|
The Banat
– a “Penal Colony“ of Maria Theresia?
by Dr. Hans Dama
Translated by Nick Tullius
|
|
This
irrelevant assertion has repeatedly
appeared in the historiography,
without the authors being able to
provide any primary source evidence
to prove it.
In the recent presentation "Short
History of the old-Austrian German
ethnic groups in Southeast Europe”,
written under the auspices of the
private foundation of
German-speaking displaced persons
from the Sudetenland, Carpathian and
Danube Regions, 1030 Vienna,
Steingasse 25, 2008, the author, Dr.
Peter Wassertheurer, makes the same
mistake, when he writes on p. 33:
"[…] From 1766 the Banat had its own
Impopulations Commission to better
coordinate the settlement process
between the Vienna Hofkammer and the
responsible bodies in the Banat.
Maria Theresia allowed the Banat to
be converted into a penal colony for
rebels, prisoners of war,
prostitutes, and felons. In 1778,
the Vienna Hofkammer handed the
Banat back to the Hungarian
Hofkammer […]"
To make such a serious allegation
without quoting primary sources, is
amateurish and inadmissible,
insulting to an entire ethnic group
and its habitat.
But what is this allegation based
on? That is a field of activity for
historians, and in the archives of
Vienna, Budapest and Temeswarer,
they would certainly find plenty of
relevant material. The
starting point for the deportation
policy, especially in the Theresian
age, was a policy of deterrence: the
Banat was in those days a region
racked by swamp fever, and therefore
feared in the whole empire.
Secondly, the so-called harmful
elements of the population were to
contribute something to the benefit
the whole nation.
But the settlement of an area of low
population density, with persons of
dubious character, in order to
develop a stable population, is just
not possible. The deportation known
in history as ”Viennese Water
Thrust” or ”Temeswarer Water
Thrust”, initiated by Charles VI and
accelerated by Maria Theresia,
Archduchess of Austria and Queen of
Hungary and Bohemia (ONLY wife of
the Emperor, NEVER empress!) just
proves that statement.
The deportation of the Hauensteiners
and that of the Protestants moved
from Austria to Transylvania for
reasons of religious policy are two
other examples of failures in the
population policy of the Habsburgs
in the 18th Century, because none of
these three deportations achieved
its goal as a deterrent.
Emperor Joseph II, was a
follower of the Enlightenment, and
thus a champion of equal rights and
equal treatment for all countries
and territories of the monarchy, and
brought this deportation policy to
an end. The Hungarians had been
vehemently opposed to these types of
deportations from the beginning, and
it is the merit of the
“Einrichtungswerk" (”installation
work") of Cardinal Kollonich that it
vigorously opposed any deportation
policy.
1
"Now it remains solely to consider
in what kind of fashion the
settlement in Hungary is to be
accomplished, and to note that while
in history two kinds of settlement
are found, namely with colonists
moved by force from overpopulated
regions, or with harmful rabble and
the dregs of other countries and
cities, even hostile subjects and
residents, or by public invitation
and indiscriminate acceptance of
foreign peoples, but especially
since the first mode is very
difficult and dangerous to
introduce: partly as being violent
and against nature, according to
which patria sua cuique dulcissimum
est solum [only his own country is
sweetest], so those taken to remote
islands, where the deported people
have no hope left to escape, mostly
having been liquidated, partly dwell
like collected dross, dedicated to
idleness and vice, bringing a
country more harm than benefits […]"
2
The ‘Temeswarer water thrust’
removed undesirable persons from the
imperial capital of Vienna and from
its closer and more distant
surroundings, and exiled them to the
Banat of Temeswar.
For about 17 years, between 1752 and
May 1768, with the exception of the
war years 1758-1760, these
transports took place twice a year -
in the spring and in the fall. The
eligible persons were gathered in
Vienna and transported on the water
down the Danube (hence ‘water
thrust’) to Temeswar in the Banat.
The
following figures illustrate the
number of deported persons:
3
1752 – 1757 ~ 709 persons
Dec. 1758 284 persons
Aug. 1759 64 persons
April 1760 263 persons
May
1761 107 persons
Oct
1761 107 persons
May
1762 113 persons
Nov. 1762 135 persons
May
1763 158 persons
Oct. 1763 77 persons
May
1764 117 persons
Oct. 1764 78 persons
May
1765 175 persons
Oct
1765 100 persons
May
1766 161 persons
Nov
1766 134 persons
May
1767 136 persons
Oct. 1767 120 persons
May 1768 122 persons
The
question arises whether these 3130
”thrust people” can be counted as an
real population increase, given that
during the second Swabian
Colonization (1763-1773)
approximately 42,000 voluntary
emigrants came to the Banat. Most
historians doubt it.4
The thrust was actually intended to
help population growth in the Banat,
but nobody really cared about the
fate of this type of deportees once
they arrived in the Banat. The
administration in Temeswar and its
superior authority, the
“Ministerialbanco-hofdeputation” in
Vienna, saw the thrust people as an
undesirable burden, which only
increased their cost by their
demands of clothes, accommodation
and so on.
An on 3 December 1762, the State
Council, in a meeting with Queen
Maria Theresa and Crown Prince
Joseph II, all the relevant
authorities involved in the
resettlement plans for the Banat -
the Temeswar Administration, the
Bancodeputation, the Hofkammer and
the Illyrian Hofdeputation – took a
determined position against this
type of settlement plans (by means
of water thrust).
Councillor Baron Egid of Borié
took the view that the thrust people
would be available as a free
material for the marsh drainage
works in the Banat, if they they
were helped to improve their lot:
"This arrangement would have to
insist that the prisoners remain in
the local workhouse until they show
real improvement, rather than
releasing the loose girls in the
Banat, for those Serbs to trade
their bodies."5
This position was endorsed by the
Queen and thus implied the
continuation of the ‘water thrust’.6
After a long period of silence, in
the spring of 1763, the President of
the Temeswar Administration
presented the Vienna Court with a
list of the Catholics settled in the
Banat. It was probably his intention
to make the ‘water thrusts’ appear
superfluous, because according to
its listing, 32,981 Catholics had
already been settled.
Borié interpreted this
differently and took it as proof of
how many souls this vast, sparsely
populated country could still
accommodate. In addition, he was of
the opinion that to establish
families, more women should be moved
into the Banat, because according to
the population statistics, there
were more males than females: 4211
boys of 1-8 years; and 3348 boys of
8-20 years; for a total of 7559.
There were 3918 girls of 1-8 years,
and 2925 girls of 8-20 years, for a
total of 6841. There was thus a
difference of 715 in favor of male
youth.7
For Temeswar and the suburbs,
however, the population figures were
evenly balanced: 1194 men and 1122
women, even though in a city of
administration officials the male
population predominates. Borié
concludes that "therefore care must
be taken to ensure that more women
are dispatched to that country. This
can be done if more loose girls from
our city are shipped there, and made
useful to the population there".8
Clearly, the monarch followed
the proposal of Councilor of State
Borié, and issued orders to the
Bancodeputation to continue the
‘water thrust’.9 The
governments of the German hereditary
lands were excited by this measure,
because it allowed them to get rid
of their financial obligations for
the prisons and workhouses for
undesirables. They even wanted to
extend the ‘water thrust’ to the
whole of Hungary.
So far, the ‘water thrust’ had
transported only citizens, but the
Hofdekret of 18 August 1764 stated
that it should also include foreign
vagabonds, who previously were
enrolled in the military or, if they
were not fit for that, returned to
their home country. The Lower
Austrian government announced on 5
September 1764 that their workhouse
for citizens was not sufficient and
therefore only the dispatch to
Hungary should be considered.10
When asked about the possible
use of such persons on its own
properties, the Hungarian Hofkammer
meeting in Bratislava on 12 November
and on 10 December 1764, reacted
with a sharp rejection. It thus
prevented this project a priori, so
that the ‘water thrust’ had to
remain limited to the Banat (as a
crown colony of the Habsburgs). Some
individuals succeeded in fleeing
from the ‘water thrusts’ in
Bratislava or Pest and avoided the
onward transport to the Banat.
The ‘water thrusts’
transported "unsavory elements" to
the Banat, but military personnel
needed for work on the fortress of
Temeswar were not part of them, even
though some used the ‘water thrusts’
as a convenient means of transport:
in 1762, only 52 military
delinquents worked in the fortress
Temeswar.11
The
occupants of the Temeswar jail were
not ‘water thrust’ people, because
they had been convicted to carry out
their sentences locally.
The ‘thrust people’
transported from Vienna to the Banat
were different from the groups
mentioned above, because they had
not committed any actual crimes that
could be tried in a real criminal
court. These people were subjected
only to preventive measures in order
to remove unwelcome "elements" from
the imperial capital of Vienna and
its surroundings. They were persons
that could exert a negative moral
influence on their fellow humans,
without necessarily having committed
a specific offence. A complaint
about their flashy lifestyle could
be enough to become a ‘water push
person’; no court action was
required. This inadequate procedure,
created for the convenience of the
justice system, was later denounced
by Emperor Joseph II, because only
his mother, Queen Maria Theresia,
was responsible for it.
The enlightened monarch Joseph
II was elected emperor after the
death of his father, emperor Franz
Stephan of Lorraine. From 1765 on,
he was co-regent with his mother
Maria Theresia, in the Habsburg
hereditary lands. He convinced all
the important statesmen of the
monarchy about the injustice and
cruelty of the ‘water thrusts’ as
parts of the government system. But
Maria Theresia, generally seen as a
caring mother of the country,
continued to defend the ‘water
push’. Her attitude must be
interpreted within the general
approach of the Theresianic criminal
law, as expressed in the Codex
Theresianus. The principle of
deterrence reigned supreme, but it
was not the crime and its punishment
in itself, but rather the fear of
penalties, that was to be spread in
the ranks of the masses. And that
was also the purpose of the ‘water
thrust’.
Through this ‘water thrust’
policy, the Banat gained a bad
reputation and was seen in Vienna as
"a country of criminals": "Then the
name of Banat already made them
stop," said Maria Theresa, as she
tried to defend her position to the
bitter end.12
That Maria Theresia converted
the Banat into a penal colony for
rebels, prisoners of war, loose
girls and felons, is historically
wrong. The term “penal colony” was
never used, nor was the political
and legal basis for it ever created
in the crown land Banat. And the
terminology that is, or was, used in
the vernacular or colloquially, is
historically irrelevant, even if in
the middle of the 18th century an
Austrian satirical song on the
deportation to Transylvania
(Protestants) and the Banat was in
circulation:
//“Royal soldiers/five
battalions/ Cavalry-men and Croats/
are already watching you,/ Those
that do not want to remain
Catholic,/ Will be chased from the
land. / Even to Temeswar! / Hey,
that scares you! //"13
It would be wrong to assume
that because of the arbitrary way of
putting together the ‘water thrusts,
they were consistently and
predominantly made up of criminals.
Rather the opposite was the case:
The percentage of actual or alleged
criminals of the total population of
the ‘water thrusts’ was extremely
low.
The number of farmers from
Lower Austria that were in conflict
with the government for various
reasons, was considerable. And since
in the middle of the 18th century
the patrimonial justice system was
still in use in Austria, the state
allowed the transfer of those who
were sentenced by the landowners’
court (i.e., farmers) to the public
sector. They were placed in the
public work houses, into the
military, or just into the ‘water
push’. The arbitrariness of
landowners’ courts, which acted both
as judge and accuser, is obvious. If
a farmer dared to demand his rights,
he was simply placed into the ‘water
push’ "because of disobedience".
Also refusal of ‘Robot’ and shooting
of the nobleman’s game, even when it
damaged the farmer’s fields, was
cause for removal of the farmer by
the ‘water thrust’.
Even Queen Maria Theresia, who
loved to hunt, was against poaching,
while Emperor Joseph II loathed
hunting and gave his share of the
heron hunting area in Laxenburg to
the farmers, for free use.
Considering that the deported
farmers were often people with
considerable properties, one wonders
who benefited from the assets left
behind.
For
example, ten farmers from the Vienna
Woods (Gföhl) were brought to Lugoj
in 1758, from where they petitioned
for the return of their properties.
About 500-600 guilders were at
stake, a significant amount. On
average, the claims amounted to 200
Fl, a sizable possession for the
farmers in the 18th century.14
The second group of deported
persons included smugglers
(especially of tobacco products), as
a necessary consequence of the then
compelling economic system (radical
import ban and huge internal customs
duties), who today would not
necessarily be considered totally
dishonorable. If today somebody has
the misfortune of being caught
trying to illegally carry some
cigarettes or a few bottles of
alcohol across the border, he will
certainly not be placed into a penal
camp.
One cannot blame the people
from the less prosperous regions of
the former monarchy, if they wanted
a share of the general prosperity.
To deport them as "criminals"
appears to today’s citizens as
exaggerated. Other groups were
allocated to the ‘water thrust’
because they were considered to be
”rowdy elements" or resisters
against state authority. In
addition, there were beggars,
vagrants, vagabonds, and also
foreigners who had found their way
back to Vienna after repeated
deportation to their homeland.
Among the female deportees,
the vast majority was formed by
"loose women" or "women stepping on
a man's premises" or caught "in a
military guard room" of Vienna. But
even in the legal opinion of the
18th century, such "offenses" were
not considered criminal offenses in
the strict sense of the word. There
were no convictions for such
offenses.
The
punishment for these offences was
actually supposed to be confinement
to local or regional prisons or work
houses. But in the 18th century
these facilities were often lacking,
so that the delinquents were simply
placed onto the ‘water thrust’. They
were supposed to be transferred to
areas with low food prices, where
they could be useful for increasing
the agricultural production. So it
was decided at the Vienna Court of
Maria Theresia to send them to the
Banat. But in the Banat, Count Mercy
had already stimulated industrial
production - think of the emergence
of Temeswarer Fabrikstadt (factory
town) - and cheap labour was always
welcome.
The prison built in Temeswar
was much too small to hold all
people brought in by the ’water
thrusts’. An extension of the local
prison for those arriving in the
Banat or Temeswar without custodial
sentence imposed, as Borié had
requested, could not be
contemplated, as the prison had been
built for the detention of local
criminal offenders that had been
properly sentenced. The solution was
to just free the ’water thrust’
people, in the hope that they would
be available as part of the warforce
of the Banat.
Borié intended to provide the
cheapest labor force to the Banat,
because of a lack of workers and
servants in this inhospitable
region, but the grain production was
also to be encouraged. The place of
exile was supposed to be as far away
from Vienna as possible, to prevent
the potential return of these
unpleasant elements to Vienna. And
the Banat was such a place. Although
Borié’s goal was to send out vast
numbers of women, the female element
of ‘water thrusts’ was always in the
minority, as illustrated by the
example of the ‘water thrust’ from
May 19, 1768.15
Of the 122 persons, numbers
1-9 were men destined for Temeswar
that had been properly sentenced; 61
were men "ordered only to serve and
work in the Banat ". Others were
deported with wife and children.
Numbers 68-72 were "female
subjects", with remaining penalties
of fortress imprisonment. Numbers
73-122, however, were sent only to
"serve and work". In Hungary, five
persons already left the ship: one
in Pressburg and four in Pest. For
them, the way back to Vienna was not
a problem.
A considerable number of
‘water thrust’ persons were of
Hungarian origin, found prowling
around Vienna: "They were mainly
gypsies from the area of today's
Burgenland. One ‘water thrust’ held
Hungarian gypsies: 4 men, 2 of them
with families, and 11 single, young
gypsy women and girls. Places of
origin are Wieselburg, Prodersdorf
[probably Podersdorf, HD],
Potzneusiedel, Weiden am See, Gr.
Sinzendorf, Ödenburg (today: Sopron)
Ungarisch Altenburg [today:
Mosonmagyarovár, HD] and Warasdin.
Offences committed were: dangerous
prowling and begging. The non-gypsy
delinquents had committed theft,
fraud and adultery, while the actual
‘water thrust’ people had committed
attacks on the guard, illegal
trading with tobacco, and especially
hunting without a permit. The women
had committed predominated
“thresspassing of a man’s premises”,
and unruly behavior."16
All these groups of ‘thrust
people’ lacked any precondition for
developing into solid, stable
citizens. This was due in no small
measure to the prevailing living
conditions in the Banat and the
treatment they had received. Even
the living conditions came close to
a death penalty (according to the
‘death-not-bread’ saying of the
settlers brought in by the three
major Swabian migrations).
The only way to survive was to
work as a servant or maid, since
there were hardly any other
opportunities for private
employment. For public works, the
treasury had to take advantage of
the available ’Robot’ days owed by
its subjects. The German settlement
farmers limited their workforce to
their own offspring. Because of
language barriers, the majority of
the ‘thrust people’ were unable to
enter in the service of Wallachian
and Serbian farmers. Whoever was
able to get it, accepted work as a
servant in Temeswar, but even here
the demand was soon fulfilled.
With the prettier girls,
Serbian traders established a lively
trade with Turkey. Only a small
number were forced to continue their
‘Viennese trade’ at the lowest level
in the Banat. All these ‘loose
women’ tried to get back to Vienna
as soon as possible. Once they were
there, they could get apprehended
again, and placed on a new ‘water
thrust’. This game was often
repeated four or five times until
they finally were able to submerge
in Vienna. It must not go
unmentioned that a large part of the
‘water thrust’ people died of swamp
fever, the prevailing disease of the
Banat.
Emperor Joseph II, who unlike
his mother, was an opponent of the
’water thrust’ from the beginning,
was able to convince all statesmen
engaged in this endeavor, of the
futility of this approach. The water
thrusts were finally stopped, and
the emperor ordered the return of
the deportees. The emperor also
ordered the construction of a large
work house in Austria, where -
unlike in the Banat - the economic
and demographic conditions for the
care of ’water thrust’ people were
available.17
Even Borié considered the
arguments of the emperor as
convincing and state chancellor
Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz was also
striving to get Maria Theresia to
agree, but the monarch - by nature a
fighter – was not inclined to give
up the ‘water thrust’. She defended
this action as follows: "Much can be
said against the abolition of the
‘thrust’, but one can suspend it for
2 years to see the effect. I want to
believe that there were many
excesses in its execution. It might
be possible to stop these, but keep
the activity. Meanwhile the ‘water
thrust’ should be suspended […]
However, not all people affected
should be allowed to return:
otherwise Vienna would be full of
thieves and the country full of
illegal hunters, hence there would
be little security. Until now, the
name of Banat already made them
stop. It does not surprise me that
there is no police in Banat, because
in all my country no good one is
known."18
Thus the cessation of the
’water thrusts’ was prevented by the
veto of Maria Theresia, but in the
pertinent section of the resolution,
it is stated: "The ordinary Viennese
’water thrust’ is suspended until
further orders […]". This is only a
temporary cessation, but gradually
it became permanent.19
Because the deportations of
Protestants continued until the end
of Maria Theresia’s reign, there
were occasional applications for
deportation through the ’water
thrust’ that were approved and
sometimes carried out.20
The case of the so-called
Waldviertler Bauern (“woodquarter
farmers”) from Gföhl involves the
subjects of Count Franz Wenzel
Sinzendorf. Because in Lower Austria
proper regulations had not been
introduced, the farmers challenged
the nature of Robot-allocations.
Specifically, they declined the
transportation of wood to Krems that
had been scheduled for a time they
considered unfavorable. The noble
landowners obtained the involvement
of the military. Eight elderly,
well-liked farmers, viewed as
alleged ringleaders, were captured
and detained for eight days, then
placed for 14 days in irons, and
finally thrown into a prison. After
this approach failed to frighten the
farmers, the land owners asked for
the deportation of these
recalcitrants, including their wives
and children, to the Banat. This was
meant to set a horrible example, so
that the subjects would no longer
dare to oppose against the
landowners. Fierce debates ensued in
the State Council about this case.21
In October 1771 an attempt was
made to restart the ’water thrust’.
After the medical doctor Haan had
returned illicitly from the Banat to
Vienna, he was convicted together
with the farmers from Gföhl and sent
to the Banat: "He will practice
medicine there and thus earn his
living"; he was even granted some
financial aid.22
The petition submitted by their
neighbors, asking for the release of
the farmers, was not taken into
account and the farmer families were
sent to the Banat with the ‘water
thrust’ that departed mid-October.
They could not do much with
the 40 Fl they received. While they
had been allocated a piece of land
in the Banat to set up an economic
foundation, they remained connected
to their Lower Austrian homeland,
where in the auction of its former
land and houses, no member of the
village community expressed an
interest in their lands and houses.
This justified a complaint regarding
the lack of compensation for their
abandoned properties in Lower
Austria. A new action to the monarch
was initiated, with the request that
they be allowed to return home.23
After Maria Theresia took over
the matter personally, the farmers
finally received permission to
return to Gföhl, with the condition
that they not leave their land until
their case was clarified. In a
letter to Blümegen dated 1 November
1773, Maria Theresia finally
approved the formation of a local
commission to resolve the matter, as
requested by the farmers, and issued
the order that a new deportation to
the Banat be avoided.24
Unfortunately, and as
expected, the members of the
commission endorsed the position of
the landowners, and after the
farmers showed no willingness to go
along, on 27 August 1774 the
commission demanded renewed use of
the cavalry to punish the
recalcitrants. The soldiers used
canes and whips repeatedly, until
the resistance could be broken.
The petition of the landowners, to
deport the farmers back to the
Banat, was supported by the
Bohemian-Austrian Chancellery,
although Gebler and Löhr stood firm
against the petition, in the name of
humanity. In addition, they pointed
out that the commission had ignored
its mandate to find a consensual
solution with the farmers.25
The new head of the State
Council, count Karl Friedrich
Hatzfeld, took the side of the
landowners and demanded the maximum
penalty for the farmers. This time
the monarch stuck with her decision:
"I cannot agree to this severe
punishment of subjects who,
according to the commission’s own
findings, have previously suffered
from the oppression and exaggerated
heaviness of the government
officials. Lasting peace could never
be established in the proposed way,
because the subjects still insist
that the demands made by the
landowners upon them … exceeded
their capabilities […]"26
An accommodation was to be found on
the basis of the Robot patent and
mutual consent. It still took some
time before the farmers achieved a
satisfactory resolution, because the
landowners had repeatedly tried to
push through their own position.
Also early in the year 1775,
after the monarchy had ordered the
resumption of court proceedings and
had nominated the members of the
Judicium delegatum, Graf Sinzendorf
and his supporters mounted a serious
defense, and by "special grace" were
granted that Count Seilern could
propose the members of this special
court. In this way the trial was
delayed and its impartial workings
were put at risk.27
Based on this case, it can be
shown how the beneficiaries and
advocates of the continuation of the
deportation policy persistently
pursued their objectives, and how
hopeless the situation of the
Austrian farmers was. They were
subjected to the will of their lords
- as were the Hauensteiner and the
Protestants – and they reacted by
passive resistance, to avoid being
transplanted as colonists to the
Banat.
The majority of the ’thrust
people’, if they survived, would
sooner or later return from the
Banat to their Austrian areas of
origin.
The
composition of the ’push’ of 1768
showed that the majority of ’push
people’ had already been taken to
the Banat once or twice before, and
it was an exception, when a few of
these people actually came to reside
in the Banat.
Von Baussard, administrative
director and speaker for deportation
affairs with the Banat country
authority, informed Emperor Joseph
II that of the thrust people "very
few, compared to the number sent,
almost none, had settled either in
Temeswar or in the jurisdictions of
the different administrative
offices."28
And these few were farmers
willing to build a new life in the
Banat, and not loose girls,
pickpockets, or vagabonds, who could
not accept their narrowed field of
activity in the Banat, and who
quickly found their way back to
Vienna, as the Gföhler farmers had
found theirs to the Waldviertel.
That, historically speaking,
the ’water thrust’ was a total
failure, meaningless to the existing
population structure of Banat, needs
no further explanation. But if
tendentious attempts are made to
repeatedly revive this issue, they
indicate either professional
incompetence or ignorance on the
part of their authors, and appear
counterindicated to the search for,
and the finding of, the truth.
Remarks:
-
Cod. Palat. Vindobon. (= Codex
Palatinensis Vindobonae) = heute ÖNB
(Österreichische Nationalbibliothek)
Wien.
-
HKA = Österreichisches Staatsarchiv;
Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv Wien.
-
Ministerialbancohofdeputation (Bancodeputation)
= Staatsbank innerhalb der Hofkammer
(= Finanzministerium)
- Reisrealtion =
Bericht eines wirtschaftlich
nutzbareren Hoheitsrechtes (in
diesem Fall: das Banat; < Reis =
Regalien)
-
St. R = Staats-Rat
F o o
t n o t e s
1
Vgl. Cod. Palat. Vindobon.[heute ÖNB]
Wien, Nr. 8653.
2
Cod. Palat. Vindobon. [heute ÖNB]
Wien, Nr.8653, Wien.
3
Vgl. Reisrelation Josephs II. von
1768 = Spezifikation, wie viel
Personen seither 10 Jahren,
nämlichen ab anno 1758 bis inclusive
1767 mittels des Wienerischen
Wassertransports allhier zu Temeswar
eingetroffen sind, ausgefertigt vom
k k Banatischen Landgericht. 14. Mai
1768, und aus den Angaben Boriés in
seinem Votum St. R. 2539/1762.
4
Vgl. Konrad Schünemann: „Die
Einstellung der theresianischen
Impopulation“, in: Jahrbuch des
Wiener Ungarischen Historischen
Instituts. Band 1, 1931, S. 170 ff.
5
St. R. 3800/1762.
6
Vgl. St. R. 3800/1762.
7
Vgl. St. R. 1352/63.
8
St. R. 1352/63.
9
Vgl. HKA, Banater Akten No 35,
Resolution auf den Bancovortrag vom
17. April 1763.
10
Vgl. HKA, No. 32, 1764, Nr. 35.
11
Vgl. St. R. 2539/1762.
12
HKA, 1765, Nr. 44.
13
Zitiert nach Beheim-Schwarzbach:
Hohenzollernsche Kolonisationen.
Leipzig 1874, S. 337.
14
Vgl. HKA, Banater Akten No 35, 31.
Okt.1759.
15
Vgl. Beilage H der kaiserlichen
Reisrelation vom 19.5.1768.
16
Beilage H der kaiserlichen
Reisrelation vom 19.5.1768.
17
Vgl. St. R. 4218/1770.
18
St. R. 4218/1770.
19
St. R. 4218/1770.
20
Vgl. St. R. 4218/1770.
21
Vgl. St. R. 2999/1771.
22
St. R. 2999/1771.
23
Vgl. St. R. 2144/1773.
24
Vgl. St. R. 2405/1773.
25
Vgl.St. R. 2405/1773.
26
St. R. 3315/1774.
27
Vgl. St. R. 674/ 1775; 1028/1775;
2259/1775.
28
Beilage H der kaiserlichen
Reisrelation vom 19.5.1768.
L i t e r a t u r e
- Bellér, Béla:
Kurze Geschichte der Deutschen in
Ungarn, Teil I (bis 1919), Budapest,
1986.
-
Feldtänzer, Oskar: Joseph II. und
die donauschwäbische Ansiedlung.
Linz/München, 1990.
-
Griselini, Franz: Versuch einer
politischen und natürlichen
Geschichte des Temeswarer Banats in
Briefen an Standespersonen und
Gelehrte. Erster Theil in 1 Bd.,
Wien, Verlag Johann Paul Krauß 1780,
135 S.,1 mehf. gef. Karte, 7 gef.
Kpfr. Hfrz d. Zt.
-
Hofkammerarchiv (HKA) Wien, Banater
Akten.
-
Kallbrunner, Josef ; Wilhelm, Franz:
Quellenbuch zur deutschen
Siedlungsgeschichte Südosteuropa,
München (1932-1936).
-
Kallbrunner, Josef:
Familiengeschichtliche Quellen des
Auslandsdeutschtums in Südosteuropa.
Archiv für Sippenforschung und alle
verwandten Gebiete. (Görlitz). Jg.
12 (1935), S. 1-3.
-
Kallbrunner, Josef: Einrichtung und
Entwicklung des Banats bis 1739.
München, 1958.
-
Kallbrunner, Josef: Quellen zur
deutschen Siedlungsgeschichte in
Südosteuropa. 1932.
-
Kallbrunner, Josef:
Veröffentlichungen des Wiener
Hofkammerarchivs. 1935.
-
Kraushaar, Karl: Kurzgefaßte
Geschichte des Banates. Wien, 1923.
-
Krischan, Alexander: Ansiedlung
Deutscher im Banat unter Maria
Theresia 1763-1773.
Wirtschaftsgeographische
Untersuchungen. Wien, 1943. 62 S.
Typoskript. (Diplomarbeit an der
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien).
(1.224.389-C).
-
Krischan, Alexander: Die deutsche
periodische Literatur des Banats,
Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Kalender
1771-1971. München,
1987.(Veröffentlichung des
Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks, Reihe
B, Bd. 46.)
-
Krischan, Alexander: Das
Kolonisationspatent Maria Theresias
vom 25. Februar 1763 als Beitrag zur
Besiedlungsgeschichte des
altungarischen Raumes. Deutsches
Archiv für Landes- und
Volksforschung. Leipzig, 7 ( 1943)
S. 99-104.
-
Krischan, Alexander:
Handschriftliche Quellen zur
Geschichte des Banats im
Kriegsarchiv Wien. Südostdeutsches
Archiv. München, 2(1959) S. 186-190.
-
Szentklaray, Jenö: Die
Regierungszeit Mercys im Temescher
Banat (ung.), Budapest, 1909.
-
Schünemann, Konrad: „Die Einstellung
der theresianischen Impopulation“,
in: Jahrbuch des Wiener Ungarischen
Historischen Instituts. Budapest,
Band 1, 1931, S. 170 ff.
-
Schünemann, Konrad: Österreichs
Bevölkerungspolitik unter Maria
Theresia. Band 1. Berlin o. J. [=
1935]. Eine gemeinsame
Veröffentlichung des Instituts zur
Erforschung des deutschen Volkstums
im Süden und Südosten in München und
des Instituts für ostbayrische
Heimatforschung in Passau, unter Nr.
6.
-
Schünemann, Konrad: Zur
Bevölkerungspolitik der ungarischen
Stände. DUHbl (= Deutsch-Ungarische
Heimatblätter), Jg. 2 (1930), S.
115-120.
-
Schünemann, Konrad: Zur Beurteilung
der Schwabensiedlungen in Ungarn. (Bemerkungen
zur Darstellung des 18. Jhs. in
Szekfüs Ungarischer Geschichte. (DUHbl
= Deutsch-Ungarische Heimatblätter),
Jg. 4 (1932), S. 281-297. [Es
bezieht sich auf den Band 6 der
Ungarischen Geschichte „Magyar
Történer“ von Hóman-Szekfü, verfasst
von Julius Szekfü, Budapest /1931/,
495 Seiten.]
-
Tafferner, Anton: Quellenbuch zur
donauschwäbischen Geschichte. 5
Bände, München / Stuttgart:
1974-1995.
-
Tafferner, Anton: Donauschwäbische
Wissenschaft. Versuch einer
geistigen Bestandsaufnahme und einer
Standortbestimmung von den Anfängen
bis zur Gegenwart. Teil 1.
Donauschwäbisches Archiv. Nr. 24,
München 1974.
-
Wassertheurer, Peter: Kurze
Geschichte der deutschen
altösterreichischen Volksgruppen in
Südosteuropa. Im Auftrag der
deutschsprachigen Heimatvertriebenen
aus dem Sudeten-, Karpaten- und
Donauraum - Privatstiftung. 1030
Wien, Steingasse 25. Wien, 2008.
[Published at DVHH.org 23 Sep 2008]
|
