PRE WORLD WAR I MIGRATION PATTERNS OF
TO
By
Copyright 2002, 2003
MIGRATION AND
RETURN MIGRATION RATES
MIGRATION
PATTERNS AND CHAIN MIGRATION
Studies on turn-of-the century European migration to
Newspaper subscriptions, mail, the constant arrival of
further new migrants and the return of others back to their home village kept
the linked communities well informed about events and conditions in their
respective twin. Residents in the
European locality were generally knowledgeable on living conditions and
employment prospects in the
Previous studies on these aspects of immigration generally depended on analysis of national migration statistics or anecdotal accounts (1). Few systematic studies on a micro-level, e.g. a village level have been published (1).
This work considers some general aspects of migration of
ethnic Germans from the Pre World War I Hungarian province of the
The basis of this study is a database of more then 25,000
passenger ship abstracts of Banaters now available on the Internet. The term Banaters is used in this work to
describe the descendants of ethnic German settlers recruited by the Habsburgs
to colonize the Hungarian province of the
After the failure of the second Turkish siege of
Under the Habsburgs the
These German colonists introduced, by the standards of the
time, advanced agricultural techniques into a backward
To a large degree these German settlers were culturally and
linguistically isolated in the ethnic mix of Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, and
others found in the
The Banaters initially followed a hereditary system of primogeniture so that the oldest son inherited the farm and younger sons who wished to farm had to find farms through purchase or marriage. For the land proud agrarian Banaters the possession of farmland carried with it the highest prestige. After the Revolutions of 1849 the system of primogeniture was suspended and estates were divided among all the children. This system resulted in the division of estates so that by 1900 most farms were split up to the point that it was difficult to support a family on the fragmented land holdings.
Beginning just after the turn of the century this
agricultural population of Banaters began to look towards
With relatively cheap transatlantic fares, many saw a few
years in
For this study more than 25,000 passenger ship entries of
Banaters have been extracted from the
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~banatdata/DDB/HomePage.htm
When wives and kids are considered, this database contains
about 50,000 people, about half of all Banaters who immigrated to
The passenger ship abstracts include age, ship, date of
arrival, place of origin and who the emigrant was going to join at their
destination. Only indicated relatives at
place of origin or destination were included in the abstracts. If those at the destination were simply
friends or acquaintances this was not recorded in the abstracts. If the migrant was previously in
The software used to record the abstracted data was created
by
Entries for Banaters whose destination was to the
By 1900 migration from
The data on the ship manifest for emigrants was collected by the travel agency at the time of booking. This data was forwarded on to the shipping company in advance of departure. It was then used to make up the manifest in the offices of the shipping line at the port of departure.
Banaters tended to favor
Initially, the Hungarian Government hoped to see an
independent Hungarian-American line established which would transport emigrants
via the Adriatic
This effort by the Hungarian government to divert emigrants
from the
Nevertheless, the opening of the
The domination of NDL and the
Figure 1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTURE PORTS OF BANATERS IN 1905

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration from the
Although most Banaters would have preferred agricultural
employment few had the capital to go into farming under
The first
Chain migration is characterized by the linking of specific
towns, neighborhoods as well as families on both sides of the
This chain migration created a bond between an old world
locality and a North American locality which was reinforced by the rapid feedback
to Europe of changing employment prospects, living conditions, family news etc.
by letter or word of mouth by returning migrants from the North American
locality. This resulted in the
recruitment of friends and relatives to a given locality in
The distribution of Banaters from some selected villages and their corresponding concentrations in North American localities are given in Table I.
|
TABLE I. DESTINATIONS OF BANATERS FROM SOME SELECTED
LOCALITIES, 1892-1912 BASED |
|||
|
LOCALITY (1900 population) |
ENTRIES |
No (%) |
TO A GIVEN LOCALITY |
|
Alexanderhausen (1929) |
142 |
98 (69%) |
|
|
Bakowa (2075) |
99 |
69 (70%) |
|
|
Billed (4566) |
478 |
177 (36%) |
|
|
|
|
144 (30%) |
|
|
Bogarosch (2919) |
479 |
354 (66%) |
Philadelphia/Pottstown |
|
Busiasch (1045) |
109 |
80 (71%) |
Milwaukee/Cudahy |
|
Etschka |
45 |
21 (43%) |
|
|
Fibisch (2013) |
67 |
43 (65%) |
|
|
Franzfeld |
82 |
73 (86%) |
|
|
Gertiansoch (2765) |
464 |
244 (53%) |
|
|
Glogon |
223 |
119 (53%) |
|
|
|
|
44 (20%) |
|
|
Gottlob (2286) |
227 |
190 (84%) |
|
|
Gross Jetscha (3095) |
421 |
249 (59%) |
|
|
Liebling (4169) |
281 |
145 (51%) |
|
|
Mercydorf (1839) |
351 |
305 (87%) |
NY/College Point |
|
Mollydorf (1202) |
263 |
131 (50%) |
Catasauqua Penn |
|
Neupanat (2185) |
218 |
116 (53%) |
|
|
|
|
44 (20%) |
Oregon/Washington |
|
Offsenitza |
157 |
75 (47%) |
|
|
Perjamosch (5612) |
596 |
247 (41%) |
|
|
Sackelhausen (4134) |
645 |
459 (71%) |
|
|
Seultour |
152 |
109 (72%) |
|
|
St Georgen (1576) |
255 |
89 (35%) |
|
|
|
230 |
138 (60%) |
|
The tendency of Banaters from given locality to settle in a given
North American locality is strikingly illustrated by the settlement of Franzfelders in
With several exceptions, for example Karlsdorfers,
Banaters avoided the steel mill and mining towns
favored by other Hungarian emigrants.
Other noteworthy settlements are the high proportion of Glogon emigrants who settled in
Of course, all these arrivals from linked villages were emerged in the larger local German-American community. Nevertheless, the long lists of Banat village associations that one could cite in these German-American communities is testimony to the cohesiveness and numbers of those from a single Banat locality relocated to a given American locality and illustrates how the Banaters as a group could set up social structures apart from the Reichsdeutsch or other Volksdeutsch groups.
Family books covering all church book (KB) records up to the
year ca 2000 are available for six
It was possible to match around 80% of those in the passenger ship records with KB data from the village of origin. These matches range from 73% for Klein Jetscha to 86% for Perjamosch (see Table II). The failure to match the remaining 15-20% must be ascribed to a number of different reasons. Most obvious is corruption of the surname spelling either when the passenger ship records were created or in a misreading of the name through difficult handwriting. The often quoted myth that difficult surnames were changed by American immigration authorities is clearly not true. No surnames were changed by immigration authorities.
|
TABLE II.
RETURN MIGRATION RATES FOR SELECTED |
|||
|
LOCALITY (population) |
ENTRIES |
MATCHED(%) |
RETURNED(%) |
|
Alexanderhausen(1929) |
190 |
148 (78%) |
31 (16%) |
|
Billed(4566) |
629 |
466 (74%) |
108 (17%) |
|
Klein Jetscha(1528) |
119 |
87 (73%) |
30 (24%) |
|
Liebling(4169) |
294 |
247 (84%) |
102 (35%) |
|
Perjamosch(5612) |
729 |
619 (85%) |
120 (16%) |
|
Ulmbach(2300) |
170 |
139 (82%) |
45 (26%) |
Another factor which accounts for the failure to find
matches between village records and passenger lists is the fact that some
emigrants have given inaccurate information on their place of birth. This is easily illustrated in the cases of
migrants from Giseladorf and Josefsdorf. These two villages were established in 1882
by relocation of frequently flooded villages on the lower Bega. In time, through internal migration, these
villages were inhabited by families from all over the
With the aid of family books for
Based on the 1900 Hungarian census (Table II) one can
calculate the minimum migration rates from
For Billed the 466 matched entries account for 696 inhabitants, 10% of the 1900 population. The 21% return rate will be more than made up by the years not abstracted. In a similar fashion the 618 matched Perjamosch entries contain 773 inhabitants leading to a 14% population loss.
Although it is not possible to search the Ellis Island
Internet web site systematically for all immigrants from a single village, it
is obvious that after 1907 a relatively larger proportion of immigrants,
especially those with families were making their second or third trip from the
The numbers of those making multiple trips to
Not unexpectedly there was a large increase in those making
a second or third trip to
|
TABLE III. NUMBERS OF BANATERS MAKING MULTIPLE TRIPS
TO |
||
|
LOCALITY |
NO. OF ENTRIES |
NO. MAKING SECOND TRIP |
|
Alexanderhausen |
190 |
17 (9%) |
|
Billed |
629 |
42 (6%) |
|
Gross Jetscha |
615 |
64 (10%) |
|
Perjamosch |
729 |
46 (6%) |
|
Sackelhausen |
843 |
101 (12%) |
One can generally distinguish those returning to the
The migration process from various
If migration through departure ports followed the ratios
given in Figure 1 then one might expect the bulk of departures for any given
village to go largely through
|
TABLE IV.
RELATIVE NUMBERS LEAVING FROM INDICATED DEPARTURE PORTS |
||
|
LOCALITY |
DEPARTURE PORTS |
NUMBER OF ENTRIES (%) |
|
Alexanderhausen |
|
68 (52%) |
|
|
|
33 (25%) |
|
|
|
30 (23%) |
|
Bogarosch |
|
268 (62%) |
|
|
|
72 (16%) |
|
|
|
58 (13%) |
|
|
|
34 (8%) |
|
Glogowatz |
|
247 (58%) |
|
|
|
107 (25%) |
|
|
|
70 (16%) |
|
Karlsdorf |
|
68 (39%) |
|
|
|
64 (36%) |
|
|
|
44 (25%) |
|
Mercydorf |
|
138 (42%) |
|
|
|
125 (39%) |
|
|
|
65 (20%) |
|
Pardan |
|
108 (44%) |
|
|
|
86 (42%) |
|
|
|
49 (20%) |
|
Sackelhausen |
|
399 (64%) |
|
|
|
90 (14%) |
|
|
|
53 (8%) |
|
|
|
53 (8%) |
|
|
|
29 (5%) |
|
Warjasch |
|
173 (61%) |
|
|
|
70 (25%) |
|
|
|
40 (14%) |
|
Zichydorf |
|
70 (64%) |
|
|
|
39 (36%) |
An abnormally high proportion of Alexanderhauseners,
Bogaroschers, Mercydorfers,
Pardaners and Warjaschers
left via
Since the

Figure 2
The migration decrease after the economic downturn leading
to the panic of 1907 is striking. Less
clear is the reason for the low rates in 1904 relative to 1903 and 1905 for
many localities. There appears to be no
unusual economic or political upheavals or dislocations to account for this
relatively low rate in 1904. Since many
migrants depended on prepaid tickets sent home by relatives in

Figure 3
During the Balkan wars and just before the outbreak of World War I the issuing of emigrant permits for men subject to call up was suspended. Exceptions for this age group were tied to the payment of a tax. These measures are reflected in the profile of migrants. The pre 1907 preponderance of single young men among the migrants shifted to single women and family groups.
A close reading of the abstracts for several villages allows
one to pick out a chain of individuals who sponsored subsequent emigrants. During the abstraction phase of this work it
was only practical to record a sponsoring relative given in the final
destination. With a few exceptions,
friends and acquaintances were not recorded.
Nevertheless, using the data recorded it is possible to construct
several lengthy migration chains. Three
examples are given in Figures 4-6.
Undoubtedly further inspection of the data would yield further
examples. The example of Friedrich Egler from Sackelhausen (Fig. 4)
illustrates the influence of a single individual, a “pioneer migrant” who
facilitated and sponsored the migration process for many following
migrants. Once started, the process
became self-sustaining through a network of letters, returnees, travel accounts
and prepaid tickets sent from
Figure 4.--Sackelhausen: Example of chain migration
|
Egler Barbara |
à |
Egler Friedrich Brother |
à |
Egler Anna wife |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egler Jacob Nephew |
à |
? Holzinger
Johann bro-in-law |
à |
Holzinger Kath Wife |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Picher(Bucher) Friedrich Friend |
à |
|
à |
Bergauer Anna sister-in-law |
à |
Reinbold
Peter nephew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egler Anna Niece |
à |
Plesz Elisabeth Cousin |
|
Humel Wilhelm Cousin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schaeffel Josef Friend |
à |
Schaeffel Anna Wife |
|
Schimmer Nikolaus Cousin |
à |
Schimmer Peter Brother 22 May 1906 |
à |
Schimmer Anna Wife |
|
|
|
|
|
Gier Gertrud Niece |
|
Wagner Andreas bro-in-law |
|
Bucher Georg Brother |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parentz Peter Friend |
|
Enger Peter bro-in-law |
|
Bergauer Nikolaus Cousin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mueller Margaret Cousin |
|
Schaeffel Johann Brother 14 May 1906 |
|
Bucher Margaret Mother 7 May 1912 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mueller Mathias Cousin |
|
Mueller Mathias Father |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hummel Nikolaus Uncle |
|
Hummel Jacob Brother |
à |
Hummel Anna Wife |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egler Barbara Niece |
|
Hummel Barbara Niece |
|
Hummel Susanna Sister 7 May 1911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schneider Friedrich Cousin 20 Feb1905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hummel Eva Friend |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egler Mathias Nephew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5.--Perjamosch: Example of chain migration
|
Furbacher Josef 29 May 1903 |
à |
Furbacker Karl Brother 3 |
à |
Drucker Elisabeth Neice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heinz Maria step sister |
à |
Henz Johann Brother |
|
|
|
|
|
Furbacher Karl Son |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hollerbach Mathias Nephew |
à |
Hollerbach Adam Brother |
Figure 6--Billed: Example of Chain Migration
|
Bakesz Franz 1901 |
à |
Bakes Elisabeth Sister 9 May 1902 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gebel Mathias cousin 9 May 1902 |
à |
Gebel Susanna Sister 30 May 1903 |
|
|
|
Klein Anna Cousin 9 May 1902 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ramacher Johann Cousin 9 May 1902 |
|
|
|
|
|
Braun Katharine sister-in-law |
|
|
|
|
|
Minich Anton bro-in-law 30 May 1903 |
|
|
|
|
|
Seibert Elisabeth Cousin 30 May 1903 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bakes Mathias brother |
|
|
|
|
|
Laub Elisabeth Cousin |
|
|
The family books available on
This document is Published in the FEEFHS Journal X, 115 (2002)
The authors are indebted to
1. Veroli, R. J. and Sinke, S. M., Eds, “A Century of European Migration 1830-1930”, 1991, Univ of Ill Press and references cited therein.
2. Engelmann, Nikolaus, “The
3. Roth, E., “Die planmessig angelegten siedlungen im Deutschen Banater militaergrenbezirk 1765-1821”, Muenchen 1988.
4. Puskas, Julianna, “From
5. No author,
“Immigrant and Passenger Arrivals”, Catalog of National Archives Microfilm
Publications. National
Archives Trust Fund Board,
6. “Morton-Allan
Directory of European Passenger Steamship Arrivals”,
7. Michel, J. M.,
“North Dakota Pioneers from the
8. Dreyer, David, Banat Family History Series, Vol 1, “Family History Research for North Dakota Pioneers from the Banat”, Self published, 2001.
9. Hoerder, Dirk, Journal of American Ethnic History, Fall 1993, p 68.
10. Just,
Michael, Auswanderung und Schiffahrtsinteressen,
11. Schuch, Helene, “Alexanderhausen im
12. Wikete, Hans, “Ortssippenbuch Billed 1765-2000”, 3 Vols, 2000.
13. Giel, Dietmar, “Kleinjetscha im
14. Moehler, Johann, “Ortssippenbuch Liebling im
15. Kraemer,
Anton, “Perjamosch and Perjamosch-Haulik
im
16. Kraemer,
Anton, “Ulmbach-Neupetsch im
17. Wymann, M, “Round-Trip to
18. The
concentration of Glogoners in