Survey of House and Property Holders in the District of Bückeburg as Part of a General Land Survey (1737)

Findings

The document Erfassung der Haus- und Hofbesitzer im Amt Bückeburg im Rahmen einer Generallandesvisitation (Landesvermessung) ("Registration of house and homestead owners in the Bückeburg district as part of a general land survey (state land survey)" has identifier NLA BU L 2 L Nr. 27/28 in Arcinsys.

No Krückeberg is a Brinksitzer in Berenbusch in 1737

Dr. Sylvia Möhle, who examined this document in the Bückeburg archive, found no Krückeberg who was a Brinksitzer in Berenbusch in 1737, the year of this document:

Berenbusch – the ‚Brinksitzer‘ properties belonged to the Prince and tax has to be paid to him, as is noted on the right side of this page. Among the property owners there is no Krückeberg, nor do the names of his predecessors Kuhlmann and Eggerding appear.

— Dr Sylvia Möhle's findings

If Friedrich Kuhlmann was the immediate preceding holder of no. 10 Berenbusch before Johann Heinrich Krückeberg, and if Johann Tönnis Eggerding preceded Friedrich Kuhlmann, yet if neither of these men—​Krückeberg, Kuhlmann nor Eggerding—​was a holder in 1737, but by 1743-1744 Johann Heinrich was the holder, that would imply that between 1737 and 1743-1744 Kuhlmann and Eggerding were the holders.

Did the holding change hands three times between 1737 and 1743-1744? That hardly seems possible?

The 1737 list does not establish who held Nr. 10, only who was recognized as a Haus- oder Hofbesitzer. Johann Heinrich himself later describes his status as:

  • Brinksitzer

  • With only a garden and minimal land

  • Not a full Hof

So Nr. 10 was not a Hof, but a small Brinksitzer holding.

Such holdings were often:

  • Omitted from Haus- und Hofbesitzer lists

  • Treated as secondary

  • Recorded inconsistently

  • Sometimes grouped under larger estates

Therefore the absence of Eggerding and Kuhlmann in 1737 does not mean they were not holders — only that they were not recognized as Haus- oder Hofbesitzer.

So there is no forced 6–7 year window.

Eggerding could have held Nr. 10 for decades before 1737, and Kuhlmann could have held it for years after him—​without either appearing in the 1737 survey.

Why Johann Heinrich appears suddenly in 1743–44

The 1743–44 inquiry was not just a property list. It was a detailed socio-economic interrogation of all rural residents, including:

  • Brinksitzer

  • Garden holders

  • Marginal tenants

  • Non-Hof residents

So Johann Heinrich appears there because:

  • The scope was broader

  • His obligations and status were being assessed

  • Even small holders were included

This explains why:

  • He is absent in 1737

  • Present in 1743–44

  • Confirmed in 1745