Unknown Buller 2

We have begun to examine some of the questions raised by the information provided for Unknown Buller in the Przechovka, Prussia, church register (see here for the summary in the church register). Thus far we have determined that this individual was born around 1653 to 1658, roughly a century after Menno Simons and other Anabaptists broke from the Catholic Church.

Today we want to reflect on the statement in the church register that “this is the first time this family name appears.” What could this possibly mean? Several possible explanations come to mind:

1. Unknown Buller was the first person to have been known by the last name Buller.


2. Unknown Buller was the first of his family to join this (or any?) Mennonite church.


3. Unknown Buller is the first Buller known to the compiler of the Przechovka church register

Ultimately we may not know with certainty which of these is correct—or even if any of them are. We can, however, use them as launching points to explore unknown territory about our family.

The first possibility, that Unknown Buller was the first to bear the last name Buller, is clearly false, as his entry in the Grandma database makes clear. Look closely again at all of the information given for him.

Remarkably, Grandma records the name of Unknown Buller’s father: Heinrich. Unknown Buller was not our eponymous ancestor (the person who gave us our last name); the origin of “Buller” must go at least one generation before him (if not more).

[Side note: The identification of Heinrich Buller as Unknown’s father raises a further complication. If Grandma is correct that he was born about 1580, and if we are reasonably correct that Unknown Buller was born in the early 1650s, then Heinrich would have been seventy to seventy-five when he fathered Unknown—a possible but unlikely scenario. One wonders if a generation between Heinrich and Unknown has been skipped. Stay tuned.]

The second possible meaning of the statement in the church register, that Unknown Buller was the first in his family to join the Przechovka church, is not demonstrably false, but it is implausible. If we assume that Unknown and Heinrich were related in some way, then the Grandma entry for Heinrich provides us the evidence to doubt that explanation.

Notice where Heinrich was born and where he died. His life began in Brütisellen, Switzerland, and ended in Deutsch Konopat, Schwetz, Prussia. Deutsch Konopat was one of the Mennonite villages whose residents were members of the Przechovka church. In all likelihood, then, both Heinrich and Unknown were associated with this church.

Not only is it unlikely that Unknown was the first member of the Przechovka church; it is also highly improbable that the Przechovka church was the first Mennonite assembly with Bullers in it. Again, Heinrich’s record provides the clue.

What would have led Heinrich to leave the land of his birth, Switzerland, to move to Prussia, and to settle in a Mennonite village? The most likely explanation is that Heinrich was part of the larger body of Mennonites who fled persecution in Switzerland for the safer region of Prussia. If so, then at least Heinrich, if not the generation preceding him, were already Mennonite.

In the end, either the late-1700s compiler of the Przechovka church register was mistaken in thinking that Unknown was the first person to bear the last name Buller, or by the words “this is the first time this family name appears” he meant only that Unknown was the first Buller listed in whatever records he used in compiling the register.

The latter seems the most reasonable explanation, since Heinrich apparently was Mennonite and was associated with the Przechovka church. Presumably Heinrich Buller could or should have been listed in the sources used by the compiler of the church register, but for some unknown reason he was not. One question answered, another question raised.