where did last names begin?

Answer 1

The basic concept BEHIND "last names" (to more specifically identify people) is ancient.

The practice of adopting "last names" or "surnames" as we know it (that is as a hereditary family name) has developed independently in various times and places.

Note this distinction -- not all last names or additional names [which is what "surname" means] are hereditary. In fact, they
were at first simply applied to an individual to specify "which John" was meant. Only later did they became hereditary, and so the true FAMILY name- last names we know today.

The earliest known case of established hereditary surnames was in China, where the use of family names was decreed around 2852 B.C. But there is no evidence the Chinese practice had any influence on the development of surnames elsewhere.

In the West there are two significant historical instances of surnames developing. The first was at the height of the Roman Empire, but it died out toward the end. It was NOT the origin of modern European surnames; they arose again independently.

The "modern" use of hereditary surnames in Europe began around AD 1000 in Venice, and gradually spread across Europe through the next few centuries (though some countries, such as the Scandinavian lands, did not fully adopt the practice till the 19th century).

Much of the reason for this is simple practical necessity. For example, as urban areas grew there was more need to disinguish "which John" was being referred to. Beyond simple conversation though, there was LEGAL & governmental need - to specify ownership of property, for the proper collection of debts and taxes, things no one wanted there to be confusion about! (unless you like paying someone else's taxes and having them claim title to your property!)

Not surprisingly, it was people of wealth and status -- major landowners and those claiming authority by descent -- who were the first to pass on their 'last names'. (But note that this did/does not always work as it does with modern family surnames. Some of these were TITLES, such as "Lord of [ESTATE NAME]" which for various reasons [e.g., lack of a son!] might be passed to someone else outside the immediate family.)

There are four common sources for our surnames:

1) place names - place of origin of individual or family - in Europe this was probably the first type of HEREDITARY surname. (Since people did not move around a lot it was easy for this name to be 'passed on' to offspring.)

2) patryonymics - name of father (occasionally matronymics); at first used only for one's own immediate father, only later did it become hereditary (so referring to a more distant ancestor), though people of station might use "son of [NAME OF ANCESTOR]" in order to make a claim.

3) occupation - again, used first for the individual, though the fact that many sons adopted their father's profession made it workable as a hereditary name.

4) nickname - a catchall category, including descriptions of all sorts, esp. of physical and personality traits. (Again, such names would apply best to an individual, though some of the features might well continue to be found in his offspring.)

Note that all these sorts of naming practices have been used for millenia by various cultures, even when there is no established or hereditary (family) surname. Some simple examples may be found in the New Testament, where we find the "Jesus" of the gospels (keep in mind that this was a COMMON Hebrew name) called "Jesus son of Joseph", "Jesus of Nazareth" "Jesus the carpenter [or 'the carpenter's son']" (many other examples of the first two, esp. "son of", cf. "Mary of Magadala" (later "Mary Magdalene")). (There is also the use of an ancestor's name -- "son of David" -- to identify him as a descendant of King David, which is important to the claim that promises made to David are given to him.)


Good overviews of the history, including how and when surnames were adopted in various places
http://www.mayrand.org/meaning-e.htm
(includes helpful HISTORY of giving of surnames, naming practices in various countries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name

Briefer discussions, with interesting tidbits (including examples of various types of surnames, common names' lists):
http://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/surname.htm
http://www.last-names.net/Articles/Anatomy.asp
http://www.allinaname.com/art004.html
http://dusty.dyndns.org/genealogy/text/surnames.htm

Answer 2

It's more accurate to call them "surnames" instead of "last names", because in some countries the surname comes first, then the name that your friends and family call you, last. For example in the West we call John Lennon's second wife Yoko Ono, but in Japan, where she was born, she's known as Ono Yoko.

I would imagine they began in Europe several hundred years ago, but I'm not sure about that.

Mc or Mac means "son of", so John McDonald, for example, would be John, the son of Donald, as opposed to John McMurphy, John, the son of Murphy. That's the Scottish way of creating surnames. Other countries used similar prefixes like Van or De/Di/Da/D' or the obvious English suffix of -son.

Answer 3

One of the most accepted theories for the origin of surname use attributes their introduction to the Normans and the Domesday Book of 1086. The use of surnames gradually became an accepted practice throughout Western Europe in the Middle Ages. In parts of the world, family names did not appear in common use until the 17th to 19th centuries, and they are unused in some cultures even today.

Answer 4

Last names work differently in different cultures. They were probably invented at different times in different parts of the world.

As the answer above says, they usually have one of two origins. Either you were named according to your profession, or according to your father's name.
Any name ending with ~son or ~sen is probably of scandinavian origin and follows the father pattern (Petersen, Ericson = Peter's son, Eric's son etc.) Equally, names beginning with P~ or B~ are often of celtic origin, for the same reason. (Price, Pugh = Rhys' son, Huw's son etc.)

Answer 5

2 ways. Teh first was as a profession.. the blacksmith was John Smith... the person who ran the mill would be John Miller... the other was part of lineage... like There was Erik the Red... and his sone was Leaf Erikson, or Erik's son. John's son, was johnson, etc.

Answer 6

Three main derivations: where a person was from; the profession of the person; and the name of the father.

Answer 7

WHERE THEY HAD TOO MANY of the same FIRST NAMES