlantic migration, as a selection factor for the pioneering and adventuring spirit found in America.  Some of Margaret Thomas Hupp's ancestors, a bare century earlier, started the westward trek from Gresten, Austria.  She was a continuation of this spirit.

With a good Thomas representation in Pennsylvania, it is interesting to note that a member of the Hardin family also lived for a while in Pennsylvania.  Now the Hardins are not a Germanna family per se, but they were closely associated with the Holtzclaw family.  This association was close enough so that B. C. Holtzclaw devoted a chapter to the Hardins in his book, The Ancestry and Descendants of the Nassau-Siegen Immigrants . . .  Not many Notes ago, I drew attention to a possible Thomas and Holtzclaw connection.  B. C. Holtzclaw emphasized a Holtzclaw and Hardin connection.  Are there more connections or influences in this triangle than we know?

If any readers know of other Germanna families who lived temporarily or permanently in southwestern Pennsylvania, please let all of us know.  For references for research in this area, see the list on page 244 of Beyond Germanna, from an article on the Hupp family.  One of these, by Horn, was known by the authors to be suspect.  Independently, Dolores Rutherford said that The Horn Papers are, in part, fraudulent.  The first two volumes, written by W.F. Horn and published by the Greene Co., PA, Historical Society in 1945, have been debunked and proven to be fraudulent information by Arthur P. Middleton and Douglass Adair in an article published in the Wm. & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, Vol. 4, pgs. 409-445 (1947).  Volume 3 of the Horn Papers, the book of maps, is all right, but the first two volumes are mostly a figment of Mr. Horn's imagination.
(13 Jan 06)

Nr. 2233:

A recent discussion with a correspondent had led me to examine some documents on the Internet.  I was surprised at the dishonesty which I found there and I will take a note or two to expand on this.  The general subject was the emigration from Freudenberg in 1738.  We know something about the group who left Freudenberg then because the pastor of the church there left a note in the Death Register.  This names about fifty odd people.  For an English translation of this work, I recommend Don Yoder�s translation of Otto Baeumer�s work which appears in "Rhineland Emigrants - Lists of German Settlers in Colonial America".  No claim is made by Yoder that the fifty odd people who are named arrived in America, or as to where they landed.  This list merely says who left.  (Otto Baeumer�s original article was in German, but if anyone wishes to verify the names they can consult the Freudenberg Death Register.)

One web page is to be found by inserting "progealogists" (without the quotation marks) between the usual www. and .com.  This leads to additional pages by using the �search� function for �savannah� and then checking the results for �Nassau-Siegen�.  This results in a listing of the fifty odd names which the pastor in Freudenberg had entered in the Death Register.  Thus, the Emigration list is being used as an Immigration list!  [Emigrate=To LEAVE one country or region to settle in another. Immigrate=To ENTER and settle in a country or region to which one is not native.  NOTE:  From The American Heritage Dictionary, Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure, whereas Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination.]

The list of names of the assumed arriving passengers is exactly the same as the list of names of the departing passengers.  In other words, there is actually no passenger list of arriving (immigrating) passengers; it was fabricated from the list of known emigrating people in the Death Register.  These arriving passengers are assigned to the ship Two Brothers because that is the only known ship to have arrived at Savannah in the year 1738.  [Again, people are playing with data and making it appear to be "real", without any disclaimers or notes to the opposite.]

What is even worst is that there is no valid evidence that the Freudenberg people were passengers on the Two Brothers.  In fact, there is good evidence that they were not.  But even if they were on the Two Brothers, what are the chances that the person making the arriving list of passengers would write down the same fifty-odd names in exactly the same order as the pastor at Freudenberg wrote down the same names when the group left Freudenberg?  This would not allow for deaths or births, which is unlikely itself.  But the odds against getting the names in exactly the same order are infinitely small.  So, the claim that the arriving passengers have the very names that the pastor wrote down is false, and to report it as such is dishonesty.

This duplication of the names is the first tip off that the list of arriving passengers is false and erroneous.  In the next note I will look at the evidence that the Freudenberg people did leave for Georgia or Savannah.
(16 Jan 06)

Nr. 2234:

Let me clarify a point concerning the web site that I mentioned in the last Note.  This page does not explicitly make the claim that the 50 odd people who left Freudenberg arrived in Savannah, but they strongly imply this was the case.  The correspondent who brought the page to my attention said,

"The names of those 50 people were apparently written down in the Death Register at a church in Freudenberg when they left in the spring in 1738.  There is a record of those very same people landing in Savannah on September 18, 1738.  (I have 3 sources to cite this.)"

One of the sources was the web page cited above.  The presentation on the web page convinced that reader that these names were immigrants and a list of their names was made when they arrived in Savannah.

The other two sources which the correspondent cited were:

1) A book written by Gail Brietbard, entitled "Some Early Virginia Immigrants", and
2) A book on the History of Freudenberg (which I believe is in German) written by Dr. Wilhelm Guethling (published in 1956).

I have not seen either one of these, but, again, I suspect they are the list of people who left Freudenberg.  This would be especially true of the Guethling book.

How did the general idea that the Freudenberg emigrants went to Georgia develop?  In the Death Register from Freudenberg, it says (using the Yoder translation):

"As information I wished to write down on these pages that today, the 13th of March, 1738, there left for Georgia, the new island under the protection of His Majesty the King of England, out of this land and parish, with the knowledge and consent of the authorities of this our land, the following named persons, some of them householders with wife and children, others single male persons, namely":  [The names are listed.]

[Fifty-four persons (if I count correctly) are indicated in the material, where not all of the younger persons are named.]

There are at least two points in this statement that should make one suspicious.  I will start the examination of these in the next Note.  Perhaps you would like to send me your thoughts on this statement before then.
(17 Jan 06)

Nr. 2235:

Repeating, from the last Note, Don Yoder�s translation of the entry in the Death Register of the Freudenberg church for March 13, 1738,

"As information I wished to write down on these pages that today, the 13th of March, 1738, there left for Georgia, the new island under the protection of His Majesty the King of England, out of this land and parish, with the knowledge and consent of the authorities of this our land, the following named persons, some of them householders with wife and children, others single male persons, namely":  (Fifty-four individuals are indicated).

There is nothing wrong with the date.  Most of the principalities which were to make up the future Germany had switched by this time to the New Style calendar.  The English had not, and they would have called the date March 13, 1737/38 meaning that by the Old Style calendar it was still 1737 but that they recognized some people were calling this the year 1738.

We do have doubts about the general knowledge of American geography by the Germans.  As an example, we have the petition of the Brombachs in Germany stating, "...their Melchior had emigrated to the Island of Carolina."  (See B. C. Holtzclaw, "The Ancestry and Descendants of the Nassau-Siegen Immigrants . . ", page 49.) However, this may be simply that the 1713 immigrants were uncertain as to where they intended to go.  Johann Justus Albrecht, their recruiter, had mentioned mines in South Carolina.

A much more fundamental objection comes from the pastor writing the statement on the date they left.  How could he know the destinations of the ships on that date when he was writing in Freudenberg in March?  The fact is that he could not know.  There were no advance travel reservations.  It would not be until the departing party arrived at Rotterdam that they would find out what ships were leaving and for where.  In fact, passenger ships for Georgia or for Virginia were rare and they did not make that trip every year.  Look at how many of our Germanna Colonists came to Virginia through Pennsylvania just because they could not get a ship directly to Virginia.  By 1738, the pattern was that passenger ships for the Germans left from Rotterdam for Pennsylvania, not for Virginia.

There is one simple conclusion.  The pastor wrote of the Island of Georgia as a synonym for America.  What he wrote should not be taken as an authority.  In spite of what he wrote, it is possible that the departing persons did find a ship going to Georgia, and that they went there, but we should not take the pastor�s statement as the authority for saying so.  Several people, including the web page cited in the last note, do so.
(18 Jan 06)

Nr. 2236:

In the last Note I showed that the pastor of Freudenberg wrote comments implying Georgia was the destination of the emigrants.  This should not be taken at its face value because there was no way of his knowing that there would be a ship which could take them to Georgia.  By "Georgia" he must have had something else in mind other than what we know today as Georgia.  Most likely, he simply meant America.

From other evidence, is there any hint as to where the departing Germans did want to go?  We know, from our studies of German emigration, that the Germans preferred to settle with friends and relatives.  There is a minor connection with Pennsylvania, as the father of Johann Georg Hirnschal (who was one of the emigrants), who had been an earlier emigrant to Pennsylvania, seems to be returning with the others.  The language is a bit confusing and in fact makes it difficult to say what the exact number of people was.  It seems to say that the father had been to Pennsylvania, had returned to Germany, and is now returning with the others.  On this basis, it would appear that the destination was Pennsylvania, but none of the people shows up in the passenger lists made at Philadelphia.  This comment would also negate Georgia as a destination.

Some of the surnames do suggest a connection with the First Colony people.  We should note that the location of Freudenberg is close to Oberfischbach where Rev. Haeger was the pastor for a while, and where Jacob Holtzclaw was the school teacher a while.  Others, from Nassau-Siegen, seem to have been recruited by Holtzclaw or others in the First Colony.  It would seem that several of the emigrants from Freudenberg were acquainted with Haeger and Holtzclaw (by 1738, though, Rev. Haeger had just died).  It would be very probable that the group had been recruited for settlement in Virginia, and that is where they intended to go.

Klaus Wust made an extensive study of the 1738 shipping season for passengers.  He studied the archives in Switzerland, in Holland, and in England, and the available records in America, including newspaper reports.  He found destinations, besides Philadelphia (many), of Savannah, New York (three ships), Lynn Haven Bay in Virginia (where a ship destined for Virginia sank), and another wreck at Block Island off Rhode Island (I believe it had intended to go to New York).

Attention has focused on two of these ports, Savannah and the intended Jamestown.  So, a German historian has put forth the idea that the Freudenberg party was on the ship which went to Georgia, even though it does not fit the facts very well.
(18 Jan 06)

Nr. 2237:

Klaus Wust made an extensive study of 1738 shipping as a part of his study of German emigration.  There are two ships that are drawn to our attention, the Oliver and the Two Brothers.  The former left from Rotterdam and stopped in Cowes (on the island off South Hampton).  It sank within sight of the Virginia coast with a great loss of life after a voyage of more than six months.  The ship Two Brothers left from London without any stop at additional ports in England and reached Savannah.  The reason that these two ships merit our study is that some people believe the Freudenberg emigrants took the Two Brothers to Georgia.  The individuals place their believe in the Two Brothers because of the Freudenberg pastor�s comment about Georgia.  Those that believe the Oliver was the ship note it is more likely that the emigrants wanted to go to Virginia.  Other evidence supports their view also.

B. C. Holtzclaw, in "Ancestry and Descendants", quotes a Dr. Wilhelm Guethling who wrote a history of Freudenberg, that was published in 1956, as writing, "The travelers went down the Rhine to Rotterdam and on to England.  On May 8 the emigrants put to sea from Southampton and after a voyage of 134 days reached Savannah in Georgia.  When further news reaches us, because of the unhealthy climate they had later moved north, where they settled in the place Bethlehem (i.e., Bethehem, Pennsylvania)."  Holtzclaw adds, "There may be some confusion in the above statement."

This description of the voyage does not fit the ship Two Brothers except in one regard, namely the destination.  The Two Brothers did not leave from Southampton, it left from London.  In 1738, London was not a port that German emigrants used.  They were picked up at Rotterdam (sometimes Amsterdam) and, with one stop in England at one of the southern port cities, went on to the destination.  A departure from London does not even suggest that the ship Two Brothers carried Germans, certainly not a party of fifty odd.  There is nothing in the Guethling statement that appears to be correct, except the trip down the Rhine to Rotterdam.

Another very telling fact is that no trace of the Freudenberg emigrants has ever been discovered in Georgia.  Of course, some might have moved away but to expect all of them to move away would stretch the belief.  Of the eighteen family or single individual units that left Freudenberg, only six have been found in America (B. C. Holtzclaw found five but he missed one).  These six were all found in Virginia.  What happened to the other twelve units?  They do not show up in Georgia, in Virginia, or in Pennsylvania (or in the Carolinas or in Maryland).

There is a rational explanation for the missing twelve units and the discovery of the individuals in Virginia.  It involves the ship Oliver.
(19 Jan 06)

Nr. 2238:

Much is known about the voyage of the ship Oliver from the records of the owners, the passengers, and the shipping authorities.  The Oliver left Rotterdam on June 22 (1738), but returned within a few days because the Captain felt that it was overloaded.  (It was not a large ship.)  The owners solved the problem by getting another Captain.  Early in July the Oliver left again and reached Cowes (on the Isle of Wight opposite Southampton), where it remained for six weeks.  Soon after leaving Cowes, the vessel incurred such heavy seas that it had to put in at the harbor of Plymouth for repairs.

A ship which met the Oliver at sea reported that the Oliver had lost the Captain, Mate, and 50 or 60 passengers, and that they were in great distress for want of provisions.  The Oliver approached the James River in Virginia in early January (1739 NS) after a six-month voyage and anchored at the demand of some of the armed passengers who wished relief from the voyage.  The Captain went ashore with some of the passengers.  While this acting Captain was away, a strong wind came up causing the ship to drag its anchor until the ship hit bottom.  Holes in the bottom admitted water so quickly that between 40 and 50 were drowned between the decks.  Because the weather was so cold (it was January), about 70, who were able to get ashore were frozen to death.  There were about 90 survivors.  (The preceding was from the "Virginia Gazette".) Approximately two out of three of the embarking passengers died of starvation, disease, drowning, and the cold.

If the Freudenberg emigrants had taken the Oliver, how well would that explain some of the known conditions?

Only six of the eighteen departing family units from Freudenberg have been detected in America.  This is just about the rate at which passengers survived on the Oliver.

The surviving six family units do appear in Virginia, not in any other Colony.

Klaus Wust was convinced the Freudenberg emigrants had taken ship on the Oliver.  He cited the report of the Moravian missionaries, Schnell and Hussey, who visited Germantown in Virginia in 1743.  A German there reported, "...that he had had a dangerous sea voyage, for one hundred and fifty of the passengers were drowned at one time."  Allowing for some confusion between the causes of the deaths, it is still clear that there was a ship wreck to cause a large number of deaths by drowning.  The only vessel in this time frame which we can associate with this kind of an accident is the ship Oliver.
(23 Jan 06)

Nr. 2239:

A point that I have not yet made in the discussion of whether the Freudenberg emigrants came to Virginia or Georgia, is the rapidity with which they show up in the Virginia records.  As an example, B. C. Holtzclaw tells us that Herman Bach was the appraiser of an estate in the year 1741 in Virginia.  One story has it that the Freudenberg emigrants went to Georgia where they found the climate unhealthy.  To escape this, they went north and some of them stopped in Virginia.  Others were said to have gone on to Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, where the Moravians were the major force.  (Incidentally, if some of the people had gone to the Moravians, there would surely have been records of them, since the Moravians are the world�s best record keepers.)

If the Freudenberg emigrants had landed in Georgia in 1738, it seems to me that three years would not be sufficient time for them to test the climate, to decide to move, and to become acquainted with life in Virginia to the extent of one becoming an appraiser.

I believe that the Freudenberg people took ship with the Oliver, which sank off the coast of Virginia.  Due to the starvation, disease, drowning, and freezing, about two thirds of the people died.  There are serious implications in this.  For example, Herman Bach is known to have married in Germany one Anna Margarthe Hausmann of Bottenberg, in the Oberfischbach parish, where Rev. Haeger had been pastor and Jacob Holtzclaw had been a school teacher.  In America, Herman Bach married a second time Katherine Unknown.  B. C. Holtzclaw states that Herman's children were probably by the first wife, but did he take into the account the probability that Anna Margarethe Hausmann Bach survived the trip?  If only one of every three passengers survived the trip, the odds are against Anna Margarethe surviving the trip, unless there is distinct evidence that she did survive.

This is a case where all of the evidence must be considered before a mother is assigned to the Bach children.  The best that might be said about who was the mother of the Bach children is "perhaps".  In some of the six family units, the men were bachelors, so there is less uncertainty about them.

Because of the uncertainties, there should be more discussion about the Freudenberg group and the ship that they came on.  This would help to clarify the probabilities.

[Someone was asking about the lack of traffic on the list.  Maybe this topic could spur some comments.]
(24 Jan 06)

Nr. 2240:

Ernest Thode writes a column in The Palatine Immigrant, a publication of the "Palatines to America" organization.  I enjoy reading his work and find the Notes are educational also.  Mr. Thode published the German to English Genealogical Dictionary, which I have referred to here before.  This large work is crammed with words that the researcher is apt to encounter, but it must be admitted that one will encounter words that are not given in this work.  (I had such a word once and asked three people what it might mean and I got three answers.)

The material in this Note is taken from the December 2005 Palatine Immigrant Journal.  The subject is the various ways that "George" can be spelled.  The name is quite old as it comes from the Greek meaning farmer.  Before the Reformation, Georg was the 7th most popular male given name, coming after Hans, Peter, Christian, Martin, Nicolaus/Claus, and Jacob.  By 1700, it had improved its standing to fifth, with about 5% of the male population being given this name.

In the southern German regions (Oberdeutsch), such as Switzerland and southern Baden, there are these spellings:  Gerg, Gergel, Girg, Girgel, Gorg, G�rge, G�rgel, G�rgel, J�rg, and J�rgel.  In the Black Forest area, J�rg is especially common.

In the northern German areas (Niederdeutsch), such as Hannover, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg, there are these spellings:  Gorch, Gorg, J�rg, J�rgen, Juriann, Jurian, J�rn, Jurn, and J�rn.  In the Rhineland, such as Cologne or Bonn, there are these variations:  G�res, G�rres, Schorsch, and Schorschel (these latter two are due to the French influence).

To cover a little more of Europe, the Slavic forms are Juri, Jur, and Jurek.  The Hungarian form is Gy�rgi and the Russian form is Georgi.

I remember a speaker once at a "Pennsylvania Palatines to America" meeting who was a resource person at the LDS library to help people find their ancestors.  She said that if she had a ship�s passenger list, she could often tell from which part of Germany they came by the spellings of the given names.  And probably even the surnames reflected regional spellings.

It used to bother me that one encountered these variant spellings in the German records.  The given names from around the First Colony often seemed to differ from the Second Colony names.  Eventually, I can to accept that there are variations, even for Hans, which is sometimes Hanss or Hannss.
(25 Jan 06)

Nr. 2241:

A bit of background is necessary before I make a point.  John Thomas, Sr., married Anna Maria Blankenbuehler in Germany.  They had four children, John, Jr., and Anna Magdalena born in Germany, and Michael and Margaret born in Virginia.  (John Thomas, Sr., died after only a few years in Virginia and Anna Maria married secondly Michael Kaefer.)

We do not know the surnames of John Thomas, Jr.�s, two wives.  We know that he had four daughters:  Susannah, who married Jacob Holtzclaw; Mary, who married Joseph Holtzclaw (both of the latter men were sons of the 1714 Jacob Holtzclaw); Mary Barbara, who married Jacob Blankenbaker; and Elizabeth, who married John Railsback.  Land deeds in the form of gifts are the source of the information about the marriages.  In the case of John Railsback, there was less certainty because he got two parcels and seems to have paid for one of them.

Some of us believe that this came about because John Thomas, Jr., had originally intended to give away five tracts.  But one the five never went to the intended party and was sold instead to John Railsback.  Was there originally a fifth heir?  We never knew; we could only surmise.

Then a few years ago, I heard from Joel Thomas in Georgia.  His research had suggested to him that he was descended from a Michael Thomas of Culpeper.  This potentially could be the fifth heir of John Thomas, Jr., and he and I corresponded on this basis for a few times.  He had some circumstantial evidence, and I told him that I thought there was a slot where his Michael Thomas could fit in.  Many of the other Georgia Thomases were of the belief that they were descended from an English Thomas of Culpeper Co., Virginia.  Certainly there were English Thomases in Culpeper Co., and they have made Thomas research more difficult.

I have just had another letter from Joel Thomas and he says that he had a DNA test made.  The results were placed in a Thomas data bank.  Joel has just heard from a Mrs. Hansen from Mississippi with the DNA results of her brother of proven German Thomas descent.  (The tests are in the male line.)

Now that Joel Thomas, descended from a Michael Thomas of Culpeper, had proven his German heritage, we can rest more assured that John Thomas, Jr., had a son Michael.  This Michael would been named for his uncle, the brother of John Thomas, Jr.

The point I would make is that not enough DNA testing is being done.  We have some uncertainties in the Germanna community.  It would seem to be that this would be a good way to resolve some of these questions.
(26 Jan 06)

Nr. 2242:

Following on the DNA tests mentioned in the last note, Erin T. Crowe strongly suggests that the 37-marker test be used instead of the test with fewer markers.  It costs more but it helps to distinguish different branches.  In his Crow/e family, the larger number helped to distinguish two branches.

It was also mentioned that Reuben Thomas married Sarah Crow in the 1700's.  According to my notes, this Reuben would have been English.  Both German and English Thomases were living in Culpeper County, VA, during the last half of the 1700's.  This has led to confusion.  Reuben had a brother, Massey, who married Elizabeth Barlow.  Whether this Elizabeth was English or German is not clear to me right now.

There is a history of the Thomas family in Green�s "Culpeper County Virginia" by Mary Dunnica Micou.  The opening statement of this reads, "Without doubt the Thomas family of Orange county, and also of Culpeper county, are descended from the earliest emigrant of that name, who came to Essex county . . ."  It is statements of this type that have increased the confusion.  One of the ways out of this misinformation is by DNA testing.  It is the best way to overcome the "without doubt" statements.

Suzanne Matson writes that a Green/e cousin participated in a DNA test and found a match with another Green who has a documented line back to Duff Green of Fauquier County, VA.  Suzanne could document her line back to George Green (d. 1807) of Fauquier.  The results show that there was/is a close relationship between the descendants of George Green and Duff Green.  Perhaps George was a son of Duff writes Suzanne.  Some Germanna citizens, namely some Kempers, Holtzclaws, and Rectors, are descendants of Duff Green.

A response from other readers who may have participated in DNA testing would be very welcome.

In a talk at a Germanna seminar, I suggested the patriotic societies should consider DNA testing as a proof.  Some individuals were upset at this idea but it is excellent evidence.
(27 Jan 06)

Nr. 2243:

Recently I mentioned Savannah.  It does have a German connection arising from the emigration of many German-speaking people from Salzburg.  So many of the people did come from there that the Germans in Georgia are often spoken of as Salzburgers.  This reminds us of the practice of calling German immigrants Palatines.  Of course, in the Eighteenth Century there was no Germany, so the German-speaking emigrants were called after the name of one of the larger principalities.  Eighteen-Century Salzburg was another one of the un-unified German states.

The Salzburgers who emigrated did so because of their Protestant faith.  They were exiled from the Roman Catholic Salzburg.  Many of them went to Prussia, but a fraction of them ended up in England.  There they were persuaded to become a part of the last American colony to be founded by the English � Georgia.

About sixty Salzburgers arrived in Georgia on March 12, 1734.  (The choice of Georgia was fitting for it was named after King George II of England, who spoke German in his youth.)  The numbers of the Germans grew to more than three hundred by 1741.  These Germans founded Ebenezer, the second community in Georgia.  They formed Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church.  In 1769 they had completed a brick church which is now the oldest church building in Georgia.  Sometimes it is called the oldest public building in the state.

The Salzburgers were joined by other German speaking individuals from Switzerland, the Palatinate, and Swabia.  Though their numbers were never very large, the state�s first governor under its Revolutionary Constitution was Johann Adam Treutlen who had arrived as a teenager in 1746.

The Salzburgers may be said to be one of the groups from Germany who came because of religious reasons.  Throughout the British colonies, only a small percentage of the German emigrants had come because of religious reasons.  Mostly they came for economic reasons.  Even though they came for economic reasons, they did not leave religion behind.

Without knowing what the relative ranking was in their minds, the Anabaptists (Mennonites and Amish) had an element of religious motivation in their decision to emigrate.  Economically they were successful in Germany and the 1710 Mennonite immigration must have had some religious motivation.

In the German colonies, economic reasons were the major reason for emigrating; however, they were interested in having churches and pastors.  For many years, they had to do without pastors and they considered this a hardship.  They never described their decision to emigrate as religiously motivated.
(30 Jan 06)

Nr. 2244:

The Layman family has many branches, or perhaps the branches are independent.  There are certainly many different spellings.  In the Social Security Index there are 18 spellings, but more than this are known from research.  Some of the spellings are Lehmann, Leman, Laman, Leaman, Lamen, Lemen, Layman, Lemon, Lemons, Lemmon, Lemmons, Lamon, Laymon, Laymance, LaMance, LaMond, Lemond, and Lemmond.  Descendants claim origins in Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, and Scotland.  Which of the surname spellings is for a distinctly different family and which are merely variations of spelling?  Researchers in all of these branches could not agree.  Fortunately, some progress has now been made by DNA testing.

For the same surnames, including the spelling variations, the Y chromosome test is appropriate.  Only males have the Y chromosome and it is inherited from the father, usually unchanged; however, in the DNA strand, the important elements or genes are separated by spacers which are essentially inert.  The numbers of these spacers may vary from generation to generation, though usually it is the same.  The probability of a change in the number of spacers is about .002.  That is, there is about two chances in a thousand that the number of spacers will change from father to son in any gene.  If I have done my arithmetic correctly, in ten generations, there may be a change in two in every hundred cases for one gene.  Or stating it in the opposite sense, 98 times out of a 100, a tenth generation descendant will have the same number of spacers or score as the progenitor.

The Layman family used ten markers or genes and measured the number of spacers in each.  It is not uncommon for two tenth-generation descendants to have the same scores across all ten tests.  If they do, we feel confident that they originated from the same individual.  But because the scores or results are dependent upon random factors, they might differ by small amounts.  A difference of two in the scores across the total of ten tests for two men would strongly suggest a common ancestor.

Because of the statistical nature, a difference cannot be used to say how many generations there might be in two individuals.  The larger the difference, the more certain it is that there is no common ancestor or that the common ancestor was very removed.

The score for one individual, for the ten tests, might be 14, 12, 24, 10, 13, 13, 10, 17, 12, 12.  None of these numbers is significant in itself.  They represent inert spacers which tend to repeat from generation to generation.  In comparing two individuals, what is important is the number and magnitude of the differences in total.

Applied to the Layman family, descendants of Peter Leman, who arrived in 1717 as a German-speaking Swiss Mennonite, form one large branch, many of whom spell the name differently.  The majority of his proven descendants show no change or one change.  This confirms the non-genetic research and shows that changes in the markers are relatively rare.
(31 Jan 06)

Nr. 2245:

The story on the Lehman family and the DNA tests they are making is from the most recent issue (January 2006) of Mennonite Family History.  The author of the article is Earl R. Layman.

In the last Note, one large branch of the family is descended from Peter Leman, who came in 1717.  Another branch seems to descend from Benedict Leman born ca 1525 and his wife Adelheit Bongart who baptized nine children in the church at Arch, Switzerland.  People with the genetic signature of this branch often failed to recognize they were related.  They have been traced to diverse locations in continental Europe and the British Isles.  Together, they are the next most numerous family after the Peter Leman family but they had not been recognized as having a common ancestor.  The branches of the Benedict Leman family differ by one or two markers indicating a common ancestor in the sixteenth century.  There is enough similarity in the two Leman families to indicate a common ancestor in the fifteenth century.  The Benedict Leman family descendants use the names Lehman, Lemmon, Lemon, Lemmons, and Lemonds.

The third family group, much smaller than the previous two, traces their ancestors to Ireland.  Their name is Lemon and they are slightly different from the previous two families.

A fourth family group, with only a single descendant (Lemon) in the DNA testing, comes from Cornwall, England.  He too is closely related to the previous families.

A fifth family group, again with only a single descendant (LeMond) in the testing, differs slightly from the first family (Peter Leman).  Another family group with a single descendant in the test is said to come from the LeMont Clan of Scotland.

The seventh family group also has an Irish origin and has a genetic similarity to the Switzerland members.

There is a family group which can be traced to seven brothers in Pennsylvania.  Descendants show a markedly similar DNA pattern which is peculiar to Scandinavia.  The typical name is Laymon.

Another family group was represented by two descendants with identical markers.  The progenitor was a Swiss Mennonite, but seems to be unrelated to anyone else in the test.  This seems most likely to have been the case that a family assumed the name which became Layman.  (It may also be a case of alternative paternity.)

There were more members participating in the test but already we see that the DNA testing is tying together several branches with a wide geographical dispersion from Scandinavia, Scotland, Ireland, England, and Switzerland.
(01 Feb 06)

Nr. 2246:

Continuing with the Lehman families and their DNA testing, there is another group consisting of two individuals with identically the same markers.  Both have ancestors in Tennessee.  One of them has a known ancestor prior to Tennessee in Pennsylvania.  There is a third individual who lives in Saarbruecken, Germany.  This individual differs by only one score from the two individuals above.  His family has been throughly documented to an Ulrich Lehman in Canton Bern, Switzerland.  These individuals differ from the first two families (in Note 2244) by about six changes.  Statistically this would indicate a common ancestor from the time of Moses and the Pharaohs of Egypt.  Thus, this group is essentially independent of the other families.

Still another family group is most closely related to the previous, but the common ancestor seems to have lived about the Ninth Century.  Again, a Swiss origin is indicated.  One individual, close enough to the previous to be considered in the same group has a tradition of a Scottish ancestor whose descendants moved to France before moving to the Americas.

Another family group was indicated by two individuals, one of whom lives in Australia and one of whom lives in Pennsylvania.  The Australian has a tradition that his family had been French Huguenot watchmakers who emigrated to England.  Apparently, there was further emigration to the colonies by a common ancestor or by a brother.

Several individuals in the test had enough changes in their markers that they are considered independent of the other branches for at least the last ten centuries.  Still, they are close enough so that they can be considered to have come by their surname honestly as opposed, for example, by adoption.

Mordecai Lamons in North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century is said to have come from Scotland.  Joseph Lemon of New Jersey descendants had enough changes while enough similarity to the Swiss families indicates they had a Swiss origin but not in the last few centuries.

Hans Lehman came to the colonies via Philadelphia in 1727 and his name was among the first to be recorded.  Hence, many inexperienced researchers have thought that they descended from him.  He was a German-speaking Mennonite.  A proven line of his shows nothing in common with the other families.

In brief, many of the Lehman families are related but the common ancestor was sometimes from the Middle Ages or even earlier.  Some people with the same or similar name show no blood relationship in common with the others.  It appears that members of the larger family have moved around a great deal with some of them living for a while in several lands other than Switzerland and America.

[There may not be a Note tomorrow.]
(02 Feb 06)

Nr. 2247:

I have been writing recently about the Lehman family in many different spellings.  Primarily, it was to emphasize that DNA testing had been useful to sort out the different branches.  Some of the Lehmans appear to have come from diverse geographical backgrounds, but the great majority seem to have had an origin in Switzerland.  A few of the branches are only marginally related as the common ancestor may have been in the Middle Ages or even B.C.

Many people are not familiar with the fact that the Germanna geographical area had a Lehman family for a short period of time.  Our sources of information are two-fold, the "Hebron" Church Records and the civil records from around the time of the Revolution.

Gorg Lehman, 21, and Joh. Lehman, 15, were confirmed at "Hebron" on 22 May 1785.  One other Lehman, Gorg, is a communicant on this same day.  This latter man may be assumed to be the father of the two boys who were confirmed.  Earlier, on Christmas Day in 1775, Georg and Michael Lehmann were communicants at "Hebron" without any wives.

Extensive research says that the Germanna Lehmans were descendants of Peter Lehman who came in 1717 as a Swiss Mennonite.  This was the first family discussed in the DNA study.  The line of descent is believed to be Peter to Jacob to George.  This George is the father of George and John who were confirmed in 1785.

There may be another connection between the Lehmans and the Germanna people, especially the Second Colony.  The National Genealogical Society Quarterly, vol. VIII, n.3, p.38, for October 1919, indicates that in 1671 a group of Bernese Mennonites immigrated from Berne, Switzerland.  The family names of Leman, Shenk, Bachman, and Stauffer are in this group.  Apparently these people settled first in Germany, a documented fact for several Mennonite families.  Later they moved to America.

The Second Colony people left Germany very late in the year of 1717.  It was so late, July, that one is surprised that they even left at all.  I am suggesting that the Mennonites had been leaving earlier and this had set some of the Lutherans thinking about whether they might not do the same.  So they made their decision late in imitation of the Mennonites who had left earlier.

The Lehman information in Germanna comes from Nancy Moyers Dodge who had permission from Earl R. Layman to use information he had sent her.  Earl was the author of the article on DNA testing in the Mennonite Family History.
(06 Feb 06)

Nr. 2248:

James M. Beidler, a historical and genealogical researcher, writes a column in "German Life".  In the magazine title, the word "German" refers not to a political entity but to the region which speaks the German language.  A writer asked Mr. Beidler about her maiden name of Swartz which would probably be Schwartz or Schwarz in German.  The writer says that everyone she knows with this name, except her family, is Jewish.  She thought that possibly the non-Jewish people, other than her family, had changed their name to Black, the equivalent in English.

Mr. Beidler answered that most Jews did not have surnames until late in the late 1700s or early 1800s.  At this time, the authorities in most places in Europe compelled Jews to take a surname.  They adopted names without any particular rhyme or reason.  In many cases they took existing German names so that it is impossible to classify a name as Jewish or non-Jewish.  The name Schwartz is used by Jews and non-Jews.

[The name Fink or Finck, found in the Germanna area, is sometimes considered Jewish but if one visits the Protestant cemeteries in Germany one will find the name Fink and Finck very commonly.]

Another reader asks, "What happened to the church and civil records from the lands Germany lost after World War II?"  Mr. Beidler answers that what records survived have been microfilmed by the LDS.  [Generally these records were in areas under Communist control and their attitude toward the records was negative so many have not survived.]  Consult the card catalog that is online at the LDS web site for the name of localities in German and in the present language.  If these records have been microfilmed, they will be listed under both the old and the new names.

[One of our Germanna families, Fleischmann, came from a village, Klings, that was in East Germany.  The name was not changed and today the church in town is Evangelical (Protestant).  The last that I checked, there were no films for this church.  If anyone knows whether there are church records, either on film or in a book or in an archive, please let us know here on the list.]

[Klings is a very pleasant village in a lovely setting.  There is almost zero commercial activity in the village, excepting farming, though it appears many craftsmen run their business from their home.  In spite of its history in East Germany, today it is well kept and neat with solid, substantial homes.]
(07 Feb 06)

Nr. 2249:

There was a note, not too long ago, to the Germanna Colonies List from Thomas Porombka to alert readers to his web page,  (Note the dot de.)  I checked into the site and was amazed at what I found.  First, it is incomplete, but there is enough there to catch one�s attention.  Second, it has so many Germanna names.  Third, it looks as if it is being done very professionally.

I wrote to Herr Porombka to say that I thought the statement in red letters over a yellow background was not easily read (it was the only mar that I saw).  I had a very gracious reply from him to say that he intended it to be difficult to read.  It seems that German law requires a statement on a web page to warn people that any links to which it refers may have changed.  The page carrying the notice cannot be responsible for changes that might have occurred after the reference was made.  Herr Porombka considers the need for such a statement to be ridiculous as everyone should know that one cannot be responsible for someone else�s work especially as it may change after the reference is made.  So he makes the statement in red letters over a yellow background to encourage skipping over it.

The thousands of names that are listed, many incomplete at the present time, are descendants and related families of the Porombka family.  They are included as cousins and not as descendants.  Scanning through these names, one sees many Germanna names both from the areas of the First and the Second Colonies homelands.

The listing of so many names makes us realize that we are one family.  (I think that I have read the descendants of the Western Europeans, including the British isles, are descended from perhaps fifty women.)

There are a few details about the Porombka site that I do not understand.  There are English and French versions besides the basic German one.  Some of the genealogy data is not translated as it is essentially the same in all languages.  One needs only to know basic principles such as * means birth (or more correctly baptism) and + means death.  The death symbol should be a cross but a plus sign is satisfactory.  Marriage is denoted by oo.  Divorce is o/o.  For more along this line consult the past notes which talk about "Ortssippenbuch".

[John's Note which explains the symbols used in the "Ortssippenbuch" may be found here:

Page 75, Note Nr. 1875]

[Other Notes by John which discuss "Ortissippenbuch" may be found here:

Page 58, Note Nr. 1449,
Page 74, Notes Nr. 1842, 1843, & 1844,
Page 75, Notes Nr. 1856, 1857, 1874, & 1875,
Page 76, Note Nr. 1876,
Page 83, Notes Nr. 2054, 2055, & 2056,
Page 84, Note Nr. 2088,
Page 88, Note Nr. 2192.]

[Above inserted by: Webmaster GWD.]

I will try to remember the Porombka site for its human interest, if nothing else.
(09 Feb 06)

Nr. 2250:

I have drawn many plots of the patents in the Robinson River Valley and in the Little Fork.  They all look nice and pretty with all of the land taken up.  There are some cases where there is overlap between the patents.  (For examples of these plots, see the index at the back of the Beyond Germanna CD.) Let us look at how some of the anomalies come about.

[You can see two Land Patent Maps of the Little Fork area here.

You can see two Land Patent Maps for the Germanna Colonists in Madison Co. here.]

[Above inserted by: Webmaster GWD.]

A man proceeds into the wilderness with very little to guide him as to where others would like to make their claim.  His first task is to mark out a block of land which is sufficient to contain the amount of land he would like to patent.  He has to look for conflicting claims either by way of markers or by the word of mouth of other people who are simultaneously looking for land.  He is no surveyor himself so he has to estimate how much to mark to be able to contain what he desires to patent.  He probably puts up some markers at the corners of the land he is marking and perhaps he blazes some trees between the corners to mark his claim.  None of this is formal; he is just tentatively making a claim.

Usually he will call in a surveyor and ask him to survey a certain number of acres, say 400 acres.  He points out to the surveyor his original markers of no merit except that he believes within these original markers that there is no one else who has a claim.  The surveyor knows that the 400 acres can be obtained by plots of X poles by Y poles so in discussion with the claimer they find such a plot.  With the more exact measurements of the surveyor, this 400 acres probably is less than the amount of land contained within the original markers.  The surveyor marks his survey with another set of markers which become the official description of the patent.

The patentee continues to describe, to his neighbors and other interested parties, that his claim extends to his original markers which actually have no legal standing except that the patentee might say that he plans on extending his patent to the original markers.  Sometimes this bit of deception was carried on for years.  Putting off the patenting of the additional land saved on the payment of fees and quit rents.

At some time in the future, the patentee may call for a resurvey of his patent but this time he instructs the surveyor to measure to the original markers.  The resurvey may note that additional land, called waste land, was found.  Thus, the original patent might say there were 400 acres but the resurvey might say that there was the 400 acres plus 300 acres of waste land.  This waste land was the difference between the informal markers put down originally and the first patent description.
(10 Feb 06)

(To see John & Eleanor Blankenbaker's May, 2000, and May, 2002, Germany and Austria photos, click here.)

(To see maps of villages in Germany and Austria from which our Germanna ancestors immigrated, click here.)

(This page contains the NINETIETH set of Notes, Nr. 2226 through Nr. 2250.)

John and George would like very much to hear from readers of these Germanna History pages.  We welcome your criticisms, compliments, corrections, or other comments.  When you click on "click here" below, both of us will receive your message.  We would like to hear what you have to say about the content of the Notes, and about spelling, punctuation, format, etc.  Just click here to send us your message.  Thank You!

There is a Mailing List (also known as a Discussion List or Discussion Group), called GERMANNA_COLONIES, at RootsWeb.  This List is open to all subscribers for the broadcast of their messages.  John urges more of you to make it a research tool for answering your questions, or for summarizing your findings, on any subject concerning the Germanna Colonies of Virginia.  On this List, you may make inquiries of specific Germanna SURNAMES.  At present, there are about 700 subscribers and there are bound to be users here who can help you.  If you are interested in subscribing to this List,

(GERMANNA History Notes, Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 John BLANKENBAKER.)
(GERMANNA History Web Pages, Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 George W. DURMAN.)
This material has been compiled and placed on this web site by George W. Durman, with the permission of John BLANKENBAKER.  It is intended for personal use by genealogists and researchers, and is not to be disseminated further.

Index Links to All Pages of John's GERMANNA NOTES and Genealogy Comments
INDEX Links to All Pages of John's GERMANNA NOTES
Pg.001-Notes 0001-0025
Pg.002-Notes 0026-0050
Pg.003-Notes 0051-0075
Pg.004-Notes 0076-0100
Pg.005-Notes 0101-0125
Pg.006-Notes 0126-0150
Pg.007-Notes 0151-0175
Pg.008-Notes 0176-0200
Pg.009-Notes 0201-0225
Pg.010-Notes 0226-0250
Pg.011-Notes 0251-0275
Pg.012-Notes 0276-0300
Pg.013-Notes 0301-0325
Pg.014-Notes 0326-0350
Pg.015-Notes 0351-0375
Pg.016-Notes 0376-0400
Pg.017-Notes 0401-0425
Pg.018-Notes 0426-0450
Pg.019-Notes 0451-0475
Pg.020-Notes 0476-0500
Pg.021-Notes 0501-0525
Pg.022-Notes 0526-0550
Pg.023-Notes 0551-0575
Pg.024-Notes 0575-0600
Pg.025-Notes 0601-0625
Pg.026-Notes 0626-0650
Pg.027-Notes 0651-0675
Pg.028-Notes 0676-0700
Pg.029-Notes 0701-0725
Pg.030-Notes 0726-0750
Pg.031-Notes 0751-0775
Pg.032-Notes 0776-0800
Pg.033-Notes 0801-0825
Pg.034-Notes 0826-0850
Pg.035-Notes 0851-0875
Pg.036-Notes 0876-0900
Pg.037-Notes 0901-0925
Pg.038-Notes 0926-0950
Pg.039-Notes 0951-0975
Pg.040-Notes 0976-1000
Pg.041-Notes 1001-1025
Pg.042-Notes 1026-1050
Pg.043-Notes 1051-1075
Pg.044-Notes 1076-1100
Pg.045-Notes 1101-1125
Pg.046-Notes 1126-1150
Pg.047-Notes 1151-1175
Pg.048-Notes 1176-1200
Pg.049-Notes 1201-1225
Pg.050-Notes 1226-1250
Pg.051-Notes 1251-1275
Pg.052-Notes 1276-1300
Pg.053-Notes 1301-1325
Pg.054-Notes 1326-1350
Pg.055-Notes 1351-1375
Pg.056-Notes 1376-1400
Pg.057-Notes 1401-1425
Pg.058-Notes 1426-1450
Pg.059-Notes 1451-1475
Pg.060-Notes 1476-1500
Pg.061-Notes 1501-1525
Pg.062-Notes 1526-1550
Pg.063-Notes 1551-1575
Pg.064-Notes 1576-1600
Pg.065-Notes 1601-1625
Pg.066-Notes 1626-1650
Pg.067-Notes 1651-1675
Pg.068-Notes 1676-1700
Pg.069-Notes 1701-1725
Pg.070-Notes 1726-1750
Pg.071-Notes 1751-1775
Pg.072-Notes 1776-1800
Pg.073-Notes 1801-1825
Pg.074-Notes 1826-1850
Pg.075-Notes 1851-1875
Pg.076-Notes 1876-1900
Pg.077-Notes 1901-1925
Pg.078-Notes 1926-1950
Pg.079-Notes 1951-1975
Pg.080-Notes 1976-2000
Pg.081-Notes 2001-2025
Pg.082-Notes 2026-2050
Pg.083-Notes 2051-2075
Pg.084-Notes 2076-2100
Pg.085-Notes 2101-2125
Pg.086-Notes 2126-2150
Pg.087-Notes 2150-2175
Pg.088-Notes 2176-2200
Pg.089-Notes 2201-2225
Pg.090-Notes 2226-2250
Pg.091-Notes 2251-2275
Pg.092-Notes 2276-2300
Pg.093-Notes 2301-2325
Pg.094-Notes 2326-2350
Pg.095-Notes 2351-2375
Pg.096-Notes 2376-2400
Pg.097-Notes 2401-2425
Pg.098-Notes 2426-2450
Pg.099-Notes 2451-2475
Pg.100-Notes 2476-2500
Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025

INDEX Links to All Pages of John's GENEALOGY COMMENTS

(As of 12 April 2007, John published the last of his "Germanna Notes"; however, he is going to periodically post to the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List in the form of "Genealogy Comments" on various subjects, not necessarily dealing with Germanna.  I'm starting the numbering system anew, starting with Comment Nr. 0001.)

Pg.101-Comments 0001-0025