Do I add the last name when no last name was recorded in the source?
I found my ancestors in Norwegian church records from the early 1800's. On the birth and christening records, they give a first name of the child, but no last name. Following tradition from that time, the last name would have been based on their father's first name, addding -sen or -datter to his name. On Family Search, when I create a new record for this child, should I include the last name as I assume it would have been used, or leave it blank?
Answers
-
You can do it either way. Try it and see which way works better. If you change your mind later, you can change the profile.
Usually I would include the patronymic suffix, but I would also check for other records for that family; did they use patronymics or did they adopt a family surname?
2 -
In the 1800s you can be very confident that the vast majority of Norwegians did use a patronymic name. That is why there was not need to include it in the record. So yes to add it. But there are exceptions and additions to be aware of.
In certain regions of the country and among certain social classes, additional surnames would be used. For example, a farmer in western Norway would always use in addition the farm name. So if Jon Hansson Vikanes owned the Vikanes farm, his children would be [first name] Jonson/datter Vikanes. Including these farm name is tremendously helpful in identifying people correctly and preventing incorrect merges.
City dwelling merchant classes used fixed patronymic surnames from very early instead of patronymics. These look like patronymics but do not change from generation to generation. I have found as early in 1815 examples of Jon Hansen's sons and daughters both being [first name] Hansen. You generally have to use other records, such the census records, to figure out this situation.
Then there is the upper class. They also from very early on used fixed surname for the family. You can tell these because the surnames are not derived from patronymics nor farms. Often in the christening record, the last name will still be listed for just the parents. I've often seen it written with an extra little flourish.
In summary, yes, always include the last name. While it will rarely be wrong to use the patronymic, do the research needed to know whether the family used a patronymic alone, a patronymic with a farm name, a fixed-patronymic surname, or a family name surname.
1 -
I would add the patronymic name if the birth/baptismal record indicates no fixed family name. You can add in the reason this information is correct your reasoning.
If you are adding the source manually, don't include your assumptions as fact in notes for the source though.
0
