By Earl Hunsinger
In searching for your ancestors, sometimes a name is all that you have. Yet names often contain more, or less, information than you might expect. Today we take it for granted that everyone has at least two names, a given name and a surname. This has not always been the case. In ancient times, when people lived in small communities and didn’t travel very much or very far, a given name was often enough. To distinguish people with the same given name, reference could always be made to who their father was or what they did for a living. For example, the Bible speaks of James the son of Zebedee and it refers to Jesus as the carpenter’s son. If a person did travel, his hometown could be used as a reference. For example, the Bible refers to Jesus as Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.
Eventually, as populations grew, surnames became more common, and more necessary. Rather than being something completely new though, these were really just an extension of the old way of differentiating people. One of the most common methods for choosing a surname was still the patronymic, or name of the person’s father. For example, someone that had been referred to as Paul the son of John, became Paul Johnson. Just as in ancient times, surnames could also refer to a place or occupation. Someone might be called John Washington, John London, or John England. If your last name is Cooper, you probably had an ancestor that made barrels. If it’s Mason, he was a bricklayer, if Leech a doctor, and if Webster a weaver.
Sometimes people were given a name that described a personal quality, flattering or not. These names might have been simple and obvious, such as Short, Brown, or Whitehead. Or they might have been more subtle, such as Lamb or Fox. Like occupations, a person’s social position sometimes became linked with their name, and the name of all their descendants. This is why we see such surnames as Knight, Squire, Priest, and Bishop.
The same principles applied to surnames in countries where people spoke a language other than English. For example, Fitzgerald is an anglicized version of the French, or Norman, son of Gerald. In Scotland, MacDonald meant son of Donald, and in Ireland McAdam was son of Adam. O’Brien means grandson of Brien.
To add to the confusion, the spelling of surnames has changed over the years. This has happened for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it was just a simple mistake on the part of a clerk or official in a past century, combined perhaps with very little regard for accuracy. Because of a humble social position or illiteracy, many people had little choice but to accept such mistakes, which were passed down to later generations on legal documents. In the United States, Ellis Island is famous for this type of change. In all fairness to those hard working officials that manned Ellis Island in the nineteenth century, these mistakes were often the result of linguistic problems. People came to the United States from all over the world, speaking a variety of languages, and perhaps little English. Because of these communication problems and the heavy workload, mistakes were inevitable. At times, the immigrants themselves made the change, anglicizing their name in an attempt to fit in better in their new country.
African Americans face another challenge when trying to trace their ancestry. After their emancipation, freed slaves had to choose surnames. They often adopted the surnames of their former masters. However, others adopted the surname of a famous person or simply one that they liked. They may have made up a surname, perhaps with some personal significance. Because of this, there are examples of family members choosing different surnames.
So, what’s in a name? Your surname may tell something about a particular ancestor, or even a whole line of ancestors. It may give clues about the history of your family and its journey from one land to another. Or it may simply reflect the circumstances, good or bad, in which some distant ancestor found himself.
In searching for your ancestors, sometimes a name is all that you have. Yet names often contain more, or less, information than you might expect. Today we take it for granted that everyone has at least two names, a given name and a surname. This has not always been the case. In ancient times, when people lived in small communities and didn’t travel very much or very far, a given name was often enough. To distinguish people with the same given name, reference could always be made to who their father was or what they did for a living. For example, the Bible speaks of James the son of Zebedee and it refers to Jesus as the carpenter’s son. If a person did travel, his hometown could be used as a reference. For example, the Bible refers to Jesus as Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.
Eventually, as populations grew, surnames became more common, and more necessary. Rather than being something completely new though, these were really just an extension of the old way of differentiating people. One of the most common methods for choosing a surname was still the patronymic, or name of the person’s father. For example, someone that had been referred to as Paul the son of John, became Paul Johnson. Just as in ancient times, surnames could also refer to a place or occupation. Someone might be called John Washington, John London, or John England. If your last name is Cooper, you probably had an ancestor that made barrels. If it’s Mason, he was a bricklayer, if Leech a doctor, and if Webster a weaver.
Sometimes people were given a name that described a personal quality, flattering or not. These names might have been simple and obvious, such as Short, Brown, or Whitehead. Or they might have been more subtle, such as Lamb or Fox. Like occupations, a person’s social position sometimes became linked with their name, and the name of all their descendants. This is why we see such surnames as Knight, Squire, Priest, and Bishop.
The same principles applied to surnames in countries where people spoke a language other than English. For example, Fitzgerald is an anglicized version of the French, or Norman, son of Gerald. In Scotland, MacDonald meant son of Donald, and in Ireland McAdam was son of Adam. O’Brien means grandson of Brien.
To add to the confusion, the spelling of surnames has changed over the years. This has happened for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it was just a simple mistake on the part of a clerk or official in a past century, combined perhaps with very little regard for accuracy. Because of a humble social position or illiteracy, many people had little choice but to accept such mistakes, which were passed down to later generations on legal documents. In the United States, Ellis Island is famous for this type of change. In all fairness to those hard working officials that manned Ellis Island in the nineteenth century, these mistakes were often the result of linguistic problems. People came to the United States from all over the world, speaking a variety of languages, and perhaps little English. Because of these communication problems and the heavy workload, mistakes were inevitable. At times, the immigrants themselves made the change, anglicizing their name in an attempt to fit in better in their new country.
African Americans face another challenge when trying to trace their ancestry. After their emancipation, freed slaves had to choose surnames. They often adopted the surnames of their former masters. However, others adopted the surname of a famous person or simply one that they liked. They may have made up a surname, perhaps with some personal significance. Because of this, there are examples of family members choosing different surnames.
So, what’s in a name? Your surname may tell something about a particular ancestor, or even a whole line of ancestors. It may give clues about the history of your family and its journey from one land to another. Or it may simply reflect the circumstances, good or bad, in which some distant ancestor found himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment