Who invented the idea of surnames?

Question

I just wondered who made the idea of second names up. As a long time ago, like bible times people never had any second names, so did people name themselves whatever they wanted at some point?

Answer 1

Surname History

When communities consisted of just a few people, surnames -- last names/family names -- weren't important. As each town acquired more and more Johns and Marys, the need was established for a way to identify each from the other. The Romans had begun the practice of using "given-name + clan-name + family-name" about 300 B.C. In the English-speaking part of the world, the exact date that surnames began to be adopted can't be pinpointed. The Domesday Book compiled by William the Conquerer required surnames, but hereditary surnames are not considered to have been commonplace until the late 1200's.

William Camden wrote in Remaines of a Greater Worke Concerning Britaine: (1586)
Some surnames refer to occupations (Carpenter, Taylor, Brewer, Mason), a practice that was commonplace by the end of the 14th century. Places of residence were also commonly used (Hill, Brook, Forrest, Dale) as a basis for the surname, for reasons that can be easily understood. Less apparent is the rationale behind the adoption of animal references (Wolfe, Fish, Byrd, Katt), although it may have been to identify a similar trait in the bearer of the name (John Fox might have been sly). Relations of those with royal rank often adopted the title as a surname (King, Abbott, Steward, Prince) and colors (Brown, Black, White, Gray) were adopted for less obvious reasoning.

Answer 2

As far as I know the idea of surnames was never originally about it becoming a name at all. Originally in Europe people would be described by their name and what they did, for example "John the Blacksmith". Then when multiple Johns began to live in the same area people just kind of adopted using the job titles as surnames. I dont know it became like it is now where everyone has one. That also explains why there have always been a large amount of people with certain names, such as Smith, becuase of the large number of people who were smiths.

Answer 3

Surnames as we think of them did not really come about until the end of the first millennium. Before then settlements were small enough that there were enough names to identify every individual within an area (and in those days travel more than a mile or two beyond your village was very rare). Eventually there would be more than one person with the same name in a village and they would need to be distinguished. The most common ways were their profession (John-the-smith, Peter-the-baker etc), where they lived (John-by-the-river) or by prominent features (John-with-the-beard). Over time the linkages were dropped and the names were passed down through the family.

Answer 4

I think it evolved over time as a way of telling those apart. As far as surnames in bible times they were there really, though an early form. If someone was from another place for example, then they would be known as 'Joseph of Aramathea', or wherever. Sometimes their occupation would be used, like 'John the blacksmith'. Even your parents would have been used for a reference, 'John the butchers son'. If you look at alot of english surnames these principles become quite obvious, like 'Johnson', IE 'Johns son', or 'Carpenter', obviously an occupation. Over time as the population increased density then these became more needed to specify whom was being discussed. Hope this helps!
Jo

Answer 5

At the point where the population was large enough so that one couldn't refer to someone without being more specific, such as John the Baker, John the Smith, John the son of Robert, and so on. The earliest real surnames that I have encountered (as a genealogist) appear in the range of 800-1000 A.D. or so.

Answer 6

There are Romans with names like Marcus Aurillius and Marc Antony, but a lot comes from defining an lineage.

For example, Gimli, son of Gloim could get corrupted to Gimli Gloim.

Also, job titles. John the Fletcherer becomes John Fletcher

Answer 7

As the population grew,it would be confusing having everyman called John and every woman Jane. Therefore the name of the trade of the family or the town or simply the son of the father became associated with families. John Davidson, or John,the son of David. Kevin OBrien or Kevin of Brien, Brien's son etc.
Names like Baker, Butcher speak for themselves. You could of course just give everyone a number, but that would be very dull and very difficult to remember!

Answer 8

relies upon on what you recommend by utilising the bathroom, simply by fact the finest exchange into an entire in the floor, so its somewhat not ordinary to define who invented that. "the unique flush bathroom exchange into made by utilising Sir John Harrington, yet simply by slurs revealed by utilising himself and being ridiculed in England for his invention the bathroom exchange into by no skill industrially produced. Then Alexander Cummings, a watch-maker, patented his layout for a flush bathroom, which exchange into the muse for the prominent bathroom the human inhabitants (besides as some housepets) makes use of in the present day."

Answer 9

In my country there was a tradition long time ago.For ex. if there were 2 girls named Anna they used to say: Ana who? Ana the daughter of Frank. So that's how she became Ana Frank's. (or Ana Frankova in my language). There are also a lot of surnames that derive from ones profession: Anna Popova (means that her father was a priest)

Answer 10

As populations grew, different cultures had different ways of specifying which person to whom they were referring - for example it might be one's profession - "David the Cooper" or one's relation - "David, son of John" or one's religion - "David the Christian." That's not dissimilar to what we do in our culture - "you know, David, that guy who works at Starbucks!" It wasn't one person who "invented" surnames - it was simply a necessary, evolutionary development of a growing populace. Good question.