Search billions of records on Ancestry.com

(This Page Was Last Modified Wednesday, 06-Apr-2011 15:52:08 MDT.)


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


This is the NINETY-EIGHTH 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 2426 through 2450.

GERMANNA History Notes
Page 98

(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. 2426:

[My computer was in the hospital for several days but it seems to have recovered from its maladies.  This Note will be written directly in my email program (Earthlink).]

There is a lot of misinformation about Headrights.  People draw erroneous conclusions by not understanding how they worked.  They were used (and misused) throughout the history of Colonial Virginia in an attempt to encourage settlers to come to Virginia.  When a Headright was used, the name of the importee was stated to show that the purchaser of the land was entitled to fifty acres of land.  Headrights were transferable and could be bought and sold.

Consider this hypothetical situation.  John Jones patents 100 acres of paying with the importation of Fred Fredericks and Frieda Fredericks.  It is not valid to say any of the following:

1.  John Johns was in Virginia before the Fredericks.
2.  John Johns paid the transportation costs of the Fredericks.
3.  John Johns paid his own way to Virginia.
4.  The transportation costs of the Fredericks was paid by someone else (other than themselves).
5.  Fred Fredericks was still living.

The following could have been the actual situation (one of many).  The Fredericks came in 1720 and paid their own transportation.  They bought land in the Northern Neck where Headrights were not recognized.  According to the laws of Virginia though they were still entitled to Headrights.  Fred Fredericks died shortly after they bought their land and Frieda decided to sell the two Headrights to John Jones, who could use them outside the Northern Neck to purchase land from the Crown.  John Jones had come as an indentured servant in 1722 and after his servitude was completed, he patented 100 acres of land outside the Northern Neck.  He would normally have paid five shillings per fifty acres but he bought Headrights for less than that and used them.

The First Germanna Colony settled in the Northern Neck.  They could not use their Headrights in the Northern Neck.  Some of the people secured their Headrights and sold them for use outside the Northern Neck.  John Huffman obtained his Headright and his wife's Headright when he applied, saying they came in 1714.  But, they were not married until after they came.  So saying that he and his wife were married when they came is erroneous.  Again, using Headrights to draw any conclusion could be dangerous to the truth.
(11 Dec 06)



Nr. 2427:

Related to Headrights is the question of the difference between the Crown lands and the Northern Neck.  Virginia was a Royal Colony.  The King (or Queen) owned the land.  The profits from it went to the Crown.  It was recognized that land, by itself, earns no money.  It takes people on the land to make money.  The Crown earned money from the taxes on the land, or on the products of the land.  These were the quit rents, a form of property tax, and the import-export duties, especially on tobacco.  The administration costs for the Colony were paid by the taxes.  The price of land, when purchased from the Crown, was low.  In fact, just for coming or immigrating to the Colony the Crown would give each person fifty acres.  This was a right of each person or head that came into Virginia.

Around 1700, another way of obtaining the land was legislated.  One could pay for the land at five shillings per fifty acres.  This set an upper limit on the value of a Headright.

Since the land initially belonged to the Crown, the King or Queen could do what he/she wished to do with it.  Charles II, in recognition of the support he received when he was “out of the office” gave all of the land between the Potomac and the Rappahannock Rivers to a group.  This land, called the Northern Neck, eventually ended in the hands of Lord Fairfax.  The proprietors of the Northern Neck sold tracts of this land to individuals as their way of earning money from the land.  When an individual purchased land in the Northern Neck from the proprietor(s), he was given a “grant”, a form of the initial deed to the property.  When one purchased land directly from the Crown, one was given a “patent”, which again was a form of an initial deed to the property.  The major difference between these two was that the grantor was the proprietor for the grants and was the Crown for the patents.  The price of land in the Northern Neck reflected the cost of land on the Crown lands.

For a period, about 1720 to 1730, another factor influenced the sale of land.  Land in the newly created counties of Spotsylvania and Brunswick was free.  This was a mild damper on the sale of land outside of these new counties, including in the Northern Neck.  Probably, the First Germanna Colony would not have purchased land in the Northern Neck had this provision been in place when they purchased their land in 1718.  This is a major reason that the Second Colony did not go to the Northern Neck.  They obtained free land in Spotsylvania County.  Willis Kemper thought that religious antagonism between the two colonies was the reason for their separation when it more likely a question of economics.
(12 Dec 06)



Nr. 2428:

A correspondent asks about the family of James Atwood who married Catherine Fishback.  What I know comes from an article by David B. Boles in “Beyond Germanna” (volume 1, number 4, page 32).  I will quote from his work.

John Fishback (1691-1734) came to Virginia in 1714.  His son John Frederick (ca 1716-1782) had nine children, one of whom was Catherine (ca 1753 - ca 1822) who married James Atwood.  On 20 September 1782, Frederick Fishback made his will in Culpeper Co., Virginia, naming among his children his daughter Catharine Atwood.  Though her husband was not named, there can be little doubt that it was James Atwood.  A deed of gift was subsequently made by Martin Fishback, son of John Frederick, to James Atwood on 21 Mar 1785.  Though James Atwood appeared in a 1787 tax list in Culpeper County, a later tax list gives “Caty” Atwood.

Some of the children of James and Catherine Atwood are given in two deeds dated 13 Aug 1802 and 14 Oct 1823.  By the first, James and Ann Coones, Martha Atwood, James and Sally Mathis, and Lewis and Molly Runkle sold 142 plus acres in Culpeper County to Samuel Wood.  The 1823 deed provides strong evidence that Ann Coones, Martha Atwood, Sally Mathis, and Molly Runkle were all daughters of James Atwood.  In this deed, “Ann Coones, Martha Atwood, Lewis and John Atwood, and Margaret his wife of the County of Stafford . . . Legatees of James Atwood decd.” sold their title to 170 acres in Culpeper County to Thomas Atwood “whereon the late Katherine Atwood decd. formerly lived being her third part of the land of James Atwood decd.”.

B. C. Holtzclaw made an error in stating that Ann Coones was the daughter of Thomas Atwood rather than James Atwood.

The children of James and Catharine (Fishback) Atwood are:

1.  Ann Atwood, married James Coons,
2.  Martha Atwood, married William Atwood,
3.  Sarah (Sally) Atwood, married James Matthews,
4.  Mary (Molly)Atwood, married Lewis Runkle,
5.  James Atwood, married, first, Jael Hickson,
6.  John Atwood, married Margaret UNK,
7.  Thomas Atwood,
8.  Elizabeth Atwood (?) married George King.

Except for John, the other children moved to Indiana.
(13 Dec 06)



Nr. 2429:

Were our ancestors fixed in one location?  Did a family always live in the same village?  Some of them did live in one place for a long time.  A German friend, in showing us his village, pointed to one house and said that the family living there had occupied the house for eight hundred years.  (For all that I know, maybe other families considered them as “newcomers”.) In some villages it would seem that the inhabitants never left.  In Klings, for example, the most common name today is Fleischmann.  Yet our Cyriacus Fleshman left there about 1700.

There were occupational movements.  Some workers were recruited because of their special skills.  I have read that the rulers in Prussia recruited Dutch workers who were skilled in water diversion and dike building.  The Prussians had low lying, wet land that needed improvement.  Some people, especially those who attended the universities and often became pastors and teachers, had to move to find work.

I have mentioned Cyriacus Fleischmann who moved a significant distance from Klings to Neuenbuerg.  We are not quite sure why he moved.  We could also mention Nicolaus Yaeger who moved a good distance.  Whether these moves were occupationally related, we don’t know.  Right now that would be our best guess.

Those people who were entering the guilds had to follow a period of travel to work with different masters.  Some of these ventures might take the journeyman a good distance from home.

Religion was a cause of many major movements.  As an example, when the ruler of Austria decreed after the Thirty Years War that one must be a Catholic or leave the country, thousands of them did leave, including the Blankenbakers and probably the Scheibles from our Germanna Colonies.  Other major movements occurred when the Anabaptists (Mennonites and Amish) left Switzerland for Germany.  The movement of the Huguenots from France was an injection of new people into Germany.

War disrupted the lives of many people, especially in southern Germany.  Some people left their village for security and never returned.

The scarcity of land led many people to migrate.  At first, the Eastern regions received many people, but later America beckoned strongly.  In these relocations, the destination was outside Germany but they demonstrate that people would move for sufficient reason.

Looking at the history of Trupbach, one is surprised to see so many new names in going from the Seventeenth Century to the Eighteenth Century.
(14 Dec 06)



Nr. 2430:

I return to the choice of sponsors for the Evangelische residents of Neuenbuerg.  I went through the baptisms for almost fifty years not long ago and I thought I would look again at these.  In particular, I will look at the choice of sponsors made by Anna Barbara Schöne (Schoene) for the baptisms of her children.  Of course, her three husbands may have had some input into this question but she is the common element.

With her first husband, Hans Thomas Blanckenbuehler, for their first child, Hans Nicolaus:
Niclas Schaiblin, Hans (unreadable), Christina Elisabetha Bettinger.

For their second child, Hans Balthasar:
Hans Balthasar Wolff, Anna Margaretha Schaiber

For their third child, Hans Matthias:
Nicolaus Schaiblin, Mathias Berger, Anna Christina Elisabetha Bettinger

For their fourth child, Anna Maria:
Gottfried Fischer, Anna Catharina Schaiblin, Maria Elisabetha Kuntz

With her second husband, Jacob Schlucter, and their child Henerich:
The names were unreadable (this is a period of difficult reading).

With her third husband, Cyriacus Fleischmann, for their first child Maria Elisabetha:
Johann Peter Kammerer

For their second child, another Maria Catharina:
Johann Kammerer.

For their third child, Hans Peter:
Fraulein Maria Magdalena von Helmstadt, Johann Peter Kammerer.

When Hans Thomas Blanckenbuehler was the father, there was always a Schaiblin (Scheible) at each of the four children.  One man and two different ladies were chosen.  I would take this as some evidence that the Blankenbuehler and Schaiblin families had some connection.  When Cyriacus Fleischmann was the father, Johann Peter Kammerer was always chosen.  In any research on the Fleischmann family, I would keep this in mind.  These two men seem to be connected.
(15 Dec 06)



Nr. 2431:

It has been my pleasure to become aware of the work of Dr. Hermann Stierle who is a resident of Boennigheim.  This happens to be the home of a Germanna emigrant of 1717, namely Conrad Amberger, or, as Dr. Stierle prefers to write it, Anberger.  He is not related to Conrad Anberger but his special interest lies in the fact that Conrad Anberger was the first to emigrate from Boennigheim to America.

Dr. Stierle has consulted the church records in the original and has been able to extend the work of Johni Cerny and Gary Zimmerman who were limited to the available microfilms.  Not only did Dr. Stierle extend the information in Germany, but he utilized the work of Dorothy Ambergey Griffith and the information in Beyond Germanna to present a rather complete story on Conrad Anberger, both in his ancestry and in the history of his travels to America and life there.

This work by Dr. Stierle was published in “Ganerbenblaetter” a journal of history for Boennigheim.  This journal, or research report, is typical of many to found in the towns and villages of Germany.  Collectively, they form a large set of information.  Literally hundreds of them are published across Germany.  With so many journals, it is difficult to find information, so a reference book has been published which has an index to the material.  (At the fall conference of the Pennsylvania Chapter of Palatines to America, Mr. Jensen brought this reference work to our attention but I can’t find my notes just now.)

The “Ganerbenblaetter” is a true research journal.  It is not a house organ or a newsletter.  Similar journals in other towns might have items of a short term nature but the general presentation is one of scholarship.  Most of the writers are not historians; they are seriously interested in the history of their town in all of its many facets.

The lead article in the last issue of “Ganerblaetter” is Die Orgein der Cyriakus Kirche.  Just the title was of interest to me as it indicates one spelling for the name Cyriakus or Cyriacus.  Our own Cyriacus Fleischmann had a problem with the spelling of his first name.  (You name it and that spelling can be found somewhere in the records.)

The second article treats the relationships of the religious confessions in the early years of the Reformation.  Not only does it treat the Catholic and Evangelische faiths, but it also discusses the Jews, Muslims, and the Anabaptists.

The third article is entitled ALS Weiser Slave in America.  It is this article which had the history of Conrad Anberger.  Dr. Stierle seems to have been impressed by the use of indentured servants in America, hence the title which talks of “white slavery in America”.
(19 Dec 06)



Nr. 2432:

Prior to my receiving the latest copy of the “Ganerbenblaetter” from Dr. Stierle, he had sent me a copy of his research on the ancestry of Hanss Conrad Anberger.  Using this, let Hanss be Number 1 and I will attempt to construct an Ahnentafel for him.

  1.  Hanss Conrad Anberger, * 2 Feb 1683, + Orange County, Virginia
  2.  Hannss Conrad Anberger, * 23 Sep 1646, + 12 Feb 1718 at Kircheim/Neckar
  3.  Anna Magdalena Lederer, * 23 Jul 1644, + 6 May 1691
  4.  Hans Anberger, * 4 Sept 1617, + 31 Jul 1688
  5.  Sara Weller, * 13 Jun 1618, + 25 Nov 1672
  6.  Hanns Lederer of Boennigheim
  7.
  8.  Simon Anberger, *11 Dec 1579 at Grossgartach, + 25 Sep 1626
  9.  Anna Becker, *14 Dec 1588, + 25 Feb 1639
10.  Conrad Weller of Boennigheim [step father of # 5 was Georg Vetter of Boennigheim]
. . . .
16.  Simon Anberger, * before 1563, + ?
17.  Barbara Joeslin, * before 1563, + 6 Apr 1596 in Grossgartach

As time permits, I will elaborate on the respective families.  Giving the people numbers here which defines their position in the tree is a help as we discuss the families.  Several of the names are similar and confusion can develop quickly but hopefully the Anhentafel above will keep them straight.

Dr. Stierle gave a contact name and address in Grossgartach (Leingarten more specifically) which is Kuno Krieger, Bonfelderstrasse 12, 74211 Leingarten, GERMANY.

Some Germanna names in the Anberger history include Becker and Lederer.
(19 Dec 06)



Nr. 2433:

The oldest known ancestor of Hans Conrad Anberger (Amberger or Ambergey in America) was Simon Anberger (#16 in Note Nr. 2432 above).  He was born before 1563 and died on an unknown date.  About 1576, he married Barbara Joeslin, who was born before 1563.  She died 6 April 1596 in Grossgartach (a few miles west of Heilbronn).  There were nine children of this marriage, all born in Grossgartach.

  1.  Hans, *3 Feb 1577, oo.1 2 Dec 1604 Apollonia Koenig; oo.2 Apollonia Kriegappel
  2.  Lorenz, * 14 Mar 1578, + 9 Jun 1597 as a single person
  3.  Simon, * 11 Dec 1579, see #8 in the Ahnentafel
  4.  Barbara, * 26 Oct 1582, + 12 Sep 1586
  5.  Andreas, * 4 Sep 1584
  6.  Margaretha, * 12 Dec 1585, + 9 May 1609
  7.  Elisabetha, * 1 Dec 1589, + 2 Nov 1596
  8.  Anna, * 31 Oct 1592
  9.  Barbara, * 23 May 1595, + 17 Nov 1596

When the last child, Barbara, was 17 months old, her mother died and her father married, 3 Oct 1596, Margaretha Eysemann, the widow of Hans Pfau, who was the son of Philipp Pfau.  Within a month of the marriage, two of the youngest children of the first marriage died.

When Simon, the father of the family was born, the Reformation had been underway for only about forty years and the Thirty Years’ War had not begun.  The Church Records began here between the time of the father’s birth and his marriage in the Evangelische Kirche of Grossgartach (sometimes given as Gross Gartach or Grossengartach).  The Church Records here had not been filmed at the time that Gary Zimmerman and Johni Cerny did their pioneering research.  Therefore, they did not give the family above in their work on the Amberger family.  Extensions of the history prior to the family above is doubtful.  The occupation of the father here is unknown.

Grossgartach is located a few miles west of Heilbronn on the road to Schwaigern.  Boennigheim is a few miles south of Grossgartach.
(20 Dec 06)



Nr. 2434:

Another point of contact that Dr. Stierle in Boennigheim has had with America is with Frank Hart.  Frank, a teacher at Bluefield College in Virginia, with his wife, visited Boennigheim for several days.  He gave Dr. Stierle the work of Dorothy Ambergey and a copy of Beyond Germanna.

In these reports, I am using the following simple symbols:

is birth (born); think of the Star in the East announcing a birth;
(two lowercase “ohs”) is the union of two people, marriage;
oxo or o/o is a broken marriage;
+ denotes death; think of a cross in the graveyard;
(a box, not used above) means buried, and suggests a coffin;
(two wavy lines, one above the other, suggesting water; not used above) denotes baptism.

The marriage symbol is sometimes made by the symbol for infinity, , i.e., “a lazy eight”.

Cary suggests that he has seen deviations from these symbols, but basically these are standard.  In the Ahnentafel (table of ancestors), the father of a given individual is twice the number of the given individual.  The mother of the given individual is twice the given individual plus one.

In the last Note, I gave the family of the great-great-grandfather of Conrad Amberger.  Since Conrad was number 1, his father is 2, a grandfather in the paternal line is 4, and the great-grandfather is 8, and the great-great-grandfather is 16, both in the paternal line.

Starting #8 in this Note, he was another Simon Anberger, * 11 Dec 1579, + 25 Sep 1626, who was the son of Simon Anberger of “Grossengartach”.  The son Simon married, on 5 Apr 1608, Anna Becker, the daughter of Jacob Becker of Boennigheim.  Simon #8 was a shield bearer.  The children of Simon and Anna were:

  1.  Jacob, * 14 Jan 1609, + 27 Sep 1626
  2.  Barbara, * 22 Mar 1610, +6 May 1610
  3.  Stoffel, * 11 May 1611, +26 Aug 1626
  4.  Ursula, * 15 Dec 1612, + 25 Sep 1626
  5.  Barbara, * 16 Feb 1614
  6.  Simon, * 29 Jan 1616, +15 Sep 1626
  7.  Hans, * 4 Sep 1617
  8.  Andreas, * 14 Nov 1618, +10 Sep 1626
  9.  Anna, * 15 May 1621, + 10 Sep 1626
10.  Michael, * 7 Apr 1624, + 13 May 1624
11.  A still born child, * 12 May 1626, + 12 May 1626
12.  Laurentzius, *9 Aug 1626.

Question to you.  How many died in the second half of 1626 and why?
(21 Dec 06)



Nr. 2435:

The last Note closed with a question.  Why did so many children die in a short period of time?  The answer goes back to the Thirty Years’ War, which raged from 1618 to 1648.  The area hit the hardest was southwestern Germany, which includes, of course, Boennigheim and Grossgartach.  Most of the deaths that occurred during this war were not from bullets but from disease and starvation.  Or, as it said in the death register, “Pestilence”.  The Thirty Years’ War was the big event of the Seventeenth Century in “Germany” and its impact was to be felt for a hundred years after the end of the war.

I take up the family of Hans Anberger (#4) who seems to have been a shoemaker.  He was born 4 Sep 1617 and he died 31 Jul 1688.  He married, first, on 16 Aug 1642, Sara Weller, who was born 13 June 1618 and died 25 Nov 1672.  She was the tochter (daughter) of Conrad Weller of Boennigheim.  (Her step father was Georg Vetter of Boennigheim.)

There are some widely used abbreviations that it is good to know when reading German genealogies.  The letters, “T.d.” mean daughter of.  The letters, “S.d.” mean son of.

The family by the first marriage was:

  1.  Rebecca, * 2 Feb 1644 (she lived and married)
  2.  Hanns Conrad, * 23 Sep 1646 (#2 in the Ahnentafel)
  3.  Sara, * 2 Apr 1649, (she lived and married)
  4.  Hanns Thomas, * 15 Mar 1654
  5.  Barbara Catharina, * 27 Sep 1655 (she lived and married)
  6.  Matthias, *27 Aug 1658, + 5 Sep 1658
  7.  Hanns Simon, *16 Aug 1663
  8.  Unnamed child + 24 Aug 1663 (was this #7?)

Hans Anberger married, secondly, on 29 Apr 1673, Anna Maria Schweickardt, the widow of Christoph Schweickardt.  There were children in this family:

  1.  Hannss Conrad, * 5 Mar 1674
  2.  Anna Maria, * 28 Feb 1676 (she married and was named as a stepdaughter of Hanss Anberger)
  3.  Barbara Catharina, *19 Oct 1677 + 15 Dec 1762 a single person at the age of 80
  4.  A stillborn child, * 15 Jan 1682, + 15 Jan 1682.
(22 Dec 06)



Nr. 2436:

*[Frohes Neues Jahr!]

The story on the ancestry of Conrad Amberger, the 1717 immigrant to Virginia, continues.  His father was Hanns Conrad Anberger.  [Dr. Stierle consistently spells the name with an “n” even though the name does appear occasionally in the records as Amberger.]

Hanns Conrad Anberger was born 23 Sep 1646, and he died at Kirchheim am Neckar (meaning Kirchheim on the Neckar River).  In his death record, he was noted as a citizen and as a cooper at Kirchheim.  He was the son of Hans Anberger of Boennigheim.

He married three times.

The first, on 25 Oct 1670, was to Anna Magdalena Lederer the daughter of Hanns Lederer of Boennigheim.  She was born 23 Jul 1644 and died 6 May 1691.  Hanns and Anna were the parents of seven children:

1.  Johannes or Hanss, * 11 Aug 1671
2.  Anna Maria, * 10 Aug 1673
3.  Hannss Conrad, * 29 Jul 1675, + 5 Aug 1675
4.  Anna Maria, * 26 or 28 Feb 1676 (the mother is called Anna Maria)
5.  Barbara Catharina, * 18 Oct 1577 (the mother is called Anna Maria)
6.  Anna Magdalena, * 8 Jan 1679
7.  Hans Conrad, * 2 Feb 1683

Secondly, Hanns Conrad married Anna Barbara NN.  The only vital statistic for her is that she died 10 Jan 1699.  She and Hanns Conrad were the parents of three children, none of whom lived for a year:

1.  Mattheus, * 14 Dec 1692, + 15 Dec 1692
2.  Hanns Georg, *15 Sep 1696, + 27 Sep 1696
3.  Eva Barbara, * 4 Mar 1698, + 16 Oct 1698

Thirdly, Hanns Conrad married Anna Margaretha Saur, * 23 Aug 1653 at Kirchheim, + 31 Jan 1715 at Kirchheim.  She was the daughter of Hans Philipp Saur and the widow of Johann Heinrich Rosenberger of Kirchheim.

The suffix “heim” means “home”.  It appears in lots of village names and in such new words as “heimcomputer”.

*[Happy New Year!]
(31 Dec 06)



Nr. 2437:

*[Wie war deine Silvesterparty?]

The immigrant to Virginia in 1717, Hanss Conrad Anberger (oder Amberger) was born 2 Feb 1683, the son of Hannss Conrad Anberger, a citizen and cooper at Kirchheim am Neckar.  His mother was Anna Magdalena Lederer, the daughter of Hanns Lederer of Boennigheim.

Hanss Conrad Anberger married, first, Anna Catharina (Scheihing) Rohleder, who was born 8 Oct 1681 and baptized as Maria Catharina.  She was the widow of Georg Rohleder, deceased citizen and vine tender in Boennigheim.  Her father was Hanns Jacob Scheihing.

They were the parents of two children:

1.  Jacob Friedrich * 1 Jan 1716, + 2 Jan 1716
2.  Catharina Margaretha * 29 Dec 1716, + 31 May 1717

(There was another child, Maria Magdalena, the daughter of Anna Catharina Rohleder and her first husband.)

One record in Virginia suggests that Conrad Amberger may have arrived without any wife or children.  Peter Weaver used the headright of Conrade Amberger to obtain land.  No wife or children were mentioned.  This event, the land patent, was in 1736.  In that same year Conrade Amberger and other Germans were naturalized.

That he came in 1717 seems to be the evidence of his being sued by Alexander Spotswood in 1724 at the same time that other proven members of the Second Colony were sued.

Perhaps, about 1725, he married Barbara NN.  An apparent son is documented in land records of Virginia.

You will notice that personal names are spelled in different ways.  Longer names such as Elisabetha or Magdalena are usually spelled that way.  But simpler names, such as our John and George, can be spelled in different ways, mostly on the whim of the writer.  Thus, we have Hans, Hanns, Hanss, and Hannss.  There is also a hint that some people changed their names, or perhaps the pastor just guessed at the full name.

*[How was your New Year’s Eve party?]
(01 Jan 07)



Nr. 3438:

*[Ich hatte viel Spass.]

I had a topic picked for this Note but I can’t find the reference document (letter) that I needed for it.  I had asked Dr. Hermann Stierle what he thought the spelling might have been of the name which became Barlow.  Some of the references in Virginia spell it as Barler, Berler, Perler, Perley, Perlor, and Parlur.  Some of the Barlow researchers can probably add several names to this.

Dr. Stierle was kind enough to give me his thoughts, but I have lost his letter.  With so many visitors for the Holidays, there was a massive cleanup and now I am having difficulty finding a few things.  On the other hand, I found several items which I had completely forgotten about.

I can’t remember Dr. Stierle’s answer which even he had to admit was probably a guess, but still an educated guess.  He thought the name probably did start with the letter "P" in Germany.  He stated that the inhabitants of southwest Germany had, and have, difficulty saying the letter "P".  Instead, it usually comes more like a "B".

When I started the research into the Unteroewisheim, Oberoewisheim, and Neuenbuerg Church Records, I had been motivated to see if I could find any record of a name which might have become Barlow here in America.  There is a claim floating around on the Internet that a Barlow had married a Smith in one of the churches above.  I did not find anything to encourage me.

As we start a Neues Jahr, I am in need of subjects to write about which do not require an extensive amount of research.  I have only a limited amount of time and some very interesting projects beckon.  But finding the time is always the problem.

By now you have probably noted the short German lessons.  Eleanor and I were given a calendar which has a short phrase in German and its translation for each day.  Let me try an original composition which may have errors in it.

Heute ist der 2 Januar, ein Dienstag.  [I am trying to say, "Today is the 2nd of January, a Tuesday."]  The translation of the opening statement follows.

*[I had a lot of fun.]
(02 Jan 07)



Nr. 2439:

*[Es ist sehr kalt heute.]

I have been reading an interesting book which I think the historically minded readers here would like.  Gary Grassl has been studying the early settlement of Virginia for some time, especially the role of Germans or near Germans in its history.  Even before 1607, there were Germans here, and at Jamestown there were more Germans.  Unfortunately, they left no descendants and very little history.

The story of the English in America begins before Jamestown.  In 1585 a settlement was made on Roanoke Island.  Technically, today this island is in North Carolina but at that time all of North America was called, by the English, Virginia.  They built forts and houses and the exact locations of these are debatable.  Around 1950, the US Park Service made a reconstruction of what they thought was the first fort.  Upon reflection, a number of noted archeological historians have challenged the location and the design of this reconstruction.  Grassl gives us arguments that the reconstruction was incorrect.

The settlement made in 1585 was sponsored by Sir Walter Raleigh.  It has come to be known as the First Colony.

Roanoke Island is about three miles by twelve miles in extent.  It lies inside the Outer Banks and is protected from the ocean by them.  (It is not far from Kitty Hawk where the Wright Brothers made their first flight.)  A fort was built on Roanoke Island for protection from two sources of danger.  One was the Native Americans and the other was the Spanish.

The fort and the homes were abandoned in 1586.  A much smaller group of English people settled here shortly thereafter.  This group installed a palisade around the original homes which were still standing.  When more English people came, there was no trace of this group which became known as the Lost Colony.  The larger group which followed them was known as the Second Colony.

Mr. Grassl’s book, “The First English Settlement in America”, can be obtained from several sources, but the most economical is the web site, www.firstenglishsettlementbook.com .  The price of this 250 page book of 8 ½ by 11 inch pages is very modest.

*[It is very cold today.]
(03 Jan 07)



Nr. 2440:

*[Morgen soll es scheien.]

The first group of colonists at Roanoke in 1585 included many men of advanced skills and learning.  Some have compared it to scientific expeditions of a later era.  One of these men was Joachim Ganz, a metallurgist born in Prague.  He was invited because earlier explorations had discovered copper ore.  The copper was plentiful and readily workable.  It was brought to the attention of the English because the Native Americans wore ornaments of copper.  It remained to be determined what the quality of the copper was and whether it might also contain silver and gold.

A primary objective of the First Colony was to locate and extract valuable metals for the investors and Queen Elizabeth.  Though there was some doubt as to whether gold and silver were to be found north of the southern Americas, the demonstrated riches there were enough inspiration to inspire a search in the north.  In the pursuit of this, men of all races, religions, and national origins were recruited for their knowledge of locating and extracting ores.

One group of these men, who were called the mineral men, contained metallurgists and miners.  A leading man in this group was Dougham Gannes, also called Joachim Ganz, a Jewish expert from Prague who had been involved in the locating and working of copper mines in England.  By the standards of that day he was considered to be “Dutch” or German.  Ganz/Gannes was to find and test the metals that were to make everyone’s fortune.

To become the permanent governor of Virginia, Raleigh had to establish an enduring colony before his patent from Queen Elizabeth expired in 1590.  A profitable mine and smelter would put Raleigh’s colony on a self-supporting basis and assure its continuity.  The Queen expected to receive a fifth part of all gold and silver that was found.

Already England has felt the lack of knowledgeable people to locate and extract metal ores.  For this reason, they had imported many workers from the continent who were more advanced than they, the English, were.  Considerable success had been achieved by these foreign workers in England, but the pressure to succeed in America was much higher.  They were to search for gold and silver and to determine the quality of the copper.  Possibly this might contain precious metals.

Ironically, a metal which was known to exist, iron, would have profited England more than gold and silver but this was ignored in the first years.

*[Tomorrow it is supposed to snow.]



Nr. 2441:

*[Ich habe einen Schneemann gebaut.]

Of the “mineral men” in the First Colony of 1585, there were many “Germans”.  Let us look into the background as to why so many of these people were not English.

These German mineral specialists were an advance party from the Society of the Mines Royal.  This was a copper operation conducted by Germans and Austrians in England’s Lake District.  Because the Society was the first company in England to produce copper, it would have been the logical operation to carry on operations in Virginia.  The Society, by its charter, also had a monopoly on silver and gold production.  The hope was that the Society could conduct a branch operation in Virginia as it already had in Wales.

Queen Elizabeth had been behind the effort to boost the English mineral production.  She recognized that the continental people were ahead of the English and, therefore, people from Germany were recruited.  One of the first tasks in England was to extract the copper from the silver coins which had been debased.  On 10 December 1564, Elizabeth granted exclusive rights, to the mining and smelting of ores of gold, silver, copper, and mercury in eight counties of England and in Wales, to the Augsburger Daniel Hoechstetter, Sr., and the Englishman Thomas Thurland.  Hoechstetter and Thurland, along with German and English investors, formed the Society of Mines Royal.  Hoechstetter represented the Augsburg investors who became the major investors in the company.  In 1567, Hoechstetter presented samples of copper to Elizabeth that had been mined and refined.  The next year the Society received its formal charter.  The enterprise employed about 150 German-speaking individuals, many from the Tyrol in Austria.  In a relative few years, about 550 tons of copper were produced.

Daniel Hoechstetter, Jr., led the contingent to Virginia from the Society of Mines Royal.  The prestige of his father (now deceased) was helpful, as was the fact that a brother was the current managing direct of the Society.  In the roster of colonists, he appears under his first name as the English had trouble with the German surnames and often just omitted them.  Daniel, Jr., was relatively young, as he was born in Augsburg in 1562.  His mother was Radagunda Stammler of a South German merchant-banker family.

Another German appears to be Hance Walters (Hans Wautter), whose position in Virginia was a "butler" to Hoechstetter; however, the German “mineral men” were generally chosen for their ability and knowledge in minerals.

*[I have built a snowman.]
(05 Jan 07)



Nr. 2442:

*[Darf ich dir einen Tee anbieten?]

Some of the books which treat the role of the German “mineral men” include Maxwell Bruce Donald's (the secretary of the Society of the Mines Royal) “Elizabethan Monopolies, The History of the Company of Mineral and Battery Works from 1565 to 1604”.  Herbert Clark Hoover and his wife Lou Henry Hoover translated a work from the Latin pertaining to the mining in this period.  They have been quoted as saying,

“There can be no doubt . . that in copper mining in Cornwall and elsewhere in England, the ‘Dutch Mynerall men’ did play a large part in the latter part of the 16th century.”

A leading metallurgist from the Germans was Master Dougham Gannes (Joachim Gans), who showed the English that only four heatings were necessary to produce rough copper as opposed to the sixteen heatings that the English had been using.

Gans was born in Prague around the middle of the Sixteenth Century.  This was the golden age of the Prague Jews when learned men such as the astronomer David Gans (1541-1613) made the Prague ghetto into a spiritual center for Jewry.  It is believed by genealogists that this David Gans was related to Joachim Gans.  David worked with Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler in the Prague astronomical observatory.  It is, or at least seems, clear that Joachim was raised in an intellectual environment that stimulated his interest in science and technology.  Joachim acquired his knowledge of smelting and refining copper and silver in the Erzgebirge (Ore Mountains) that form the border between Saxony on the north and Bohemia on the south.  Not only did Gans reduce the number of heatings but he was able to do so with peat and not the more expensive wood.

Prof. Donald of the University of London Chemical Engineering department declared in 1955 that the work of the continental technologists compared to the English workers of the period was like comparing science and alchemists.

In Virginia, Gans was a stranger, for he was the only Jew among the Christians.  He was probably the first Jew in North America.  In Virginia he hid his Jewishness, but it became public knowledge after he returned to England.  Lane, the First Colony Governor, probably never knew that Gans was a Jew.  Lane held regular worship services in Virginia at which attendance was compulsory.  Probably Gans attended with the rest but kept silent as though he were mute.

Determining the exact numbers of German mineral specialists is not easy, for their names are often not completely written out, and even if they were they are written by English speakers.  There are good hints that there may have been as many as twelve men.

*[May I offer you some tea?]
(08 Jan 07)



Nr. 2443:

*[Ich trinke lieber eine Heisse Schokolade.]

Metals and minerals, especially silver and gold, counted among the chief objectives of the colony established on Roanoke Island in 1585.  It was known by this time that Virginia contained iron and copper, but the emphasis was on the precious metals.  Governor Lane of the First Colony wrote in the summer of 1585 that, "Gans will search for ores in the very bowels of the earth."  At first the search was along the coastal waterways and they looked for surface indications.

The Tidewater terrain was not encouraging.  It was the exact opposite of the terrain in which the Germans had developed their training.  They had called their mines in Germany the Bergwerke (the mountain works).  In Virginia, their first contact was with flat sandy soil.  Here, finding any stones was not easy.  (Later, we know that they did not even shoe their horses in the Tidewater region because the soil was so soft and free of stones.)  The ores, when they were found, were in the Piedmont region above the present day Fredericksburg and Richmond.  The one encouraging sign of the search by the first colony was that some of the Indians were wearing copper ornaments around their necks.

The search initially was mostly in the coastal regions and they extended their search for considerable distances along the coast.  The realization developed that the coastal regions would not contain any minerals or metals.  The Indians told Governor Lane about the rich mines in the hills to the west of Roanoke.  As they ventured inland, they (the party from the First Colony) encountered Indians and the way they treated the Indians did not encourage the Indians to cooperate.  The English were dependent on the Indians for food and needed their good will.

To reach the mines, Lane set out with a party in boats rowing up the Roanoke against a strong current.  The first thirty miles were easy as the river was broad and tame.  Lane had procured insufficient supplies in his eagerness to get underway.  He expected to obtain food from the Indians.  The Indians had moved away from the river with their women and corn and left the riverside villages empty.  Even if the upper- river Indians had had no contact with the Europeans, they had heard reports from the coastal Indians.  With only two days of food left and none available from the Indians, the Indians launched an attack on Lanes party with arrows.  The resolve to continue up river was weakened by the Indian hostility and the lack of food.  They rowed downstream very rapidly and on Easter day of 1586 they returned to Roanoke Island, their base of operations.  Lane in his report back to London emphasized that they planned on continuing the search up river in the summer.  They would prepare better than they had been in this first probe.

*[I prefer drinking hot chocolate.]
(16 Jan 07)



Nr. 2444:

*[Ich bin gerne in den Bergen.]

Gov. Lane of the First Colony at Roanoke Island reported to Sir Walter Raleigh that Gans was very impressed by the copper, especially the ornaments, that the Indians showed the Englishmen.  Gans felt that it must be a very rich ore since the Indians had no refining capabilities.  The content of the copper in the ore must been high enough that the copper could be worked immediately by beating and hammering.  It required 1,981 degrees Fahrenheit to melt copper so today we do not believe that the Indians had any smelting ability.  In Central and Southern America, the natives could smelt ores with furnaces that were very similar to the European ones.  The difference seems to be in the method used to force air into the furnace.

Gans and his co-workers set up their laboratory on the northeastern tip of Roanoke Island in what is today Fort Raleigh National Historic Site.  Very few items have been found at the site but a few clearly show the parts of an assay furnace, especially the bricks used in the fire box.  The true meaning of these objects had been missed when they were first found but Noel Hume correctly identified them.  It appears there was little ore to assay as the mines were too far to the west in hostile country.  The work was done mostly with copper objects obtained from the Indians.  The hope was that gold and silver might be found in this copper.  The English did not find the copper ore which was reportedly about a hundred and fifty miles into the interior.

The ovens that Gans and his people used had to be built in Virginia.  Probably they brought equipment on the ships but it was lost when the flagship, Tiger, ran aground trying to negotiate the entry in the Outer Banks.  It was feared that it would break apart.  At this time some of the heavier items were thrown overboard.  Gans probably had a book of instructions on constructing assay furnaces, as he well familiar with a book published in Prague in 1574 on the subject.

The temperature in the oven had to be controlled carefully because the different metals melted at different temperatures.  The chief way of controlling the temperature was by the air supply.  In order that the stray winds did not affect the furnace, it was set low in the ground with surrounding walls of logs to prevent the winds from having an adverse effect.  The first excavations at Fort Raleigh found ruins which were consistent with this.

*[I like the mountains.]
(17 Jan 07)



Nr. 2445:

Test Time: *[Es ist sehr kalt heute.]

How did the German “mineral men” at Fort Raleigh obtain the copper ornaments from the Indians?  Perhaps by trading “Rechenpfennige” (reckoning pennies) which they had brought with them.  While excavating Fort Raleigh, three of these were found and a fourth one was found about 40 miles to the south at an Indian village near Cape Hatteras.

These casting counters were made of an alloy of copper, zinc, and lead.  They were formed in the same way that coins were made.  A blob of metal was placed between two die and hit a very hard blow.  Any design in the die was transferred to the metal.  The casting counters found in North Carolina were richly marked and therefore may have been attractive to the Indians.  The four counters found in North America were all made by Hans Schultes of Nuernberg from 1553 to 1584.

The original purpose of the casting counters was like the beads on an abacus.  Instead of being strung, a lined board was used.  After the introduction of Roman numerals, the counters became obsolete as a computing device.  Merchants still used them to mark up the balances of their customers.  Like low denomination coins, they were used as gambling markers also.

These metal pieces were attractive to the Indians because of the copper content and the ornate design.  Those found at Fort Raleigh had holes punched in them which would permit them to be strung around a neck on a leather cord.  Without being aware of it, the native chiefs wore symbols of European religion and government.

In retrospect, the Europeans were looking for the wrong things and they went about it in the worse possible way.  They were aware that Virginia had an excellent source of iron ore with plentiful supplies of wood and water power.  The iron would never have provided sufficient motivation; it took dreams of gold and silver to motivate the English into action.  These dreams die hard.  In the first and second decade of the 1700's, precious metals were still motivating men to action in Virginia.  The thought there was silver in Virginia (Franz Michel) plus the desire to exploit it (Christoph von Graffenried) lead to the First Germanna Colony.  Even one of the Royal Governors, Alexander Spotswood, was drawn into the chase for silver.

After the First Germanna Colony was here, they were astute enough to realize that something better here than silver.  They helped Gov. Spotswood get pointed in the right direction.

*[It is very cold today.]
(18 Jan 07)



Nr. 2446:

*[Um 10 Uhr have ich einen Termin.]

In the year 1586, the colonists on Roanoke Island faced several problems.  One was food, two was the Indians, three was the Spanish.  Spain regarded the Atlantic coast of North America as her possession, which had been confirmed by the Pope.  The Spanish were fully aware of the English settlement.  Even before the English ships had left England, the Spanish King was aware.  They received more information from their own observations and the reports of the Indians.  In 1586, the Spanish sent a ship north from St. Augustine to ferret out the English and wipe them out.  Still, food for the English was more of a problem.  They had lost supplies when their flagship ran aground.  They were not farmers, nor had they mastered the art of fishing.  They depended upon the Indians, who were not cooperative.  The English were bringing some copper (this was prized by the Indians) but the ship was delayed.  The time between spring and the early summer was especially hard on the colonists.

When some Indians left Roanoke Island the English attacked and killed them.  This hardly endured the English to the Indians, especially at a time when the English desperately needed the Indians.

On June 8, lookouts spotted a fleet of more than two dozen vessels.  Though their identity was uncertain at first, they turned out to be led by Sir Francis Drake.  He brought some supplies, in part obtained by a raid on Spanish colony of St. Augustine.  Drake was giving the colonists a smaller ship suitable for the ocean and the inland waterways.  This was being loaded with supplies when a hurricane struck.  Many smaller vessels were lost and the ship that Drake had given the colonists returned to England with many of the supplies for the colonists.  The colonist became very discouraged after what seemed like a promising relief and renewal of their efforts.  Gov. Lane asked Drake to take the colonists back to England.  During the hurried departure, many artifacts were lost because of the continuing tempest.

On the way home, their path crossed, unbeknownst to both parties, with the relief ship that they were expecting in early spring.

The failure of the colony cannot be blamed on the “German mineral men”.  Had there been friendlier relationships with the Indians, which might have allowed the colonists access to the west, they might have found the gold which was there.

The English, remaining convinced there was gold, kept their interest in Virginia alive and perhaps prevented the future language along the Atlantic coast from being Spanish.

*[I have an appointment at 10 a.m.]
(19 Jan 07)



Nr. 2447:

*[Sollen wir uns zum Mittagessen treffen?]

Last fall, the nation was shocked by the action of a madman who invaded an Amish school and went on a killing spree.  After killing and wounding several students, he killed himself.  This was especially close to home for us who live in southeastern Pennsylvania.  When I go out to the Hans Herr House, I miss the school by only a mile or so.  By now, the school has been razed by community volunteers and a new school is being or has been constructed.

The Amish, as Anabaptists, believe in education.  From the time of Martin Luther they have believed that everyone should be able to read High German, the language of their Bible.  The Amish, though, believe that eight years of school is enough to accomplish this.  It is not easy as in the eight years they will study English and High German.  The Amish prefer to use one room schools for these eight grades.  The schools are built near the homes of the students so that they can walk to school.  The teachers are usually young girls.  So a typical Amish school is very unprotected and vulnerable to people who might have evil intents.

After the Nickel Mines school incident, financial contributions started to pour in.  None of these were solicited; they came into the community in a variety of ways and everyone understood how to pass them on.  The Amish formed a Nickel Mines Accountability Committee, an oversight group, to handle the financial contributions which have exceeded $3.2 million.  They are aware that are other pressing needs in the world but they are “humbled and deeply thankful” for this outpouring of funds.

The funds are being used for medical care, counseling services, rehabilitation, long-term disability care, and modifications to homes and schools to make them handicapped accessible.  But their attention is not focused on the Amish alone, as the Amish have contributed monies to help the widow and family of the gunman.  “We will not blame the widow, but love her.”  “God is there for the poor widow and her family.”  Half of the mourners at the funeral for the gunman were Amish.

Three of the five surviving girls have returned to school but may need assistance for the rest of their lives.  Two of the surviving girls were severely wounded in the head and will need lifetime care.

The Amish were deeply touched by the sympathy and support they received.  They prefer a quiet life.  To see the U.S. flags flown at half mast on behalf of the Amish was touching to both the Amish and the “English”.

[Shall we meet for lunch?]
(22 Jan 07)



Nr. 2448:

*[Morgen soll es schneien.]

Late last year I was reporting on some of the findings from the Church Records in Neuenbuerg, Oberoewisheim, and Unteroewisheim.  Besides my personal interest in these villages, I wanted to see if I could find any mention of the man who became Christopher Barlow in Virginia.  There was a report on the Internet that he would be found in these villages or at least mentioned.  My search was unsuccessful.

The discussion here touched on Conrad Amberger, which led to Dr. Hermann Stierle in Boennigheim, who had written an article in Germany about Conrad Anberger.  I thought I would pose the question to Dr. Stierle as to what the name of Christoph Barlow might have been in Germany given some of the known surname variants here.  I report now his reply which I have slightly edited:

"I presume that most of the 1717 emigrants from Germany could neither read nor write.  So when they were asked what their name was, they pronounced it the way they were used to at home.  Of course, they would be unable to spell it in English.  Most Virginians were of British origin and when they had to write down the names of new immigrants they did so according to English phonetics."

[From a message on the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List at Rootsweb, 25 Jan 07, written by Cary Anderson: "I presume that most of the 1717 emigrants from Germany could neither read nor write...." I have to take issue with that statement.  Most villages has schoolmaster at that time as the person appeared in the various church records.  Yes, even as early as 1717 and much earlier than that.

Just check Strassburger and Hinke's Signature Volume.  You will see that most were able to sign their names to the oath in Philadelphia.  Many who appear with a 'mark' were sick and unable to make it to the courthouse in Philadelphia.

Somewhere I have an article about when compulsory education first began in some part of Germany and how it spread, but can't lay my hands on it.  I know the year was before 1700.]

[From a message on the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List at Rootsweb, 26 Jan 07, written by Thom Faircloth: I agree Cary.  In looking at the petition signed by the men of the German Lutheran Church nearly all of the men signed.  Only a few made their mark.  I am pleased to see Blind John Yeager's signature.  And especially pleased that he spelled it with an ea diphong.]

"Therefore we must try to find out what “Barlow” (which became and is today the result of what the secretaries or clerks of the 1717 time first heard) sounded like when it was heard pronounced by a German tongue and heard by an English ear.  When I pronounce the name “Barlow” as I hear and understand it, there is a long “a” as in “barn” or in “far”.  The last vowel is a long “o” as in “low” or “so”.  There is no problem with the “l”.  But there is problem with the “b” at the beginning.  As a linguist one should know that people in the southern parts of Germany are too lazy to give a correct pronunciation of a “p” which they very often, even today, pronounce as a b”.  Also, I have observed this fact in reading old texts in archives."  [We know that Plankenbuehler from Austria became Blankenbuehler along the Rhine River ­John]..

I can’t think of any native German name ending only in “o” without a consonant.  Some kind of consonant must have been at the end of the name when it was first heard, one that was not very outstanding and therefore easily dropped or forgotten.  In your letter [John to Dr. Stierle] you mentioned the following spelling as you found them in [Virginia] German church records or in the civil records: Barler, Berler, Perler, Perley, Perlor, or Parlur.” [to be continued]

*[Tomorrow it is supposed to snow.]
(24 Jan 07)



Nr. 2449:

*[Das ist schade.]

Dr. Steirle’s comments continue:

"The prefixes, -or, -ur, and -ey, are not German.  I have never come across the name Barler or Berler.  The only one that seems to make sense to me is Perler.  Since “die Perle” is equivalent to the English “pearl”, Perler would be someone trading or having to do with pearls.  But this does not have a long “a”.

"It’s a pity you didn’t find the spelling Parler in the records.  With the exception of the change of the P into B (but this is understandable), this name seems to me to be the most logical to have become Barlow.  The name Parler does exist in German.  In the Middle Ages, the French word “Parlier” was used for the representative of the Church Masons’ Guild.  At the beginning of the 14th Century, one Heinrich Parler was a master builder (I don’t know whether it would be correct to say architect) for the Cologne Cathedral.  His grandson, Peter Parler, was born in Schwaebisch Gmuend in about 1330 (not very far from Boennigheim) and continued to build the St. Veit Cathedral in Prague.  He died there in 1399."

[From a message on the GERMANNA_COLONIES Mailing List at Rootsweb, in reply to John and Dr. Steirle, from Thom Faircloth, on 25 Jan 07: "This is interesting John and Dr. Steirle.  The word to describe the mortar dressing between bricks is perling.  So a Parler was a brick-layer or mortar-dresser.  The coincidence is that 4 years ago when we were at Kloster Maulbronn, in the Monk's area of the cathedral, we saw a stone carving of a crucifix that was carved by a man named Parler.  I don't remember the first name.  I remember thinking that perhaps this is where our Barlow came from.  Is Maulbronn in Swabia?  Thom."]

"So Parler would seem to me the most possible origin of Barlow.

"The name Boehler that you [John B.] suggested doesn’t make any sense to me.”

[I was out in the Pennsylvania Dutch country yesterday with a German visitor.  Klaus Strehkle is a professional photographer who is here in America to judge a photographic show held by the Delaware Photographic Society.  He is a world traveler, but the Pennsylvania Dutch country was new to him.  I work in the Delaware Photographic Society and I was helping to entertain him for the day.

The help and reactions that we have received from German nationals have been so good that we are eager to do something in return.

He seemed to like all thing Amish, even their mules and clotheslines.  He has spent quite a bit of time in Strasburg, which has many older buildings, especially from the 1800's.  Eventually, we got to the Hans Herr House, which is an excellent example of medieval German architectural. - John]

*[That’s a pity.]
(25 Jan 07)



Nr. 2450:

*[Hast du gut geschlafen?]

There is an entirely different way to study the Barlow origins and that is through the use of DNA.  This has been a very active same-name project which has yielded excellent results.  (Well, for one individual it was not so good.)  Four Germanna Barlows were in the test and they all fall into the R1a Haplogroup.

The R1a Haplogroup is believed to have originated in the European Steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.  The group would have been members of the Kurgan culture who were the first to domesticate the horse about 3000 B.C.  They were the first speakers of the Indo-European language group.  Today, many members of the R1a Haplogroup are found in central and western Asia, India, and in the Slavic population of Europe.

The R1b, a related group, has the most Barlows, many of whom have an earliest known origin in Lancaster, England.  In this largest group of Barlows, many of the individual members lack a proven relationship by non-DNA means to each other.  A subdivision of this Haplogroup, R1b1, is the most common group in Europe.  It would appear that many of the English Barlows are related, in the past, to Europeans (probably true for most of the English).

In the DNA tests, one individual was isolated and did not match well to any of the other Barlows.  Even though he had the Barlow name, he was probably not of the same lines of descent as the other Barlows.  Perhaps he was an adopted child, an event that was very common hundreds of years ago when the life span was much shorter.

These results, which are reported on the Internet, can be found easily by a Google search for “barlow dna”, where the first item returned is this Barlow DNA Study.

In that Study, a set of Barlows trace their origins to the Isle of Wight, but their Haplogroup I is rather remote, indicating an origin or split, from the other Barlows in the study, thousands of years ago.  One person has the same markers as the Germanna group but the family traces their origin to Ireland and Australia.

*[Did you sleep well?]
(29 Jan 07)


(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 NINETY-EIGHTH set of Notes, Nr. 2426 through Nr. 2450.)

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
This Page Contains Notes XXXX through XXXX.

Go To
Top.

  [Back to John's Notes Index Page]

  [Germanna Colonies Home Page]

  [GERMANNA Home Page]