Der Physiker Albert Einstein und die Buchauer Einstein

Repository

Badische Landesbibliothek / RegionaliaOpen

Reference

Südwestdeutsche Blätter für Familien- und Wappenkunde 23, pp. 385-389; DOI 10.57962/regionalia-22296

Date

2003

People

—

Places

—

View repository record

Reliability and limits

Source-critical article visually inspected in September 2026. Arnstein says Einstein genealogy can be reconstructed from the Buchau family registers and cites Aron Tänzer's 1931 treatment. He identifies Baruch Moyses Ainstein of Wangen am Untersee as the first Einstein admitted to Buchau in 1665, says Moses Einstein was probably Baruch's son and died in 1730, and then discusses David Veit Einstein. Crucially, Arnstein explicitly says the sources are not unequivocal as to whether David Veit was Moses's son or instead a direct son of Baruch, even while treating Baruch, Moses and David Veit as direct ancestors of Albert Einstein. He states that John Bergmann evaluated the individual documents behind this early reconstruction. Arnstein separately describes the first Buchau family register as created in 1809 and covering 1809-1853. Its retrospective Blatt 3 entry is Abraham Einstein (1718-1787), son of Leopold Einstein and Karoline; Blatt 6 is Moses Einstein der Ältere (1750-1790), son of a deceased David Einstein and Karoline of Pfersee; Blatt 7 is Moses Einstein der Jüngere (1739-1815), son of Joseph Einstein and Bernhardine of Sulz. The Blatt 6 Moses born in 1750 is therefore a later namesake and cannot be the early Moses whom Arnstein says died in 1730. These entries show multiple Buchau Einstein branches and must not be conflated with the proposed Baruch-Moses-David Veit ancestral chain. Arnstein dates a Buchau tax list naming Moses Einstein and Abraham Neiburger to 1694, whereas S-105 reports Bergmann's dating of a Moises Ainstein tax-list entry to 1693. The underlying list has not been inspected, so STEINE preserves 1693/1694 as a source-level chronological discrepancy rather than choosing a year. This is strong register-based secondary evidence but not direct inspection of the underlying early documents. It names no Daniel Einstein of Fellheim and supplies no Fellheim-Buchau bridge; the reported Baruch-Moses- David parentage ambiguity must be preserved rather than silently resolved.

Supported discoveries