Prussian censuses and the Przechovka church book 2

The last post first summarized all the Bullers listed in the three Prussian censuses (nine men with six different names), then began to survey the male Bullers listed in the Przechovka church book (forty-two of them with eight names).

In the process, we answered one of our initial questions: Are there Schwetz-area Bullers listed in the censuses who are not in the Przechovka church book? In fact, Adam Buller of Dworziska (just southwest of Deutsch Konopat, which is B in the map) is not listed in the book. We pick up there to explore further the relation between the censuses and the church book.

Since the three censuses were taken in 1772, 1776, and 1789, we want to identify Buller males who would have been adults (at least twenty years old) during that time span, to see how the church book compares with the names in the censuses. To ensure that we do not mistakenly exclude anyone, we will list male Bullers born between 1730 and 1770.

The year of birth is not provided in every instance, especially with the earlier individuals. All is not lost, however. If you recall, the six generations of Bullers extended from roughly 1670 to 1820, that is, 150 years, or 25 years per generation. Thus, if generation 1 began in 1680, generation 2 began in circa 1705 and generation 3 in approximately 1730. Generation 4 is solidly in our 1730–1770 range, but generation 5, which began roughly 1780, is too late.

This approach is not perfect, of course, but it is good enough, so we will include all the male Bullers from generations 3 and 4 unless someone’s birth date indicates that he should be excluded or included. Fifteen different Bullers meet these criteria:

Name	Village	PCB Number	Generation	Date of Birth
Andreas	———	345	4	———
Benjamin	Klein Konopat	352	4	———
David	———	346	4	———
George	———	342	3	———
George	Jeziorka	375	3	1747
George	———	350	4	———
Hans	———	341	3	———
Heinrich	Jeziorka	343	3	———
Heinrich	Ostrower Kämpe	362	3	1738
Heinrich	———	348	4	———
Heinrich	Przechkovka	378	4	1768
Jacob	Przechkovka	377	4	1760
Peter	Konopat	359	3	1731
Peter	———	351	4	———
Peter	———	386	5	1770

For ease of comparison, we repeat the census data from the earlier post:

Name	Village	1772	1776	1789
Adam	Dworziska	X
Benjamin	Deutsch Konopat			X
George	Jeziorka	X	X	X
Heinrich	Ostrower Kämpe	X		X
Heinrich	Ostrower Kämpe	X
Heinrich	Schwetzer Kämpe		X
Jacob	Przechovka			X
Peter	Deutsch Konopat	X	X	X
Peter	Deutsch Konopat		X	X

Finally we are ready to make observations about the relation between the two data sets.

1. Earlier we noted that one name from the censuses (Adam) does not appear in the church book. This led us to admit the possibility that there were Bullers in the Schwetz area who were not part of the Przechovka church. Whether our ancestors were members of that church is impossible to say at this time.

2. Conversely, we now see that three names in the PCB do not appear in any census: the brothers Andreas and David and their father Hans. Why? Even if they did not own land, they would have been counted in the 1776 census of Mennonites if they lived in the Schwetz area at that time. In fact, it was suggested earlier that these three moved with others to the Netzebruch in 1765 (see here). Since the PCB lists Frantzthal in the Netzebruch as the location where the two sons were married, it is almost certain that they were not in the Schwetz area for any of the censuses. The PCB and the censuses are in complete accord on this point.

3. Benjamin 352 of Klein Konopat is probably the same as Benjamin of Deutsch Konopat (another name for the same village) in the 1789 census of landowners. The PCB does not provide a date of birth, but it does list his year of baptism (1772) and marriage (1774), which would imply that he was born circa 1754 and thus would have been in his mid-40s at the time of the census. The correlation of these two seems highly probable.

4. We already identified George 375 as George of Jeziorka in the censuses (here), but two additional Georges require comment. Little is known about George 342, so all we can do is guess that he went to the Netzebruch with his brother Hans 341 or perhaps passed away before the 1776 or even 1772 census. The former seems the most likely option.

George 350 was married in Frantzthal, so he was also part of the Netzebruch group who no longer lived in the Schwetz area. Once again, the church book and the censuses are in agreement.

5. The PCB lists four Heinrichs, the censuses only three. Heinrich 343 of Jeziorka was the brother of George 342, so one wonders if he also was part of the move to Netzebruch. This explanation seems more likely than not. This leaves us with three Heinrichs in each table, but we should not be too quick to assume that these are all the same individuals.

Heinrich 362 of Ostrower Kämpe was born in 1738, so he would have been old enough to own land in 1772; the PCB also indicates that he died in 1791, so he was also alive for the 1789 census. There is little doubt that Heinrich 362 was one of the Ostrower Kämpe Heinrichs in the 1772 census.

Heinrich 348 was born in Jeziorka, but we do not know when; neither do we know where he lived or when he died. Interestingly, Heinrich was the third husband of Liscke Ratzlaff (81), who was born in 1746. They married in 1779 and had two daughters together, before Liscke died in 1785. One gets the impression that Heinrich was perhaps a “late bloomer.” If he was born approximately the same time as Liscke, then he did not marry until he was thirty-three, which was old in that social context. Might this be the Heinrich listed as living in Schwetzer Kämpe in 1776? Perhaps, but it is also plausible that this Heinrich does not appear in the censuses at all.

Heinrich 378 was born in 1768, so he cannot be one of the landowners listed for 1772, and he would not have had a household established by 1776. Once again the church book provides an explanation. This Heinrich was not married until 14 November 1790, so he was still living under his parents’ roof and thus would not have been a separate entry in the 1789 census.

To sum up the Heinrich discussion, the PCB and censuses can be harmonized for some of these men. Heinrich 362 certainly appears in the census, and Heinrich 378 certainly does not. Heinrich 343 probably went to the Netzebruch, but Heinrich 348 is an unknown.

Not to be overlooked is that at least one and probably two of the Heinrichs in the censuses are not in the church book. We know of only one Heinrich Buller from Ostrower Kämpe, not two, and we have no record of any Heinrich living in Schwetzer Kämpe. Like Adam Buller (see number 1 above), these Bullers in the censuses but not in the PCB demonstrate that not all Bullers in the Schwetz area were associated with the Przechovka church. This is a crucial perspective for us to keep in mind as we look for our own Schwetz-area ancestors.

6. Jacob 377, who was born in 1760, is an easy match for the Jacob of Przechovka listed in the 1789 census of landowners.

7. How do the three Peters in the church book relate to the two in the censuses? Peter 351, who was married in village of Brenckenhoffswalde, was part of the Netzebruch group. This leaves two Peters in the church book and two in the censuses, but once again we cannot assume a match.

Peter 359 was born in 1731, so he is a good candidate for the Deutsch Konopat Peter who appears in all three censuses.

Peter 386, however, was born in 1770, so he cannot be the other Deutsch Konopat Peter listed for the 1776 and 1789 censuses. This Peter was baptized in 1788, but no marriage is listed for him. The best explanation of this is that he still lived at home during the 1789 census and so was not included as a separate entry within it.

Once again, however, we encounter the reality that a Buller listed in the censuses (the second Peter in Deutsch Konopat) does not appear in the Przechovka church book.

Summary

This long and detailed (I hope not too boring) comparison of the male Bullers in the three Prussian censuses (1772, 1776, 1789) with the male Bullers reported as living at that time in the Przechovka church book leads us to two important conclusions.

First, the record contained in the church book is remarkably consistent with the secular records. Five of the fifteen Bullers listed in the church book can be identified with persons in one or more of the censuses. Another six Bullers who do not appear in the censuses almost certainly had moved to a new location by the time of the first census. Heinrich 378, whom we might have expected in the 1789 census, was still a year away from establishing his own household, so his absence from the censuses is perfectly explicable. At every point at which we are able to check, the church book appears to agree with the censuses and thus shows itself to be highly reliable.

Second, only five of the nine Bullers listed in the censuses appear in the Przechovka church book. Prior to conducing this exercise, I would never have guessed that only half or so of the Bullers in the Schwetz area were associated with that church. Without pretending to any kind of statistical precision, one might even say that there is only a 50–50 chance that our direct (pre-David) ancestor was a member of the Przechovka church. Perhaps this explains why thus far we have not been able to find a trace of David in the Przechovka church book.

If this is the case, then where might we turn next? A good first step will be to identify and learn about other Mennonite churches in the vicinity. There were several others close by, and they merit whatever attention we can give them. A second step might be to look for the records of Lutheran and Catholic churches in the Schwetz area. These churches frequently recorded data on anyone in the parish, not just members of the church. The one thing we do know is that the search continues.