Hans Dama - The Banat, A Penal Colony

8/3/2019 Hans Dama - The Banat, A Penal Colony

1/28

1

The Banat

a Penal Colony of MariaTheresia?

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 theold-Austrian German ethnic groups in SoutheastEurope, written under the auspices of the private

foundation of German-speaking displaced personsfrom the Sudetenland, Carpathian and DanubeRegions, 1030 Vienna, Steingasse 25, 2008, theauthor, Dr. Peter Wassertheurer, makes the samemistake, when he writes on p. 33:"[] From1766 the Banat had its own Impopulations

Commission to better coordinate the settlement

process between the Vienna Hofkammer and theresponsible 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 []"


2/28

2

To make such a serious allegation withoutquoting primary sources, is amateurish andinadmissible, 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 archivesof Vienna, Budapest and Temeswarer, they wouldcertainly find plenty of relevant material. Thestarting point for the deportation policy, especially

in the Theresian age, was a policy of deterrence:the Banat was in those days a region racked byswamp fever, and therefore feared in the wholeempire. Secondly, the so-called harmful elementsof the population were to contribute something tothe benefit the whole nation.But the settlement of an area of low populationdensity, with persons of dubious character, inorder to develop a stable population, is just notpossible. The deportation known in history asViennese Water Thrust or Temeswarer WaterThrust, initiated by Charles VI and accelerated byMaria Theresia, Archduchess of Austria and

Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (ONLY wife ofthe Emperor, NEVER empress!) just proves thatstatement.

The deportation of the Hauensteiners and thatof the Protestants moved from Austria toTransylvania for reasons of religious policy aretwo other examples of failures in the population


3/28

3

policy of the Habsburgs in the 18th Century,because none of these three deportations achievedits goal as a deterrent.

Emperor Joseph II, was a follower of theEnlightenment, and thus a champion of equalrights and equal treatment for all countries andterritories of the monarchy, and brought thisdeportation policy to an end. The Hungarians hadbeen vehemently opposed to these types of

deportations from the beginning, and it is the meritof the Einrichtungswerk" (installation work") ofCardinal Kollonich that it vigorously opposed anydeportation policy. 1

"Now it remains solely to consider in what kind offashion the settlement in Hungary is to beaccomplished, and to note that while in historytwo kinds of settlement are found, namely withcolonists moved by force from overpopulatedregions, or with harmful rabble and the dregs ofother countries and cities, even hostile subjectsand residents, or by public invitation and

indiscriminate acceptance of foreign peoples, butespecially since the first mode is very difficult anddangerous to introduce: partly as being violent andagainst nature, according to which patria suacuique dulcissimum est solum [only his owncountry is sweetest], so those taken to remoteislands, where the deported people have no hopeleft to escape, mostly having been liquidated,


4/28

4

partly dwell like collected dross, dedicated toidleness and vice, bringing a country more harmthan benefits []" 2

The Temeswarer water thrust removedundesirable persons from the imperial capital ofVienna and from its closer and more distantsurroundings, and exiled them to the Banat ofTemeswar.

For about 17 years, between 1752 and May1768, with the exception of the war years 1758-1760, these transports took place twice a year - inthe spring and in the fall. The eligible personswere gathered in Vienna and transported on thewater down the Danube (hence water thrust) toTemeswar in the Banat.

The following figures illustrate the number ofdeported 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


5/28

5


Nov. 1762 135 persons


Oct. 1763 77 persons




Oct 1765 100 persons


Nov 1766 134 persons




The question arises whether these 3130 thrustpeople can be counted as an real populationincrease, given that during the second SwabianColonization (1763-1773) approximately 42,000voluntary emigrants came to the Banat. Most

historians doubt it.4


6/28

6

The thrust was actually intended to helppopulation growth in the Banat, but nobody reallycared about the fate of this type of deportees once

they arrived in the Banat. The administration inTemeswar and its superior authority, theMinisterialbanco-hofdeputation in Vienna, sawthe thrust people as an undesirable burden, whichonly increased their cost by their demands ofclothes, accommodation and so on.

An on 3 December 1762, the State Council, in ameeting with Queen Maria Theresa and CrownPrince Joseph II, all the relevant authoritiesinvolved in the resettlement plans for the Banat -the Temeswar Administration, theBancodeputation, the Hofkammer and the IllyrianHofdeputation took a determined positionagainst this type of settlement plans (by means ofwater thrust).

Councillor Baron Egid of Bori took the viewthat the thrust people would be available as a freematerial for the marsh drainage works in the

Banat, if they they were helped to improve theirlot: "This arrangement would have to insist thatthe prisoners remain in the local workhouse untilthey show real improvement, rather than releasingthe loose girls in the Banat, for those Serbs totrade their bodies."5 This position was endorsedby the Queen and thus implied the continuation ofthe water thrust.6


7/28

7

After a long period of silence, in the spring of1763, the President of the TemeswarAdministration presented the Vienna Court with a

list of the Catholics settled in the Banat. It wasprobably his intention to make the water thrustsappear superfluous, because according to itslisting, 32,981 Catholics had already been settled.

Bori interpreted this differently and took it asproof of how many souls this vast, sparsely

populated country could still accommodate. Inaddition, he was of the opinion that to establishfamilies, more women should be moved into theBanat, because according to the populationstatistics, 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 of1-8 years, and 2925 girls of 8-20 years, for a totalof 6841. There was thus a difference of 715 infavor of male youth.7

For Temeswar and the suburbs, however, thepopulation figures were evenly balanced: 1194

men and 1122 women, even though in a city ofadministration officials the male populationpredominates. Bori concludes that "therefore caremust be taken to ensure that more women aredispatched to that country. This can be done ifmore loose girls from our city are shipped there,and made useful to the population there".8


8/28

8

Clearly, the monarch followed the proposal ofCouncilor of State Bori, and issued orders to theBancodeputation to continue the water

thrust.

9

The governments of the Germanhereditary lands were excited by this measure,because it allowed them to get rid of their financialobligations for the prisons and workhouses forundesirables. They even wanted to extend thewater thrust to the whole of Hungary.

So far, the water thrust had transported onlycitizens, but the Hofdekret of 18 August 1764stated that it should also include foreignvagabonds, who previously were enrolled in themilitary or, if they were not fit for that, returned totheir home country. The Lower Austriangovernment announced on 5 September 1764 thattheir workhouse for citizens was not sufficient andtherefore only the dispatch to Hungary should beconsidered.10

When asked about the possible use of suchpersons on its own properties, the Hungarian

Hofkammer meeting in Bratislava on 12November and on 10 December 1764, reacted witha sharp rejection. It thus prevented this project apriori, so that the water thrust had to remainlimited to the Banat (as a crown colony of theHabsburgs). Some individuals succeeded infleeing from the water thrusts in Bratislava or


9/28

9

Pest and avoided the onward transport to theBanat.

The water thrusts transported "unsavoryelements" to the Banat, but military personnelneeded for work on the fortress of Temeswar werenot part of them, even though some used thewater thrusts as a convenient means of transport:in 1762, only 52 military delinquents worked inthe fortress Temeswar.11

The occupants of the Temeswar jail were notwater thrust people, because they had beenconvicted to carry out their sentences locally.

The thrust people transported from Vienna tothe Banat were different from the groups

mentioned above, because they had not committedany actual crimes that could be tried in a realcriminal court. These people were subjected onlyto preventive measures in order to removeunwelcome "elements" from the imperial capitalof Vienna and its surroundings. They were persons

that could exert a negative moral influence on theirfellow humans, without necessarily havingcommitted a specific offence. A complaint abouttheir flashy lifestyle could be enough to become awater push person; no court action was required.This inadequate procedure, created for theconvenience of the justice system, was later

denounced by Emperor Joseph II, because only his


10/28

10

mother, Queen Maria Theresia, was responsiblefor it.

The enlightened monarch Joseph II waselected emperor after the death of his father,emperor Franz Stephan of Lorraine. From 1765on, he was co-regent with his mother MariaTheresia, in the Habsburg hereditary lands. Heconvinced all the important statesmen of themonarchy about the injustice and cruelty of the

water thrusts as parts of the government system.But Maria Theresia, generally seen as a caringmother of the country, continued to defend thewater push. Her attitude must be interpretedwithin the general approach of the Theresianiccriminal law, as expressed in the CodexTheresianus. The principle of deterrence reignedsupreme, but it was not the crime and itspunishment in itself, but rather the fear ofpenalties, that was to be spread in the ranks of themasses. And that was also the purpose of thewater thrust.

Through this water thrust policy, the Banatgained a bad reputation and was seen in Vienna as"a country of criminals": "Then the name of Banatalready made them stop," said Maria Theresa, asshe 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


11/28

11

girls and felons, is historically wrong. The termpenal colony was never used, nor was thepolitical and legal basis for it ever created in the

crown land Banat. And the terminology that is, orwas, used in the vernacular or colloquially, ishistorically irrelevant, even if in the middle of the18th century an Austrian satirical song on thedeportation to Transylvania (Protestants) and theBanat was in circulation:

//Royal soldiers/five battalions/ Cavalry-menand Croats/ are already watching you,/ Those thatdo not want to remain Catholic,/ Will be chasedfrom the land. / Even to Temeswar! / Hey, thatscares you! //"13

It would be wrong to assume that because ofthe arbitrary way of putting together the waterthrusts, they were consistently and predominantlymade up of criminals. Rather the opposite was thecase: The percentage of actual or alleged criminalsof the total population of the water thrusts wasextremely low.

The number of farmers from Lower Austriathat were in conflict with the government forvarious reasons, was considerable. And since inthe middle of the 18th century the patrimonialjustice system was still in use in Austria, the stateallowed the transfer of those who were sentenced

by the landowners court (i.e., farmers) to the


12/28

12

public sector. They were placed in the public workhouses, into the military, or just into the waterpush. The arbitrariness of landowners courts,

which acted both as judge and accuser, is obvious.If a farmer dared to demand his rights, he wassimply placed into the water push "because ofdisobedience". Also refusal of Robot andshooting of the noblemans game, even when itdamaged the farmers fields, was cause forremoval of the farmer by the water thrust.

Even Queen Maria Theresia, who loved tohunt, was against poaching, while Emperor JosephII loathed hunting and gave his share of the heronhunting area in Laxenburg to the farmers, for freeuse. Considering that the deported farmers wereoften people with considerable properties, onewonders who benefited from the assets left behind.

For example, ten farmers from the Vienna Woods(Gfhl) were brought to Lugoj in 1758, fromwhere they petitioned for the return of theirproperties. About 500-600 guilders were at stake,

a significant amount. On average, the claimsamounted to 200 Fl, a sizable possession for thefarmers in the 18th century.14

The second group of deported personsincluded smugglers (especially of tobaccoproducts), as a necessary consequence of the then

compelling economic system (radical import ban


13/28

13

and huge internal customs duties), who todaywould not necessarily be considered totallydishonorable. If today somebody has the

misfortune of being caught trying to illegally carrysome cigarettes or a few bottles of alcohol acrossthe border, he will certainly not be placed into apenal camp.

One cannot blame the people from the lessprosperous regions of the former monarchy, if they

wanted a share of the general prosperity. To deportthem as "criminals" appears to todays citizens asexaggerated. Other groups were allocated to thewater thrust because they were considered to berowdy elements" or resisters against stateauthority. In addition, there were beggars,vagrants, vagabonds, and also foreigners who hadfound their way back to Vienna after repeateddeportation to their homeland.

Among the female deportees, the vast majoritywas formed by "loose women" or "womenstepping on a man's premises" or caught "in a

military guard room" of Vienna. But even in thelegal opinion of the 18th century, such "offenses"were not considered criminal offenses in the strictsense of the word. There were no convictions forsuch offenses.

The punishment for these offences was actually

supposed to be confinement to local or regional


14/28

14

prisons or work houses. But in the 18th centurythese facilities were often lacking, so that thedelinquents were simply placed onto the water

thrust. They were supposed to be transferred toareas with low food prices, where they could beuseful for increasing the agricultural production.So it was decided at the Vienna Court of MariaTheresia to send them to the Banat. But in theBanat, Count Mercy had already stimulatedindustrial production - think of the emergence of

Temeswarer Fabrikstadt (factory town) - andcheap labour was always welcome.

The prison built in Temeswar was much toosmall to hold all people brought in by the waterthrusts. An extension of the local prison for thosearriving in the Banat or Temeswar withoutcustodial sentence imposed, as Bori hadrequested, could not be contemplated, as theprison had been built for the detention of localcriminal offenders that had been properlysentenced. The solution was to just free the waterthrust people, in the hope that they would be

available as part of the warforce of the Banat.

Bori intended to provide the cheapest laborforce to the Banat, because of a lack of workersand servants in this inhospitable region, but thegrain production was also to be encouraged. Theplace of exile was supposed to be as far away fromVienna as possible, to prevent the potential return


15/28

15

of these unpleasant elements to Vienna. And theBanat was such a place. Although Boris goalwas to send out vast numbers of women, the

female element of water thrusts was always inthe minority, as illustrated by the example of thewater thrust from May 19, 1768.15

Of the 122 persons, numbers 1-9 were mendestined for Temeswar that had been properlysentenced; 61 were men "ordered only to serve

and work in the Banat ". Others were deportedwith wife and children. Numbers 68-72 were"female subjects", with remaining penalties offortress imprisonment. Numbers 73-122, however,were sent only to "serve and work". In Hungary,five persons already left the ship: one in Pressburgand four in Pest. For them, the way back to Viennawas not a problem.

A considerable number of water thrustpersons were of Hungarian origin, found prowlingaround Vienna: "They were mainly gypsies fromthe area of today's Burgenland. One water thrust

held Hungarian gypsies: 4 men, 2 of them withfamilies, and 11 single, young gypsy women andgirls. Places of origin are Wieselburg, Prodersdorf[probably Podersdorf, HD], Potzneusiedel,Weiden am See, Gr. Sinzendorf, denburg (today:Sopron) Ungarisch Altenburg [today:Mosonmagyarovr, HD] and Warasdin. Offencescommitted were: dangerous prowling and begging.


16/28

16

The non-gypsy delinquents had committed theft,fraud and adultery, while the actual water thrustpeople had committed attacks on the guard, illegal

trading with tobacco, and especially huntingwithout a permit. The women had committedpredominated thresspassing of a manspremises, and unruly behavior."16

All these groups of thrust people lacked anyprecondition for developing into solid, stable

citizens. This was due in no small measure to theprevailing living conditions in the Banat and thetreatment they had received. Even the livingconditions came close to a death penalty(according to the death-not-bread saying of thesettlers brought in by the three major Swabianmigrations).

The only way to survive was to work as aservant or maid, since there were hardly any otheropportunities for private employment. For publicworks, the treasury had to take advantage of theavailable Robot days owed by its subjects. The

German settlement farmers limited their workforceto their own offspring. Because of languagebarriers, the majority of the thrust people wereunable to enter in the service of Wallachian andSerbian farmers. Whoever was able to get it,accepted work as a servant in Temeswar, but evenhere the demand was soon fulfilled.


17/28

17

With the prettier girls, Serbian tradersestablished a lively trade with Turkey. Only asmall number were forced to continue their

Viennese trade at the lowest level in the Banat.All these loose women tried to get back toVienna as soon as possible. Once they were there,they could get apprehended again, and placed on anew water thrust. This game was often repeatedfour or five times until they finally were able tosubmerge in Vienna. It must not go unmentioned

that a large part of the water thrust people died ofswamp fever, the prevailing disease of the Banat.

Emperor Joseph II, who unlike his mother, wasan opponent of the water thrust from thebeginning, was able to convince all statesmenengaged in this endeavor, of the futility of thisapproach. The water thrusts were finally stopped,and the emperor ordered the return of thedeportees. The emperor also ordered theconstruction of a large work house in Austria,where - unlike in the Banat - the economic anddemographic conditions for the care of water

thrust people were available.17

Even Bori considered the arguments of theemperor as convincing and state chancellorWenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz was also striving toget Maria Theresia to agree, but the monarch - bynature a fighter was not inclined to give up thewater thrust. She defended this action as follows:


18/28

18

"Much can be said against the abolition of thethrust, but one can suspend it for 2 years to seethe effect. I want to believe that there were many

excesses in its execution. It might be possible tostop these, but keep the activity. Meanwhile thewater thrust should be suspended [] However,not all people affected should be allowed to return:otherwise Vienna would be full of thieves and thecountry full of illegal hunters, hence there wouldbe little security. Until now, the name of Banat

already made them stop. It does not surprise methat there is no police in Banat, because in all mycountry no good one is known."18

Thus the cessation of the water thrusts wasprevented by the veto of Maria Theresia, but in thepertinent section of the resolution, it is stated:"The ordinary Viennese water thrust issuspended until further orders []". This is only atemporary cessation, but gradually it becamepermanent.19 Because the deportations ofProtestants continued until the end of MariaTheresias reign, there were occasional

applications for deportation through the waterthrust that were approved and sometimes carriedout.20

The case of the so-called Waldviertler Bauern(woodquarter farmers) from Gfhl involves the

subjects of Count Franz Wenzel Sinzendorf.Because in Lower Austria proper regulations had


19/28

19

not been introduced, the farmers challenged thenature of Robot-allocations. Specifically, theydeclined the transportation of wood to Krems that

had been scheduled for a time they consideredunfavorable. The noble landowners obtained theinvolvement of the military. Eight elderly, well-liked farmers, viewed as alleged ringleaders, werecaptured and detained for eight days, then placedfor 14 days in irons, and finally thrown into aprison. After this approach failed to frighten the

farmers, the land owners asked for the deportationof these recalcitrants, including their wives andchildren, to the Banat. This was meant to set ahorrible example, so that the subjects would nolonger 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 doctorHaan had returned illicitly from the Banat toVienna, he was convicted together with thefarmers from Gfhl and sent to the Banat: "He will

practice medicine there and thus earn his living";he was even granted some financial aid.22The petition submitted by their neighbors, askingfor the release of the farmers, was not taken intoaccount and the farmer families were sent to theBanat with the water thrust that departed mid-October.


20/28

20

They could not do much with the 40 Fl theyreceived. While they had been allocated a piece ofland in the Banat to set up an economic

foundation, they remained connected to theirLower Austrian homeland, where in the auction ofits former land and houses, no member of thevillage community expressed an interest in theirlands and houses.This justified a complaint regarding the lack ofcompensation for their abandoned properties in

Lower Austria. A new action to the monarch wasinitiated, with the request that they be allowed toreturn home.23

After Maria Theresia took over the matterpersonally, the farmers finally received permissionto return to Gfhl, with the condition that they notleave their land until their case was clarified. In aletter to Blmegen dated 1 November 1773, MariaTheresia finally approved the formation of a localcommission to resolve the matter, as requested bythe farmers, and issued the order that a newdeportation to the Banat be avoided.24

Unfortunately, and as expected, the membersof the commission endorsed the position of thelandowners, and after the farmers showed nowillingness to go along, on 27 August 1774 thecommission demanded renewed use of the cavalryto punish the recalcitrants. The soldiers used canesand whips repeatedly, until the resistance could be


21/28

21

broken.The petition of the landowners, to deport thefarmers back to the Banat, was supported by the

Bohemian-Austrian Chancellery, although Geblerand Lhr stood firm against the petition, in thename of humanity. In addition, they pointed outthat the commission had ignored its mandate tofind a consensual solution with the farmers.25

The new head of the State Council, count Karl

Friedrich Hatzfeld, took the side of the landownersand demanded the maximum penalty for thefarmers. This time the monarch stuck with herdecision: "I cannot agree to this severe punishmentof subjects who, according to the commissionsown findings, have previously suffered from theoppression and exaggerated heaviness of thegovernment officials. Lasting peace could neverbe established in the proposed way, because thesubjects still insist that the demands made by thelandowners upon them exceeded theircapabilities []"26 An accommodation was to befound on the basis of the Robot patent and mutual

consent. It still took some time before the farmersachieved a satisfactory resolution, because thelandowners had repeatedly tried to push throughtheir own position.

Also early in the year 1775, after the monarchyhad ordered the resumption of court proceedingsand had nominated the members of the Judicium


22/28

22

delegatum, Graf Sinzendorf and his supportersmounted a serious defense, and by "special grace"were granted that Count Seilern could propose the

members of this special court. In this way the trialwas delayed and its impartial workings were put atrisk.27

Based on this case, it can be shown how thebeneficiaries and advocates of the continuation ofthe deportation policy persistently pursued their

objectives, and how hopeless the situation of theAustrian farmers was. They were subjected to thewill of their lords - as were the Hauensteiner andthe Protestants and they reacted by passiveresistance, to avoid being transplanted as coloniststo the Banat.

The majority of the thrust people, if theysurvived, would sooner or later return from theBanat to their Austrian areas of origin.

The composition of the push of 1768 showedthat the majority of push people had already been

taken to the Banat once or twice before, and it wasan exception, when a few of these people actuallycame to reside in the Banat.

Von Baussard, administrative director andspeaker for deportation affairs with the Banatcountry authority, informed Emperor Joseph II

that of the thrust people "very few, compared to


23/28

23

the number sent, almost none, had settled either inTemeswar or in the jurisdictions of the differentadministrative offices."28

And these few were farmers willing to build anew life in the Banat, and not loose girls,pickpockets, or vagabonds, who could not accepttheir narrowed field of activity in the Banat, andwho quickly found their way back to Vienna, asthe Gfhler farmers had found theirs to the

Waldviertel.

That, historically speaking, the water thrustwas a total failure, meaningless to the existingpopulation structure of Banat, needs no furtherexplanation. But if tendentious attempts are madeto repeatedly revive this issue, they indicate eitherprofessional incompetence or ignorance on thepart of their authors, and appear counterindicatedto the search for, and the finding of, the truth.

Remarks:

- Cod. Palat. Vindobon. (= Codex PalatinensisVindobonae) = heute NB (sterreichischeNationalbibliothek) Wien.

- HKA = sterreichisches Staatsarchiv; Finanz-und Hofkammerarchiv Wien.


24/28

24

- Ministerialbancohofdeputation(Bancodeputation) = Staatsbank innerhalb derHofkammer (= Finanzministerium)

- Reisrealtion = Bericht eines wirtschaftlichnutzbareren Hoheitsrechtes (in diesem Fall: dasBanat; < Reis = Regalien)

- St. R = Staats-Rat

F o o t n o t e s

1 Vgl. Cod. Palat. Vindobon.[heute NB] Wien, Nr.8653.2 Cod. Palat. Vindobon. [heute NB] Wien, Nr.8653,

Wien.3 Vgl. Reisrelation Josephs II. von 1768 =Spezifikation, wie viel Personen seither 10 Jahren,nmlichen ab anno 1758 bis inclusive 1767 mittels desWienerischen Wassertransports allhier zu Temeswareingetroffen sind, ausgefertigt vom k k BanatischenLandgericht. 14. Mai 1768, und aus den Angaben

Boris in seinem Votum St. R. 2539/1762.4 Vgl. Konrad Schnemann: Die Einstellung dertheresianischen Impopulation, in: Jahrbuch desWiener 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.


25/28

25

9 Vgl. HKA, Banater Akten No 35, Resolution auf denBancovortrag 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 vom19.5.1768.16 Beilage H der kaiserlichen Reisrelation vom19.5.1768.17 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

- Bellr, Bla: Kurze Geschichte der Deutschen inUngarn, Teil I (bis 1919), Budapest, 1986.


26/28

26

- Feldtnzer, Oskar: Joseph II. und diedonauschwbische Ansiedlung. Linz/Mnchen, 1990.- Griselini, Franz: Versuch einer politischen undnatrlichen Geschichte des Temeswarer Banats inBriefen an Standespersonen und Gelehrte. Erster Theilin 1 Bd., Wien, Verlag Johann Paul Krau 1780, 135S.,1 mehf. gef. Karte, 7 gef. Kpfr. Hfrz d. Zt.- Hofkammerarchiv (HKA) Wien, Banater Akten.- Kallbrunner, Josef ; Wilhelm, Franz: Quellenbuchzur deutschen Siedlungsgeschichte Sdosteuropa,Mnchen (1932-1936).- Kallbrunner, Josef: Familiengeschichtliche Quellendes Auslandsdeutschtums in Sdosteuropa. Archiv frSippenforschung und alle verwandten Gebiete.(Grlitz). Jg. 12 (1935), S. 1-3.- Kallbrunner, Josef: Einrichtung und Entwicklung desBanats bis 1739. Mnchen, 1958.- Kallbrunner, Josef: Quellen zur deutschenSiedlungsgeschichte in Sdosteuropa. 1932.- Kallbrunner, Josef: Verffentlichungen des WienerHofkammerarchivs. 1935.- Kraushaar, Karl: Kurzgefate Geschichte desBanates. Wien, 1923.- Krischan, Alexander: Ansiedlung Deutscher imBanat unter Maria Theresia 1763-1773.

Wirtschaftsgeographische Untersuchungen. Wien,1943. 62 S. Typoskript. (Diplomarbeit an derWirtschaftsuniversitt Wien). (1.224.389-C).- Krischan, Alexander: Die deutsche periodischeLiteratur des Banats, Zeitungen, Zeitschriften,Kalender 1771-1971. Mnchen,1987.(Verffentlichung des Sdostdeutschen

Kulturwerks, Reihe B, Bd. 46.)


27/28

27

- Krischan, Alexander: Das Kolonisationspatent MariaTheresias vom 25. Februar 1763 als Beitrag zurBesiedlungsgeschichte des altungarischen Raumes.Deutsches Archiv fr Landes- und Volksforschung.Leipzig, 7 ( 1943) S. 99-104.- Krischan, Alexander: Handschriftliche Quellen zurGeschichte des Banats im Kriegsarchiv Wien.Sdostdeutsches Archiv. Mnchen, 2(1959) S. 186-190.- Szentklaray, Jen: Die Regierungszeit Mercys imTemescher Banat (ung.), Budapest, 1909.- Schnemann, Konrad: Die Einstellung dertheresianischen Impopulation, in: Jahrbuch desWiener Ungarischen Historischen Instituts. Budapest,Band 1, 1931, S. 170 ff.- Schnemann, Konrad: sterreichsBevlkerungspolitik unter Maria Theresia. Band 1.Berlin o. J. [= 1935]. Eine gemeinsameVerffentlichung des Instituts zur Erforschung desdeutschen Volkstums im Sden und Sdosten inMnchen und des Instituts fr ostbayrischeHeimatforschung in Passau, unter Nr. 6.- Schnemann, Konrad: Zur Bevlkerungspolitik derungarischen Stnde. DUHbl (= Deutsch-UngarischeHeimatbltter), Jg. 2 (1930), S. 115-120.

- Schnemann, Konrad: Zur Beurteilung derSchwabensiedlungen in Ungarn. (Bemerkungen zurDarstellung des 18. Jhs. in Szekfs UngarischerGeschichte. (DUHbl = Deutsch-UngarischeHeimatbltter), Jg. 4 (1932), S. 281-297. [Es beziehtsich auf den Band 6 der Ungarischen GeschichteMagyar Trtner von Hman-Szekf, verfasst von

Julius Szekf, Budapest /1931/, 495 Seiten.]


28/28

- Tafferner, Anton: Quellenbuch zurdonauschwbischen Geschichte. 5 Bnde, Mnchen /Stuttgart: 1974-1995.- Tafferner, Anton: Donauschwbische Wissenschaft.Versuch einer geistigen Bestandsaufnahme und einerStandortbestimmung von den Anfngen bis zurGegenwart. Teil 1. Donauschwbisches Archiv. Nr.24, Mnchen 1974.- Wassertheurer, Peter: Kurze Geschichte derdeutschen altsterreichischen Volksgruppen inSdosteuropa. Im Auftrag der deutschsprachigenHeimatvertriebenen aus dem Sudeten-, Karpaten- undDonauraum - Privatstiftung. 1030 Wien, Steingasse25. Wien, 2008.[Published at DVHH.org 23 Sep 2008]

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	l-grig
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Hans Dama - The Banat, A Penal Colony

Documents