Talk:Jonas Bronck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation Requested for nationality[edit]

In an edit at 18:51, 23 January 2011‎ (UTC) it was asserted a document exists indicating Jonas Bronck “was from Komstad, near Sävsjö, in Småland, Sweden”. We are interested in learning about this paperwork. It would be helpful to know its location, the credentials of whoever interpreted the document, and in which publication its specific content and analysis was published. Three minutes after that edit a “citation needed” notice was added by “Djflem”. Nearly 10 months have passed and no citation has yet been offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eritasactium (talk • contribs)


Bronck was Danish[edit]

In regard to a reference associated with our Jonas Bronck edit of 23:03, 12 November 2011, the following describes credentials of A.J.F. van Laer, and also provides Wikipedia descriptions of the American Historical Association and the “American Historical Review”, the journal that published van Laer’s cited statement “…Jonas Bronck was a Dane…”

Arnold Johan Ferdinand (A.J.F.) van Laer was a librarian and archivist with the New York State Library (1899-1915) and the Division of History and Archives (1915-1939), best known for his translations of New York’s colonial Dutch records. Published works include four volumes of New Netherland records, two of Beverwyck, six of Albany County, four relating to Rensselaerswyck, and one of Lutheran records in Holland relative to the Colony of New York. He also wrote numerous articles for journals, principally the New York State Historical Association Quarterly, the Dutch Settlers Society of Albany Yearbook, and the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society Record. His translations are considered superior to those of any of his predecessors or contemporaries, a result of his fluency in both Dutch and English, his research into colonial history and language, his understanding of Dutch customs and traditions, and his particular interest in the individual settlers. Frequently overlooked are his contribution to the developing professions of manuscript curator and archivist and his efforts to encourage the preservation of historical records.

A.J.F. van Laer was born in Utrecht and settled in the United States in 1897, living in Albany from 1897 until his death in 1955. He received the degrees of mechanical engineer at the University of Delft and bachelor of library science at the New York State Library School. He and his wife had three sons. Biographical information can be found in a memorial address by Charles K. Winne, Jr., published in the Yearbook of the Dutch Settlers Society of Albany for 1954-1956, and reprinted in volume one of New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch (Baltimore, 1974).

Scope and Content (of the New York State Library’s van Laer archives): These papers contain correspondence, research notes, and other administrative materials relating to Van Laer's duties as librarian and archivist with the New York State Library (1899-1915) and the Division of History and Archives (1915-1939). The correspondence concerns his published translations of documents related to the Dutch colonial period in New York State. For example, his correspondence with Howard Townsend concerns translation of Dutch documents in the Van Rensselaer Manor Papers. In addition, his correspondence also relates to the history and genealogy of families of Dutch origin and New York Colonial history in general. (Source – the New York State Library)

The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association (AHA). The AHA was founded in 1884 and chartered by Congress in 1889 to serve the interests of the entire discipline of history. Aligning with the AHA’s mission, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States since 1895—the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge. The journal also publishes approximately one thousand book reviews per year, surveying and reporting the most important contemporary historical scholarship in the discipline.

The American Historical Association (AHA) is the oldest and largest society of historians and professors of history in the United States. Founded in 1884, the association promotes historical studies, the teaching of history, and the preservation of and access to historical materials. It publishes The American Historical Review five times a year, with scholarly articles and book reviews. The AHA is the major organization for historians working in the United States, while the Organization of American Historians is the major organization for historians who study and teach about the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eritasactium (talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Skåne[edit]

The province of Skåne belonged to Denmark until it came to Sweden in 1658 as a consequence of the Treaty of Roskilde. Therefore Jonas Bronck was Danish, speaking a Scanian dialect somewhere in between of Danish and Swedish. --Proofreader 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Skåne was Danish at the time, but Sävsjö (and Bronck's birthplace) is in Småland and therefore in Sweden then as now. I'll correct this. The dialect is irrelevant, but would have been a Småland dialect. --CodeGeneratR 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, america "belonged" to the indians at the time.. whats your point? Even if he HAD been born in Skåne, wich he wasnt... So if a woman had a baby in america at that time, would that baby have been an indian? (native american) heh...

Npovorpov 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed header from Untitled to Skåne. One untitled section, the first one, is enough. --Thnidu (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric the Red & JB[edit]

"Many people of Scandinavian descent claim that Jonas Bronck himself was descended from Eric the Red and Leif Ericson, who colonised the area. There is also some small archeological evidence suggesting this." - which archeological evidence suggest JB was a decendent of Eric the Red? --62.242.60.122 10:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the above clause from the article. If there is any "evidence", it should be mentioned and sourced.--CodeGeneratR 08:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchman or Swede?[edit]

I've changed some things in this article, because it is not for sure to say if Bronck used to be of Dutch, or Swedish nationality. The German page of this subject is stating both options, something I think is legitimate. --84.104.123.100 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He WAS born in Sweden, theres no dispute over that. However it appears to me that he developed very strong bonds to the Netherlands, including his wife. I would consider him both a Swede and a Dutchman. To know what he considered himself, you'd prolly have to ask him, wich is a bit late now. Npovorpov 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: Jonas is a very common Swedish name, but as far as I know it is not common in Holland (nowadays at least). I don't know whether the original spelling of his last name was Brunk (as spelled at Swedish Wikipedia) or Bronck (as spelled here). Brunk would point towards Swedish heritage, while Bronck might point towards dutch heritage. Concerning the descent of his brother/son Pieter, the spelling Pieter might indicate that he was indeed a son, since that spelling is non-existant (or close to) in Sweden, while it is very common in Holland. The spelling might of course have been changed during or after his lifetime. If they had a Dutch family heritage before Jonas Jonasson Bronck's dutch marriage, that too might explain a brother of the name Pieter. Adrian schmidt (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling "Bronck" is distinctively Dutch, which supports the theory that he was originally Dutch or of Dutch ancestry. --Thnidu (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Jonsson Brunk - Från Komstad till Bronx[edit]

Jonas Jonsson Brunk from Komstad to Bronx by Elna Nilsson, Sävsjö 2007 offers the compelling conclusion that Bronck was born in Komstad in Smaland close to the then Danish Skåneland, made his way to the coast, become a sailor in the Danish merchant marines and later transfered to the Dutch fleet (as had his uncles).

cites published sources:
unpublished sources:
  • Gemeente Stadsarchief Amsterdam Excerpts from wedding records
  • Nilsson, Elna (1986). Sävsjö area's first American migrants. Included in Sävsjö Hembygdsförening yearbook, 1986, pp. 33-38.
  • Hult, Henry (1998). Jonas Jonsson Brunk. Stencil. Local History Collection, Jönköping county libraries.
Comment: Being a sailor of the Danish merchant marine would explain his role in the transfer of a group of North Frisian settlers, who were Danish subjects at the time, to America. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His acquaintance with Frisians may have been made during his time working for the Danish, or it simply could have been a matter of coincidence that they, too happened to be in Amsterdam at the same time. (it was a major port and very much the 17th century melting pot). Jochem Kuyter, his business partner (who bought the land on Manhattan across from Bronck's), is considered a Dane, but whether he was Frisian would have to be investigated. The composition of passengers on the ship could be discussed, one supposes, if there are some substantial refs for it.Djflem (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I suppose they rather used Amsterdam as hub. I don't know of any emigration ships leaving directly from the Frisian islands to America. What I'm currently having difficulties with is the (newly expanded) Faroese biography. The German WP cites a British author who is said to have refuted the Faroese version credibly in 1981 and was the first to attribute a Swedish history to Bronck: George V. C. Young, "The Founder of the Bronx", The Manx-Svenska Publishing Co., Peel (Isle of Man), 1981. Unfortunately there's no online preview for this. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All available sources that indicate Jonas Bronck was born in Komstad, Smaland, Sweden were written after the 1981 self-publication of G.V.C. Young’s 19 page pamphlet “The Founder of the Bronx”. We can see no earlier support for assertions of his Swedish birth. Such claims all appear to rest on interpretations and conclusions reported by Young.
According to public records, Manx-Svenska Publishing Co. was incorporated in October of 1980, shortly before “The Founder of the Bronx” was published. The work is out of print and few copies are available in public libraries. However I was recently able to examine the pamphlet’s contents and looked at its basis for a “Swedish Connection”. Two crucial references were made to Bronck’s betrothal certificate dated June 18th 1638, and his document of guarantee of April 30th 1639. Validity of Young’s theory of Bronck’s Swedish origin largely rests on interpretations of two words in these Dutch documents. Their analysis was provided, at Young’s request, by Fru Eva Brylla of the Ortnamnsarkiv in Uppsala, Sweden. She transcribed, then interpreted the words which were written in difficult to read old style Germanic script. According to Brylla, they were said to spell “Coonstay” and “Smolach”. Then, according to Young (page 15), “… it was decided that it was most likely that “Coonstay” was “Komstad” in Jonkoping and that “Smolach” was a misrecording of Smaland.” Young did not indicate further analysis of either document as to context of the two interpreted words.
As De728631 reported, there does not appear to be any online review of “Founder of the Bronx”, or mention of such a review in any research journal of record. With this apparent lack of peer review, it would seem prudent to take Young’s conclusions about Jonas Bronck’s Swedish origin with a measure of caution. Eritasactium (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to the lack of a preview, as in Google Books or something, not a scholarly review. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Google Books, here is a source that supports the Danish/Faroese line ("in all probability a Dane, and originally as it seems from Thorshavn..."), and also the Norwegians have laid claim on old Jonas. A snippet preview on a Google selection reads "the 'Magazine of American History,' January, 1908, tells us that Jonas Bronck 'was one of those worthy but unfortunate Mennonites who were driven from their homes in Holland to Denmark by religious persecution.'" The borough of the Bronx, 1639-1913, etc. That said I suggest we write that there is no consensus among researchers about his origin. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a good idea. There certainly is no consensus among all researchers at this time. Readers can consider the evolving discussion, and perhaps provide more definitive information. Eritasactium (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also a good idea to mention the dates of the research= not just the bold assertions of recent date- of one or another theory.. The latest thinking seems to support the Komstad origin. The early twentieeth century thinking supports the Danish-Norwegian-Faroese story, son of preacher idea/school in Roskilde idea. Mentioning that would be fair to the reader, and not deceptive POV pushing, don't you think?Djflem (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but just hope readers remember that when all is said and done, latest is not always greatest. Eritasactium (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In further consideration of the above, although it is true early twentieth century thinking generally supported Bronck’s Danish origin, it seems unnecessary to pigeon-hole references favoring the concept to just that era. With regard to the edit of 07:48, 24 March 2012, and its associated comment: “remove synthesis and to stick to facts supported by references provided”, it is important to note the article did previously, in the same paragraph, contain relevant references to independent sources, i.e. “The Advocate” (Bronx County Bar Association, 1977) also Burrows and Wallace (Cambridge University Press, 1999), published in the latter part of the 20th century. They allude to Bronck’s Danish origin. Therefore, the following edit appears valid. “A number of sources published since the 19th century favor the notion Bronck was Danish.” Eritasactium (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Considering that this has been a contentious issue it is important that whatever is presented is true to the citations. Since there is no 19th century source cited saying so is contentious, and a misrepresentation. And while plenty has been added to this article without any sources at all, the long discusions on this talk page regarding Bronck's origin, make it obvious that unreferenced claims in that section cannot be permitted.

It is regretted that in a recent edit, the word “since” included in a line “…published since the 19th century…” was interpreted as implying references published during, as well as after, the 19th century. The intended meaning was “subsequent to” the 19th century. To rectify the misunderstanding, a new edit replacing “since” with “subsequent to” will be submitted. Without question the integrity of this and any article rests on the reliability of reference sources. In addition to providing adequate citations, it is equally important that citations already present in the article not be overlooked. As mentioned earlier, the article’s previous inclusion of 1977 and 1999 references to Bronck’s Danish nationality highlight inherent incompleteness of the edit submitted at 07:48 UTC, 24 March 2012: “A number of sources published in the early 20th century state that Bronck was Danish”. The following revision is therefore proposed: “A number of sources published subsequent to the 19th century favor the notion that Bronck was Danish”. Eritasactium (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely with mentioning the 19th century at all. The phrase as proposed by DJflem "in the early 20th century" is precisely what we need. If there were any 19th century references used in the article we could refer back to that time but since that is not the case we should not confuse the general reader by complicating the text. De728631 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough with regard to any mention of the 19th century, but limiting a description to “in the early 20th century” hardly seems to be “precisely what we need”. Why is it what we need? Any actual or implied limitation to the early 20th century totally ignores previously cited comments contained in “The Advocate” (Bronx County Bar Association, 1977) and Burrows and Wallace (Cambridge University Press, 1999), works clearly NOT published in the early 20th century. Limitation to the early 20th century appears to suggest there has been no recent respectable support for the Danish origin theory. Burrows and Wallace are highly respected, award winning professional historians writing in a work published by Cambridge University Press, cited as a reliable reference source exemplar by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Both references certainly do allude to Bronck’s Danish origin. I suggest Djflem’s line be modified to read: “A number of sources published after the start of the 20th century state that Bronck was Danish”. But, perhaps I’m missing something here. If so, please advise. Eritasactium (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Original research specifically the section Synthesis of published material that advances a position explains why this addition of the word since, besides being problematic, is not permitted. Combining sources is interpretation, and POV. Djflem
Thank you for responding and explaining. I think I’m beginning to get it. For example, in my last edit “A number of sources published since the early 20th century state that Bronck was Danish,[6][7]…”, references 6 and 7 are indeed from the early 20th century, but nothing from later in the century is attached to the end of my statement. References [10] “x”and [12] “y”, that I mentioned in recent Talk posts, are from much later in the 20th century and therefore would also have to be attached to the end of the statement in question (…sources published since the early 20th century state that Bronck was Danish, [6][7][x][y]), in order to make that statement acceptable. Furthermore, "since" may be interpreted in different ways, therefore it better not be used. Am I on the right track so far? Eritasactium (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you've got it. The sources from the 1970s/80s may have picked up the ideas published "in the early 20th century" or not, but putting them all in a single line with "since" is a type of interpretation we can't afford. Moreover the current revision distinguishes between early and later publications instead of giving a general statement like "a number of sources claimed he was Danish". De728631 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your help is appreciated. Eritasactium (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The site of the farmhouse is said to be 500 ft from the Willis Avenue Bridge and 1000 feet south of Bruckner Boulevard within the rail yard.Djflem (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Well, the location currently in the article is within the rail yard and, if it's not absolutely precise, must be within 20 feet or so from the location you indicate. Since the Bronck farmstead is said in the article to have occupied 680 acres, the current coordinates seem close enough. Deor (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Addition of geographic coordinates is certainly helpful. I subtracted 12 arcseconds of longitude from that original edit to move the referenced location slightly east from the center of the Willis Avenue Bridge to the railyard. I also believe it would be useful to restore linear references to the Bridge and Bruckner Boulevard for those who relate better to such indicators. Eritasactium (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bronck Homestead Artifacts?[edit]

Does anyone know when railroad tracks were first placed by the site of Bronck’s “stone building with a tile roof”? Perhaps the location was relatively undisturbed prior to introduction of rail facilities. Bronck’s substantial home may even have survived until that time. Maybe the house’s foundation and other evidence of his occupation still exist beneath the rail yard. An archaeological survey using ground penetrating radar could reveal artifacts without interfering with rail traffic. A local university, college, museum, or The Bronx Historical Society might already have undertaken related research. Can anyone cite such a study for possible inclusion in the article? Eritasactium (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonas Bronck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truce 1642[edit]

Lankevich, George J. (2002), New York City: A Short History, NYU Press, ISBN 9780814751862{{citation}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

https://books.google.nl/books?id=CjWhBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=jonas+Bronck+truce&source=bl&ots=s2VV36GCpB&sig=d0T7k3azZptmWKjnJZ2xmITYvRI&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinrL2f_bjUAhXKPFAKHZMrDMkQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&q=jonas%20Bronck%20truce&f=false

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jonas Bronck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jonas Bronck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location of settlement[edit]

The article says Bronck's farm "covered roughly the area south of today's 150th Street in the Bronx in what, today, is Mott Haven." But it also says that the farm abutted the Bronx River. As far as I can tell, Mott Haven doesn't abut the Bronx River; Hunts Point does, and north of that along the river looks like it's Charlotte Gardens? The line described by 150th Street intersects with Hunts Point well inland.

Is the description of the farm's boundaries incorrect, has the course of the Bronx River changed, or am I missing something? -- Beland (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I was mixing up the Bronx Kill and the Bronx River. Sorry for the confusion! -- Beland (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Bronck&oldid=1206445698"