In Trupbach, we are looking at the occupations of the residents of the village at about the time that our ancestors left for America.

There were two wheelwrights mentioned, Johann Friedrich Jung and Johann Heinrich Jung, who were father and son.  They overlapped in time in the year 1713. Three joiners or cabinet makers were mentioned and no relationship among them is given.  Their last names were NOELL, WALPERSDORF, and HENK.  All of these were later than 1713 so that it is impossible to say there were joiners in 1713.  There were also wood turners, who were later.  Their surnames were NOELL, NOELL (son of the previous), GIEBELER, NOELL, and KORSTIAN.  Both of these occupations may have reflected the period of growth in connection with mining in the 1800's.

Again, sometime after 1713, there were several forge workers, the earliest of whom was in 1743.  They, too, may be the result of the later mining activity.  Their surnames were SCHNEIDER, SCHUSS and his son, HIEDE, BECKER and his two sons and a grandson who comes down to 1862.

The two (black) smiths, WICKEL and STRACKE, were much later, in 1862.

An unusual occupation for a village the size of Trupbach was clockmaker.  There were several such men of the house Urmeiersch.  They were Christoffel RICHTER (1666); Johannes, his son, in 1704; Herman, the son of Johannes, in 1738; and Johann Henrich HOFFMAN, the son-in-law of Herman in 1773.

There were five linen weavers, the earliest mentioned in 1745, but probably the occupation was present before then.  Surnames were STEIN, twice SCHNEIDER, KLASS, and REUTER.

The two tailors seem to be of a later period, as are the two shoemakers.
There were also two masons and two thatchers, all in the 1800s.
There were three innkeepers, but all in the 1800s.

The occupations tended to run in families with the job passed from father to son, or to son-in-law.  Since guilds existed for many of these occupations, the fathers probably used their influence to get their relatives admitted as apprentices to the guild.

It would be totally impossible to conclude that Trupbach in the early 1700's was, in any way, connected with the mining or metal working industries.
(06 Jul 05)

In 1725, the village of Trupbach (now a part of Siegen) was a small village of 25 homes.  These homes, as well as their location and occupants, are identifiable.  These have been reported in the book "Trupbach 1389-1989, Ortsgeschichte in Texten and Bildern" (Local History in Text and Pictures).  The authors were Udo Bohn, who died before the book was finished, and Dieter Troeps, who finished the book.  The twenty-five houses were (house name; occupant; when built):

HOUSE NAME	Occupant	When Built
WAENRSCH	Friedrich Jung, who married Elsbeth Heide	before 1660 (suspected)
KURSCH	Multiple	before 1650
HEIDE	Elsbeth (Noeh) Zimmerman	before 1680
WESE	Johann Becker�s widow	after 1563
WISSKOPPS	Johannes Heide	before 1650
WICKELS	Jost Otterbach	before 1680
WAGNERSCH	Hermanus Schneider and Johannes Schneider	before 1611 (suspected)
UHRMEIERSCH (now destroyed)	Johannes Richter	about 1640
FELDES	Johannes Schneider	about 1640
SCHUSS	Johannes Goebel, married Johannes Klappert�s widow	before 1670
BAECKERSCH	Johannes Becker	before 1680, rebuilt in 1948
HELMES	Johannes Schneider	before 1660
RECKSCHMETTS	Johannes Schneider, the younger	before 1680
WELMES	Hermanus Otterbach	before 1680
(A house no longer standing)	Johannes Otterbach	before 1600
WISSE	Johannes Wisse	before 1650
MERTES	Jost Fishbach (no descendants)	before 1650
KROMME	Johannes Jung	before 1650
HUJJE	Nicklas Hugo, married Cathrin Arnold	before 1650
HETTCHENS (KNIPPS)	Philipp Fischbach	about 1690
HAEMIGES	Hermanus Lueck, married Maria E. Heymbach	about 1600
JOAGEWES	Johannes Schneider, married Chr. Schneider	before 1680

One of these houses has been taken down, I believe, in recent years.

I have often wondered if the families in the Robinson River Valley by the name of Becker and one of the Schneider families were perhaps from Trupbach, or more generally from Nassau-Siegen.  By the time that these names appear in the Robinson River Valley, there were already several families from the Nassau-Siegen region there.  This is why I like to identify the area as the Robinson River Valley and not as the Hebron community.  There were many people living there who were not Lutheran, as Hebron would imply.  Furthermore, the name Hebron is a Nineteenth Century name, not an Eighteenth Century name.
(07 Jul 05)

In the previous note, the names of the houses reflect several sources.  Sometimes the house is named for the builder or for the first occupant.  The name of the house the Richters were living in (UHRMEIERSCH) is after the occupation of the inhabitants, who seemed to be clockmakers for several generations.  This Richter house no longer stands, a victim of World War II.  The paving for the ground floor, made from stones, still exists.  A shed for farm implements has been built where the house stood.  Another house, BAECKERSCH, was so badly damaged during WWII that it was rebuilt in 1948.

Nearly all of the houses followed the plan of the Richter house, in that the first floor was used for the animals.  The second floor was used for the humans, while the third floor was used for hay storage.  Pictures in the "Trupbach Ortsgeschichte" show that this was still the use in the period up to WWII.  Thus, the village presents a strong agricultural view and the agricultural pursuits consumed a major part of the time of the inhabitants, women and children included.  Today, the buildings are used differently and, without the need for animal care, the house is often split up into a duplex.  There are still farmers who live in the village.  Their fields are outside the village.

Community bakeries were standard and they were located on the edge of the village.  This was a fire prevention measure.  Today, one of these bakeries has been restored and is in use.  My wife and I purchased a loaf of bread (we intended to purchase a loaf but they insisted on giving it to us).

Some early family names and the earliest dates for the names follow:

FAMILY NAME	Earliest Date	FAMILY NAME	Earliest Date
Baumgarten	1631	Becker	1629
Brass	1628	Brandt	1632
Duester	1638	Dirlenbach	1627
Fischbach	1628	Heide	1618
Helm	1649	Holdinghausen	1659
Jung	1618	Kolb	1624
Lueck	1675	Loehr	1651
Otterbach	ca 1618	Riefenrad	1626
Richter	1666	Schneider	1599
Schmidt	1659	Stuell	1628
Strack	1632	Wisse	1676
Zimmerman	1624

(08 Jul 05)

There exists a Tax List for Trupbach for the year 1566.  This is quite early, about 150 years before the departure of a number of people for America.  Only seventeen households or units are recognized.  We were looking recently at the ages of the houses and few of them, if any, went back to 1566.  Surnames were in use by that date, but many people are identified by their relationship to another person.

The surnames mentioned are:

Meisswinkel	Schneider	Zimmerman	Herman
Michel	Zimmerman	Demuth (no surname, a single female farm laborer)	Barben (Heinrich's son)
Hofmann of Heinbach	Rupelin (Hannes' son)	Treina (no surname, but Joerg�s holy widow)	Johannes (Heiten's son)
Becker	Hanns of the Weiss	Leineweber	Heyman (only name)
Schneider

Of these names, we recognize immediately the Schneiders, who continue to have a presence in Trupbach.  All seventeen of the households had at least one cow, which must have been regarded as a necessity.  Fifteen of the households had swine.  The breeding of pigs was probably in the hands of a few people who sold young piglets to their neighbors.  Eleven of the households had sheep.  Only four of the households had horses (another had a colt).  The cows were used by most of the people as their draft animals (oxen).  This practice continued well into the period of photography, as several pictures in the book, Trupbach Ortsgeschichte, show.  The cow was a more fundamental animal than the horse, as it was a source of food and a working animal.  From the tax list we see that one cow was worth two heifers or four pigs or eight sheep.  A horse was rated at several times the value of a cow.

Meadows were rated highly, even above fields.  Most of the places had a garden, and some were taxed for an orchard.  Fourteen of the units had an interest in a hauberg*, which was valued highly.

Another eleven had an interest in forest land.  Two of the families (one Schneider and Heiten�s son) were well enough off that they seemed to have held bonds, probably against money they had lent.

The highest taxes were paid by Herman Schneider and Henn Schneider.  Herman�s taxes were more than twice the average.  He was taxed for a house, barn, grounds, tree farm, meadow, fields, garden, hauberg, forest, colt, 2 cows, a heifer, and 6 sheep.  His most valuable possession was the meadows, followed closely by the hauberg.  Each of these was more than twice the house, barn, grounds and tree farm taken together.  The lowest tax was applied to Demuth, the single female farm laborer, who was taxed for "all her goods" and one cow.  Her possessions were only 1/30 of the value of Herman Schneider�s.

==================================================
(*To read other Notes on this website concerning "Haubergs", you may click on the links below.  There are also some links for German web sites that explain what a "Hauberg" is in detail, and have some photos and drawings.

In the last note, I mentioned Haubergs.  This requires some explanation.  Haubergs originated centuries ago, apparently as a political solution to a thorny problem of resource allocation.

There was a demand for oak bark to use in the tanneries.  There was a demand for wood to make charcoal.  There was a demand to have wood for heating and cooking in homes.  There was a need to grow grain.  To meet these competing demands, the leaders (princes?) in the communities set up societies to which the property owners had to belong.  Apparently the Hauberg rights could not be separated from the home.  If you bought a home, you became a member of the Hauberg society.

One Hauberg society seemed to own the land in common among many homes.  The tract was divided into about twenty parcels.  In any one year, the oak trees on one parcel would be cut down.  Before cutting the tree, the bark would be pealed up the tree for about twelve feet and left hanging to dry.  After the bark was dry, it was cut off the tree and taken to the tannery.

Then the tree would be cut down.  The stem of the tree would be about six inches in diameter.  This was used for making charcoal.  The small parts of the tree would be carefully saved and bundled up.  These were distributed among the owners of the Hauberg for cooking and heating.

The stump was not removed from the ground.  It was left in place and would send up sprouts which would become the future oak trees.  While the oak was small, the land could also be used for another purpose, namely growing grain.  Plowing the earth would be difficult because of the oak roots.  The surface was scratched by having cattle pull a shovel-like "plow" across the earth.  Seed would be distributed and brushing the earth would cover up the grain.  The grain would be harvested with a scythe or sickle.  This could be done several years until the oaks shaded the ground too much and sapped the water resources in the ground.  Some grazing might be done then.

In the next year, this pattern would be repeated on another one of the twenty plots.  So every year there was a yield of wood and bark and grain.  The whole process was not very efficient but was a political solution to competing demands.

The Sunday Germanna Reunion was interrupted by a visitor.  Thomas Jefferson was traveling from Washington City to his Aerie near Charlottesville, but he had stopped at Zimmerman's Inn in Stevensburg.  Hearing that we were meeting, he came over to say, "Hello."  He was especially interested in meeting the Germans, as he had given a legal opinion concerning the will of Adam Wayland.  Incidentally, his opinion was on the "winning" side, though it is not clear how much his views influenced the judges.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jefferson thought that the year was 1805 and he seemed to know nothing of what happened after that date.  He did have opinions about the future of these United States in which he was hopeful.  He took some note with pride of the success that had been achieved in this new nation where the voice of the people was to be heard.  He introduced some new customs in Washington City such as having his guests shake hands and not bow.

He was aware of the petition submitted by the German Congregation of the County of Culpepper, in October of 1776, to the President and Delegates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  In this petition we asked for relief from the tithes to support the State Church in addition to our own Church.  Relief was not forthcoming immediately and Mr. Jefferson told us some of the reasons.  He favored the complete separation of the Church from the affairs of the state but his views did not win acceptance immediately.

He was proud of the fact that when he began as President the number of Federal employees was 75 but that he had reduced that number to 68.  There was no doubt that we were listening to President Thomas Jefferson as he looked exactly like all of the pictures that I have seen of him.  And his mannerisms accorded with the published accounts.  There was no reason to doubt that we were listening to our third President.

Mr. Jefferson is reincarnated today at Williamsburg where he may be visited.  Helping him is Bill Barker, who fell into the job of assisting him when someone commented that he looked like Thomas Jefferson and asked him to impersonate Jefferson.  Since Mr. Barker had trained as an actor, he succeeded very well in this role, and by his studies of Jefferson's time he became well acquainted with the questions being raised, and by the people who were proposing and opposing the ideas.  So he is in an excellent position to answer questions from the populace.  His routine is not entirely fixed.

If you visit Williamsburg, do drop in for a visit with Thomas Jefferson, who sometimes is in a different year and a different role.
(19 Jul 05)

After President Jefferson left us at the Germanna Reunion, we heard Sven and Olaf Schneider on the piano and trombone.  Unfortunately, the piano at the College was not in tune but they still put on an excellent program of national anthems, old favorites, and a few hymns.  Their father and two brothers are also musicians.  (When the last German Heritage Tour visited Trupbach, the group was welcomed by a brass band in which Rudi Schneider, the father, was playing the trumpet.)

After the program ended, we ate lunch at the College.  At two o'clock, the group assembled at the Visitor�s Center for a dedication of benches and the Germanna flag.  The Foundation had never had a flag and a generous member paid for the design and purchase of several copies of the flag.

In the package of the registration material, there was a financial balance sheet for the Foundation.  This was a novel item which has been omitted since Mr. Carpenter was the treasurer.  Essentially, the balance sheet shows that the Foundation is the custodian for some very valuable properties which do not produce any income such as the land, Salubria, and the Visitor's Center.  These require money for their support and upkeep.  The major sources of income are membership dues, the sale of books and other items, and the Reunion.

The Foundation looks to sponsor activities which offer benefits to the members and which earn it some money.  The Heritage Tours to Germany are very popular and, besides earning a little money for the Foundation, build ties to the "fatherland".    Next February, the Foundation will try another new activity, a week's cruise in the Caribbean, during which Germanna lectures will be offered while "at sea".  Naturally, lectures require lecturers.  Thom Faircloth and I have volunteered to do this.  If you are interested in this, contact the Foundation for information.  At the Reunion, Skip Poole was taking expressions of interest and it looks as though there will be enough people to make the trip worthwhile.  (Another Heritage Tour next year has also been announced and these continue to be sellouts.)

Thom Faircloth announced that special activities will mark the Reunion next year, which will be the fiftieth Reunion of the Foundation.  For those of you making advance plans, the Reunion will be held on July 14, 15, and 16 (Friday through Sunday).  I have not mentioned here the typical Friday activities but they consist of tours in the area and family meetings.
(20 Jul 05)

The first activity for which Spotswood had high hopes for providing an independent income was silver.  Even before the Germans had left, but not by much, he had invested, as a quarter owner, in land that was thought to contain silver.  Because he and his partners could not be sure of the percentage of the silver that would be theirs if silver were found, he worked with Col. Nathaniel Blakiston in London, who was the agent for Virginia.  It was Blakiston, working with Graffenried and the Germans, that sent the Germans on to Virginia, partially at Spotswood�s expense.

Spotswood had a fort built at Germanna at the expense of the government.  The rationale for this was that the Germans would be a buffer between the English and the Indians.  It went unmentioned that a few miles away was the land where it was hoped there would be silver.  Because the percentage of silver that finders could keep was never defined, the silver mining activity was more of a hope than any actual activity.  It does appear that Spotswood finally let the Germans work the ores starting in the Spring of 1716.  By the Fall of 1716, it was becoming evident that there was no silver.

Spotswood never earned a farthing from silver, while his personal expenses probably did not greatly exceed the 150 pounds Sterling that he had paid on the German�s transportation.  In the process, over a few years, he did patent about 6,000 acres around Germanna.  Apparently, he planned to lease this to the Germans, and he did give the excuse that the second half of this land was taken up for the benefit of the Germans.  The land more than paid for the transportation costs of the Germans.

Before he had written off the silver mine(s), he started the second of his retirement plans.  He had observed the chaotic nature of Indian trading.  Earlier, this had been very profitable to number of people, especially to the Byrd family, where William Byrd�s father had been very successful.  As time went by, the trade became very chaotic as many people entered the business, many of them consisting of just one or two people.  They had a difficult time making a profit, as they had little bargaining power in London where they bought their trading goods, and where they sold their furs.  They had to "cheat" the Indians in order to make a profit.

Spotswood envisioned that a legal monopoly could have an easier time wherein the Indians would be treated more fairly.  The Colony of Virginia passed legislation creating the Virginia Indian Trading Company which was to be privately owned.  Spotswood became an investor in this, as did some of his relatives who were probably stand-ins for him.  Even though Spotswood and his partners were aware that the legislation creating the Trading Company would have to be approved in London, they went ahead with their plans before this approval was obtained.  The company was to be located at Christanna, where a fort, somewhat more substantial than Fort Germanna, was built.  Christanna was almost at the North Carolina border, about due south of the future town of Richmond.
(25 Jul 05)

It is essential to understand that legislation passed in Virginia had to be approved in London.  There it might be rejected, amended, or accepted.  This particularly applied to unusual legislation, and to laws which affected trade between Virginia and Great Britain.  As an example, Virginia once passed a law that convicts could no longer be sent to Virginia.  A person in England brought up the point that he had a contract to transport convicts to Virginia and if Virginia refused to accept these convicts then he could no longer fulfill his contract.  The law was overturned because it interfered with trade between England and Virginia.

In the first few months that he was on the job as Lt. Gov., Alexander Spotswood proposed that the Colony of Virginia set up an "iron works" to mine and smelt iron ore for shipment to England.  The arguments that he gave for this enterprise were excellent.  The Board of Trade by a return letter warned him that any Virginia legislation which set up an iron works might be judged to be an interference with trade.  It also warned him that any investment that might be made in this iron works could be lost.  These were hardly the words to encourage anyone to invest in iron works which would cost from 5,000 to 10,000 pounds Sterling.

That a warning of this nature could possibly have some real teeth in it was brought home to Spotswood by what happened to the Virginia Indian Trading Company, of which he was a partner.  This was judged to be an interference in the established trade patterns and it was not allowed.  The people who were probably complaining the most were the suppliers of the trade goods and the purchasers of the furs in London.  The Virginia Indian Trading Company, as the only body authorized to trade with the Indians, could drive harder bargains in England for the trade goods they were buying and for the furs they were selling.  The English merchants complained that this was a monopolistic practice which should not be allowed and they won their point.  Spotswood and his partners were told to abandon the Indian Trading Company.  They may have recovered some of their investment, but it was a net loss to them as the legislation establishing the Indian Trading Company was overthrown.

There are two points to be observed here.  First, trading with the Indians would not become an element in Spotswood's retirement plan.  Second, any iron works might be subject to the same action, i.e., overthrown in England on trivial grounds.  This is one of the major reasons that Spotswood was very slow to get into iron smelting and manufacturing.  He could not be sure that his investment would stand up.  So, he sought other activities to earn a retirement income.  As we will see, iron was the last activity that he engaged in.

Before the Indian trading was overthrown, Spotswood was very optimistic about the possibilities here.  In the next Note, we will examine some of the evidence.
(26 Jul 05)

Before the Virginia Indian Trading Company legislation was cancelled, Alexander Spotswood had high hopes that it would be a very profitable enterprise.  We can gather this from a letter of Richard Beresford written on July 4, 1716.  In this, he writes that the Governor is now building a handsome house near Christanna (the base of the Indian Trading Company).  The house was expected to cost about five or six hundred Pounds.  Other people were also being encouraged by the Governor's example, and they too were building houses there.

The implication of these remarks is that Spotswood was preparing to abandon Germanna.  There was nothing there to draw him to that place.  There were no mines.  He did have some land, not a major amount, which he planned on leasing to the Germans.  This would require little attention on his part.

Beresford also mentioned that a company of twelve Rangers had discovered a passage through the mountains between the Rappahannock and the Potomac Rivers.  [This would exclude Swift Run Gap, where several markers today announce that the trans-mountain expedition had passed.] Beresford wrote that the Governor, accompanied by three companies of Rangers and others, would perfect the discovery.  Beresford speculates that there are two reasons that Spotswood is especially interested in learning more about this pass.  One is that it will lead to new routes for trading with the Indians.  Second, he notes that several people think the Governor is looking for mines in which to employ his Germans, some of whom are miners.  Beresford also notes that [Franz Ludwig Michel] had reported to England that there were mines over the mountains and that this information had been relayed to Spotswood.

Beresford notes the Governor is under pressure from several men in Virginia where he has gained the ill will of most of the leading men in Virginia.  They had complained to London and hoped to oust him, but Spotswood answered their charges well enough to keep his job.  But he certainly realized that the Lt. Governorship was tenuous and he might lose the position at any moment.  This made the search for an alternative income very urgent.

In view of subsequent events, Spotswood looked for another enterprise to earn money to support himself in retirement and this endeavor was land.  This was a proven technique which most of the leading men in Virginia had used.  When the trans-mountain expedition was under way, we see that a major effort was the discovery of land.  He explored the land which Robert Beverley wanted to put into a land partnership, and crossed the Rapidan River to explore the land on the north side.  Past the Robinson River, the route is uncertain, but if the remarks of Beresford about the location of the pass are correct, the party probably initially followed up the Robinson River.  All of these areas fell into the land partnership which eventually became Spotswood's.
(27 Jul 05)

Shortly after the expedition over the [Blue Ridge] mountains in 1716, Alexander Spotswood and his partners staked out 40,000 acres of land.  This started just to the west of Germanna and ran on both sides of the Rapidan River to the junction with the Robinson River, and included land to the west of the present day town of Culpeper.  This very exposed position would need settlers when it was patented, and Spotswood undertook to solve this problem.  He wanted Germans, a large group of them, to occupy the land at the same time.  Getting individuals to move this far out would not be easy.  Why Germans?  The experience with the Germans in Fort Germanna had been very good and Spotswood was impressed with their qualities.  The Fort Germanna Germans did not have enough time left on their service for Spotswood and so he needed a "fresh" batch of Germans.  He discussed the problems with the captains of ships and let them know that there was a need for which he would pay.  One of them, Andrew Tarbett, brought about 80 Germans at sometime near January 1 (by the modern calendar, 1718, though the calendar in use then would have been 1717 on January 1.)

Paying for this immense tract constituted a small problem, so Spotswood delayed patenting the land.  At the time that Spotsylvania County was formed, land in it was to be free for a period of years.  Again, this was unusual legislation and Spotswood held off on issuing the patents until 1722 when he saw that his job as Lt. Governor was likely to end.

In taking up this land, Spotswood emphasized that it was for the purpose of making naval stores, a class of commodities that King George and Parliament urged that the colonies engaged in.  This was perhaps a strategy to insure that the legislation to create Spotsylvania County with its free land would not be overturned in London.  The King and Parliament were good people to have as friends.  One of the partners of Spotswood in this enterprise was Robert Beverley, who was personally interested in grapes and wine.  This point was not emphasized by Spotswood, but Fontaine and Jones make it clear that Beverley was interested in wine.

Spotswood had been burned by the cancellation in London of the Indian Trading Company.  He was aware of how adversely the laws of Virginia or activities could be treated.  He had been warned by the Board of Trade in his first year in Virginia that legislation creating an iron works in Virginia might be overturned.  The Virginia Indian Trading Company had demonstrated that this might not be an empty threat.  Land seemed a better possibility.  It had been used by all of the powerful people in Virginia.  The only threat to the program of land acquisition was the legislation that made land in the new county of Spotsylvania free.  His best hope was to tie the use of the land that he, with his partners, took up was to put it to a use that the King and Parliament wanted implemented, namely naval stores.
(28 Jul 05)