Our 22nd year. The Burgenland Bunch Newsletter is issued monthly online. It was founded
by Gerald Berghold (who retired from the BB in the Summer of 2008 and died in August 2008).
Current Status Of The BB:
* Members: 2639 * Surname Entries: 8345 * Query Board Entries: 5732 * Staff Members: 15
This
month's collection of bits and pieces in Article 1 begins with a
verse on writing and a note on the EU GDPR, then does covers of three
ORF articles before singingout on web usage; we finish with a YouTube video of
the song "The Immigrant."
Article 2 covers a topic that many people feel is difficult to do: Finding
that Unknown / Misspelled Village ...but one that I consider relatively easy. In
the article, I explain how I go about solving such problems... and I assert that you can
do it too.
Article 3, which I've titled Why the Mormons Do Genealogy, explores
the LDS faith-based logic for genealogical research and delves, in some detail, into one of
their faith-driven practices that make some non-Mormons uncomfortable, even to the point that
these people will not use the extensive LDS-sponsored FamilySearch.org genealogical web
resources. This is, of course, the practice of proxy baptism of deceased relatives.
Article 4 returns us to DNA again, as I have chosen to explore the DNA-Based
Cousinship Estimation that is performed by FamilyTreeDNA. One of the "complaints"
against FamilyTreeDNA is that it over-estimates the nearness of a family
relationship... for example, a true third-cousin may be predicted as a second
cousin. Being a statistician, I decided I should check this overestimation claim with
data, in particular, my own family data... so join me to see if the claim is true!
The remaining articles are our standard sections: Historical Newsletter
Articles, and the Ethnic Events and Emigrant Obituaries sections.
On Writing (and Editing a Newsletter):
"The
goal is to make a space
where a
few ideas and images and feelings
may be so
arranged
that a reader will want to linger awhile among
them,
rather than to flee."
- Janet Malcolm (1934-)
writer, staff journalist for The New Yorker
The
EU’s General Data Protection Regulation: On May 25th, the EU’s General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect. The GDPR is the EU's primary
law regulating how companies must protect personal data of EU citizens. Per the law, companies
that fail to achieve GDPR compliance can be subject to stiff penalties and fines. This is
why you may have received a number of emails from internet-based companies saying that their
privacy statements have been updated.
The GDPR requirements applies directly to each member state of the European Union and aim
at creating consistent protection of consumer and personal data across the EU nations. In
addition, it also claims to reach beyond the EU, saying that any company that
markets goods or services to EU residents, regardless of its location, is subject to the
regulation.
To the best of my reading of the law, the BB is not subject to the GDPR. We do not
gather nor process consumer data in the automated ways defined in the law that would trigger a
need for compliance and, as a non-commercial, nonprofit organization, providing no fee-based
products or services, it also appears that we are not required to comply. This is good, as the
cost and effort to fully comply would be prohibitive, forcing the BB either to
shut down or to delete all EU-based members and to deny membership to future EU-based
applicants.
Given we do not need to comply, we will not be implementing the GDPR-style
protections that are not already in place, which means you should not expect allGDPR-style
protections from the BB site. If that bothers you, you should not use the BB site; we
will miss you but that is your only viable alternative. However, we will continue to collect
only the minimum data necessary to allow the BB to be effective as a genealogical and
history data exchange and we will continue to provide the data protections we currently have in
place. The BB Website Usage Agreement has been updated to make this position explicit.
Eisenkopf takes over Burgenland Women's Department Ministry from Dunst: As
reported by Burgenland ORF News, as of May 8th, the women's agenda in the state of
Burgenland is in a new hands. Provincial Councilor Astrid Eisenkopf has taken on the ministry
previously led by her colleague, Verena Dunst.
For
those of you who have attended Burgenland Delegation events in North America, Verena
Dunst is an old friend, having visited the US and Canada a number of times over the years.
Astrid Eisenkopf is a new friend, having made her first visit to our North American Burgenländer
enclaves this past summer.
Eisenkopf, who is also Burgenland's minister for Communities, Youth and the Environment,
complimented Dunst on having a "well-run unit" and noted that she will build on this "fantastic
base." She also hopes to connect the agendas of Youth and Women and use this
synergy.
Dunst reminisced about her 18 years in the women's ministry, recalling that the women's
counseling centers were expanded, the former Women's Office was converted into a
Women's Department and construction of a women's shelter was forced. "We were the only
federal state without a shelter," she noted and remembered that "Many forces in
Burgenland thought: Who needs a women's refuge in Burgenland?" A women's shelter was finally
opened in 2004 "and it was soon full," said Dunst.
Dunst, who is also the Burgenland Agricultural minister, agreed that it was time for
someone else to take on the Women's ministry: "I did it with passion, but it's time.
Everything needs a new point of view." Dunst says she wants to and must focus on
Agriculture.
1664 Mogersdorf Battlefield Being Investigated:ORF News also reported that
archaeologists are now taking a closer look at the 1664 Mogersdorf battlefield and are
discovering that the ground is still full of war relics.
The Battle of Mogersdorf was where the united Christian armies faced the Ottoman forces
on 1 August 1664, and the battle was reported to have resulted in more than 10,000 deaths. Now
the archaeologists of the Burgenland Federal Monuments Office and specialists of the
Office of Armaments and Military Technology of the Federal Army are at work
investigating the battlefield and conducting quasi forensics.
Image of a contemporaneous copper engraving of the battle
Franz Sauer, an archaeologist from the Federal Monuments Office, noted that the various
generals presented their memoirs as if each had won the battle, so Sauer hopes to trace
the course of the battle via archeology to determine what success the individual generals really
had.
For that he needs evidence. Thus the battlefield is being systematically screened using metal
detectors. Contrary to expectations, the ground is still full of war relics: more than 500 have
already been discovered. Generally, these are musket balls—cast lead
balls that were fired during the battle—and if a ball hit a
breastplate, it would have a dent. In addition, they are finding horse bridle fittings, spoons,
coins and other iron parts that still have to be assigned.
The finds will be restored and scientifically processed in the next few months. Some will go to
the Museum of Military History and others will be exhibited in the Museum of the
Mogersdorfer Schlösslverein. The Federal Monuments Office also intends to track down
the mass graves where the thousands of fallen soldiers of the battle are buried.
More
Wind Turbines for Burgenland: As a result of the Green Electricity Amendment 2017,
an additional 52 wind turbines are to be built in Burgenland. The funds provided by the Green
Electricity Innovation Plan will allow construction over four years of a total of 148 wind
turbines in Austria; the 52 in Burgenland are expected to produce clean electricity for about
125,000 households.
Construction in Burgenland will cost €88 million, employing 1,100 workers. Thereafter, the wind
turbines will continue to bring millions of additional euros to Burgenland via the expected 100
maintenance and operation jobs, according to IG Windkraft (the Austrian Wind Energy
Association). Of the 52 new wind turbines, 50 are being built in the Neusiedl am See district
and two in the Oberpullendorf district.
A Small Reminder: While searching the internet for something else
(I
shake my head over how often I start a note with those words!), I came across site
yumpu.com, which advertises itself by saying: "Yumpu
offers a digital platform for publishing your magazines, brochures or catalogs." It offers
both small-scale free publishing and larger-scale paid publishing, being particularly useful to
organizations or individuals who have the occasional item that they wish to make available on
the web but don't want the bother of running a website. If you can convert your document to pdf
format, you can upload it there for free reader access.
That is well and good, as long as you are uploading material for which you own the copyright.
However, I discovered 207 documents on Yumpu that were taken from the BB site. Many of
those documents were not originated by the BB but are on our site by permission of the copyright
holder; such permission does not, however, allow reposting. Therefore, I had to request that
they be removed from Yumpu (which, to their credit, was promptly done).
While the message from Yumpu said: "We took the document offline and informed the user
about the violation of your copyright," I really suspect that a web-crawler owned by
Yumpu found and uploaded our documents (as some of the documents were not linked into our
user interface, so not accessible to most users). Therefore, I do not think that it was an
individual who chose to upload our documents. Regardless, I want to remind you of our access
and usage policy, as stated in the BB's Website Usage Agreement:
You may "view, download, and print content from this site only for your personal,
noncommercial use."
You may not "post content from this site on another website or on a computer network
without our permission."
You may not "transmit or distribute content from this site to other sites."
You may not "use this site or information found at this site (including the names and
information about those who have submitted information) to sell or promote products or
services, to solicit clients, or for any other commercial purpose."
In addition to the foregoing, "content may be viewed, downloaded, or reproduced by
media personnel for use in traditional public news media."
We state the above, first and foremost, to protect our users, authors and the BB from misuse
by others; secondly, to avoid copyright permission violations; and third, to keep traffic to our
documents on our site, as that drives search ratings, which keeps our site visible
to users (we don't "optimize" for search ratings but we do not knowingly sabotage our ratings
either!).
Lastly, please know that, if you wish to use something published on the BB site, we are
reasonable about giving permission (when we can). Just ask. Thanks.
The Immigrant: A song published 1975 by Neil Sedaka and Phil Cody, performed
by Sedaka.
Note... the playback of the video may be blocked (it is inconsistent). If blocked, you can
click the Watch on YouTube link in the image... it will work there.
Update
for book "The Burgenländer Emigration to America": Here is this month's update on
purchases of the English issue of the 3rd edition of Dr. Walter Dujmovits' book "Die
Amerika-Wanderung Der Burgenländer."
Current total sales are a nice round 1300 copies, as interested people purchased 15 more books
during this past month.
As always, the book remains available for online purchase at a list
price of $7.41 (which is the production charge for the book, as we purposely
choose not to make a profit so we can avoid dealing with the income tax consequences and
so you can obtain the book at as low a cost as possible!), plus tax & shipping. See the
BB homepage for a link to the information / ordering page and
for information about current discounts (there is at least one discount on price or shipping
available most of the time... if not, wait a few days and there will be one!).
Burgenland Recipes: This recipe is from ongoing contributor Ed Malesky, and comes
from a compilation of his grandmother's recipes.
BRAIDED
BREAD (NANA'S RECIPE)(from Ed Malesky)
Ingredients:
1-1/2 cup milk (more or less)
2 yeast cakes
3/4 cup sugar
3/8 stick butter
zest of 1/2 lemon
3 eggs
6 cups flour
1-1/2 tsp. salt
Instructions:
1) In a saucepan, heat all of the milk to lukewarm. In separate container, dissolve yeast and
one Tbsp. sugar in one half the milk.
2) In a medium mixing bowl cream the butter with the sugar; add the lemon zest, then add the
eggs.
3) Combine this mixture with the yeast/sugar/milk mixture.
4) In a large mixing bowl, add the salt (to taste) into the flour.
5) Slowly stir the liquid mixture into the flour. The dough should be stiff but somewhat
pliable. If the dough is too stiff to work with, add in some of the reserved milk as needed.
6) Cover with a clean towel and let rise to double the volume (1 hr.), then form into 6 strings.
Each string should be about 10 in. long and 1-1/2 in. wide.
7) Take three strings and braid them into one loaf. Repeat with the other strings.
8) Let the loaves rise and double again, then bake in pre-heated oven at 350° for 30 minutes.
Reminder:
We no longer have a "regular" source for Burgenland recipes. As evidenced above, a few readers
have shared favorite family recipes, and we do have a reserve for a couple of months now, but if
contributions stop coming in, we'll be begging again! So, please consider sharing your favorite
Burgenland recipes or recipe books with us. Our older relatives sadly aren't with us forever, so
don't allow your allow your favorite ethnic dishes to become lost to future generations. Send
your suggestions to BB Recipes Editor,
Alan Varga. Thanks!
2) FINDING THAT UNKNOWN / MISSPELLED VILLAGE
I get a fair number of requests of the form: my grandfather came from a village that I
can't find but it's name is something like this... can you help me find it?
Recently, presumably prompted by the newsletter article where I found "a place called Puzta
[Puszta] Krakás in Torontál County," I received another request for help finding a
non-Burgenland village. In this case, it was from a BB member who also has a non-Burgenländer
in her ancestry.
She wrote (in part):
Hi, are you able to shed any light on this tiny bit of info I know about my
grandfather who was not from Burgenland?
My grandfather was Adam Merkl, born in March 1900. It is said that his family was
part of the Donauschwaben (so, from southern Germany) given land by Maria Therese in
the 1700's and resettled into Hungary (later Yugoslavia). My grandfather would absolutely
NEVER acknowledge Yugoslavia. His town was Hodschag (Ozchaki??? with the mark
below the "c"??) and we're wondering if that is today in Croatia or Serbia or...?
As I'm always willing to put a little effort in helping people (especially BB members) solve
mysteries like this, I dug into it... and fairly quickly resolved it, even to the point of
verifying the correctness of the proposed place by finding the marriage record of the parents
of Adam Merkl in the available village records (Adam was born after the available
records end, so I could not verify the village by finding his birth record).
As a teaching opportunity, I'll tell you how I went about finding this village, as it is
something any of us can do with the right tools. All in all, I'm sure I will spend more
time writing up this explanation than it took to do the task, but hopefully many will benefit
from my doing so!
Just for completeness, the only other thing said that was helpful in this task was that "...my
grandfather left Hungary for the US around the time of WW-I" ...and that was useful only
as partial verification that I found the right Adam Merkl.
My first step was to see what I could learn by looking at the member's membership
entry, the relevant part being:
PETRAKOVITZ, Hannersdorf (Samfalva), to Chicago, 1920s; KLEIN, Hannersdorf, to Chicago,
1913; ASPAN, Oberdorf, to Chicago, 1922. Frances Klein Merkl (Francesca Klein) came from
Hannersdorf.
So, what I see is that Francesca Klein came to Chicago in 1913 and apparently
married a Merkl there... and I was willing to assume that that Merkl in question
was Adam Merkl.
With this information, I had an emigrant destination, the name of his wife, and verification
that her statement that "grandfather left Hungary for the US around the time of WW-I"
made sense. [This step is akin to you gathering together what you already know
so you can verify the sensibleness of subsequent discoveries.]
My next step was to put FamilySearch.org to work to see what I could learn.
Very quickly I found his passenger manifest, which indicated that Adam Merkel, age 21,
arrived at Ellis Island on 22 Apr 1921, coming from Le Harve on the SS Roussillon, that
he had been a resident of Hodsag, Jugosla, of Yugoslav nationality, with sister
Marie Merkel in Hodsag as his relative in the old country and an uncle in
Philadelphia as his destination. The only thing a little off-putting was that he was going to
Philadelphia rather than Chicago, but lots of immigrants quickly moved on in the
US in search of employment. Further, the timing of his emigration and his named
residence of Hodsag being so close phonetically to "Hodschag" outweighed any
real concern that this was the wrong record.
Looking further via FamilySearch.org I learned that, by 1926, an Adam Stephan Merkl
of the right age and of "Hungarian" birth was busy having children in Chicago with a
Frances Mary Klein, so it appears he made his way to Chicago (as his wife's name matched
with the membership-entry information).
He was naturalized in Chicago in 1932, stating his origin was "Jugoslavia or Croatia,"
and eventually died in Chicago in 1965. It was his death record that proved particularly
interesting, as it stated his full birth date, 4 Mar 1900, and that his parents were Adam
Merkl and Magdalen Roth.
Armed with all this information, I was finally willing to try to find the village.
There are two resources I consider particularly useful for finding villages, those being the
various printed Hungarian Gazetteers (Helységnévtára in Hungarian,
Ortsverzeichnis in German), and the online JewishGen's ShtetlSeeker (which
sometime in the somewhat recent past was blandly renamed The JewishGen Gazetteer).
Knowing that I was planning to write this article prompted
me
to finally provide a Gazetteer resource on the BB website, now (as of last month) found
here:
the-burgenland-bunch.org/Gazetteers/Gazetteers.htm, also accessible from the main index on
the BB homepage. This resource provides links to pdf files of the 1877, 1888 and 1913
Gazetteers of the Hungarian Crown Lands, each titled "A Magyar [Szent] Korona
Országainak Helységnévtára," as well as a link to the online1877 Dvorzsák
"Gazetteer of Hungary" ["Magyarország Helységnévtára"], which is hosted by
Pécs University. The new BB page also includes an English-annotated copy of the 1888
key needed to interpret the abbreviations and symbols in the Gazetteers, plus a partially-reconstructed
1913 key, which also is English-annotated.
Although I explained the following when I announced the BB Gazetteer resource, I will
repeat it here: The main reason I had not provided a Gazetteer resource before is
that these are quite large pdf files and each takes at least several minutes to download and
open. Given that, the new BB page recommends that, if you plan to use these frequently, you
save the file on your computer after the file opens and access it locally thereafter. [To save
the file, click the "Download" button
in the upper right
corner of your pdf viewer and select "Save File." You are welcome to save a local copy
of the annotated Gazetteer keys too.]
We provide more than one Gazetteer because place names did change over time and the
information provided in the Gazetteers also changed. When searching for a particular village,
I recommend starting with the Gazetteer closest in time to the period your ancestor emigrated,
as it should be the one most likely to provide the name your ancestor used for his
village. However, locals often persisted in using an older village name after an official name
change, or preferred an ethnic village name to the official Hungarian name, so there is
no clearly "best" choice among Gazetteers... you may need to look at all of them to find your
village.
As should be evident by the fact that we already have two spellings for our target village,
Hodschag and Hodsag, as well as a potential "official" (but phonetic) Hungarian or
Yugoslav name, Ozçhaki, as provided in the request, we should keep an open mind about
the "exact" spelling of the village name... it may well not be what we have in hand!
Going
to the 1913 Gazetteer and scrolling down to the alphabetic H section (you have
to manually move in these pdf files), I found the pair of entries shown to the right (they
were the only ones anything like the names we have).
As you can see, I found a village named Hódság, which, less the accent marks, matches
exactly with what Adam Merkl listed as his prior place of residence on his passenger manifest
entry.
A similar search for Ozçhaki proved unsuccessful ...though it reminded me to tell you
to note the ordering (collation sequence) of the Hungarian alphabet!
Given Ozçhaki is quite near the end of the O section of the alphabet, the
temptation is to scroll rapidly until the P's appear, then scroll up from there.
However, that puts you in the Ö section (< note that umlaut over the O?)
...if you do not note it, you have no chance to find the village, as you are not in the O's!
Hungarian has 44 letters (not 26, as in English) and the Hungarian alphabetic order and
collation sequence is: A=Á, B, C, CS, D, DZ, DZS, E=É, F, G, GY, H, I=Í, J, K, L, LY, M, N,
NY, O=Ó, Ö=Ő, P, Q, R, S, SZ, T, TY, U=Ú, Ü=Ű, V, W, X, Y, Z, ZS.
That says there are 37 sections in a Hungarian dictionary or gazetteer, as the
letters joined by an equal sign = are in the same section. For otherwise identically-spelled
words, the one with the base letter is listed before the one with the accented letter;
likewise, a lower-case word is listed before a same-spelled capitalized word.
Something else of note: that funny c: ç (c-cedilla) in Ozçhaki... it's
not a Hungarian letter! ...so we truly should not expect to find this spelling. Perhaps
it is a Yugoslav [Serbian / Croatian, etc.] village name... or just an error... but it is not
Hungarian and won't be in a Hungarian gazetteer!
Do keep this collation sequence in mind, as you may be tempted to say some unkind words after
wasting a bunch of time searching in the wrong section!
Now I want to jump back to that 1913 Gazetteer entry that I showed above so I
can tell you how to interpret it. For convenience, I have repeated the clip
here.
It starts off with *) ...which means that the village name was "permanently established and
registered" by the Hungarian Minister of the Interior on the basis of a 1898 law.
You can learn that by looking at the English annotations on the 1913 Key. [The humorous
note here is that, seven years after the Gazetteer was published, the village was no
longer part of the Hungarian empire and its name changed... so fleeting is man's
permanence!]
Next,
we have the village name in bold text, followed by "nk." ...from the 1913 key, this
abbreviation stands for nagyközség, which translates to large village or community
(the rules for designating a village as large [versus kis = small] are unknown
to me). From here on, I'll just provide the interpretation, without referencing the keys (but
you might want to double-check them as you follow along).
The )( symbol after the nk. abbreviation says that Hódság includes
Hódság-Kálvária (conversely, if you look at the Hódság-Kálvária entry, the
symbol after the village name
says it is included in Hódság). The text after the trailing punctuation says these
places are in Bács-Bodrog vm. (vármegye / County) and in the Hódság j. (járas
/ District) within that County. [Note: "Where is this town?" was the key bit of information I was looking for in
the Gazetteer, so I could (and did) stop here... but, as this is a teaching effort, I'll
continue with the interpretation.]
The town has 860 houses (ház) and 5,103 residents (),
composed mostly of Germans (N.) and the rest Magyars (m.)
[Note: the case of the letters indicated majority (uppercase) vs. minority (lowercase)
proportions of ethnicity in the town]. The
symbol says they are Roman
Catholic and have their own parish [Note: had they been a daughter church, the symbol used
would have been "r.k."]. The text 8,405 kh. gives the size of the town's farming
acreage in Katastral holds. The next bit says the State Registrar (ak.)
is local (helyben), but the Court of Justice (tsz.) is in Zombor, the
District Courthouse with land registration authority (jbtk.) and tax office
(ah.) are local, as is the Gendarme headquarters (cs. ö.). "6, VI, 19"
are the numbers for the military supplementary district, the Honvéd brigade, and
the Landsturm district that the town is a part of. The last set of symbols
indicate, respectively, that
there is a train station, both state and private telegraph stations, a telephone,
and a postal and state telegram office in town. The final bit under the
Hódság-Kálvária entry, u. p. Hódság, says the last/nearest post office is in
Hódság.
As I said, I translated all of the above for your benefit, but what I really wanted to know
was: where is this town? The answer, of course, was in Bács-Bodrog
County. It was also useful to note that Zombor is a nearby town, should I want
confirmation that I found the right place. In our BB Hungarian Maps section, we have
the following pre-WW-I map of the Hungarian counties:
As you can see, Bács-Bodrog County is the yellow one in the south-central region of the
old Hungarian Kingdom, to the left of Torontál County. That would place it into today's
Serbia, with Baranya County, to its left, being in Croatia. So, if this is the right village,
it would be in post-war Yugoslavia as Adam Merkl indicated.
But we still have no idea of exactly where in Bács-Bodrog County Hódság is.
However, if you type Hódság into GoogleMaps, one of the choices that pops up is
Odžaci, Serbia... and if you have that mapped, it is located in what was old
Bács-Bodrog County right up against the Croatian border... so that sounds right!
Also, do you remember that non-Hungarian, likely-phonetic village name-spelling that
our requestor shared: Ozçhaki? ...I could quite easily see that as a phonetic version
of Odžaci... so that "sounds" good too.
But still, I'd like at least one more confirmation ...so I'll give you four!
First, I want to go back to JewishGen's ShtetlSeeker / Gazetteer and see what it
can tell us. You can find it here:
jewishgen.org/Communities/LocTown.asp.
One of the traps people fall into when searching for Hungarian Kingdom villages with
this tool is to assume they are listed under Hungary or, at worst, in the
default Eastern Europe group of countries (I've erroneously made that assumption
myself!). However, current-day Serbian villages are not listed under Hungary nor in the
Eastern European group; they are under country Serbia, which is in the
SouthEast Europe group! You absolutely must specify the correct country or group
(which could be All Countries) to find these villages. Below are the groups
available in this tool:
Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
All Countries: (all of the above)
Since I know I want a specific village in Serbia, I'll select country Serbia along
with the Is Exactly search option and village name Odžaci. That returns the
following:
The second entry confirms the Hódság / Odžaci relationship, as well as the fact
that another spelling of the village name is Hodschag (the spelling our
correspondent provided in her initial message). The whole set of known name variations is: "Hódság,
Odžaci, Hodschag, Hodschach, Hanfhausen, Hocsak," with the bolded one being the
(current) "native" name.
Had I put Hodsag or Hódság as the exact village name, I would have returned a
single entry, that being the second one above. So, we have our first additional
confirmation.
By the way, when I first looked for this village, I actually started with this JewishGen
tool and I used some of the other search options to see what other potential villages might
appear... and I did not limit myself to Serbia (I didn't know that was the right country when
I started!). There were, in fact, some Croatian villages with similar names... but the Serbian
one above was my first choice, which proved correct.
Another
useful tool for confirming villages is the Military Survey maps accessible from
the BB's Hungarian Maps section. For example, if you select the Third Military
Survey and put Odžaci, Serbia in the search box and click the search button, the
map zooms into the image to the right... so Odžaci shows a village named Hodságh
and beside it is what is obviously the Hódság-Kálvária that we saw in the Gazetteer
entries.
I sent this image to my correspondent, saying: "As you can see from the 1870-80-era map
excerpt, Hódság/Odžaci was laid out on rectangular grid, implying that it was built all at
once (organic villages tend to messily string along a road), which is a clue that it was a
Donauschwaben village. Also, it sits only about 10 miles east of the Donau (Danube) River in
an area of like-constructed villages... other clues. The land on the other side of that river
bend is part of Croatia."
Had I chosen either the First or Second Military Survey Maps rather than the
Third and done as I did above, the only differences would be slightly different map images
and the spelling of the name of the village... Hodesak in the First Map and
Hodzságh in the Second Map, indicating that the place name has changed slightly
over time but not enough that we can't see it as Hódság.
So this gives us our second additional confirmation.
My third additional confirmation was via Wikipedia...
I wrote this to my correspondent: "Wikipedia has a long article about it [Hódság / Odžaci]
here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odžaci,
including its history as a Donauschwaben village."
I'll quote a little bit from the Wikipedia article:
The name Odžaci / Оџаци means "chimneys" in Serbian. Formerly, the settlement was
also known as Odžak / Оџак ("chimney"). The Slavic/Serbian word "odžak" (or plural
"odžaci") is a modification of the Turkish word "Ocak" (bearing the same pronunciation),
meaning "fireplace".
In Croatian, the town is also known as Odžaci, in Hungarian as Hódság, and in
German as Hodschag.
The old Hungarian name of the settlement was "Kéménd", first mentioned in 1522, and meaning
"with chimney." Derived from the aforementioned Serbian word "Odžak" was the new Hungarian
name "Hódság" (also later called "Hódsági Járás" [Hódsági district]), as well as the German
name "Hodschag".
That seems to clearly tie the names together!
The fourth and final additional confirmation comes from the available
Church records.
Way back in the early part of this article, I mentioned that Adam Merkl's death record "proved
particularly interesting, as it stated ... that his parents were Adam Merkl and
Magdalen Roth."
A search of the FamilySearch.org catalog for Odžaci, Serbia, revealed that there
were Catholic church records for the village for the 1826-1895 period and that they were
available in image format. Given Adam was born in 1900, I could not search the church birth
records for him... but I could search marriage records for his parents, with the
hope that they married before 1895. That hope was rewarded, as his parents married there on 17
Jan 1893 (with the village name spelled Hódságh), thus providing unequivocal
evidence that current-day Odžaci, Serbia, was the emigrant village.
So, there you have it. Nothing I did for this project was particularly difficult (except maybe
translating those Gazetteer entries... but you really don't need full translations!),
so I think all of you could do this too. All in all, I spent well under two hours to do this
research (and yes, it took much more time to write this article!). Give it a try if you
have an unidentified place in your family history!
3) WHY THE MORMONS DO GENEALOGY
The
following article is based on two news releases provided by the online Newsroom of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormons).
As you know, the LDS provides the FamilySearch.org site that many of us depend
on for records about our ancestors.
The first news release was titled "Genealogy." It is quite short so I'll quote it in
its entirety. However, it references a much longer news release that explains an underlying
Church belief, called Temple Baptism, that some users of the FamilySearch.org site feel
uncomfortable about. It is my personal belief that knowledge is helpful so I've chosen to make
the news releases available to you BB members. However, in this article I will present only
part of the second release and will paraphrase and comment on the part I do present.
Just so you know, I am not a member of the LDS church, however, I am also not bothered
by this LDS belief and how they implement it in practice. You'll have to decide for
yourself about what you feel about it.
Genealogy, the study of one’s ancestors or family history, is one of the most popular hobbies
in the world. People of all faiths and nationalities enjoy discovering where they come from.
For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, learning about
one’s family history is more than just a casual endeavor. Latter-day Saints believe
families can be together after this life. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen
relationships with all family members, both those who are alive and those who have died.
Latter-day Saints believe that the eternal joining of families is possible through
sacred sealing ceremonies that take place in temples. These temple rites may also be performed
by proxy for those who have died. Consequently, for Mormons, genealogical research or family
history is the essential forerunner for temple work for the dead. In Latter-day
Saint belief, the dead have the choice to accept or reject the services performed for
them.
Since 1894, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has dedicated time and
resources to collecting and sharing records of genealogical importance. Due to cooperation
from government archives, churches, and libraries, the Church has created the largest
collection of family records in the world, with information on more than 3 billion deceased
people. This effort was originally facilitated through the Genealogical Society of Utah
and now through FamilySearch, a non-profit organization sponsored by the Church.
FamilySearch provides access to information from 100 countries, including birth,
marriage, and death records, censuses, probates and wills, land records, and more. These
records are made available to the public free of charge through the FamilySearch.org
website, the world-renowned Family History Library in Salt Lake City, and through a
network of 4,600 local family history centers in 126 countries.
You may have noted in the above-quoted "Genealogy" article that the phrase
"temple work for the dead" was underlined. In the actual news release, it is a link to the
second news release, which I will talk about below. It is a key issue that bothers some
non-LDS members, so it deserves to be examined. I will use the capitalized term "Church" in
the following to refer to the LDS Church, as that is the notation the original release used.
The news release begins by noting that "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints have performed baptisms in Church temples on behalf of deceased relatives" for
nearly 180 years. The
practice is rooted in the belief that "certain sacred sacraments, such as baptism, are
required to enter the kingdom of heaven and that a just God will give everyone who ever lived
a fair opportunity to receive them, whether in this life or the next." According to Church
doctrine, "a departed soul in the afterlife is completely free to accept or reject such a
baptism—the offering is freely given and must be freely received." The Church says it "has
never claimed the power to force deceased persons to become Church members or Mormons, and it
does not list them as such on its records." Further, it says that the notion of coerced
conversion is utterly contrary to its Church doctrine.
The Church says it believes everyone must ultimately have the opportunity to receive the
sacraments of salvation, however, Church members are "encouraged to request temple baptism
only on behalf of their relatives." They do note, though, that what they call "well-meaning
Church members" sometimes bypass this instruction and submit the names of non-relatives
for temple baptism. And they note that some people have submitted the names of unrelated
famous or infamous people, or even wholly fictitious names. They point out that these acts are
"contrary to Church policy and sometimes cause pain and embarrassment" and that they
are also extremely difficult to prevent because "the temple baptism process depends on
voluntary compliance by millions of Church members around the world."
They note that one of the worst incidents was when a single member submitted a large number of
Jewish Holocaust victims for temple baptism in the early 1990s. As a result, the leaders of a
number of Jewish organizations approached the Church about the issue, which resulted in the
Church identifying a number of measures to address the problem. They said that the "leadership
of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors agreed these measures would be
sufficient to satisfy their concerns and that they would use their best efforts to persuade
other Jewish organizations as to their sufficiency."
Still, some advocates have tried to pressure the Church to repudiate its doctrines and alter
its religious practices—doctrines and practices that the Church says are "fundamental to
our faith and among our most sacred sacraments." The Church argues that no "reasonable
person would expect a faith community to abandon the deepest aspects of its faith. America’s
commitment to religious liberty and tolerance requires that people of goodwill be able to
respectfully disagree about religion without demanding that others change their beliefs."
The LDS Church doctrine teaches that people "continue to exist in the afterlife as
conscious spirits with the capacity to learn, exercise faith, and make choices pertaining to
their personal salvation." Thus they argue that having Church members perform proxy
or vicarious baptisms on behalf of those who have died without baptism is beneficial.
Further, they argue that it is consistent with early Christian practices, citing 1
Corinthians 15:29 [per King James Bible: "Else what shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"].
The article repeats that "Church members have been taught to focus their efforts on their
own relatives," which is why members conduct genealogical research. They wish to determine
the names of their departed relatives and then to submit those names for the performance of
proxy baptisms. However, that process depends on the accuracy and good-faith efforts of the
Church members around the world, and errors and duplications can occur.
Church members are specifically instructed not to submit the names of persons not
related to them. Further, before performing a temple baptism for a deceased family member born
within the last 95 years, members must get permission from the person's closest living
relative. The Church also removes from its “International Genealogical Index” (IGI)
names identified as submitted against Church policy. They admit, though that the Church’s
good-faith efforts have not entirely stopped the submission of all such names, but claim they
are relatively rare.
Finally, they again note that "the Church is limited in the accommodations and changes it
can make" as the issue touches on some of the most sacred and sensitive aspects of the
Church’s religion. It states that the Church "cannot abandon fundamental aspects of its
religious doctrine and practice, and it should not be asked to do so. We do not presume to
dictate to Jews or other Christians the content of their beliefs or the nature of their
religious ceremonies and likewise cannot have our beliefs and practices dictated to us. The
right of a faith community to define its own religion free from external coercion is directly
at stake."
The remainder of the news release addressed specific charges made against the Church
concerning their handling of issues around the Jewish Holocaust names. As I wished to address
this topic in its universal form, I'll not discuss those points; if you are interested, then
read the full release at the link above.
I will, however, make a few personal comments, which each of you can choose to agree
with or not, as you feel appropriate... I am not suggesting you should feel as I do, rather, I
am explaining what I feel and why.
All in all, I find the LDS Church position on this issue sufficiently reasonable... they have
a right to their belief system and a right to exercise it. Like them, I would be offended if
someone tried to tell me that I could not believe what I wish. But I also feel that their
beliefs and actions are of minor significance to me... if I were to be upset by them it
would be tantamount to saying my own beliefs (whatever they are) could be challenged by
theirs, that mine were too weak to stand against their actions. Likewise, that the beliefs and
actions of my ancestors could be so challenged. I simply do not believe that, thus their
behavior is essentially of no concern to me. I wish them well in their world view and I will
continue in mine.
For these reasons, I have no problem taking full advantage of the many genealogical resources
that the LDS makes available... and I thank them for doing so.
4) DNA-BASED COUSINSHIP ESTIMATION
As you know, one of the features of autosomal DNA is that it allows you to find matches
in any branch of your family tree, not just your purely paternal (Y-DNA) or maternal (mtDNA)
branches, as all branches of your ancestry contributed to your autosomal DNA.
There are other advantages too: an autosomal test is (comparatively) inexpensive; both men and
women can take this type of test; relationships out to the second cousin level are virtually
certain to show up and the test can detect many relatives at the fourth and fifth cousin
levels and occasionally beyond that; plus you can get an "ethnicity" mapping.
There are
limitations too: more-distant relatives often share no genetic material at all; you, yourself,
may not carry DNA from a particular ancestor; there is nothing in this test that will tell you
which branch of your family the match is on; and the chance that an autosomal DNA test
will accurately detect a relative decreases with the distance of the relationship.
In various reviews of the autosomal tests and their processing available from the "big three"
testing companies, AncestryDNA, 23andMe, and FamilyTreeDNA, one of the
"complaints" about FamilyTreeDNA is that it over-estimates the nearness of a
family relationship... for example, a true third-cousin may be predicted as a second
cousin.
As I've mentioned before, I used FamilyTreeDNA for my autosomal DNA and, being a
statistician, I decided I should check this overestimation claim with data!
Let me be the first, though, to say that the sample I have available is too small to be truly
meaningful! ...nonetheless, it will be fun to look at anyway. Secondly, let me be clear that
FamilyTreeDNA's predictions are only that: a prediction of the most-likely
true relationship; they are quick to say that their results actually only indicate a range of
possible relationships.
Currently I have 14 known family relationships among my 55 DNA-predicted
relationships (of the "non-speculative" level, i.e., "third to fifth cousins" or closer) for
which I have been able to find a paper trail to "prove" the relationship. As you can see from
the table below, the relationships range from "son" out to a "double-6th cousin," where my "1r"
notation stands for once-removed (thus the second data row is for a "first
cousin once-removed").
Relationship
Expected Total cM
Total cM
Longest cM
Segments
Predicted
Son
3400
3384
267
22
Child
1st, 1r
425
399
70
29
2nd
2nd
212.5
249
44
23
2nd
2nd, 1r
106.25
201
93
24
2nd
3rd, double
106.25
147
38
17
2nd
3rd
53.13
82
40
16
3rd
4th
13.28
71
23
13
3rd
4th
13.28
52
17
16
3rd
4th
13.28
46
25
10
3rd
4th
13.28
43
14
14
4th
4th, 1r
6.64
60
25
17
3rd
4th, 1r
6.64
45
17
9
3rd
4th, 1r
6.64
42
9
17
5th+
6th, double
3.32
40
14
12
4th
The columns I show above are:
Relationship
the true relationship of the predicted "cousin" to me, per my family tree.
Expected Total cM
the average amount expected to be shared given the true relationship
shown in the first column, measured in cM.
[Note: FamilyTreeDNA reports "half-identical" cM values, with a
possible maximal amount of 3384.31 cMs. For convenience, the expected maximum is
usually rounded up to 3400 cM for tables like this and the other expected values are
computed as a percentage of the 3400 maximal value... the difference is really too small
to matter.]
Total cM
the total amount of DNA I share with my predicted "cousin" (measured in cM,
rounded to whole numbers).
Longest cM
The length of the longest contiguous segment I share with my predicted "cousin"
(measured in cM, rounded to whole numbers).
Segments
The number of segments I share with my predicted "cousin."
Predicted
The relationshippredicted by FamilyTreeDNA.
My primary question is how Predicted compares with Relationship: that
is, is the FamilyTreeDNA "prediction" accurate and, if not, how does it differ?
In my case, among the 14 relationships:
-- 4 predictions are accurate, matching the true relationship
-- 2 predictionsunder-predict (the true
relationship is closer than the prediction)
-- 8 predictionsover-predict (the true
relationship is more distant than the prediction)
Thus by simple count, FamilyTreeDNA tends to over-estimate the nearness of a
family relationship, as the critics have claimed! Right?
Well, things might not be as clear-cut as these counts lead one to believe...
I want to start from the bottom of my table and look at the "erroneous" over-predictions.
In the last row, my true double-6th cousin is predicted as a 4th cousin.
However, my cousin and I share 40 cM of DNA whereas only 3.32 cM is expected for such a
true relationship. If we look at a 4th cousin row, we see that 13.28 cM is expected
and, for a 3rd cousin, 53.13 cM, so the amount I share with my double-6th cousinis actually closer to a 3rd cousin than a 4th cousin, much less a
double-6th cousin!
The second-from-the-bottom row is actually an under-prediction... I'll skip that for
now.
The next two rows from the bottom have true 4th cousins once-removed predicted
as 3rd cousins. I share 45 and 60 cM with those cousins. respectively, whereas 6.64 cM
is expected. Again, note that 53.13 cM is expected for a 3rd cousin and only
13.28 cM for a 4th cousin, so the amount I share with both of these cousins is much
closer to a 3rd cousin (one amount even exceeds the 3rd cousinexpected
amount)!
The next three erroneous predictions have true 4th cousins predicted as
3rd cousins. Again the amounts I share with my cousins, 46, 52 and 71 cM, respectively,
are much closer to the 53.13 cM expected for a 3rd cousin than the 13.28 cM
expected for a 4th cousin (again, one amount even exceeds the 3rd cousin
expected amount).
My last two over-predictions are for a true double-3rd cousin and a true
2nd cousin once-removed; both are predicted as 2nd cousins. I share 147 and 201
cM, respectively, with these cousins, whereas 106.25 cM is expected for both. The
expected amount for a 2nd cousin is 212.5 cM, so the amount I share with my cousins
fall between their expected amounts and that expected for a 2nd cousin,
with the shared amount for my true 2nd cousin once-removed being much closer to the
amount expected for a 2nd cousin. On the other hand, the shared amount for my true
double-3rd cousin falls between its expected amount and that for a 2nd cousin,
but closer to its own expected amount.
I think there is an evident pattern... I consistently sharemoreDNA
with my more-distant cousins than is expected. This leads the FamilyTreeDNA
algorithm to over-estimate relationships as being closer than their true
relationship.
If we look at the two relationships where the algorithm under-estimated the
relationship (that is, erred in the opposite direction), for one I shared less
DNA than was expected (399 vs. 425), though the amount shared was much closer to that
expected for the true relationship than for the predicted relationship; for
the other, I share more DNA than was expected (42 vs. 6.64), but my Longest cM
segment was quite short (9 cM).
Even in the relationships where predicted matched true, I had more shared
DNA with my cousins than was expected (but not so much more that it would have pushed
the algorithm to over-estimate).
Here is a plot of my actual shared Total cMs to their expected values,
presented in log-log format so detail can be seen among the smaller values:
In this plot, I have included a 1-to-1 line (in red, where Total = Expected Total) and I have
labeled my observed amounts, placing the labels so they are above or below the 1-to-1 line
according to my data. Again, you should see that all but one of my observed amounts are
clearly above the expected amount, and that the relativedeviation grows
as the expected amount gets smaller.
That then leads to my secondary question: Why do I often share much more DNA with my
cousins than is expected?
The answer is two-fold:
1) We all share short segments of DNA purely by chance! If you look in the DNA
literature, you'll see references to segments being IBD (identical by descent) and
IBC (identical by chance).
I mentioned in the description of the columns in my data table that FamilyTreeDNA
reports "half-identical" cM values. A half-identical segment of DNA is where
one of the two letters at each position in one person's DNA matches one of the two
letters from another person at each position over the segment (without regard to which parent
of each person each letter came from). What that means is that FamilyTreeDNA reports
any segment of DNA that is identical, regardless of whether some of the DNA in that
segment came from your mother and the rest came from your father. It should be evident that,
unless you are truly related to one of your cousins via both your mother and
your father, such mixed segments are meaningless... they generate only false (chance)
relationships.
Based on my data above, it looks like I tend to share about 34 cM of chance DNA with my
cousins! [computed by averaging the differences between my observed and the expected cM
amounts] ...which suggests one should not get real excited about a predicted cousinship
based on a Total cM of 34 or below.
Yet FamilyTreeDNA still makes predictions in this range!
...but they do not do so based on Total cM; rather, they look (mostly) at the
Longest cM for 3rd and more-distant predicted cousinships. If you look back at my data
table, you will see that the observed "Longest cM" values for all of my 4th or
more-distant cousins exceed the "Expected Total cM" amount for such relationships. That
seems like pretty good evidence to me... it also suggests that much of the 34 cM of "chance
DNA" I mentioned above probably isn't chance DNA. However, subtracting my
longest cM values from their previously-calculated chance DNA values for 3rd and
more-distant cousins, still suggests about 19 cM of purely chance DNA, so don't get
real excited over 19 cM of shared DNA.
2) We all share very short segments of DNA based purely on our humanity. In the
DNA literature, you will see references to IBS (identical by state). This refers to
segments of DNA that come from our very distant past... say from a 20th-great-grandmother or a
15th-great-grandfather. These segments are not useful for identifying more-recent cousins
because you cannot distinguish them from chance DNA (given the "half-identical"
reported cM values). Further, because most of us do not have family trees available that can
verify a 20th-cousin predicted relationship, IBS segments are not useful for
those more-distant relationships either.
It seems clear that some of what I called chance DNA must be state DNA... how
much, I don't know ...but it really does not matter; neither chance nor state
DNA is useful for predicting cousinships in the range most of us have documented (or could
document in) our family trees.
Bottom line, even though we are all related, none of us can document how we are
related to the vast majority of humanity... and, if we are honest, we probably do not want to
do so.
End Note: In 2015, Blaine Bettinger (author of The Genetic Genealogist
blog) initiated a collaborative data collection and analysis project called the Shared cM
Project that was intended to understand the observed ranges of shared cM
associated with various known relationships. For the August 2017 report by the Project
(the most recent report), total shared cM data for more than 25,000 known relationships
were analyzed, and the results indicate that the average observed shared cM
consistently exceeds the expected cM for each cousinship level, much like I
report for the samples in my article.
As vendor-specific results do differ, I looked at the shared cM values that the project
reports for vendor FamilyTreeDNA and compared their average values to my
observed values for the relationships I reported in my article above. Across the 14
relationships I reported, my observed Total cM averaged 5 cM less than the
Project values. So, though my observed Total cM exceeded Expected Total cM
by an average of 34 cM, this difference was actually slightly low, as the Project
reports an average 39 cM difference for my relationships. Thus the Project data
indicates that my data was not particularly unusual, as my data only slightly
underestimates the typical Total cM amount of chance and stateDNA.
The Project also provides estimates of observed longest cM for some
relationships, including the 5 relationships I report from 1st, 1r to 3rd
cousins. Over those relationships, my observed longest cM is longer for 4 of the 5
relationships than the average reported by the Project, which may mean I
subtracted slightly too much when I estimated chance DNA. If so, then the number
in my statement "...so don't get real excited over 19 cM of shared DNA" should be
slightly more.
Blaine is still collecting data, hoping to have between 50 and 100 thousand relationships to
analyze before reporting results again. If interested, you can contribute your data via the
project submission portal here:
Shared cM Project Submission Form (I contributed my 14 known relationships). The form just
takes a minute to fill in, assuming you have your data handy, and asks for: Known
Relationship, Total Shared cM, Longest Block, Number of Shared Segments, Endogamy / Known
Cousin Marriages (for confirming double cousins), Vendor, and Email Address (used only if he
has questions about your data).
5) HISTORICAL BB NEWSLETTER ARTICLES
Editor: This is part of our series designed to recycle interesting articles from the
BB Newsletters of 10 years ago. Since I deemed the choices from 10 years ago as not
appropriate, below is an article from 15 years ago. In this article (which actually
spread over two months, April and May, Gerry Berghold gets into the origin and definition of
the word "Ban" in April ...then Fritz Königshofer adds more in May. I could not resist, so
I've added my own 2018 editorial insert... we should have you totally confused now!
THE BURGENLAND BUNCH NEWS - No. 117C April 30, 2003
ORIGIN OF TERM "BAN" AS IN "BAN OF CROATIA"
In a message dated 4/7/03, Sorin Fortiu writes: Please allow introducing myself;
I am a researcher and I live in Romania/ie Timisoarain a region still named BANAT [Some
basic info on Banat can be found at
www.genealogy.ro/cont/1.html).
I would like to comment regarding the meaning of Ban/Banat [i.e., Ban as
ruler of a Banat]. Everything was ok until I reach the etymology problem of these
words. In THE BURGENLAND BUNCH NEWS - No. 96B, May 31, 2001, you make the comment: "A 'Ban'
by the way is Slavic for 'Duke' or the Latin 'Dux'." This is very interesting for me and I
would like to know, if possible, your source for this statement?
Reply:
Dear Sorin Fortiu, My interest in the term "Ban" arose because Franz Batthyány,
Ban of Croatia, was granted in 1524 the Herrschaft of Güssing (now Castle
Güssing, Bezirk Güssing, Stadt Güssing, Province of Burgenland in the southeast of Austria).
The Batthyány family held the fief until 1918, but still own Castle Güssing and land in
the area. The source of this are various histories of the Province of Burgenland (parts of
Hungarian Vas, Moson & Sopron Megyes, pre-1921). I used the term "Slavic"
perhaps in error (I was thinking of Croatian); from what follows below, I believe I
should have used the word "Hungarian" or Magyar.
Ban(horvát), as you probably know is a Hungarian word (noun) meaning
governor/viceroy - my dictionary says (of Croatia). It is also defined as
warden of the southern marches of Hungary. I have also seen it used to describe the
political entity ruled by a Ban as a "banate." A simple hiearchial structure in
early Hungary would have been King-Palatine; Vajda; Ban; Ispan
(administrator of a county or Megye [Comitatus]).
Most of the above comes from three books, currently being published in English. They are:
1. "A History of Hungary" edited by Peter F. Sugar, Peter Hanak and Tibor Frank.
Indiana University Press, 1994. The use of the term "Ban" occurs on 12 pages of this
book. First reference (p19 - written by Laszlo Makai - the chapter called Foundations of
the Hungarian Christian State) says:
"Coloman (successor to Hungarian Kings Ladislaus and Bela) convinced the papacy that a
Hungarian alliance was worth more than a forced oath of fealty and became King of Croatia,
Slavonia, and Dalmatia in 1102 with papal approval. He appointed viceroys with the title of "Ban"
to rule each of these lands.
Banat is mentioned in the above on five pages, mostly in conjunction with the so-called
Donau-Schwabian migration (repopulation). It is silent as to the origin of the word "Banat."
It could well be derived from the word "Ban" as you seem to indicate.
2. The second book is "Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804" by Peter
Sugar, Volume 5 of "A History of East Central Europe", University of Washington Press,
1993. In the appendix, page 343, we find the term "Ban" (banus) defined as
Hungarian viceroy administering Croatia. English definition of viceroy is "governor"
of a province who rules as a representative of his king. Now in the English Feudal
Hiearchy, a viceroy is a Duke, from the Latin: Dux. Since the Hungarians
used Latin almost exclusively for their governmental decrees, the Latin term Dux (Duke)
is often found in their records (see below). This book mentions Banat on three pages
starting with the 1527 movement of Christians to that area.
3. The third book is "The Slavs in European History and Civilization" by Francis
Dvornik. Rutgers University Press, 1962. Pages 136-137 state:
the lands of the Croats were regarded not as conquered lands (1102 AD - partes
subiugatć) but as annexed lands (partes adnexć) ...the independent status of
Croatia was respected ...As Croat kings, the Hungarian rulers used the title "King of
Croatia and Dalmatia" (rex Croatić et Dalmatić). Croatia was administered by a "ban"
the supreme officer of the realm, representing the king. Sometimes the kings chose to send
their sons or younger brothers to Croatia as administrators, called dukes (voivoda,
dux). The dukes or bans used the title Duke or Ban of
Slavonia (dux, banus Slavonić), in order to emphasize that their administration
extended over the whole Croat kingdom.
p104 - "Ratislav, a Russian prince, who after his expulsion from Galicia by the Mongols,
received the Banat of Slavonia with Belgrade from the Hungarians."
p357 - "The Serbians of the Banat revolted in 1594"
In a message dated 4/9/03, Sorin Fortiu replies: Sure (Ban) is not a
Hungarian word! I am a native Hungarian speaker [my mother is "pure" Hungarian and my
g-mother, which raised me, did not know more then 50 words in Romanian even if she lived all
her life in Romania]. So, I can tell you for sure that BAN [with the meaning of ruler
of a region named Banat] is not a Hungarian word.
Reply: Hungarian Dictionary "Magyar Angol Nagyszótár" - Országh László -
9th Edition - in two volumes - published by Akadémiai Kiadó - Budapest 1991, shows in
Vol. 1, page 139:
bán1 (with diacritical mark over a
and subscript 1) - verb regret, be sorry, etc.
bán2 (with dia. mark over a and
subscript 2) - noun, ban {horvat} governor, etc.
I can only surmise that if a word is found in the main section of a particular language
dictionary, it is considered a word of that language and not a "foreign" term, although I
assume the (horvat) connotes Croatian origin.
[Editorial Note (2018): As chance has it, I have the same two-volume
Hungarian-English Dictionary and was able to review the definitions therein. The actual
formatting of the second homonymn was:
bán2 [-ok. -t, -ja] n, ban, [hovát] governor/viceroy (of
Croatia), [régen] warden of the southern marches of Hungary
This entry is to be read as:
bán2
Hungarian entry-word (second homonymn)
[-ok. -t, -ja]
suffixes to the entry-word used to keep grammatical forms correct
n
indicates noun
ban
the main English equivalent of the Hungarian entry-word
[horvát]
a "guide/qualifying word" (meaning "Croatian") that refers to the entry-word
equivalent that follows
governor/viceroy (of Croatia)
"the specialized English equivalent of the Hungarian entry-word" as it relates to 'Croatian'
[régen]
a "guide/qualifying word" meaning "a long time ago; formerly" that refers to the
entry-word equivalent that follows
warden of the southern marches of Hungary
"the specialized English equivalent of the Hungarian entry-word" as it relates to 'a
long time ago'
So, bán is a Hungarian word that is equivalent to the English word ban but
has specialized meanings when used to refer to 'Croatia' or to 'a long time ago'.
That prompted me to look at my crusty old Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
College Edition (1968), where I found English definition:
bán3 (ban), n. Hist[orical] the governor or viceroy
of certain military districts of Croatia, Hungary and Slavonia.
The entry goes on to credit the word as coming from the Hungarian, which is said to have
acquired it from the Persian word bān, meaning lord.
For kicks, I also checked my large German-English dictionary for Ban, which claims it
is of Hungarian and Serbo-Croatian origin meaning Statthalter (governor) and is
ban in English.
Thus Gerry was correct that is is [now] a native Hungarian word but incorrect in
claiming it was of Croatian origin (it was derived from Persian).]
[Gerry continues:] I am mainly concerned with the Burgenland of Austria and its
historical background as it pertains to family history. This requires some knowledge of the
Balkans. My main resource for Balkan history is the ten volume series "A History of East
Central Europe" (volume one is an atlas) by the Univ. of Washington Press. Another
interesting book of the Carolingian Period is "Franks, Moravians, and Magyars, The Struggle
For The Middle Danube, 788-907," by Charles R. Bowlus, 1995, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
It argues and moves the locus of the Moravian Empire southeast from the Czech and Slovak area
of today to the Austrian-Hungarian border regions centered around Szombathely, Hungary. You
may be interested to know that we published in our newsletter series, an English translation
of Dobrovich's book, "People on the Border - History of the Burgenland Croats." Thanks
for your comments. I am not sure if you are familiar with our group, but let me append our
Invitation Letter, which will explain our purpose.
THE BURGENLAND BUNCH NEWS - No. 118A
May 31, 2003
MORE ON "BAN" DEFINITION (From Fritz Königshofer)
This is the little I can add to the discussion about the meaning of the terms Ban and
Banat as discussed in the new issue (117C) of the BB Newsletter.
My
Brockhaus encyclopedia says that Ban originally is a Slavic term describing the
highest rank after the Slavic prince (principes, Fürsten in German). It
later became a term for the rulers of the southeastern Hungarian marches (border counties),
which looks to me like the equivalent of Markgraf (in German) or marquis in
French. Perhaps it meant more as it may have described the ruler over several marches. Yet
later, Ban became the title of the rulers or governors of Croatia, Slavonia and
Dalmatia. Since Croatia had a royal crown (though for many centuries united with or under the
Hungarian crown), the term Ban in Croatia in later times resembled the rank just a step
under a king, possibly well translated as viceroy.
The term Banat (which looks to me like a German form meaning "ban-ate," i.e.,
the "realm of the Ban") apparently collectively referred to the southern marches of old
Hungary. However, after the liberation of this land from the Turks in 1718, the name Banat
became limited to the banate of Temesvár. In other words, Banat really got its
name from the term Ban. The area remained under Austrian military administration till
1751, and became part of Hungary (and its county-structure) only in 1779, after it had been
resettled by mostly ethnic Germans. Under the Turks, the land had become largely depopulated.
6) ETHNIC EVENTS
LEHIGH VALLEY, PA
Saturday, June 2: Kinderfest at the Evergreen Heimatbund in Fleetwood. Info:
www.evergreenclub.org
Saturday-Sunday, June 9-10: 86th Sängerfest of the United Federation of
Singers of Pennsylvania. Hosted by the Reading Liederkranz Singers. Choral concert
on Saturday at St. John's Lutheran Church in Reading. Picnic on Sunday at the Reading
Liederkranz. Info: www.readingliederkranz.com;
www.readingliederkranz.com/s/2018-86th-Sangerfest.pdf
Sunday, June 24: 101st Stiftungsfest of the Coplay Sängerbund. Choral
concert with the Hianz'nchor, the Reading Liederkranz Singers, and the
Lancaster Liederkranz Hobbychor. Dance in the pavilion with the Josef Kroboth Orchestra.
Info: www.coplaysaengerbund.com
NEW BRITAIN, CT
Friday, June 8, 7 pm: Heimat Abend. Austrian Donau Club, 545 Arch Street, $3.
Music by Frank Billowitz.
Friday, June 22, 7:30 pm: Heurigan Abend. Austrian Donau Club, 545 Arch Street,
$3. Music by Schachtelgebirger Musikanten.
TORONTO, CANADA
Sunday,
July 15, 9 am - 4 pm: Picnic - Anna Kirtag.Burgenländer Club Toronto will hold
their traditional Picnic - Anna Kirtag at Evening Bell Park, Adjala Township,
7th Concession, Hwy #9 & # 50.
The program includes a Holy Mass, at 10:30 in front of the chapel on the hill, followed by
food service, catered by Vienna Fine Foods. The bar will offer a variety of alcoholic
and non-alcoholic beverages. Music for dancing and listening will be by the Golden Keys.
The swimming pool will be open and games for the young and young at heart are planned.
The picnic will take place rain or shine, since the large clubhouse is available for use.
7) BURGENLAND EMIGRANT OBITUARIES
Karl Zach
Karl
Zach, 82, of the Town of Poughkeepsie, New York, formerly of Mahopac, passed away on May 2,
2018 with his wife Maria and his family by his side.
Born on January 30, 1936 in Gerersdorf, Austria, he was a son of the late Alois and Angela
(Wunderler) Zach. In 1951 he came to America to begin a new life. On November 15, 1959 he
married the love of his life Maria Weber, at the Immaculate Conception Church in Bronx, NY.
Together they were blessed with two children; Renee and Dennis.
Before he retired in 1999, Karl was a baker and the proud owner of Zach's Bakery in College
Point, NY. He was a very active member in his community and was a member of the 1st
Burgenländer Beneficial Society. In his spare time, Karl enjoyed fishing, woodworking, making
maple syrup and landscaping. He always had new ideas on how to make things work better, but
most of all, Karl loved to spend his time with family and friends. His grandchildren and
great-grandchildren brought him so much joy. He truly enjoyed attending his grandchildren's
sporting events, recitals and school activities. Karl was a devoted husband, a loving father,
grandfather, father-in-law, brother, uncle and a friend to many. One of the many things he was
most loved for; was that he was happy to make you happy. Karl's legacy of love and devotion to
family and friends will continue to grow in our hearts.
Karl is survived by his devoted wife of 58 years, Maria, his loving children; Renee DeVincenzo
and husband Richard, and Dennis Zach and wife Xenia, four cherished grandchildren; Marissa
Rubino, Michele Cordero, Garrett Zach and Kyra Zach and two wonderful great-grandchildren;
Nathaniel Rubino and Stella Rubino, all of whom he adored and each child held a special place
in his heart. He is also survived by his three beloved siblings; Julius Zach, John Zach and
Rosemary Neubauer. He is predeceased by his three other beloved siblings; Alois Zach, Jr.,
Angela Kessler and Theresa Boisits.
A visitation will be held on Sunday, May 6, 2018 from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. at Cargain Funeral
Homes, Inc., 418 Route Six (for GPS 418 US6), Mahopac, NY 10541. A Mass of Christian burial
will be held on Monday, at 10:00 a.m. at St. John the Evangelist R.C., Church, 224 East Lake
Blvd., Mahopac, NY 10541. Interment will follow at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery in Hawthorne,
NY. In lieu of flowers please consider making a memorial donation in Karl Zach's name for
Parkinson's Research to: The Michael J. Fox Foundation - POB 5014, Hagerstown, MD 21741-5014.
Published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on May 5, 2018
END OF NEWSLETTER (Even good things must end!)
NOTICE (Informal Terms and Conditions): The Burgenland Bunch (BB) was formed and
exists to assist Burgenland descendants in their research into their heritage and, toward that
end, reserves the right to use any communication you have with us (email, letter, phone
conversation, data upload, etc.) as part of our information exchange and educational research
efforts.
● If you do not want your communication to be used for this purpose, indicate
that it is "confidential" and we will attempt to abide by that request.
● Correspondents who communicate with the BB without requesting
confidentiality retain their copyright but give a non-exclusive license to the BB allowing
us to forward to BB members, publish in our monthly newsletter or on our website, and/or
subsequently and permanently archive all or parts of such communications.
The formal Burgenland Bunch Website Usage Agreement can be found here:
Agreement
This
month's collection of bits and pieces in Article 1 begins with a
verse on writing and a note on the EU GDPR, then does covers of three
ORF articles before singing out on web usage; we finish with a YouTube video of
the song "The Immigrant."
The
following article is based on two news releases provided by the online Newsroom of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormons).
As you know, the LDS provides the FamilySearch.org site that many of us depend
on for records about our ancestors. 
he
practice is rooted in the belief that "certain sacred sacraments, such as baptism, are
required to enter the kingdom of heaven and that a just God will give everyone who ever lived
a fair opportunity to receive them, whether in this life or the next." According to Church
doctrine, "a departed soul in the afterlife is completely free to accept or reject such a
baptism—the offering is freely given and must be freely received." The Church says it "has
never claimed the power to force deceased persons to become Church members or Mormons, and it
does not list them as such on its records." Further, it says that the notion of coerced
conversion is utterly contrary to its Church doctrine.
Reply:
Dear Sorin Fortiu, My interest in the term "Ban" arose because Franz Batthyány,
Ban of Croatia, was granted in 1524 the Herrschaft of Güssing (now Castle
Güssing, Bezirk Güssing, Stadt Güssing, Province of Burgenland in the southeast of Austria).
The Batthyány family held the fief until 1918, but still own Castle Güssing and land in
the area. The source of this are various histories of the Province of Burgenland (parts of
Hungarian Vas, Moson & Sopron Megyes, pre-1921). I used the term "Slavic"
perhaps in error (I was thinking of Croatian); from what follows below, I believe I
should have used the word "Hungarian" or Magyar. 
Sunday,
July 15, 9 am - 4 pm: Picnic - Anna Kirtag. Burgenländer Club Toronto will hold
their traditional Picnic - Anna Kirtag at Evening Bell Park, Adjala Township,
7th Concession, Hwy #9 & # 50. 
Karl
Zach, 82, of the Town of Poughkeepsie, New York, formerly of Mahopac, passed away on May 2,
2018 with his wife Maria and his family by his side.
News
"The
goal is to make a space 
The
EU’s General Data Protection Regulation: On May 25th, the EU’s General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect. The GDPR is the EU's primary
law regulating how companies must protect personal data of EU citizens. Per the law, companies
that fail to achieve GDPR compliance can be subject to stiff penalties and fines. This is
why you may have received a number of emails from internet-based companies saying that their
privacy statements have been updated.
For
those of you who have attended Burgenland Delegation events in North America, Verena
Dunst is an old friend, having visited the US and Canada a number of times over the years.
Astrid Eisenkopf is a new friend, having made her first visit to our North American Burgenländer
enclaves this past summer.
More
Wind Turbines for Burgenland: As a result of the Green Electricity Amendment 2017,
an additional 52 wind turbines are to be built in Burgenland. The funds provided by the Green
Electricity Innovation Plan will allow construction over four years of a total of 148 wind
turbines in Austria; the 52 in Burgenland are expected to produce clean electricity for about
125,000 households.
(I
shake my head over how often I start a note with those words!), I came across site
Update
for book "The Burgenländer Emigration to America": Here is this month's update on
purchases of the English issue of the 3rd edition of Dr. Walter Dujmovits' book "Die
Amerika-Wanderung Der Burgenländer."
BRAIDED
BREAD (NANA'S RECIPE)(from Ed Malesky)
Reminder:
We no longer have a "regular" source for Burgenland recipes. As evidenced above, a few readers
have shared favorite family recipes, and we do have a reserve for a couple of months now, but if
contributions stop coming in, we'll be begging again! So, please consider sharing your favorite
Burgenland recipes or recipe books with us. Our older relatives sadly aren't with us forever, so
don't allow your allow your favorite ethnic dishes to become lost to future generations. Send
your suggestions to BB Recipes Editor,
me
to finally provide a Gazetteer resource on the BB website, now (as of last month) found
here: 
in the upper right
corner of your pdf viewer and select "Save File." You are welcome to save a local copy
of the annotated Gazetteer keys too.]
Going
to the 1913 Gazetteer and scrolling down to the alphabetic H section (you have
to manually move in these pdf files), I found the pair of entries shown to the right (they
were the only ones anything like the names we have).
symbol after the village name
says it is included in Hódság). The text after the trailing punctuation says these
places are in Bács-Bodrog vm. (vármegye / County) and in the Hódság j. (járas
/ District) within that County.
),
composed mostly of Germans (N.) and the rest Magyars (m.)
[Note: the case of the letters indicated majority (uppercase) vs. minority (lowercase)
proportions of ethnicity in the town]. The
symbol says they are Roman
Catholic and have their own parish [Note: had they been a daughter church, the symbol used
would have been "r.k."]. The text 8,405 kh. gives the size of the town's farming
acreage in Katastral holds. The next bit says the State Registrar (ak.)
is local (helyben), but the Court of Justice (tsz.) is in Zombor, the
District Courthouse with land registration authority (jbtk.) and tax office
(ah.) are local, as is the Gendarme headquarters (cs. ö.). "6, VI, 19"
are the numbers for the military supplementary district, the Honvéd brigade, and
the Landsturm district that the town is a part of. The last set of symbols
indicate, respectively, that
there is a train station, both state and private telegraph stations, a telephone,
and a postal and state telegram office in town. The final bit under the
Hódság-Kálvária entry, u. p. Hódság, says the last/nearest post office is in
Hódság.
Another
useful tool for confirming villages is the Military Survey maps accessible from
the BB's Hungarian Maps section. For example, if you select the Third Military
Survey and put Odžaci, Serbia in the search box and click the search button, the
map zooms into the image to the right... so Odžaci shows a village named Hodságh
and beside it is what is obviously the Hódság-Kálvária that we saw in the Gazetteer
entries.
My
Brockhaus encyclopedia says that Ban originally is a Slavic term describing the
highest rank after the Slavic prince (principes, Fürsten in German). It
later became a term for the rulers of the southeastern Hungarian marches (border counties),
which looks to me like the equivalent of Markgraf (in German) or marquis in
French. Perhaps it meant more as it may have described the ruler over several marches. Yet
later, Ban became the title of the rulers or governors of Croatia, Slavonia and
Dalmatia. Since Croatia had a royal crown (though for many centuries united with or under the
Hungarian crown), the term Ban in Croatia in later times resembled the rank just a step
under a king, possibly well translated as viceroy.