Letters from Waldheim 4

This letter in the Die Mennonitische Rundschau actually appeared a number of months before the Heinrich Buller letter that we read here. We delayed covering it for several reasons: to maintain the continuity of Heinrich’s several letters from Waldheim; and to allow extra time to decipher this most challenging letter.

A glance at the top half of the letter to the left, about two-thirds down, reveals one of the challenges that this letter presents: it contains words written in Russian script. (The Russian alphabet is related to but not the same as our own.) A second challenge (not resolved) is the identity of the author.

We will return to both these issues below, after we look at the original text and translation of the letter itself.

Waldheim, 29. April 1906. In No. 16 der “Friedensstimme” schreibt Peter Reimer, Utschastok Michailowskij, Sibirien, von dem Ansiedeln unserer deutschen Mennoniten auf Kronsländereien. Ich stimme mit Herr Reimer voll und ganz darin überein. Wir hätten schon längst bei unserer Regierung darum anhalten sollen. Ich glaube fest, daß wir gerade so 65 Deßjatinen familienweise bekämen, wie unsere Deutschen einst hier erhielten. Wie sind hier in Waldheim ungefähr 50 Familien, die zusammen um Land wirken. Wir frugen in Omsk, Siberien, beim Переселенческій Началникъ an, ob wir Mennoniten auch das Recht hätten auf Kronsland anzusiedeln und erhielten ein Schreiben: Ihr könnt Land haben, ohne jeglichen Unterschied. Schicken Sie Kundschaster her auszusuchen, Holz und Ackergeräte wird von der Regierung vorgestreckt. Darauf frugen wir weiter an, ob wir könnten 65 Desjatinen familienweise haben und unter welchen Bedingungen. Darauf erhielten wir ein Schreiben vom Чиновникъ Особыхъ порученій. die Ansiedler in sibirischen Steppenzonen können einen Landteil von 15 Desjatinen auf die Seele brauchbaren Landes erhalten. Es kann sellenweise oder familienweise (подворно), je nach Wunsch der Ansiedler selbst, festgestellt werden. Die Landanteile werden nach der Zahl der Seelen 50–200 Seelenanteile, auch größere bemessen. In den Gebieten Акмолинекъ und Семипалитинскъ erhalten die Ansiedler 100 Rubel Mithelfe, während im sibirischen Gouvernement (das sol wohl heißen: in den anderen Gouvernementsl A. K.) 165 Rubel. Krons- und Senistwoabgaben sind fünf Jahre frei, die folgenden fünf Jahre die halben Abgaben. Den Ansiedlern, welche 18 Jahre und darüber sind, wird die Ableistung der Wehrpflicht drei Jahre hinausgeschoben. Das Kronsland gehört den Ansiedlern zur immerwährenden Rutznießung. Den 9. Mai soll, so viel ich weiß, eine Zusammenkunft derer, die Lust haben anzusiedeln, in Waldheim stattfinden.

Buller

The second half of the letter appears to the right. I have broken the translation into paragraphs for ease of reading.

Waldheim, 29 April 1906

In no. 16 of the Friedensstimme, Peter Reimer of the Mikhailovsky district, Siberia, writes of the settling of our German Mennonites in crown lands. I agree with Mr. Reimer wholeheartedly. We have already intended to urge our government in favor of this. I firmly believe that we would get as much as 65 dessiatines per family, as our Germans once here received.

There are here in Waldheim about fifty families who together work the land. We asked in Omsk, Siberia, at the Переселенческій Началникъ [Emigration Head?], whether we Mennonites would also have the right to settle on crown land and received a letter: You can have land without any difference. Send scouts to search; timber and agricultural implements are advanced by the government.

Then we asked further if we could have 65 dessiatines per family and under what conditions. Then we received a letter from Чиновникъ Особыхъ порученій [Officer on Special Assignments]: settlers in Siberian steppe zones can obtain a land area of 15 dessiatines of tillable country soul. It can be set up locally or in families (подворно [homestead]), depending on the desire of the settlers themselves. The allotments are according to the number of souls 50–200 soul parts, also of larger dimensions.

In the regions of Акмолинекъ [Akmolinsk] and Семипалитинскъ [Semipalatinsk] the settlers receive 100 rubles’ assistance, while in the Siberian province (which should probably read: in the other gubernias. A. K.) 165 rubles. Crown and zemstvo duties are five years free, the next five years half-charges. Settlers who are eighteen years and above will have their military service be postponed for three years. The crown land belongs to the settlers as an everlasting usufruct. On 9 May, so far as I know, there is a meeting being held in Waldheim of those who wish to resettle.

Buller

1. To start with the obvious, although we know that some Buller from Waldheim wrote this, we do not know which one. It is presumably not Heinrich, since we would expect Heinrich to list his first name, as he did every other time he wrote the Rundschau.

We know that a number of Buller families lived in Waldheim during the 1850s through the 1880s (we surveyed the evidence from Waldheim school records here), and Schroeder and Huebert list at least one Buller family still living in Waldheim in 1916 (1996, 42). In all likelihood, the letter writer is one of these “other” Bullers who was related to us much more distantly than Heinrich and kin.

2. The letter writer obviously knew Russian, since he or she uses the official Russian terms for what appear to be governmental offices and agents as well as places in the Kazakhstan region. None of the letters written by Heinrich contains Russian, which argues further that Heinrich is not the writer.

3. We catch the flavor of the day well, with some Waldheim residents discussing a move east in order to settle new territory. This letter writer, like many others in Waldheim (and probably elsewhere), was eager to move to the largely unsettled plains of Siberia/Kazakhstan. The appeal of resettlement was tangible: 100 rubles of government assistance; no taxes due to the crown or the local government (zemstvo) for five years, then only half for an additional three years; freedom from military service for eligible males for three years; and an allotment of land to which they would hold the right to all profits in perpetuity. No wonder there was excitement among many to resettle in the east.

In fact, an April 1908 letter that we read here reported that forty Waldheim families made this trek, leaving almost two years to the day after this letter. We also should remember what Heinrich wrote in February of 1907: “We will probably wait with our move to Siberia one more year.” Obviously, this would place their move in 1908, precisely when the forty families from Waldheim headed ease.

The sequence appears to be as follows (if we are permitted some speculation). Heinrich and family, along with other Waldheim residents, attended a meeting about resettlement on 9 May 1906. At some point during the next ten months they decided to move to Siberia/Kazakhstan. Between February 1907 and April 1908, Heinrich disposed of any goods that could not be taken with them, including the family farm.

4. It is unclear how much land the settlers could actually expect. The letter writer had asked for 65 dessiatines (175 acres), but the government agent spoke of only 15 dessiatines of tillable soil outside the village (in the country). There appears to be mention of additional land, or at least the possibility of it, but the “Die Landanteile werden nach der Zahl der Seelen 50–200 Seelenanteile, auch größere bemessen” makes little sense to me, apart from implying that the 15 dessiatines allotment was not written in stone.

Still, one might ask why Heinrich, who presumably had inherited his father David’s farm, would want to leave it behind for an unknown future. The answer probably lies in the size of the David Buller family farm in Waldheim: it was a half-Wirtschaft of only 88 acres, perhaps not enough to meet all of the family’s needs.

We may never know which Buller wrote this letter, but he or she has provided additional context for us to appreciate the times and the forces that led some of our relatives left in Molotschna to pick up their lives and move to Pavlodar, Kazakhstan, 2,500 miles to the east. Piece by piece the Buller family puzzle continues to be filled in and take shape.

Source

Schroeder, William, and Helmut T. Huebert. 1996. Mennonite Historical Atlas. 2nd ed. Winnipeg: Springfield.

I’m a little teapot …

A brief photographic interlude before we return to Waldheim tomorrow (or so). Pictured below is an everyday teapot with a body, handle, and spout made of pottery and a metal lid. I am told that it is in perfect shape and still pours a mean cup of tea.

A masking-tape note on the top records the significance of the pot: “Grandpa Buller [that is, Grandpa to Matilda, Esther, Daniel, Darlene, Carl, Wayne, Ruth, and Alma] gave [the teapot] to Grandmother as [a] wedding present.” To state things a little more directly, Peter P gave this to Margaretha Epp on the occasion of their wedding 27 February 1890. The teapot is thus at least 126 years old; how much older it might be we cannot say. It is enough to know is that it is a piece from our family history a little more than a decade after our ancestors came to the U.S.

Letters from Waldheim 3

Aerial view of Waldheim, modern Vladivka, Ukraine

A little less than a year after his May 1906 letter to the Rundschau (see here), Heinrich took pen to paper once again. This time he wrote more about life in Waldheim and less about family than we have previously seen. As usual, we start with the original letter, followed by an English translation and several comments.

Waldheim, den 25. Feb. 1907

Werter Editor und Freunde! Einen herzlichen Gruß zuvor! Will versuchen ein Lebenszeichen an Geschwister und Freunde durch die Vermittelung der “Rundschau” gehen zu lassen. Ich werde es auch nur kurz machen. Der Gesundheitszustand ist bei uns diesen Winter nicht der beste. Ich habe eine zeitlang wenig arbeiten können. Erst hatte ich an der linken Hand, jetzt wieder an der rechten Hand, ein Geschwür. Es ist jetzt wieder bald besser. Das Scharlachfieber hat in unserem Dorfe auch ziemlich geherrscht. Der Winter ist bis jetzt ziemlich stark gewesen. Haben auch ziemlich Schnee gehabt.

Wir werden mit unserem nach Sibirien Ziehen noch wohl ein Jahr warten, weil unser Sohn Johann auf den Herbst zur Lösung muß. Die Mutter ist diesen Winter schon oftmals kränklich, sie hat oft Kopfschmerzen.

Ich danke Dir, Peter Buller, Luschton, herzlich für die Bilder, die wir von Dir erhalten haben.

Grüßend,
Heinrich D. Buller

Although some of the German is difficult, the gist of the letter is as follows:

Waldheim, 25 February 1907

Dear Editor and friends! A cordial greeting!

I am hoping to convey a picture of life to siblings and friends through the medium of the Rundschau. I will do so only briefly.

Our state of health this winter is not the best. I am able to work only a little while. First I had a sore on my left hand, now on the right one. It should soon be better. Scarlet fever has been rampant in our village. Thus far the winter has been quite strong. We have also had considerable snow.

We will probably wait with our move to Siberia one more year because our son Johann in the autumn must find a solution. This winter mother is already often sickly; she frequently has headaches.

I thank you warmly, Peter Buller of Lushton, for the photographs that we received from you.

Greetings,
Heinrich D. Buller

Most of the news from Waldheim is fairly mundane: Heinrich has been unable to work as much as he would like due to a sore (possibly an ulcer or abcess) first on his left hand and then on his right. Much more threatening was the village-wide outbreak of scarlet fever, which in that day, before the advent of antiobiotics, was often fatal. Heinrich also mentions later in the letter that his (?) mother was often ill, with frequent headaches. It seems likely that she was by now elderly.

Given our usual impression of cold and snowy Siberia, it seems a little ironic to read in one sentence that the winter in Waldheim has been severe, with plenty of snow, then hear of an impending move to Siberia. Perhaps Heinrich and kin thought that a Siberian winter probably would not be much worse. The most unclear part of the letter is the reason for waiting a year before moving to Siberia. The word translated “solution” can also mean “cancellation” or “resolution.” What it means in this context is unclear.

What we should not miss in this confusion is that we now know that Heinrich had another son in addition to the one about whom we read earlier (here), this one named Johann. To recap all that we now know about Heinrich son of David Buller (thus brother of Peter D): he married a woman named Aganetha, and they had at least two sons: Heinrich 2, who married Elisabeth Unruh; and Johann.

Finally, Heinrich thanks his nephew Peter P (Grandpa Chris’s father) for sending photographs to Russia. One wonders if the 1906 photos sent were the only copies or if someone might have other copies hidden away in a photo album or box of photos. As always, Buller Time welcomes family-related photos from anyone!

Notice anything different?

Pictured below is the current entry for Grandma number 32675. We have seen the screen for that Buller before. Notice anything different?

Perhaps the difference will be easier to spot by looking at the entry for the same person from last year.

As we had hoped, Unknown Buller now has a “recognized” name: George (see further here). Although it is nice to have this blank properly filled, it reminds us that there still remains a great deal to learn and to discover.

It is unclear why in the process of updating this entry the Grandma administrators moved the spouse originally listed second into the first spot. In my view, listing any spouse other than Dina Thoms is probably a mistake. To my knowledge, the Przechovka Church Book, the only primary source containing information about George, offers no evidence at all that he was married twice.

Notice also that the current entry, unlike the prior one, has no parents listed for George. This is as it should be, since there is no concrete evidence as to George’s parentage. Other details will need to be checked (e.g., Did George really have two sons named Hans?), but this can wait for another day.

Letters from Waldheim 2

Did you discover the word in Heinrich’s letter that reveals so much? Perhaps an English translation will help you spot it.

Russia

Waldheim, 28 May 1906

Dear Editor! On May 17 I unexpectedly received number 4 of the Rundschau and did not know by whom; I thought perhaps a friend had sent it, but since I have until now not received the following number, it is clear to me that it was only a sample issue; still, thank you very much for that. I ask for information, dear Editor, how much the Rundschau costs in Russian currency and how much in postage. I would like to receive the Rundschau at my own address.

Then I must ask you, dear Editor: I have already twice requested in the Rundschau if anyone would be so obliging as to provide to me information regarding my brothers and sisters in America, if they do not themselves read the Rundschau; thus far I have not received any information. There are two half-brothers alive: Benjamin Buller and David Buller, who are the sons of David Buller, Waldheim; three siblings have already died. But there are still children, namely, Peter Buller, Abraham Braun, and Johann Wiens. I would like to have information about them and their addresses. Perhaps it is possible for the editor to obtain these addresses and send them to me through the Rundschau, for which I will be sincerely grateful.

Affectionate greetings, I remain your benevolent
Heinrich Buller

Our address is: Heinrich Buller, Post Waldheim, Taurida Gubernia [Province], South Russia.

Note: Please, dear brother H. H. Buller, of Marion, South Dakota, can you answer these questions? —Editor

The crucial clause is: “There are two half-brothers alive.” Heinrich’s reference to Benjamin and David 2 as half-brothers leaves little doubt about the answer to our earlier question: Who was David 1 and Helena Zielke’s firstborn (see here)?

We know that Benjamin and David 2 were Helena’s sons, so the fact that Heinrich was their half-brother confirms that he was not Helena’s son but rather the sone of David 1’s second wife, whose name we still do not know.

Apart from the genealogical clarity that this letter brings (we now know that David 1 and Helena Zielke’s firstborn was their daughter Helena), we see a human side of of Heinrich, who received a free copy of the Rundschau in the mail and thought at least for a time that perhaps an anonymous friend had given him a subscription. Alas, it was only a sample issue, but Heinrich was grateful nonetheless—and the sample produced its intended result: he asked how much (in Russian currency!) a subscription and postage would be.

We also see Peter P Buller mentioned as one of children of the deceased siblings living in America. Peter will make another appearance in a future letter.

Finally, note that the Rundschau editor directs Heinrich’s request to a specific subscriber to the Rundschau, one H. H. Buller of Marion, South Dakota. An index of Rundschau authors (see here) implies that H. H. Buller was a regular correspondent in the Rundschau, so presumably the editor is asking a colleague who may have knowledge to help. Whether or not H. H. Buller is directly related to our branch of the family is impossible to say at this time.

Letters from Waldheim 1

Several weeks ago we learned of letters in Die Mennonitische Rundschau that reported the passing of David Buller shortly after it happened (see here, here, and here). We discovered in the process that the Buller Family Record is mistaken about the date of David’s death, that David actually died on 12 November 1904 (whether Julian or Gregorian we do not know).

Thanks to the excellent resources of the Mennonite Heritage Centre of Winnipeg, Manitoba (see their website here), and the kindness of their Archivist, Conrad Stoesz, we have more letters to examine.

The first, which was printed in the 11 July 1906 issue (p. 5), appears to the right. The letter that interests us begins near the bottom of column 3 and extends through the top half of column 4.

This letter, as we shall see below, was written by Heinrich Buller, a son of David. (This Heinrich also had a son by the same name, but the older Heinrich is in view here.) As a son of David Buller, our earliest known ancestor, Heinrich was a brother of Peter D, who was the father of Peter P, the father of Grandpa Chris. So, this person was a great-uncle to Grandpa.

Heinrich, if you recall, did not emigrate to North America, as did most of his immediate family. Rather, eventually he headed east to the wide open spaces of Kazakhstan (Siberia), about which we wrote here.

Heinrich was writing from Waldheim, so it dates before that move east. The letter itself contains both the mildly amusing side of human nature and an important family fact.

Heinrich certainly did not think he was sharing anything of significance, but a single word in what he writes answers a question that we have tried to answer several times. For fun, this post will provide only the German text of Heinrich’s letter. The translation will follow in a day or two. In the meantime, can you find that important word?

Rußland.

Waldheim, den 28. Mai 1906.

Werter Editor! Da ich den 17. Mai so unerwartet No. 4 der “Rundschau” erhielt und ich nicht wußte von wem, dachte ich, ob sie mir ein Freund schickte; aber da ich jetzt, den 27. d. M. nicht die folgende Nummer erhielt, da wurde es mir klar, daß es nur Probenummern sind; aber dennoch herzlichen Dank dafür. Bitte um Aufschluß, werter Editor, wieviel die “Rundschau” bis Neujahr nach russischen Gelde kostet und wie man das hinsch[e]iden muß. Ich möchte die “Rundschau” gerne auf eigene Adresse erhalten. Dann habe ich noch eine Bitte an Sie, werter Editor: Ich habe schon zweimal in der “Rundschau” angefragt ob nicht jemand so gefällig wäre und mir Auskunft gebe von meinen Geschwistern in Amerika, wenn diese nicht selber die “Rundschau” lesen; aber ich habe bis jetzt noch keine Auskunst erhalten. Es sind noch zwei Halbbrüder am Leben, als: Benjamin Buller und David Buller, welche Söhne des David Buller, Waldheim sind; drei Geschwister sind schon gestorben. Aber da sind noch Kinder, als: des Peter Bullers, Abraham Braunens und Johann Wiensens. Ich möchte gerne Auskunst und Adresse von ihnen haben. Vielleicht ist es dem Editor möglich, diese Adressen zu erhalten und sie mir durch die “Rundschau” zuzuschicken [sic: zuschicken], wofür ich herzlich dankbar sein werde.

Herzlich grüßend verbleibe ich Euer wohlwollender

Heinrich Buller

Unsere Adresse ist: Heinrich Buller, Post Waldheim, Gouv. Taurien, Südrußland.

Anm. Bitte, lieber Br. H. H. Buller, Marion S. D., kannst Du diese Fragen beantworten?—Ed.

Stay tuned!

A photographic interlude

I suspect we all have some photos tucked away that others might enjoy (or at least laugh at) as they are led down memory lane. Even if these photographs are more personal than family-related, they can whisk us away to a simpler time (at least for those of us who were kids) many years ago.

Without further ado, then, I offer a favorite photo of Dad and yours truly, one that actually appeared in the York News-Times.

Thanks to a story on the Six-Day War on the back of the newspaper clipping, we can date the photo exactly: Wednesday, 7 June 1967. The well being drilled was on the south side of Highway 34, which can be seen in the far background. Closer in the background is the air compressor on the left and the back of the drilling rig on the right. The photograph was snapped after drilling was completed and during casing (note the old-style concrete casing sticking up at the back of the rig).

As noted in the caption, the crew consisted of Levi Friesen, Ray Rollins (I do not remember him and wonder if he really was part of the drill crew), Dad, and Lester Unruh. Unless I am mistaken, Ralph Friesen was also at the site that day.

Seeing this photograph again takes me back to that oppressively hot June afternoon, to time spent with my dad on the job, to the simple pleasure of a dip in the muddy waters of a slush pit. (OSHA was not such a force to be reckoned with then.) Which photographs take you back? Why not send them in so everyone can enjoy them?!

***

As a side note, as a nine-year-old who was always and only known as “Steve’s brother,” it was a kick to see my own name in print, even if it was my “formal” name. It’s funny how some things never change. Not more than a month ago when I was on the phone with someone from back home and he wanted to explain to his wife who he was talking to, he said, “Steve’s brother.” I guess I could do worse.

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.

Prussian censuses and the Przechovka church book 1

Over the last month or so we identified Bullers listed in three government censuses: the 1772 register of landowners in West Prussia (here); the 1776 census of Mennonites living in the same area (here); and the 1789 register of landowning Mennonites (here). As part of our discussions, we noticed that some Bullers (at least the same names) appeared in all three lists.

In one instance we identified a Buller listed in multiple censuses within another contemporary source: the Przechovka church book (PCB). Specifically, the George Buller who is listed as a landowner and resident in Jeziorka in all three censuses is PCB number 375 (here).

Picking up at this point, this post first correlates other Bullers listed in the censuses as a basis for then looking for them in the Przechovka church book. The goal of all this is not just to have fun (although exploration is always fun) but to produce concrete data that will allow us to answer several important questions:

• Are there Schwetz-area Bullers listed in the censuses who are not in the Przechovka church book?


• Are there Bullers in the Przechovka church book who do not appear in any of the censuses?

The point of asking these questions is to gain a better sense of whether we should expect to find our own ancestors listed in the censuses, the Przechovka church book, both, or perhaps neither. We begin with a table showing all the Schwetz-area Bullers listed in the censuses.

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

Of these nine different individuals, only two appear in all three censuses: George and Peter 1. On the other end of the spectrum, five of these Bullers appear in only one census: Adam, Benjamin, Heinrich 2, Heinrich 3 (see * note below), and Jacob. Comparing this list against the PCB entries should prove instructive.

Another angle to take is to look at how many first names are represented in these nine Bullers. The most common name is Heinrich (3), followed by Peter (2) and then one each of Adam, Benjamin, George, and Jacob. It will be interesting to see how this distribution compares to the first names in the PCB.

Now that we have the census information all neatly listed and categorized, we are ready to delve into the names, years, and places contained within the Przechovka church book. We first learned of this book here, and we have had occasion to refer to it a number of times.

By way of recap, the PCB lists the families who were associated with the church to as far back as those compiling the book in the late 1700s were able to go. The most important sections of the book for our analysis are the opening list of each family all together and the later parts that list in chronological order (i.e., not by family) children born into the Przechovka church.

The scan of the page to the right is a part of the primary listing of Bullers. Later Buller entries are generally similar, although some of the latest entries offer the barest of information.

In all, the church book lists 96 different Bullers: 57 in the primary section and 39 more scattered through the chronological lists. These 96 individuals stretch across six generations, from *** (whom we know to be George; see here) through his great-great-great-grandchildren. In terms of dates, *** George was probably born 1670–1680, and the last Buller child listed in the PDB was born in 1818 (shortly before the entire church moved to Molotschna colony), so our six generations covered a time span of nearly 150 years.

Of the 96 Bullers, 54 were female and 42 male. Of course, the three censuses list only the male heads of households, so we can focus on the 42 male Bullers in the PCB for this inquiry.

Andreas	2
Benjamin	2
David	6
George	5
Hans	2
Heinrich	8
Jacob	8
Peter	9

Several things stand out about this list. First, seeing only eight names for forty-two individuals shows the strength of the tradition of naming children after near and distant ancestors. We see somewhat the same phenomenon later, with Peter D, father of Peter P, father of Peter E.

Second, already we have an answer to one of our questions: Are there Schwetz-area Bullers listed in the censuses who are not in the Przechovka church book? The answer is most certainly yes, since the Adam listed in the village of Dworziska in the 1772 register of landowners is nowhere to be found in the church book.

What does this mean in the broader scheme of things? At the least, it hints that not all Bullers living in the Schwetz area were members of the Przechovka church. This, in turn, raises another question: Were the members of the David Buller family (his parents and siblings, if any) associated with that church? It is too soon even to guess at the answer to those questions, but it is important that we keep them in mind.

The following post will go a little deeper into the list of forty-two male Bullers in the Przechovka church book to see if we can draw other insights by comparing them with the three governmental censuses. It is unclear where this might lead, but if nothing else it will help us clarify what we know (and what we don’t know) as well as where we might look next as we seek to find some trace of David Buller (father of Peter D, father of Peter P, father of Chris) in the Schwetz area along the Vistula River in early nineteenth-century West Prussia.


* Note: An earlier post (here) suggested that Heinrich of Ostrower Kämpe was the same as Heinrich of Schwetzer Kämpe. That now seems mistaken, as the two locations are treated distinctly in other sources. It is most likely that we are dealing with two different Heinrich Bullers in these villages.

Life in the Vistula Delta

From time to time this blog has mentioned how a good portion of the Mennonite community, including our family, lived along or near the Vistula River (the north–south river left of center in the map to the left).

The Vistula begins in the south from smaller rivers and tributaries in Belarus, Ukraine, and Slovakia and flows north until it empties into the Gdańsk Bay of the Baltic Sea. With a total length of approximately 650 miles and an average discharge of 38,140 cubic feet per second, the Vistula is easily Poland’s longest and largest river.

The Vistula is often thought of in terms of two different areas: the large delta where the river spreads out into several “fingers” before emptying into the Baltic; and the river and river basin heading upstream (i.e., south).

As far as we can tell, our family’s life in Poland/West Prussia was associated primarily with the upstream area, specifically along the Vistula in the Schwetz area. However, Mennonites first settled in Poland in the Danzig area (mid-1530s), at the northwest corner of the Delta, and shortly thereafter they spread eastward into the Delta itself (note the high density of Mennonite communities marked in that area).

The primary reason for their move east was to turn the swampy and water-logged delta ground into productive farmland. Earlier inhabitants had maintained dikes to hold back the river water as much as possible, but massive breaks in the dikes in 1540 and 1545 had reduced the Danzig Werder (German for “river peninsula, lowlands”) “to a watery waste which gradually became overgrown with reeds and rushes, since it lay below sea level” (Driedger 1957, 16).

The owners of this land—the king of Poland, the Catholic Church, and the cities of Danzig and Elbing—initiated a massive drainage project in 1547 whereby they leased various parcels of land to Mennonite associations who were then responsible to drain and maintain the land.

Johann Driedger, a twentieth-century farmer-minister in East Prussia, offers a detailed account of what was required to accomplish this feat:

The land area of each of the [leasing] associations had to be diked off against the inroads of water from the outside, and accordingly the associations had to join each other in arrangements to dike in the channels for the discharge water. Then a windmill was erected at the lowest place in the land area at the outlet channel, which then was constantly worked to lower the water level of the polder which it served. Side channels then had to be dug out to make possible the steady flow of water to the windmill, since the drop in the land level was very gentle. These side channels were so arranged that the smallest parcels of land were from about 2½ to 7½ acres in size. These individual tracts then had to be so leveled that there was a slight drop in the surface. Water furrows were then marked at right angles to the plow furrows to make possible the rapid discharge of rain water, since the land in any case also suffered under a high ground water level. The land also had to be cleared of all bushes and grass. All this hand labor became a very severe burden to the families of the settlers, who seldom possessed any capital.

This first and most difficult drainage work took three to four generations. The first fruit of the drainage was meadows and pastures with excellent grass. Since the drainage channels with their low dikes carried water which stood considerably higher than the surrounding land there was great danger in rainy seasons or snow thaws that the north wind would blow and drive the water of the Baltic back into the land and through the channels into the rear areas so high that the windmills would not dare to pump the water out of the polders, since in that case the dikes would have been immediately flooded. Consequently the polders were often flooded, and this was tolerable only for meadows and pastures. …

The Mennonites of the Vistula Delta settled not only in areas which lay below sea level but also in swampy areas which lay above sea level but had poor drainage because of lack of discharge channels. In such areas they also succeeded in draining considerable areas of land through development of controlled discharge channels. On such land wheat and rape could be planted, in addition to the raising of dairy cattle. This combination of grain raising and cattle raising gave the Mennonite farmers a considerable advantage above their other neighbors in the delta since they were able to use a considerable amount of animal manure at a time when artificial fertilizers were not yet available.

The amount of labor that these Mennonites expended—building dikes, digging channels, leveling each field so that it dropped slightly toward the drainage ditch, building a windmill, clearing the land of brush—boggles the mind. That families invested this amount of labor for three or four generations amazes. It is little wonder that European monarchs frequently welcomed Mennonites to come and farm their land. Although our ancestors were not part of this Delta work force, it is no doubt safe to assume that they, too, demonstrated the same industry, determination, and commitment in their own settings and situations.

Source

Driedger, Johann. 1957. Farming among the Mennonites in West and East Prussia. Mennonite Quarterly Review 31:16–21.

The 1789 census of landowning Mennonites

Having visited David Buller and family in Russia for a few posts, let’s head back to Poland/Prussia to pick up the Buller family story in the years before our Russian sojourn. As always, it is enlightening to rehearse the historical context before we consider individual Bullers.

The area in which our ancestors lived (gray-blue in the map) came under
Prussian control in the first partition of Poland, in 1772.

The area of our interest is best designated as Poland/West Prussia, to keep in mind the fact that our earliest ancestors began under Polish rule but ended up subjects of the Prussian kingdom. Although “Poland was the largest country in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,” as a result of three partitions (1772, 1790, 1795) in which its territory was carved away by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, “by 1795 Poland had disappeared from the map of Europe” (Friesen 1986, 95).

These historical developments had consequences for all the inhabitants of Poland, but especially for the Mennonites resident in the land. The kingdom of Poland had granted to Mennonites and other religious minorities nearly unlimited freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit. For Mennonites, this meant exemption from any requirement of military service.

Prussia initially offered the same exemption, but all that changed when Frederick II the Great died in 1786 and his nephew Frederick William II succeeded him. As Adalbert Goertz explains,

Since the Prussian army was based on the landowners’ resources in manpower and horsepower, and since the Mennonites were granted religious freedom and exemption from military service, it became increasingly worrisome to the military that Mennonites kept increasing their land holdings, thereby decreasing the military land base of what was called the canton system of conscription. (Goertz 1996, 3)

To stop the military land base from shrinking further, Frederick issued the Edict of 1789, which “regulated and limited Mennonite land ownership. Each land acquisition from non-Mennonites was made dependent on a special permit (Consens). A Consens was not necessary for transfer Mennonite-to-Mennonite or if the Mennonite purchaser would relinquish his military exemption Privilegium” (Goertz 1996, 3). Simply put, the Edict of 1789 required any Mennonite purchasing land from a non-Mennonite to secure a governmental permit (Consens) or to agree to participate in military service like any other landowner in the kingdom of Prussia.

Of course, every governmental regulation comes with its own red tape, and this one was no different. To monitor land sales to Mennonites fairly and efficiently, officials first had to know what land these Mennonites already owned. So it was that in 1789 the kingdom of Prussia conducted a census of land owned by Mennonites. Whereas  in 1776 the Prussian king had been interested in counting the number of Mennonites present in his realm, in this instance the only concern was with tabulating the number of landowners and which land they owned.

With all this as background we are finally ready to see which Bullers are listed in the 1789 Prussian land census. Adalbert Goertz has performed the herculean task of transcribing the entries for all 2,443 name entries (see here), which makes it easy for us to identify the objects of our interest.

All told, eight Bullers are included on the list. Two of the eight are shopkeepers from the Danzig area, so presumably of the “Buhler” line discussed earlier (here and here).

The other six are from the Schwetz area (as expected):

Name	Village	Hufen	Morgen	Ruten
George Buller	Jeziorka	3	15	–
Peter Buller	Deutsch Konopat	–	12	–
Benjamin Buller	Deutsch Konopat	–	3	–
Peter Buller	Deutsch Konopat	–	2	150
Heinrich Buller	Ostrower Kämpe	–	8	–
Jacob Buller	Przechovka	1	10	–

The three columns on the right give the amount of land owned: 1 hufe = circa 41 acres; 1 morgen = 1.4 acres; 1 rute = circa 4 square meters. Clearly, George Buller was the big landowner of this group, with approximately 144 acres. Jacob Buller was next, with around 55 acres. The other Bullers owned small amounts of land: Peter 1 = 16.8 acres; Benjamin = 4.2; Peter 2 = 3.5; Heinrich = 11.2; presumably they leased additional land, so as to have enough to support their families.

We have encountered three of these individuals in earlier lists. The 1776 census of Mennonites, for example, included a George in Jeziorka and two Peters in Deutsch Konopat (see here), just as this list does. The 1772 census of all landowners in Poland likewise included a George from Jeziorka and a Peter from Deutsch Konopat; in addition, it included a third match: a Heinrich from Ostrower Kämpe (see here).

Jeziorka (A), Deutsch Konopat (B/C), Przechovka (D), and Ostrower Kämpe (F).

Although we cannot be certain that the identical names refer to the same individuals in every case (a father may have died and had the land taken over by a son with the same first name), we can observe a certain amount of stability from 1772 through 1789. Only one of the names listed in the 1772 and 1776 censuses is missing in the 1789 one, and two names appear in 1789 but not earlier: Benjamin and Jacob. This likely is due to the natural growth of the Mennonite community, as children grew up and established families and farms of their own.

It is also instructive to compare Adalbert Goertz’s statistics for the 1789 list with Glenn Penner’s for the 1776 one, thirteen years earlier (compare here with here). In 1776, the census of all Mennonites listed 2,638 families for a total population of 12,186. The 1789 census contains 2,442 name entries, but Prussian records state that there were only 2,207 landowning Mennonites in West Prussia. This implies that some people were listed twice in 1789 (apparently because they owned land associated with two different villages).

In addition, one notes that the 1776 total of 2,638 families is over four hundred families larger than the 1789 total. It is worth noting that the first Mennonite migration to Russia began in 1787, with 228 families leaving for Chortiza colony. However, this accounts for only half of the decrease from 1776 to 1789. The rest of the decrease is no doubt a reflection of the fact that the 1776 census counted all Mennonites, while the 1789 one counted only landowning Mennonites, a group that was smaller by definition.

This also gives us an indication of the rough percentage of Mennonite families who did not own any land at all (even the small amounts registered for the two Peters, Benjamin, and Heinrich above). If one assumes a modest growth population growth rate of .75 percent per year, one would expect the 2,638 families in 1776 to number 2,732 by 1789. If we subtract the 228 families who left Prussia for Russia, this leaves an expected total of 2,504 families. Since the Prussian government records state that there were 2,207 landowning families, we can conclude that there were likely 297 families (or roughly 12 percent) who did not own any land at all. Some of that percentage probably leased their farmland (as at Jeziorka here), while some may have earned their living as artisans or laborers.

As noted multiple times before, the Bullers who are not part of the Buhler group (see links above) are found living almost exclusively in the Schwetz area, which is presumably where we need to look for our family tree. One wonders whether one of the landowning Bullers is our ancestor or whether our forebear was a laborer instead. We cannot say at present. The search goes on.

Sources

Friesen, John. 1986. Mennonites in Poland: An Expanded Historical View. Journal of Mennonite Studies. 4:94–108.

Goertz, Adalbert. 1996. The 1789 Land Census of West Prussian Mennonites. Mennonite Historian 22.4:3, 7. Available online here.

Eastward ho!

Several decades after our branch of the David Buller family tree journeyed westward to a new land, a different branch looked and moved to the east. We first noticed this in the Buller Family Record, which records that, “after David Buller had died, Mrs. Buller together with son Heinrich and family, moved to Siberia, Russia, where both also died.”

We filled in the picture somewhat in an earlier post that reported Elisabeth Unruh Buller’s death in Miloradovka, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan, several thousand miles east of Waldheim in Molotschna colony.

A fascinating discovery in an old German-language newspaper from Russia allows us to fill in a few more details. As is usual, we begin with background. The Odessaer Zeitung was a German-language newspaper published in the Russian city of Odessa, approximately 250 miles west of Molotschna. Odessa was a prominent city at that time and was, moreover, a center of German immigrant life in Russia—that is, of all German immigrants in New Russia, not merely Mennonites.

Remarkably, the 2/15 May 1908 issue of the paper contains a letter from Peter Fast of Waldheim that may pertain directly to the Buller journey east to Kazakhstan. The quality of the reproduction (right) is not the best, and the German is difficult, but it is possible to get the gist of Fast’s letter. (Thanks to Jon Isaak, Director of the Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies (CMBS), for providing the scan of the Odessaer Zeitung page.)

Waldheim, d. 21. April 1908.

Berichte hiermit, daß wir von Waldheim etwa zehn Familien mit anderen aus den umliegenden Dörfen, im ganzen so ungefähr an 40 Familien den 25. April von der St. Werchnis Tokmot Jek. Eisenb. die Reise nach der neuen Ansiedlung im Pawlodarer Kreise anzutreten gedenken. Wir sagen aber Europa hiermit Lebewohl, u. bitten alle Freunde u. Verwandte unserer zugedenken, denn es wird ein schwerer Anfang für uns sein.

Ich werde ab und zu kleine Berichte von dort einsenden, wie das Land dort ist, und wie sich das Leben dort gestaltet.

Ein mancher wird hier irre geführt und stuzig gemacht durch Berichte, wie die des Herrn Kliewer und Goßen und des Herrn Hamm in der “Friedensstimme.” Wer etwas aufpasst der merkt bald, daß genannte Herren noch nich alles wissen. Herr K. und G. schreiben, die Eide solle dort so sandig und locker sein, daß man die Wiesen mit 4 schlecht gestütterten Pferden tief herum pflügen kann. Das stimmt mir nicht ganz. In unserem Dorfe dort sollen sich drei Wirte Wohnungen gemacht haben von Wiesensoden; einfach die Wiese abgeschält und davon die Wände gemacht. Wenn der Boden wirklich so sandig wäre, und die Gras narbe so weitläufig, wie die Herren schreiben, dann würden die Wände ja nich stehen bleiben. Die Kirgisen wohne dort schon mehrere Jahre in solchun Wohnungen. Auf dem Land würde wohl schon zu leben sein, wenn die meisten Ansiedler nicht so unbemittelt wären. Daß es nur Fabrikarbeiter sind, wie Herr Hamm schreibt, entspricht nicht gang der Wahrheit, denn es sind auch viele Bauern darunter, die dorthin ziehen. Aber wo war denn Herr Hamm, als mit der Ansiedlunsgeschichte angefangen wurde; er hätte ja auch können besseres Land suchen. Jetzt, wo man Land gefunden, ist gut krittsieren. Es tut auch nichts zur Suche, denn die ersten Ansiedler an der Molotschna und auch in der alten Kolonie waren ja auch Weber und Schuhmacher, und trotzdem haben sie es zum Wohlstande gebracht.

Peter Fast.

***

Waldheim, 21 April 1908

Let it be reported herewith that we of Waldheim, about ten families with others from surrounding villages, in all about 40 families, on 25 April from the station at Werchnij Tokmak [?] Railroad will undertake a trip to a new settlement in the Pavlodar district. We thus say farewell to Europe and ask all friends and relatives to think of us [?], because it will be a heavy beginning for us.

I will send from time to time brief reports from there, how the land is there and how life there is arranged.

Some here are misled and taken aback by reports such as those of Mr. Kliewer and Gossen and of Mr. Hamm in the Friedensstimme. Whoever pays attention soon notices that the named gentlemen certainly do not know everything. Mr. K and G write that the earth is so sandy and loose there that you can walk around deep plowing the fields with four bad stud failed horses. That does not sound quite right to me. In our village there three landlords [hosts?] should have made dwellings from meadow sod; one simply peels off the field and with it makes the walls. If the ground were really so sandy and the turf so thin as the gentlemen write, the walls would not stand. The Kyrgyz people have already lived there several years in such dwellings. One would be able to live in the land even if most settlers were not so needy. That there are only factory workers being drawn there, as Mr Hamm writes, is not quite true, as many farmers are included. But where was Mr. Hamm at the beginning of the settlement history; he would have also to find better land. Now, where to find land is well criticized. It also not enough to search, because the first settlers at the Molotschna and also in the Old Colony were indeed weavers and cobblers, and still they have brought it to prosperity.

Peter Fast

Although some of the translation is uncertain, what we do know is both fascinating and enlightening. First, Fast reports that ten families from Waldheim will travel with a group of forty families from the surrounding area to a new settlement in the Pavlodar district of modern-day Kazakhstan. Historically speaking, this was a period of increasing immigration from various parts of Russia to Kazakhstan, as Russia sought to increase its influence over the area.

A view from the train while traveling along the path of the
Trans-Aral Railway. Photograph by Otebig at Wikipedia.

Fast’s reference to the railroad is not entirely clear, but it appears that he is referring to a railroad station (abbr. St.) at the city of Werchnij Tokmak, 25–30 miles west–northwest of Waldheim. It is also worth noting that the Trans-Aral Railway from Orenburg to Tashkent had been completed in 1906. It is probably not too fanciful to think that the Molotschna families took that rail line east, since it was the only line that connected European Russia and Central Asia at that time.

Not to be missed is that these families were leaving Europe behind to settle in Asia. This move from one continent to another was no quick trip from Poland to Volhynia, for example, or from there to Molotschna colony. This was a journey of around 2,500 miles, not that much less than Peter D and family had undertaken to go to the New World nearly three decades earlier.

Interestingly enough, Peter Fast spends most of his letter defending the new settlement from various criticisms. The Friedensstimme was a German-language periodical associated with the Mennonite Brethern church; in 1908 it was published out of Halbstadt, in the northwest corner of Molotschna. Apparently several individuals—Kliewer, Gossen, and Hamm—had written critically in the pages of the Friedensstimme about the plan to migrate east.

They voiced two criticisms: the ground was so sandy (thus poor for farming) that four broken-down horses would be enough to deep-plow the fields; only factory workers were stupid enough to follow such a foolish quest.

Fast’s responses are to the point. First, the new settlers would be living in sod houses, which proved that the ground was neither sandy nor thinly covered, or else the sod walls would never stand. The fact that the Kyrgyz people (a Turkish group who lived to the south) already lived in such houses in that region disproved the naysayers’ claims. Second, the group migrating east did not comprise only factory workers; in fact, many farmers also were making the trek.

Having rebutted the gentlemen’s claims, Fast ends by reminding them (and the readers of the paper) that it is terribly easy to criticize but extremely difficult to offer a better solution. Since Hamm was unable to offer a superior option, one can hear Fast imply, he should shut his mouth. Finally, Fast ends with an appeal to Mennonite history. In order to make his point that finding land is only a part of the battle, he reminds everyone that the first settlers of Molotschna and the Old Colony (Chortiza) were weavers and shoemakers but that through hard work and intelligent industry they were able to transform those colonies into highly productive and prosperous areas. The point, of course, is that these new settlers expected to do the same in the Pavlodar region.

As intriguing as this story is, we dare not forget its significance for us. David Buller’s second wife, their son Heinrich and his family, and possibly his son Heinrich but at least his family were almost certainly part of this group of forty families heading east. They were among the ten families from Waldheim who journeyed 2,500 miles east to Asia to establish a new settlement and start a new life on the opposite side of the world from Peter D and most of the other children of David Buller.

Whose son was Heinrich 1?

Almost a year ago we first raised the question: Who was David and Helena’s firstborn (see here)? Was it the Helena who married Jacob Mandtler (so the Buller Family Record) or the Heinrich who married someone named Aganetha (so the Grandma database).

Our recent discovery that Heinrich and Aganetha had a son named Heinrich who married Elisabeth Unruh may tip the scales slightly in favor of the former. The reasoning goes as follows.

1. Heinrich 2 was born 24 September 1883, which fits well with him being married early in 1906, at the age of twenty-two.

2. If Heinrich 1 was born “about” 1842 to David and Helena Zielke Buller, as the Grandma database claims, he would have fathered Heinrich 2 when he was forty-one. This is certainly possible, but we no of no other children in this family, and it would have been highly unusual for Heinrich 1 to father his first child that late in life.

3. If, however, Heinrich 1 was the son of David Buller’s second wife (whose name is no known), he was probably born sometime between 1857 and 1863 (the gap between Helena Zielke’s last child and wife 2’s other known child), which would mean that Heinrich 1 fathered Heinrich 2 when he was twenty to twenty-six, a far more common pattern in that day.

This is slender evidence, to be sure, but the math seems to favor Heinrich being the son of David’s second wife, whom he accompanied to Kazakhstan sometime after David passed away. In this case, the Buller Family Record seems to have more reliable information than the Grandma database.

Heinrich son of Heinrich son of David

One of the four Rundschau letters that we examined revealed that David Buller’s son Heinrich had a son named Heinrich, who married Elisabeth Unruh of Hierschau in Molotschna colony (see further here). Fortunately, the Grandma database allows one to search not just for individuals but also for pairs, such as a husband and wife. Searching for Heinrich Buller and Elisabeth Unruh returns only one match, but one is all we need, in this case.

There are several things to note about the entry for Heinrich Buller, number 73184. First, he was born in Waldheim, the same village in which David, Heinrich 1 (father), and Heinrich 2 (son) are located in the Rundschau letters. Second, the names of several of Heinrich and Elisabeth’s children are attested in the generations of Bullers prior to theirs. Aganetha, for example, was the name of Heinrich 1’s wife, and David, of course, was the name of Heinrich 1’s father, that is, Heinrich 2’s grandfather. Third, the chronology seems to fit well: Grandma has Heinrich and Elisabeth marrying about 1908 (based on, apparently, the birth of a daughter in 1909); the Rundshau letter says that they actually married on 19 February 1906.

Every indication is that this is Heinrich son of Heinrich son of David. An additional piece of evidence only strengthens the case.

The Grandma entry for Elisabeth (73162) records that she was born in Hierschau, which is precisely what we expect, based on the Rundschau letter discussed earlier. There is really no doubt: this Heinrich and Elisabeth are descendants of David Buller, in a family branch parallel to Peter P:

Peter D > Peter P

David

Heinrich > Heinrich

Now that we know who Heinrich and Elisabeth are, we are ready to make several enlightening observations.

1. Comparing Heinrich’s Grandma entry with Elisabeth’s, we note that Elisabeth has information that is not provided in Heinrich’s Grandma entry: the names of his father and mother. However, we know the names of Heinrich’s father and mother, namely, Heinrich and Aganetha, so we can now supply that information to the Grandma database.

2. A second point worth noting is that Elisabeth was married twice, first to Heinrich Buller and then to Heinrich Ratzlaff. Looking up at Heinrich’s entry, we see that he passed away sometime in 1915 (or thereabouts). Grandma does not know precisely when or where, but 1915 is a fair deduction from the available evidence.

3. What jumps out of Elisabeth’s entry is where she died: Miloradovka, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. That is a long way from Molotschna colony, and it begs for explanation.

The distance from Molotschna colony (star) to Miloradovka, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan (red pin) is nearly 2,500 miles.

A hint is found in the Buller Family Record, which reports: “After David Buller had died, Mrs. Buller [David Buller’s second wife, whose name is unknown] together with son Heinrich and family, moved to Siberia, Russia, where both also died. Mrs. Buller reached an age of 98 years.”

The term Siberia refers to the vast region of Russia stretching across the north, and it was often used to refer to modern Kazakhstan. Thus, one might rephrase the BFR note more precisely as follows: David Buller’s widow and Heinrich 1 and his family migrated east several thousand miles to establish (or join) a Mennonite colony in central Asia.

Determining when this migration took place is difficult, but a preliminary guess might be sometime after Heinrich 2 passed away (ca. 1915) and Elisabeth married Heinrich Ratzlaff (1917). Ratzlaff was born and raised in Waldheim (see Grandma 73185), so it makes sense that Heinrich Ratzlaff married the widow Elisabeth while both resided in Waldheim and then migrated to Kazakhstan along with the rest of Elisabeth’s former family by marriage. But that is nothing more than a guess awaiting further evidence. (Some additional Rundschau letters currently on order may well shed further light on the Bullers in Pavlodar.)

In any event, Grandma reports that Heinrich Ratzlaff died in the Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan in 1937, and Elisabeth passed away nearly thirty years later in the same locale.

Although none of this has any direct relevance for our particular branch of the family tree, we now understand better what the Buller Family Record means when it reports that David’s widow and son Heinrich moved east after his death. When and why they moved must remain a mystery for the time being.

Work Consulted

Podoprigora, Yulia I. 2012.  The Formation and Development of the Mennonite Congregations in Kazakhstan: From the End of the Nineteenth Century to the Early Twenty First Century. Journal of Mennonite Studies 30:37–44.

The death of David Buller recap

The four Rundschau letters that Glenn Penner provided to us not only raised significant questions and opened new avenues for exploration but also provided important information on our earliest known ancestor, David Buller. To ensure that we do not lose sight of several crucial trees within this forest of information (to turn that popular saying on its head), this post recaps the vital conclusions to which the Rundschau leads us.

1. David Buller died on 12 November 1904, not 25 September of the same year, as the Buller Family Record states.

2. His death followed an illness of six days’ length.

3. David was buried (presumably in Waldheim) on 16 November, four days after his death.

4. If the dates of death and burial are given according to the Julian calendar, then David died on 25 November and was buried on 29 November according to our (Gregorian) calendar.

5. David lived to an age of 86 years and 10 months, which means that he was actually born sometime in January of 1818, not November of 1817, as the BFR has it.

Because all these conclusions are based on contemporary evidence (letters written within a few days to several months after the events reported), they can be considered as certain as any historical fact may be. The Rundschau letters also contained additional information related to David’s family.

1. David had a sister who married into the Johann Ratzlaff family. The Buller–Ratzlaff connection is mentioned and elaborated upon by Heinrich Buller and Anna Ratzlaff, which may enable us to draw lines between the people whom each one mentions.

2. David’s son Heinrich married a woman named Aganetha, and they had a son named Heinrich.

3. Heinrich the son of Heinrich and Aganetha married Elisabeth Unruh in Waldheim on 19 February 1906.

Each of these trails merits investigation, which we will undertake in due course. For now, we end with a tantalizing lead from the Grandma database.