How did we develop surnames?

Answer 1

Some were based on our ancestors jobs (miller, smith), some were based on ancestoral home (London, York, English), some were based on familial ties (Johnson, or "John's son") some were from unique characteristics (Short, Long).

I like to use the Carolingian lineage for this. You have Charles Martel ("Chuck the Hammer") and his son Pippin the Short. Then you have his children Charles and Karloman. Charles has a kid he names Charles, so he becomes Charles the greater and charles the lesser. (Charlemagne).

It gets better. Charlemagne had a son named Pippin the Hunchback. Well, he upset dad with treachery, so dad disowns him and decides to rename his son Charles to Pippin.

(Pippin the Short was the third in the family.)

Don't you see how it might be easier to have last names to save confusion?

Answer 2

Monc has it pretty much correct. The only thing I'd add is that in the 'old days' jobs tended to be handed down from father to son, so Robert the Smith (blacksmith) would eventually hand over to David the Smith. If the son didn't take up that career he might be called David the Smith's son (Smithson), or if he travelled he might be called David York (from York).

Interestingly - now you mention it - a place name might get attached to a first name if you lived in that place, but in the case of a large city it's unlikely that David of London is a particularly useful name. It's more likely that if a name is invented in the city, it would refer to a persons original home in the country, so you might get David Whipple, living in London but originally from Whimple in Devon.

But you should also me mindful that other cultures do things differently, some take the mothers name, and some still do not use surnames at all.

Answer 3

The clue is in the word.

Sur...name.

It goes back to European feudal practises, very similar to the methods used in the times of slavery.

A surf was a possession of the feudal lord, he would have his own name, i.e. 'Christian name', and then the family name of the sire ( i.e. sir = sur ).

It is interesting that this is also the provenance of the married woman's taking of her husband's family name, she too was just a chattel.

Of course, we have made much progress since those uncivilised times ( tongue firmly stuck in cheek ).

Answer 4

Well no one knows really, I guess way back in the day when It got to hard to get Bobs attention they started to call Bob, "Bob Smith"
Idk really, that was just an example.
When you think about it, Queens and such all had surnames...huh....lol thats a good question