Dear List members, A new web site has been created to help researchers order new Family Books, as they are made available. You will find a list of the family books which are currently available (as far as we know, at this time), with contact information for ordering. Please visit http://www.banatbooks.com/ You will also find information on the upcoming book for Heufeld-Massdorf 1895-1944, which is with the printer now. It will be available in a few weeks. With best regards, --Karen Preston

Hello All, I have been working, with the help of ex-Setschanfeld villagers, to compile a list of all the residents that were living in Setschanfeld prior to 1944. According to the 1931 census, there were 730+ Germans living in Setschanfeld, although I have only been able to document approximately 620. I am looking for people that are familiar with the village and the people that were living there directly prior to the Russians and Partisans arrival that would be willing to look at the chart and map, and be able to offer additions of those not listed. If there is anyone on the list that knows of anyone that has knowledge of the people living in Setschanfeld and would be willing to offer some assistance, I would really appreciate it if you would pass their names on to me. Thanks so much! Amy Nichols

Hi, I haven't posted in a long time, but this thread caught my attention. I am a PhD candidate who is working on a thesis that investigates the experiences of ethnic German immigrants in Canada. I am also the grand daughter of Donauschwaben immigrants. I joined this list a very long time ago because of my personal and academic interest in the history of the Donauschwaben. 1) On the issue of the term Donauschwaben: Prior to WWII, the Habsburg colonists and their descendents were simply called Schwaben, Ungarlaendish (Hungarian) Schwaben or more regional terms like Banater Schwaben. Most sources agree that the word Donauschwaben was first used in the early 1922, they diverge on its origins. In The Danube Swabians in the Pannonian Basin Anton Tafferner et al. claim that Austrian geographer Roberts Sieger invented the word in order to differentiate between the Schwaben of southeastern Europe from those in the Schwaben area of Germany. In Between Hitler and Tito Zoran Janjtovic contends instead that Hermann Ruediger, also an Austrian Geographer, coined the term because Ungarlaendish Schwaben no longer adequately described the group after the break up of Austria-Hungary. I think Professor G.C. Paikert also had something to say about this debate in The Danube Swabians, but I don't have the book on hand and can't look it up. See below for full citations. 2) On the issue of scholarly versus non scholarly sources: As an academic, I draw on both scholarly and non-scholarly sources in my research. I don't think one is necessarily "better" than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and must be analyzed differently. For instance, as an academic I must be careful when using non-scholarly sources because they may not be as meticulously researched as academic works. They may use evidence that academics would consider suspect, not use evidence at all, or take their evidence at face value and present it uncritically. Note that I use the word "may" here. There are some very well researched non-scholarly works out there. Sometimes the only difference between two is they type of content. For instance, non-scholarly histories tend to provide a historical narrative about a particular event, place or group of people whereas scholarly histories make arguments and provide a detailed analysis of the topic. Some types of non-scholarly books (such as memoirs and autobiographies) are also useful for academics as "primary sources." These types of books are based on the authors personal experiences. They may not be 100% accurate because memory is fallible and everyone had their own personal biases. However, they are useful as evidence in scholarly studies once they are analyzed for internal consistency and compared to other similar accounts to determine their accuracy. I have personally found the Donauschwaben memoirs and autobiographies invaluable in my research. Scholarly sources also have their own issues. They may be biased because they subscribe to a particular school of thought such as Marxist, Feminist or neo-Liberal. They might also be trying to prove a political point. Alfred M. De Zayas' books Nemesis at Potsdam and A Terrible Revenge come to mind. Both use the ethnic cleansing of Germans in Eastern Europe to advocate a particular set of political views related to human rights law. One thing that should be mentioned is that there is not a large scholarly literature on the Donauschwaben, particularly in the English language. If you restricted yourself solely scholarly sources, you would run out of them quite quickly. The scholarly works on the Donauschwaben tend to be outdated. The best study on the Donauschwaben in English remains G.C. Paikert's The Danube Swabians. It was published in the 1960s and does not reflect major advances in method and analysis that subsequently occurred in the social sciences and humanities. Best regards, Rebecca Strung PhD Candidate McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario P.S. Below is an annotated Biliography of the sources mentioned in this email: Alfred M. De Zayas. Nemesis at Postdam: The Anglo Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans. Background, Execution, Consequences. (London, Henley & Boston, 1977). • The most scholarly of De Zayas' studies. Written during the Vietnam war, this book attempted to use the example of the expulsion to influence American foreign policy. Despite the political bent, this book is generally well researched and the arguments meet scholarly standards. Alfred M. De Zayas. A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944 – 1950. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. • By the time De Zayas wrote this book he had become a human rights activist and was no longer interested in objective scholarship at this point. In particular, this book contains a lot of uncritically presented eye-witness testimony designed to shock the reader. It was intended for a popular audience and falls short of scholarly standards. Frey, Katherine Stenger: The Danube Swabians: A People With Portable Roots. Mika Publishing Company. Belleville, Ontario, 1982. •A good quality amateur source. For most of the book, the author draws on existing books on the Donauschwaben and her own personal experiences. It contains some new research on the Donauschwaben experience in Canada culled from personal memories, interviews, and the documents of ethnic organizations. The author does not provide much analysis of her topic and tends to use her sources uncritically. Janjetovic, Zoran . Between Hitler and Tito: The Disappearance of the Vojvodina Germans. Belgrade, 2002. • Janjetovic is one of the best scholarly sources on the disappearance of the ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia. His works are extremely balanced and objective despite the controversial nature of the topic. Paikert, G. C. The Danube Swabians: German Populations in Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia and Hitler’s Impact on their Patterns, Gunther Bayer, ed. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967) • Paikert was a Professor and former Hungarian civil servant. The book is meticulously researched but his methods and analysis are outdated. His works also tend to have a bit of a Magyar bias. This study nonetheless remains the best monograph on the Donauschwaben in the English language. Tafferner, Anton, Josef Schmidt, and Josef Senz. The Danube Swabians in the Pannonian Basin, A New Ethnic German Group. (New Berlin, Wisconsin: Danube Swabian Assocation, USA, Inc, 1982), 2. • Tafferner is an example of a meticulously researched non-scholarly source. It does not have the sort of analysis you would expect in a scholarly source, but remains an excellent source of information. It's also a bit on the short side. On 2010-08-09, at 10:12 PM, Rosina T Schmidt wrote: > > Hello Cornell, > > Let's agree that we disagree when it comes to calling ourselves 'Banaters'. > That would be only correct for those people who were actually born or live > in Banat, as a New Yorker is a New Yorker if he was born there or lives > there. What's his ethnicity? New Yorker??? Besides there were people of > different ethnicity living in Banat as well, like Hungarians, Serbs, > Croatians, Slovaks, Walachians, Rumanians, and others. They were also > 'Banaters'. > > Ethnically speaking we have ethnic German roots, but not ethnic Banat roots, > as there is no such a thing. There are all kinds of ethnic Germans, as we > discussed it on this worthy list so many times, like the Russian-Germans, > Bohemian-Germans, Siebenburger Sachsen, Burgunder etc., etc., and us, the > Donauschwaben. While some claim that we are German-Hungarians, I beg to > differ, than my Donauschwaben clan moved from Hungary in 1865 south to > Slavonia or what is now Croatia, so for the 700,000 ethnic Germans of Danube > Swabian roots in what used to be Yugoslavia the Hungarian-Germans name is of > course wrong. You can't call us the Yugoslavian-Germans also, as there were > other ethnic German groups there before our tribe purchased farms in that > corner of the woods. Actually Pannonian Plains, not woods. > > If I recall correctly the name Donauschwaben (Danube Swabians) was coined in > 1935. Today in ex-Yugoslavia they call us Podunavski Schwabe, and I beg > Boglarka and Sorin to tell us the correct name for our ethnic German group > in Hungary and Romania. > > More on DS history: > http://www.hrastovac.net/historical/Danube-Swabian-History.htm. The SIX > Danube Swabian areas were settled during the same period of settlement by > the Habsburgs, no matter if it was in Sathmar, Batschka, Syrmia, Banat, > Swabian Turkey or Ofner Bergland. > > See you all in Mt. Angel, where we will learn some more about our > fascinating DS history! > > Rosina > www.hrastovac.net > > > > > > > > This post is addressed to the so called experts, > as well as those list-members who are trying to learn about your background. > > Unless a statement, opinion, answer to a > question (or whatever you wish to call it) is > accompanied by a refereed scholarly source, it is > just a statement, an opinion and in all to many > cases, a guess that in most probability is > incorrect. In all likelihood such statements > made by the experts on this list lead you astray > if they do not tell you who offered the > information. Typically you need the authors full > name, title of the book, article or scholarly > work, its publisher, town of publication and the > year of publication. If you really want to be > sure you need more than one source to learn the truth. > > This applies to the name "of who we are" and to > every detail thereafter. We are not > Donauschwaben. In fact, none of us are as > such. We are either Banaters or descendants from > the other areas in the immediate area of the > Banat. To lump the seven areas together because > that makes a bigger group has no value nor > significants. The number of us still remains > insignificant. The different areas had different > costumes and histories, background and so > forth. You do not get the true picture with a broad paintbrush. > > The recent discussions of a name, is an excellent > example. Now, I know I can't influence the so > called experts from continuing to sound like they > know everything. But you, as listeners need to > be able to discriminate between truth and > fiction. You really should look in the > literature for true answers. I am not saying > that the exchange of information in the > Familienbooks isn't valuable but even then you > take a chance that the transcriber makes an > error. I know assumptions, a fancy name for > guessing, is prevalent on this list. Believe me > I am an expert in a very small slice of knowledge > and I try to stay within my area of > expertise. Can you believe 100% of what you find > in the published literature? No, you need to > review the literature to determine what one group > is stating, where that group is coming from and > what other scholars have to say. Typically you > find believers, disbelievers or attractors and > distractors and people who say: "Show me the > facts so that I can form an educated conclusion > on which group is correct." Again, the recent > name discussion beautifully illustrates that point. > > Peace and please let us not rush to making > statements when we do not have all the > facts. What is true in the Serbian Banat, by the > way is not true for the Romanian Banat. And, by > the I won't get into the discussion of Hungary.... > > I do not want to see any flames... But, please > think when you read... And read published > material and not only quick replies on this list... > Oh, yes, there is periodically wonderful material > available on this list and thanks to Steve for doing an excellent job. > > > Peace, > Cornell > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well said Rebecca. All sources have something to offer and all must be considered critically. Glenn Schwartz President, Zichydorf Village Association (http://zichydorfonline.org) Searching: Schwartz, Kleckner, Schönherr in Zichydorf, Banat; Schüssler, Millecker, Lenhardt in Kudritz, Banat; Bardua, Kandel, Heuchert in Kolomea, Galicia; Kuntz, Holzer, Kraft, Wolfe, Folk (Volk) in Kutschurgan, Russia; Macht in Volga, Russia. Email: gschwartz@accesscomm.ca On 8/10/2010 11:17 AM, Rebecca Strung wrote: > Hi, > > I haven't posted in a long time, but this thread caught my attention. I am a PhD candidate who is working on a thesis that investigates the experiences of ethnic German immigrants in Canada. I am also the grand daughter of Donauschwaben immigrants. I joined this list a very long time ago because of my personal and academic interest in the history of the Donauschwaben. > > 1) On the issue of the term Donauschwaben: > > Prior to WWII, the Habsburg colonists and their descendents were simply called Schwaben, Ungarlaendish (Hungarian) Schwaben or more regional terms like Banater Schwaben. Most sources agree that the word Donauschwaben was first used in the early 1922, they diverge on its origins. In The Danube Swabians in the Pannonian Basin Anton Tafferner et al. claim that Austrian geographer Roberts Sieger invented the word in order to differentiate between the Schwaben of southeastern Europe from those in the Schwaben area of Germany. In Between Hitler and Tito Zoran Janjtovic contends instead that Hermann Ruediger, also an Austrian Geographer, coined the term because Ungarlaendish Schwaben no longer adequately described the group after the break up of Austria-Hungary. I think Professor G.C. Paikert also had something to say about this debate in The Danube Swabians, but I don't have the book on hand and can't look it up. See below for full citations. > > 2) On the issue of scholarly versus non scholarly sources: > > As an academic, I draw on both scholarly and non-scholarly sources in my research. I don't think one is necessarily "better" than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and must be analyzed differently. For instance, as an academic I must be careful when using non-scholarly sources because they may not be as meticulously researched as academic works. They may use evidence that academics would consider suspect, not use evidence at all, or take their evidence at face value and present it uncritically. Note that I use the word "may" here. There are some very well researched non-scholarly works out there. Sometimes the only difference between two is they type of content. For instance, non-scholarly histories tend to provide a historical narrative about a particular event, place or group of people whereas scholarly histories make arguments and provide a detailed analysis of the topic. > > Some types of non-scholarly books (such as memoirs and autobiographies) are also useful for academics as "primary sources." These types of books are based on the authors personal experiences. They may not be 100% accurate because memory is fallible and everyone had their own personal biases. However, they are useful as evidence in scholarly studies once they are analyzed for internal consistency and compared to other similar accounts to determine their accuracy. I have personally found the Donauschwaben memoirs and autobiographies invaluable in my research. > > Scholarly sources also have their own issues. They may be biased because they subscribe to a particular school of thought such as Marxist, Feminist or neo-Liberal. They might also be trying to prove a political point. Alfred M. De Zayas' books Nemesis at Potsdam and A Terrible Revenge come to mind. Both use the ethnic cleansing of Germans in Eastern Europe to advocate a particular set of political views related to human rights law. > > One thing that should be mentioned is that there is not a large scholarly literature on the Donauschwaben, particularly in the English language. If you restricted yourself solely scholarly sources, you would run out of them quite quickly. The scholarly works on the Donauschwaben tend to be outdated. The best study on the Donauschwaben in English remains G.C. Paikert's The Danube Swabians. It was published in the 1960s and does not reflect major advances in method and analysis that subsequently occurred in the social sciences and humanities. > > > Best regards, > > Rebecca Strung > PhD Candidate > McMaster University > Hamilton, Ontario > > > P.S. Below is an annotated Biliography of the sources mentioned in this email: > > Alfred M. De Zayas. Nemesis at Postdam: The Anglo Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans. Background, Execution, Consequences. (London, Henley& Boston, 1977). > • The most scholarly of De Zayas' studies. Written during the Vietnam war, this book attempted to use the example of the expulsion to influence American foreign policy. Despite the political bent, this book is generally well researched and the arguments meet scholarly standards. > > Alfred M. De Zayas. A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944 – 1950. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. > • By the time De Zayas wrote this book he had become a human rights activist and was no longer interested in objective scholarship at this point. In particular, this book contains a lot of uncritically presented eye-witness testimony designed to shock the reader. It was intended for a popular audience and falls short of scholarly standards. > > Frey, Katherine Stenger: The Danube Swabians: A People With Portable Roots. Mika Publishing Company. Belleville, Ontario, 1982. > •A good quality amateur source. For most of the book, the author draws on existing books on the Donauschwaben and her own personal experiences. It contains some new research on the Donauschwaben experience in Canada culled from personal memories, interviews, and the documents of ethnic organizations. The author does not provide much analysis of her topic and tends to use her sources uncritically. > > Janjetovic, Zoran . Between Hitler and Tito: The Disappearance of the Vojvodina Germans. Belgrade, 2002. > • Janjetovic is one of the best scholarly sources on the disappearance of the ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia. His works are extremely balanced and objective despite the controversial nature of the topic. > > Paikert, G. C. The Danube Swabians: German Populations in Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia and Hitler’s Impact on their Patterns, Gunther Bayer, ed. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967) > • Paikert was a Professor and former Hungarian civil servant. The book is meticulously researched but his methods and analysis are outdated. His works also tend to have a bit of a Magyar bias. This study nonetheless remains the best monograph on the Donauschwaben in the English language. > > Tafferner, Anton, Josef Schmidt, and Josef Senz. The Danube Swabians in the Pannonian Basin, A New Ethnic German Group. (New Berlin, Wisconsin: Danube Swabian Assocation, USA, Inc, 1982), 2. > • Tafferner is an example of a meticulously researched non-scholarly source. It does not have the sort of analysis you would expect in a scholarly source, but remains an excellent source of information. It's also a bit on the short side. > > > On 2010-08-09, at 10:12 PM, Rosina T Schmidt wrote: > >> >> Hello Cornell, >> >> Let's agree that we disagree when it comes to calling ourselves 'Banaters'. >> That would be only correct for those people who were actually born or live >> in Banat, as a New Yorker is a New Yorker if he was born there or lives >> there. What's his ethnicity? New Yorker??? Besides there were people of >> different ethnicity living in Banat as well, like Hungarians, Serbs, >> Croatians, Slovaks, Walachians, Rumanians, and others. They were also >> 'Banaters'. >> >> Ethnically speaking we have ethnic German roots, but not ethnic Banat roots, >> as there is no such a thing. There are all kinds of ethnic Germans, as we >> discussed it on this worthy list so many times, like the Russian-Germans, >> Bohemian-Germans, Siebenburger Sachsen, Burgunder etc., etc., and us, the >> Donauschwaben. While some claim that we are German-Hungarians, I beg to >> differ, than my Donauschwaben clan moved from Hungary in 1865 south to >> Slavonia or what is now Croatia, so for the 700,000 ethnic Germans of Danube >> Swabian roots in what used to be Yugoslavia the Hungarian-Germans name is of >> course wrong. You can't call us the Yugoslavian-Germans also, as there were >> other ethnic German groups there before our tribe purchased farms in that >> corner of the woods. Actually Pannonian Plains, not woods. >> >> If I recall correctly the name Donauschwaben (Danube Swabians) was coined in >> 1935. Today in ex-Yugoslavia they call us Podunavski Schwabe, and I beg >> Boglarka and Sorin to tell us the correct name for our ethnic German group >> in Hungary and Romania. >> >> More on DS history: >> http://www.hrastovac.net/historical/Danube-Swabian-History.htm. The SIX >> Danube Swabian areas were settled during the same period of settlement by >> the Habsburgs, no matter if it was in Sathmar, Batschka, Syrmia, Banat, >> Swabian Turkey or Ofner Bergland. >> >> See you all in Mt. Angel, where we will learn some more about our >> fascinating DS history! >> >> Rosina >> www.hrastovac.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This post is addressed to the so called experts, >> as well as those list-members who are trying to learn about your background. >> >> Unless a statement, opinion, answer to a >> question (or whatever you wish to call it) is >> accompanied by a refereed scholarly source, it is >> just a statement, an opinion and in all to many >> cases, a guess that in most probability is >> incorrect. In all likelihood such statements >> made by the experts on this list lead you astray >> if they do not tell you who offered the >> information. Typically you need the authors full >> name, title of the book, article or scholarly >> work, its publisher, town of publication and the >> year of publication. If you really want to be >> sure you need more than one source to learn the truth. >> >> This applies to the name "of who we are" and to >> every detail thereafter. We are not >> Donauschwaben. In fact, none of us are as >> such. We are either Banaters or descendants from >> the other areas in the immediate area of the >> Banat. To lump the seven areas together because >> that makes a bigger group has no value nor >> significants. The number of us still remains >> insignificant. The different areas had different >> costumes and histories, background and so >> forth. You do not get the true picture with a broad paintbrush. >> >> The recent discussions of a name, is an excellent >> example. Now, I know I can't influence the so >> called experts from continuing to sound like they >> know everything. But you, as listeners need to >> be able to discriminate between truth and >> fiction. You really should look in the >> literature for true answers. I am not saying >> that the exchange of information in the >> Familienbooks isn't valuable but even then you >> take a chance that the transcriber makes an >> error. I know assumptions, a fancy name for >> guessing, is prevalent on this list. Believe me >> I am an expert in a very small slice of knowledge >> and I try to stay within my area of >> expertise. Can you believe 100% of what you find >> in the published literature? No, you need to >> review the literature to determine what one group >> is stating, where that group is coming from and >> what other scholars have to say. Typically you >> find believers, disbelievers or attractors and >> distractors and people who say: "Show me the >> facts so that I can form an educated conclusion >> on which group is correct." Again, the recent >> name discussion beautifully illustrates that point. >> >> Peace and please let us not rush to making >> statements when we do not have all the >> facts. What is true in the Serbian Banat, by the >> way is not true for the Romanian Banat. And, by >> the I won't get into the discussion of Hungary.... >> >> I do not want to see any flames... But, please >> think when you read... And read published >> material and not only quick replies on this list... >> Oh, yes, there is periodically wonderful material >> available on this list and thanks to Steve for doing an excellent job. >> >> >> Peace, >> Cornell >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Rebecca, thanks for this explanation of how scholarly works vs other resources are used. My problem with it in the past has been a bias that said I could use only scholarly works at times. If I could talk to people who had first hand experience, I couldn't use them as resources because they were not scholars or scholarly. It is reasonable to explain who one interviewed and say what they reported to you, and that has value or else nobody would have history. I have found several problems with using scholarly resources. One is that all of us do not have equal access to them. I suppose students pay to be students and so they have better access to resources than those who don't. I'm okay with paying for access to scholarly journals if I am allowed to do so. Flip that around and if I have information that only academics would be interested in, I can't get it published without Somebody PhD putting their name on it, on top of mine. Another problem is that at times scholars do embellish their work. I hope that's rare, but it has happened. They tend to have very strong interests in getting published, and they have been known to give in to the temptation to embellish at times. Then there is bad writing. I know that use of elevated language can be impressive to some people, but it's annoying to others and it can obscure the message. I'll give you an example. I took a class on Stalin, and one required book was a history of Russia by Robert Service. It was a very, very pricey paperback, and it was awful. I happened to be walking along the isles in Borders one day and I saw a similar sized book on the same topic, also by Robert Service. It cost only $20, and I bought it and used it instead. I enjoyed that book very much. I compared the two books because when I had to cite anything, I had to cite it to the text book version, and the "popular history" I'd call it, had the same content as that scholarly book. It was just written what I would call better. My final problem is the cost of scholarly materials. Text books are very, very expensive. They are often just secondhand accounts of something or other, we hope checked for accuracy as you mention, and they are paperback. Not only do we pay in some cases $75 or more for a scholarly paperback, but as soon as there are enough of used ones on the market, they change to another edition without necessarily significantly changing the content . Often it seems that page numbers are different and not much, if anything, else. Now, I admit I have a big bias here. I have had it with academia, generally speaking. The cost of education goes up and up and often the level of education required to get some certification or license isn't really needed to do the job one gets well. For example, one needs at least a masters degree and a license now to do intakes at a mental health agency. That's ridiculous, not to mention more expensive for the agency and the clients. I do respect anyone who can get through it all and get a higher degree, just because they could stick it out and put up with the system and do it, nevermind all the expense and work. At the same time, I believe higher education has become big business and it is in many instances operating like the old trade guilds that started up during the Renaissance in Florence. I don't like that part of it. Well, all of that said, congratulations on being a PhD candidate, Rebecca! Seriously, that is wonderful and I hope you always find your work rewarding. There are tremendous opportunities out there for you. One question I would have is whether the experience of German immigrants to Canada differed from that of those who came to the USA and if so how. I imagine it even differed significantly by region within one country. For example, my family thought it was so important to speak English in the USA, evidently due to some anti-German bias or other, that they saw to it that I didn't even learn the German language at home. Did that tend to happen in Canada also? My mother wasn't allowed to start school in the US until she was 8 years old because her English wasn't good enough. Now things are different, and the State here gets sued by the Feds if it doesn't provide adequate TESOL instruction for students. BTW that frustrates me too, as I am good at teaching people to speak and read English, but to get into the school system to do it, I would have to take years to get a degree and become a certified teacher. Go on! I'd do it as a volunteer right now if I could, and save the State some money. Phew! Thanks for listening to my rant...anyone who got this far. Susan M  --- On Tue, 8/10/10, Rebecca Strung <rebeccastrung@rogers.com> wrote: From: Rebecca Strung <rebeccastrung@rogers.com> Subject: Re: [BANAT-L] Not Banaters but Danube Swabians To: "Banat List" <BANAT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, August 10, 2010, 10:17 AM Hi, I haven't posted in a long time, but this thread caught my attention. I am a PhD candidate who is working on a thesis that investigates the experiences of ethnic German immigrants in Canada. I am also the grand daughter of Donauschwaben immigrants. I joined this list a very long time ago because of my personal and academic interest in the history of the Donauschwaben.

The Lugosch family book by Edgar Aldag and published by the AVBF in 2006 has been out of print for several years. It has now been transfered to digital format and released as a CD by the AVBF. The book covers the years 1721-1791 and is important because Lugosch was one of the earliest places in the Banat settled by Germans as well as an important administrative center. The price of the CD is 20 Euro plus postage. To order contact; In Europe Philipp Lung at philipp.lung@t-online.de In North America David Dreyer at ddreyer@pacbell.net

The Lugosch family book by Edgar Aldag and published by the AVBF in 2006 has been out of print for several years. It has now been transfered to digital format and released as a CD by the AVBF. The book covers the years 1721-1791 and is important because Lugosch was one of the earliest places in the Banat settled by Germans as well as an important administrative center. The price of the CD is 20 Euro plus postage. To order contact; In Europe Philipp Lung at philipp.lung@t-online.de In North America David Dreyer at ddreyer@pacbell.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Philipp Lung To: Aldag Edgar ; k.degrell@osnanet.de ; Preston Karen ; ri_zahner51@yahoo.de ; Willer Philippe ; Türk Nikolaus ; Reiter , Achim ; Pfeifauf, Anna ; Neff Anton ; Michels Joschi gmx ; Lorenz Anni ; Leitl, Marco ; Krisch Willi ; Erich Josef Dr. Kleinfelder ; Kilzheimer Erwin ; Kaiser Helmut ; Hornung Anton ; Horn Nikolaus ; Harle Richard ; Geier Moni + Werner ; Egler Mathias (Ban) ; Egert Roswitha ; Dreyer Dave ; Buch Johann ; Block, Martin ; Benz Karl ; Annau Elisabeth ; Ankner Hans (Ban) Cc: Lung Philipp Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:10 AM Subject: Banater Familienbücher Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Veröffentlichung Banater Familienbücher - AVBF In der Reihe Banater Familienbücher können wir wieder etwas Neues vorstellen: Das Familienbuch der Stadt Lugosch im Banat, mit seinen vielfältigen Herkunftsangaben ist seit längerer Zeit vergriffen. Aufgrund anhaltender Nachfragen haben wir nun mit Erlaubnis des Autors Edgar Aldag eine CD seines Werkes herausgebracht. Preis: ? 20,- zzgl. Versandkosten Bezug: Europa: E-mail: philipp.lung@t-online.de Übersee: E-Mail: ddreyer@pacbell.net Übersee Mit besten Grüßen Philipp Lung / AVBF

I remember how upset was my mother, who was a TOTH, when I said to her that she is of Slavic origin ... :-))) S o r i n http://www.genealogy.ro/contributions.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boglarka Lazar" To: "'Rosina T Schmidt'" "'Banat List'" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 Subject: Re: [BANAT-L] Horvath HORVÁTH is what Croatians are called in Hungarian. Not in Croatian, not in German, not in Jiddish or Chinese. Therefore it is a Hungarian name. One of the most common ones. Such as TÓTH which means Slovak. In Hungarian. Croatian people are still called HORVÁT (without the H), and the country is Horvátország but, interestingly the original meaning of TÓT, TÓTH got forgotten, and now it is just a name. Boglárka

Rosina, please. HORVÁTH is what Croatians are called in Hungarian. Not in Croatian, not in German, not in Jiddish or Chinese. Therefore it is a Hungarian name. One of the most common ones. Such as TÓTH which means Slovak. In Hungarian. Croatian people are still called HORVÁT (without the H), and the country is Horvátország but, interestingly the original meaning of TÓT, TÓTH got forgotten, and now it is just a name. Boglárka -----Original Message----- From: banat-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:banat-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Rosina T Schmidt Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 18:33 To: Banat List Subject: [BANAT-L] Horvath Hello Horvath Researchers, The name HORVATH translates in to HRVAT, which in English language stands for CROATIAN and therefore is NOT a Hungarian name. However, there were many Horvath/Hrvat/Croatians living in Austro-Hungary and prior to that in the Austrian Empire. Rosina www.hrastovac.net > Sorin; > When I first started Banat research I was bothered by the Hungarian > surnames > which popped up in the German community from time to time. But now I have > grown to accept that some individuals were integrated and some of these > people grew to be an accepted part of that German society. I assume that > intermarriage although probably infrequent increased in later years and > that > the German community was not as introverted as I had been lead to believe > . > I have difficulty in identifying Romanian surnames but I assume mixing > occurred to a similar degree with the German community and Craig's example > is a case in point. > Such a integration appears also to have happened along the German Polish > boarder over a longer period to account for the frequent occurrence of > Polish surnames in Germany. > Clearly, Lorenz Horvath, was one of these Hungarians who was a solid > member > of the German community. Perhaps he was born into it. Trickier for an > outsider like myself it is hard to pick up and identify Germans who became > Magyarized and adopted a Hungarian surname. This appears mostly to have > occurred among professionals who wanted to be accepted by the Hungarian > authorities. > I would argue that Philipp Lung did not consciously omit Lorenz Horvath > from > the D Etschka family book since there are a bunch of other Horvath > families > listed. This is not to say Romanians, Hungarian or Serbs didn't get > omitted > from other family books from time to time. > Dave Dreyer ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3059 - Release Date: 08/08/10 19:57:00

Well, actually, it is quite a Hungarian name! If the bearer of the name is [or not!] of slavic origin, is quite debatable [like in the case of the TOTH family name]. Best Regards, S o r i n http://www.genealogy.ro/contributions.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosina T Schmidt" To: "Banat List" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 Subject: [BANAT-L] Horvath > The name HORVATH translates in to HRVAT, which in English language stands > for CROATIAN and therefore is NOT a Hungarian name.

If somebody is willing to make o lock-up in the Deutsch Zerne Familienbuch, please contact me privately. Thank You, S o r i n

Hello Cornell, Let's agree that we disagree when it comes to calling ourselves 'Banaters'. That would be only correct for those people who were actually born or live in Banat, as a New Yorker is a New Yorker if he was born there or lives there. What's his ethnicity? New Yorker??? Besides there were people of different ethnicity living in Banat as well, like Hungarians, Serbs, Croatians, Slovaks, Walachians, Rumanians, and others. They were also 'Banaters'. Ethnically speaking we have ethnic German roots, but not ethnic Banat roots, as there is no such a thing. There are all kinds of ethnic Germans, as we discussed it on this worthy list so many times, like the Russian-Germans, Bohemian-Germans, Siebenburger Sachsen, Burgunder etc., etc., and us, the Donauschwaben. While some claim that we are German-Hungarians, I beg to differ, than my Donauschwaben clan moved from Hungary in 1865 south to Slavonia or what is now Croatia, so for the 700,000 ethnic Germans of Danube Swabian roots in what used to be Yugoslavia the Hungarian-Germans name is of course wrong. You can't call us the Yugoslavian-Germans also, as there were other ethnic German groups there before our tribe purchased farms in that corner of the woods. Actually Pannonian Plains, not woods. If I recall correctly the name Donauschwaben (Danube Swabians) was coined in 1935. Today in ex-Yugoslavia they call us Podunavski Schwabe, and I beg Boglarka and Sorin to tell us the correct name for our ethnic German group in Hungary and Romania. More on DS history: http://www.hrastovac.net/historical/Danube-Swabian-History.htm. The SIX Danube Swabian areas were settled during the same period of settlement by the Habsburgs, no matter if it was in Sathmar, Batschka, Syrmia, Banat, Swabian Turkey or Ofner Bergland. See you all in Mt. Angel, where we will learn some more about our fascinating DS history! Rosina www.hrastovac.net This post is addressed to the so called experts, as well as those list-members who are trying to learn about your background. Unless a statement, opinion, answer to a question (or whatever you wish to call it) is accompanied by a refereed scholarly source, it is just a statement, an opinion and in all to many cases, a guess that in most probability is incorrect. In all likelihood such statements made by the experts on this list lead you astray if they do not tell you who offered the information. Typically you need the authors full name, title of the book, article or scholarly work, its publisher, town of publication and the year of publication. If you really want to be sure you need more than one source to learn the truth. This applies to the name "of who we are" and to every detail thereafter. We are not Donauschwaben. In fact, none of us are as such. We are either Banaters or descendants from the other areas in the immediate area of the Banat. To lump the seven areas together because that makes a bigger group has no value nor significants. The number of us still remains insignificant. The different areas had different costumes and histories, background and so forth. You do not get the true picture with a broad paintbrush. The recent discussions of a name, is an excellent example. Now, I know I can't influence the so called experts from continuing to sound like they know everything. But you, as listeners need to be able to discriminate between truth and fiction. You really should look in the literature for true answers. I am not saying that the exchange of information in the Familienbooks isn't valuable but even then you take a chance that the transcriber makes an error. I know assumptions, a fancy name for guessing, is prevalent on this list. Believe me I am an expert in a very small slice of knowledge and I try to stay within my area of expertise. Can you believe 100% of what you find in the published literature? No, you need to review the literature to determine what one group is stating, where that group is coming from and what other scholars have to say. Typically you find believers, disbelievers or attractors and distractors and people who say: "Show me the facts so that I can form an educated conclusion on which group is correct." Again, the recent name discussion beautifully illustrates that point. Peace and please let us not rush to making statements when we do not have all the facts. What is true in the Serbian Banat, by the way is not true for the Romanian Banat. And, by the I won't get into the discussion of Hungary.... I do not want to see any flames... But, please think when you read... And read published material and not only quick replies on this list... Oh, yes, there is periodically wonderful material available on this list and thanks to Steve for doing an excellent job. Peace, Cornell

This post is addressed to the so called experts, as well as those list-members who are trying to learn about your background. Unless a statement, opinion, answer to a question (or whatever you wish to call it) is accompanied by a refereed scholarly source, it is just a statement, an opinion and in all to many cases, a guess that in most probability is incorrect. In all likelihood such statements made by the experts on this list lead you astray if they do not tell you who offered the information. Typically you need the authors full name, title of the book, article or scholarly work, its publisher, town of publication and the year of publication. If you really want to be sure you need more than one source to learn the truth. This applies to the name "of who we are" and to every detail thereafter. We are not Donauschwaben. In fact, none of us are as such. We are either Banaters or descendants from the other areas in the immediate area of the Banat. To lump the seven areas together because that makes a bigger group has no value nor significants. The number of us still remains insignificant. The different areas had different costumes and histories, background and so forth. You do not get the true picture with a broad paintbrush. The recent discussions of a name, is an excellent example. Now, I know I can't influence the so called experts from continuing to sound like they know everything. But you, as listeners need to be able to discriminate between truth and fiction. You really should look in the literature for true answers. I am not saying that the exchange of information in the Familienbooks isn't valuable but even then you take a chance that the transcriber makes an error. I know assumptions, a fancy name for guessing, is prevalent on this list. Believe me I am an expert in a very small slice of knowledge and I try to stay within my area of expertise. Can you believe 100% of what you find in the published literature? No, you need to review the literature to determine what one group is stating, where that group is coming from and what other scholars have to say. Typically you find believers, disbelievers or attractors and distractors and people who say: "Show me the facts so that I can form an educated conclusion on which group is correct." Again, the recent name discussion beautifully illustrates that point. Peace and please let us not rush to making statements when we do not have all the facts. What is true in the Serbian Banat, by the way is not true for the Romanian Banat. And, by the I won't get into the discussion of Hungary.... I do not want to see any flames... But, please think when you read... And read published material and not only quick replies on this list... Oh, yes, there is periodically wonderful material available on this list and thanks to Steve for doing an excellent job. Peace, Cornell At 04:00 PM 8/9/2010, Boglarka Lazar wrote: >Rosina, please. HORVÁTH is what Croatians are called in Hungarian. Not in >Croatian, not in German, not in Jiddish or Chinese. Therefore it is a >Hungarian name. One of the most common ones. Such as TÓTH which means >Slovak. In Hungarian. > >Croatian people are still called HORVÁT (without the H), and the country is >Horvátország but, interestingly the original meaning of TÓT, TÓTH got >forgotten, and now it is just a name. > >Boglárka > > >-----Original Message----- >From: banat-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:banat-bounces@rootsweb.com] On >Behalf Of Rosina T Schmidt >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 18:33 >To: Banat List >Subject: [BANAT-L] Horvath > > >Hello Horvath Researchers, > >The name HORVATH translates in to HRVAT, which in English language stands >for CROATIAN and therefore is NOT a Hungarian name. > >However, there were many Horvath/Hrvat/Croatians living in Austro-Hungary >and prior to that in the Austrian Empire. > >Rosina >www.hrastovac.net > > > > > > > Sorin; > > When I first started Banat research I was bothered by the Hungarian > > surnames > > which popped up in the German community from time to time. But now I have > > grown to accept that some individuals were integrated and some of these > > people grew to be an accepted part of that German society. I assume that > > intermarriage although probably infrequent increased in later years and > > that > > the German community was not as introverted as I had been lead to believe > > . > > I have difficulty in identifying Romanian surnames but I assume mixing > > occurred to a similar degree with the German community and Craig's example > > is a case in point. > > Such a integration appears also to have happened along the German Polish > > boarder over a longer period to account for the frequent occurrence of > > Polish surnames in Germany. > > Clearly, Lorenz Horvath, was one of these Hungarians who was a solid > > member > > of the German community. Perhaps he was born into it. Trickier for an > > outsider like myself it is hard to pick up and identify Germans who became > > Magyarized and adopted a Hungarian surname. This appears mostly to have > > occurred among professionals who wanted to be accepted by the Hungarian > > authorities. > > I would argue that Philipp Lung did not consciously omit Lorenz Horvath > > from > > the D Etschka family book since there are a bunch of other Horvath > > families > > listed. This is not to say Romanians, Hungarian or Serbs didn't get > > omitted > > from other family books from time to time. > > Dave Dreyer > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >the subject and the body of the message >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3059 - Release Date: 08/08/10 >19:57:00 > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an >email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the >word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the >subject and the body of the message

IMHO we can't ever get at 100% the truth, or maybe even at anything we can call "the truth," about the distant past. If we can contact primary resources, people who were there or people who communicated with those who were there, that is very valuable. Sometimes it's people's impressions of the truth and feelings about it that give us a real feeling for how things were. At this point, I have a bias about scholarly works. They have value, no doubt. But I see no reason that they would have more value than other accounts of things. They are a piece of the puzzle IMHO and nothing more. In fact, you seem to point that out. I tend to shun anything scholarly at this point, in favor of people with more direct experience. I know, this will sound stupid to some people. But I'm just tired of scholars having a corner on the market of respect and credibility. I'm really tired of it. I wonder what would have happened if people like Richard Leaky and Jane Goodall started in the day when one had to have a PhD to do anything or to get published. I believe some started out without it but we aren't likely to get far without it anymore. Scholarly writers have biases too. I'm sorry I feel that way, but I do. Susan M   --- On Mon, 8/9/10, Dr. Cornell Frank Ph.D. <ccjrfrank@optonline.net> wrote: From: Dr. Cornell Frank Ph.D. <ccjrfrank@optonline.net> Subject: [BANAT-L] The TRUTH To: "'Banat List'" <BANAT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, August 9, 2010, 3:28 PM This post is addressed to the so called experts, as well as those list-members who are trying to learn about your background. Unless a statement, opinion, answer to a question  (or whatever you wish to call it) is accompanied by a refereed scholarly source, it is just a statement, an opinion and in all to many cases, a guess that in most probability is incorrect.  In all likelihood such statements made by the experts on this list lead you astray if they do not tell you who offered the information.  Typically you need the authors full name, title of the book, article or scholarly work, its publisher, town of publication and the year of publication.  If you really want to be sure you need more than one source to learn the truth. This applies to the name "of who we are" and to every detail thereafter.  We are not Donauschwaben.  In fact, none of us are as such.  We are either Banaters or descendants from the other areas in the immediate area of the Banat.  To lump the seven areas together because that makes a bigger group has no value nor significants.  The number of us still remains insignificant.  The different areas had different costumes and histories, background and so forth.  You do not get the true picture with a broad paintbrush. The recent discussions of a name, is an excellent example.  Now, I know I can't influence the so called experts from continuing to sound like they know everything.  But you, as listeners need to be able to discriminate between truth and fiction.  You really should look in the literature for true answers.  I am not saying that the exchange of information in the Familienbooks isn't valuable but even then you take a chance that the transcriber makes an error.  I know assumptions, a fancy name for guessing, is prevalent on this list.  Believe me I am an expert in a very small slice of knowledge and I try to stay within my area of expertise.  Can you believe 100% of what you find in the published literature?  No, you need to review the literature to determine what one group is stating, where that group is coming from and what other scholars have to say.   Typically you find believers, disbelievers or attractors and distractors and people who say: "Show me the facts so that I can form an educated conclusion on which group is correct."  Again, the recent name discussion beautifully illustrates that point. Peace and please let us not rush to making statements when we do not have all the facts.  What is true in the Serbian Banat, by the way is not true for the Romanian Banat.  And, by the I won't get into the discussion of Hungary.... I do not want to see any flames... But, please think when you read...  And read published material and not only quick replies on this list... Oh, yes, there is periodically wonderful material available on this list and thanks to Steve for doing an excellent job. Peace, Cornell At 04:00 PM 8/9/2010, Boglarka Lazar wrote: >Rosina, please. HORVÁTH is what Croatians are called in Hungarian. Not in >Croatian, not in German, not in Jiddish or Chinese. Therefore it is a >Hungarian name. One of the most common ones. Such as TÓTH which means >Slovak. In Hungarian. > >Croatian people are still called HORVÁT (without the H), and the country is >Horvátország but, interestingly the original meaning of TÓT, TÓTH got >forgotten, and now it is just a name. > >Boglárka > > >-----Original Message----- >From: banat-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:banat-bounces@rootsweb.com] On >Behalf Of Rosina T Schmidt >Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 18:33 >To: Banat List >Subject: [BANAT-L] Horvath > > >Hello Horvath Researchers, > >The name HORVATH translates in to HRVAT, which in English language stands >for CROATIAN and therefore is NOT a Hungarian name. > >However, there were many Horvath/Hrvat/Croatians living in Austro-Hungary >and prior to that in the Austrian Empire. > >Rosina >www.hrastovac.net > > > > > > > Sorin; > > When I first started Banat research I was bothered by the Hungarian > > surnames > > which popped up in the German community from time to time.  But now I have > > grown to accept that some individuals were integrated and some of these > > people grew to be an accepted part of that German society.  I assume that > > intermarriage although probably infrequent increased in later years and > > that > > the German community was not as introverted as I had been lead to believe > > . > > I have difficulty in identifying Romanian surnames but I assume mixing > > occurred to a similar degree with the German community and Craig's example > > is a case in point. > > Such a integration appears also to have happened along the German Polish > > boarder over a longer period to account for the frequent occurrence of > > Polish surnames in Germany. > > Clearly, Lorenz Horvath, was one of these Hungarians who was a solid > > member > > of the German community.  Perhaps he was born into it.  Trickier for an > > outsider like myself it is hard to pick up and identify Germans who became > > Magyarized and adopted a Hungarian surname.  This appears mostly to have > > occurred among professionals who wanted to be accepted by the Hungarian > > authorities. > > I would argue that Philipp Lung did not consciously omit Lorenz Horvath > > from > > the D Etschka family book since there are a bunch of other Horvath > > families > > listed.  This is not to say Romanians, Hungarian or Serbs didn't get > > omitted > > from other family books from time to time. > > Dave Dreyer > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >the subject and the body of the message >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3059 - Release Date: 08/08/10 >19:57:00 > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an >email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the >word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the >subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Any of those on this list that found the Horvath name in the past request would it be possible to check those same books for the name Tüski as well - preferably tied to the Horvath name but not necessarily. Thanks, Eve -- Syrmia Regional Coordinator http://www.dvhh.org/syrmia

Thank you Boglarka, It is good to learn something new. Rosina www.hrastovac.net Rosina, please. HORVÁTH is what Croatians are called in Hungarian. Not in Croatian, not in German, not in Jiddish or Chinese. Therefore it is a Hungarian name. One of the most common ones. Such as TÓTH which means Slovak. In Hungarian. Croatian people are still called HORVÁT (without the H), and the country is Horvátország but, interestingly the original meaning of TÓT, TÓTH got forgotten, and now it is just a name. Boglárka

Sorin, Your mother should not have been upset. There is not ONE European who can claim that he is 100% something or other! And lets not even talk about us Canadians or Americans! Rosina www.hrastovac.net I remember how upset was my mother, who was a TOTH, when I said to her that she is of Slavic origin ... :-))) S o r i n http://www.genealogy.ro/contributions.htm

Dave; It was not my intention to say that Philipp Lung did not do a good work in the case of D. Etschka family book! I really do not know because I do not have access to the original KBs. I just want(ed) to say that a "Familienbuch der katholischen Pfarrgemeinde X" should gather together ALL the Roman Catholics from the X parish without taking into consideration their ethnicity [Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovak, Croat, etc. / the Romanians and the Serbs were not Roman Catholics in 99,99% of the cases!]. And that this is still not the case for the Banat's FB ... Best Regards, S o r i n http://www.genealogy.ro/contributions.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Dreyer" To: "Banat List" Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 Subject: Re: [BANAT-L] [GenRoG] --RE:Re: Lorenz Horvath in Josefsdorf > Sorin; > When I first started Banat research I was bothered by the Hungarian > surnames > which popped up in the German community from time to time. But now I have > grown to accept that some individuals were integrated and some of these > people grew to be an accepted part of that German society. I assume that > intermarriage although probably infrequent increased in later years and > that > the German community was not as introverted as I had been lead to believe > . > I have difficulty in identifying Romanian surnames but I assume mixing > occurred to a similar degree with the German community and Craig's example > is a case in point. > Such a integration appears also to have happened along the German Polish > boarder over a longer period to account for the frequent occurrence of > Polish surnames in Germany. > Clearly, Lorenz Horvath, was one of these Hungarians who was a solid > member > of the German community. Perhaps he was born into it. Trickier for an > outsider like myself it is hard to pick up and identify Germans who became > Magyarized and adopted a Hungarian surname. This appears mostly to have > occurred among professionals who wanted to be accepted by the Hungarian > authorities. > I would argue that Philipp Lung did not consciously omit Lorenz Horvath > from > the D Etschka family book since there are a bunch of other Horvath > families > listed. This is not to say Romanians, Hungarian or Serbs didn't get > omitted > from other family books from time to time. > Dave Dreyer > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "GenealogyRO Group" > To: "Banat List" > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 > Subject: [BANAT-L] [GenRoG] --RE:Re: Lorenz Horvath in Josefsdorfl >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dave Dreyer" >> To: "Banat List" >> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 >> Subject: Re: [BANAT-L] Lorenz Horvath in Josefsdorfl >>> This Lorenz Horvath is a long standing problem ... >>> The Josefsdorf KBs (church books) indicate that Lorenz Horvath is from >>> Etschka. ... >>> Lorenz is not in the D Etschka family book but this is not suprising >>> since >>> the author Philipp Lung did not have copies of all the D Etschka KBs to >>> work >>> from and there are many records missing. ... >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> OR the explanation is that he, Lorenz Horvath, was not a German, and the >> FB >> author(s) were not quite interested in his entrances from the original >> KBs >> ... >> >> In to many cases the title "Familienbuch der katholischen Pfarrgemeinde >> X" >> do not cover the reality and inhabitants of that village, who do not have >> a >> German name, are ignored deliberately ... >> >> S o r i n >> http://www.genealogy.ro/contributions.htm

Hello Horvath Researchers, The name HORVATH translates in to HRVAT, which in English language stands for CROATIAN and therefore is NOT a Hungarian name. However, there were many Horvath/Hrvat/Croatians living in Austro-Hungary and prior to that in the Austrian Empire. Rosina www.hrastovac.net > Sorin; > When I first started Banat research I was bothered by the Hungarian > surnames > which popped up in the German community from time to time. But now I have > grown to accept that some individuals were integrated and some of these > people grew to be an accepted part of that German society. I assume that > intermarriage although probably infrequent increased in later years and > that > the German community was not as introverted as I had been lead to believe > . > I have difficulty in identifying Romanian surnames but I assume mixing > occurred to a similar degree with the German community and Craig's example > is a case in point. > Such a integration appears also to have happened along the German Polish > boarder over a longer period to account for the frequent occurrence of > Polish surnames in Germany. > Clearly, Lorenz Horvath, was one of these Hungarians who was a solid > member > of the German community. Perhaps he was born into it. Trickier for an > outsider like myself it is hard to pick up and identify Germans who became > Magyarized and adopted a Hungarian surname. This appears mostly to have > occurred among professionals who wanted to be accepted by the Hungarian > authorities. > I would argue that Philipp Lung did not consciously omit Lorenz Horvath > from > the D Etschka family book since there are a bunch of other Horvath > families > listed. This is not to say Romanians, Hungarian or Serbs didn't get > omitted > from other family books from time to time. > Dave Dreyer

Just a thought. When I was growing up, there was a lot of Horvaths in and around Flemington, NJ. Also there are several in Trenton, NJ. They are still listed in the white pages for these cities. At one time the ones in Flemington owned a nursery. Harold