Sources for the Holstein, Lübeck, and Lauenburg regions

General Sources for Holstein, Lübeck, and Lauenburg

There are two sets of gazetteers that cover the entire region of Holstein, Lübeck, and Lauenburg.

  • The first, entitled Topographie der Herzogthumer Holstein und Lauenburg, des Fürstenthums Lübeck, und des Gebiets der freien un Hanse-Städte Hamburg und Lübeck by Johannes von Schöder and Hermann Biernatzki was published in 1855 and reflects Danish administration of Holstein. That set relies heavily on a previous set published by Schröder in 1841, but I ignore the earlier one because it omits Lauenburg.
  • The second, Topographie des Herzogtums Holstein by Henning Oldekop, was published in 1908 and reflects Prussian administration of Holstein. It also relies heavily on Schröder for historical material, but occasionally adds details that Schröder omitted.

Both volumes contain lists of places along with the subdivision to which they belonged at the time of publication. In most cases, earlier jurisdictional changes are noted. I rely primarily on Schröder and Biernatzki because the Danish administrative structure was closer to that of the period I am covering than was the Prussian structure. I referred to Oldekop mostly to fill in gaps left by Schöder. The volumes can be found here:

Schröder and Biernatzki,

Oldekop

With respect to Lauenburg, none of the above volumes covered Amt Neuhaus or the territory south of the Elbe lost by Lauenburg after the Napoleonic wars. Furthermore, in Ämter that were broken down into Vogteien, those volumes did not include that detail. In the fifth volume of his Geographie für alle Stände (covering the niedersächsische Kreis) published in 1808, Johan Ernst Fabri included all of that information even though his volume did not do more than list villages. It can be found here:

Geographie für alle Stände – Google Books

The Ämter of Ritzerau, Behlendorf, and Woltersdorf

Fabri and Schröder also provided clues to identifying villages in the Lübeck Ämter of Ritzerau, Behlendorf, and Woltersdorf. Their village lists, however, are not comprehensive so I had to derive my own list based on multiple contradictory sources. In addition to Fabri and Schröder, the following sources were consulted:

Büsching, 1771, Neue Erdbeschreibung – Google Books

Behrens and Behrens, 1829, Topographie und Statistik von Lübeck und dem mit Hamburg gemeinschaftlichen… – Google Books

Brehmer, 1893, “Die Ausübung der Jagd um die Wende des sechszehnten Jahrhuderts”, Mitteilungen des Vereins für Lübeckische Geschichte und Altertumskunde – Google Books

Scheele, 1937, “Rückblicke auf die bäuerlichen Rechtzustände im Lande Lauenburg”, Alte Folge – Jahrgang 1937 (hghl.org)

Sorting Out Steinhorst and Tremsbüttel

In most instances, Schröder and Biernatzki and especially Oldekop are clear about what country is sovereign over a particular village. In the case of Steinhorst and Tremsbüttel prior to 1739, however, there is a great deal of ambiguity. The following issues are addressed in a contradictory manner by Schröder and Biernatzki:

  1. When Lauenburg assumed sovereignty. The Steinhorst entry gives a date of 1408; the Tremsbüttel entry gives a date of 1475. These are not mutually exclusive.
  2. When the Duke of Gottorp assumed administrative responsibilities. The Steinhorst entry gives a sale date of 1575; the Tremsbüttel entry gives a pledge date of 1571 and a sale date of 1649.
  3. When von Wedderkop (Staatsminister for the Duke) took over administrative responsibilities from the Duke. The Steinhorst entry implies a date of around 1670. The Tremsbüttel entry does not mention von Wedderkop, leading me to believe that he played no role there.
  4. When the issue of sovereignty was resolved. The Steinhorst entry states that it was resolved in favor of Hannover (on behalf of Lauenburg) in 1738. The Tremsbüttel entry simply states that Tremsbüttel was “separated” from Steinhorst in 1739. From that I infer that Gottorp was unambiguously sovereign over Tremsbüttel after that date.

I resolve the conflicts as follows:

  1. All I care about is who was sovereign in the year the database starts. Either date given by Schröder and Biernatzki implies Lauenburg sovereignty at that time.
  2. I rely on another source to pin down the date on which the Duke of Gottorp assumed administrative responsibility. According to Traugott von Heintze.pdf (hghl.org), that occurred in 1575.
  3. It doesn’t actually matter when von Wedderkop took over from the Duke. He was a Gottorp subject, so the country name does not change as a result of the handover. It does matter that von Wedderkop was involved only in Steinhorst.
  4. Traugott von Heinze states that the matter was resolved in 1739.

Although, von Heintze resolves issues 1 and 4, he does not directly address the question of sovereignty within that period. He seems to accept the Lauenburg position that it never surrendered sovereignty over Steinhorst. But because Lauenburg obviously surrendered sovereignty over Tremsbüttel (and apparently without controversy), it is not so clear that Gottorp never actually exercised sovereignty over Steinhorst. In fact, no source delves into the question with respect to Steinhorst—they only acknowledge that the controversy existed. And no source clarifies when the transfer of sovereignty over Tremsbüttel occurred.

My position is that sovereignty could not have been transferred prior to 1658 because Gottorp was not a sovereign nation until then. My inclination is to impute sovereignty over both Ämter to Gottorp starting in that year by virtue of effective exercise (as opposed to concession by Lauenburg). Payments made by von Wedderkop to Lüneburg in 1692 (reported in the German Wikipedia article on Steinhorst) do not undermine that because they were attributable to the repayment of a war debt, implying equal status between Gottorp and Lauenburg as sovereign allies, not as tribute to a sovereign by a vassal.

Sorting Out the Formation of Amt Oldenburg

Page 22 of Schröder and Biernatzki states that Amt Oldenburg started out with Kuhof, Kremsdorf, and Sebent. Individual village entries, however, are not entirely consistent with that:

  • The Kuhof entry is consistent with page 22, stating that Oldenburg control started in 1546 (although it was called Amt Kuhof at the time).
  • The entry for Koselau has it joining in 1617.
  • The Kremsdorf entry does not give a date, but pre-1623 would be consistent with page 22. I use 1617 to correspond to the Koselau date.
  • The entries for Lubbersdorf, Bollbrugge, and Sutel have all three joining in 1623.
  • The entry for Sebent gives a 1623 date, which is inconsistent with page 22.

I suspect that Koselau should have been listed as an original member on page 22 instead of Sebent. Hence, I add Sebent to the 1623 additions and name the quasi-Distrikt that predates Oldenburg after it because it was the largest of the members that remained in the quasi-Distrikt throughout its existence.

My solution implies that the term Amt Oldenburg dates from 1617, but there are documented instances of the name Amt Kuhof after that. Rather than try to pinpoint a date, I simply use the term Amt Oldenburg for the entire period.

Sorting Out the 1559 Partition of Dithmarschen

Historical sources contain two conflicting descriptions of the 1559 three-way partition of Dithmarschen between the King and the Dukes of Gottorp and Hadersleben:

  • The first description, by Wilhelm Heinrich Kolster, was published in 1873 and can be found here: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Geschichte_Dithmarschens#Seite_113 . In the Forward, Kolster acknowledges relying heavily on older works by Neocorus and Mickelson, but I do not have access to them. The 1559 partition is described between footnotes 126 and 127. It is not comprehensive, covering only the Kirschspielvogteien (Kspv’s) that were split up in the process. The 1581 partition is described in the first paragraph of the 1580-1616 section. It is also not comprehensive, covering only how the middle section previously belonging to Hadersleben was split between the north (Gottorp) and south (royal). Because the 1581 partition lasted until 1867, however, it is well documented elsewhere, and one can infer that Kspv’s not mentioned in the description of either partition were placed by the 1559 partition in the same sector as under the 1581 partition.
  • The second description is on page 20 in volume 1 of the Schröder and Bernatzki (S&B) set published in 1855 and referenced above. That description uses Kirchspielen (Ksp’s) rather than Kspv’s and is comprehensive. No sources specific to that description are provided, however.

Of the two descriptions of the 1559 partition, I find Kolster’s to be more credible. Although it is not comprehensive, it is much more detailed and references Dithmarschen-specific sources. The fact that it is not as neat and tidy as the S&B description enhances its credibility in my view. On that basis, I follow the Kolster description whenever there is a clear disagreement between the two sources. Specifically, I make the following assignments:

  • the Büsum Kspv to the northern sector instead of the middle sector (with support from the German Wikipedia article on Büsum);
  • the Weddingstedt Kspv to the middle sector instead of the northern sector;
  • the Northern Meldorf Kspv to the middle sector instead of the southern sector (to which S&B assign the entire Meldorf Ksp); and
  • the village of Tensbüttel to the southern sector instead of the middle sector (to which S&B assign the entire Albersdorf Ksp).

Unfortunately, the messiness of the Kolster description also makes it impossible for me rigorously follow in all cases. Specifically, Kolster describes the division of two Kspv’s in terms that are too vague for me to use:

  • The Marne Kspv is described as being split into halves, with one half going to the middle sector and the other half going to the southern sector. However, no hints are given as to which villages fall into which halves. I therefore follow S&B and put the entire Kspv into the southern sector.
  • The Hemmingstedt Kspv is also described as being split between the middle and southern sectors, with the Marsch portion being assigned to the middle and the Geest portion being assigned to the south. I am, however, unable to identify any populated place in Kspv Hemmingstedt that would be classified as Marsch. (Perhaps the Marsch/Geest boundary has changed since 1559.) That would argue for placing the Kspv in the southern sector. However, in the description of the 1581 partition, Kolster identifies Hemmingstedt as moving from the middle sector to the southern sector without mentioning that it had been split in the 1559 partition. (In contrast, the Marne Kspv is explicitly identified as being reunited as part of the southern sector in 1581.) Given the uncertainty, I follow S&B and place the entire Kspv (except Fedderingen—see below) into the middle sector.

The status of the village of Fedderingen between 1559 and 1581 is uniquely confusing, Despite being surrounded by northern sector territory, the village was unambiguously assigned to the southern sector after 1581 (reportedly because the King, who controlled the southern sector, want to use it as a rest stop on the road to Copenhagen.) Prior to 1581, however, there is support for placing it in any of the three sectors:

  • S&B implicitly assign it to the northern sector as part of Ksp Hennstedt (although they also place the village in Kspv Hemmingstedt as an exclave thereof, making its assignment to the middle sector at least somewhat plausible);
  • Kolster explicitly assigns it to the southern sector without identifying it as part of any Kspv (although the combination of S&B’s placement of it in Kspv Hemmingstedt and its Geest location are consistent with that assignment);
  • The German Wikipedia article on Fedderingen explicitly assigns it to the middle sector, but provides no source.

I assign Fedderingen to the southern sector in 1559, based solely on my trust that Kolster’s sources are sound.

Other Issues not Addressed by Either Schröder and Biernatzki, Oldekop, or Wikipedia