Is there a standard for recording Norwegian names?
As I understand it, the patronymic system worked in a way that the person's name consisted of three parts: Given Name, Patronymic name (Father's Given name + sen/datter or similar depending on country), and the farmstead. And I know that as they left the patronymic system, some took on the farmstead name as surname, other's took on the patronymic name as surname.
I've seen the names put into trees a variety of ways including
first names: Given name (farmstead)
last name: patronymic name
first names: Given name patronymic name
last name: farmstead
first names: Given name
last name: patronymic name (farmstead)
and other variations. On top of that, daughters are suffixed sometimes as "sen" sometimes as "datter" sometimes "dotter" and even "dr".
Is there is a standard for recording these names in FamilySearch, or any other site for that matter? Preferably, a standard from a genealogical authority that could be referenced when teaching others.
Answers
-
I've never run across any true standard. Part of the trouble is that different people in different parts of the country in different time periods and different social classes did different things.
First off, whether or not you had a farm name depended on whether your family owned a farm. If you lived in a city or were a tradesman or just a farm hand never having your own farm, you would usually not have a farm name. Unless you adopted your family's farm's name.
Also, whether or not you had a patronymic name depended on status. Many higher status people had a fixed surname or family name very early in history. (The Mowat family was using that as their fixed surname in the 1400s.) Also, I've found families in Bergen that as early as 1810 had dropped the patronymic for a fixed surname which was the patronymic of great-grandfather.
Basically, you have to try to decide from the historical records and other Norwegian sources such as Bygdebøker what the person probably did in his or her life. For the area's I mainly research in, Hordaland, that means Given Name, Patronymic, Farm Name.
One thing I can say for certain is that your first example is never right. No one would have ever given their name that way. Another, is that your last example is acceptable, but not with the parenthesis.
As far as Family Tree goes, I have found the best results in searches for people and best clarity of identification (which helps avoid incorrect merges) if I use your second example:
First Names: Given Name Patronymic
Last Name: Farm Name
then include as an alternate name in the Other Information section:
First Name: Given Name
Last Name: Patronymic
If the person did not have a farm name, I just enter the patronymic name as the last name in Vitals and don't use an alternate name.
People are far less likely to merge Ola Olsson Høyland and Ola Olsson Digernes than they are Ola Olsson and Ola Olsson. But since so many of the indexed records have just the patronymic, including the alternate name allows the hinting, searching, and possible duplicates routines to work best.
I have found a recommended usage on Geni in their Norwegian record project:
https://www.geni.com/projects/Introduksjon-til-Geni-norsk/3288
which states:
Føring av Navn
Vi anvender navnekonvensjonene vanlig innen slektsgransking og på Geni.
- Fornavnsfelt: alle fornavn ved dåp
- Mellomnavnsfelt: patronymikon/farsnavn (Olsdotter, Børresson)
- Etternavnsfelt: Her føres etternavn (fra 1923), slektsnavn eller gårdsnavn.
My translation:
Entering Names:
We recommend using the conventional manner of entering names which is usual in genealogy and on Geni.
• First Name field: all given names at christening
• Middle Name field: patronymic/father's name (Olsdatter, Børresson)
• Last Name field: Here is entered the surname (from 1923 on), family name, or farm name.
Family Tree combines the first name and middle name fields into a single field. So the Norwegians behind the Geni project would advise your second example.
0 -
Hi Gordon. Thank you for your response. I especially like that Geni has at least given a recommendation. That's a start. I would really like to see someone like the League of Extraordinary Genealogists Online 😁 come up with a set of guidelines or best practices for keeping track of that information.
What about the Dotter/Datter/Dr part? Have you seen anything recommending a particular way to track that?
0 -
In Family Tree there is a big emphasis on not using abbreviations so -dr. and -dtr. are out.
I again have never seen any recommendations preferring either -datter or -dotter. The search engine in Family Tree treats them as the same. I think it just comes down to personal preference and potentially where the person lived. Technically -datter is bokmål and -dotter is nynorsk, landsmål, and Swedish.
Personally I uniformly use -datter for Norwegian entries and -dotter for Swedish. This lets me see at a glance when looking at a list of names in my desktop file who is Norwegian and who is Swedish.
0 -
For completeness, I should point out that I have also never seen any recommendations as to whether to use -sson, -ssen, -son, -sen, -ssøn,-søn. In actual parish records I've even seen -zen.
I have personally adopted that convention of spelling a patronymic with -sson with the thought to sticking to the original meaning and of being consistent between men and women. The meaning being someone's son and someone's datter, therefor someonesson and someonesdatter.
I use -sen when the patronymic is no longer a patronymic but rather a "fixed patronymic surname" as I have seen it called.
For example a descendancy list using patronymics would be:
Jon Eriksson
Ole Jonsson
Hans Olsson
Sven Hansson
While a descendancy list using a fixed patronymic surname would be:
Jon Eriksen
Ole Eriksen
Hans Eriksen
Sven Eriksen
0 -
You may want to be aware that the farm name may change depending on the farm the person occupied. Sometimes the farm name is more of a hindrance in research and would be better addressed in the "other names" field.
0 -
I have seen this in my own tree. And to complicate things even more, this particular person took on both farmstead names, one for his middle and the other for his last and not the patronymic name.
I'd say the farmstead shouldn't be part of the name at all. But since so many have taken on the farmstead as a surname, I think that means the farmstead name played a larger role in their identity than our location does today.
I tried entering my tree as first = given, last = patronymic + farmstead. All of the church records I read would indicate it in that form, usually each on a separate line. Since all of the sources for this particular area indicate it that way, for me it makes sense to follow what the sources show. But I know there's going to be disagreements with others in my tree insisting that the farmstead should not be a part of the name.
Precisely why we should have some guidelines. If there are none already in existence, why don't we, as a community, come up with some?
0 -
We, "as a community" have not come up with guidelines because there are very strong proponents of both view points. For my point of view that farm names were names and need to be treated as names I take support from three areas: 1) My Norwegian father-in-law would be very offended if you tried to convince him that his grandfather was not named Åmund Torsson Matre but that his "correct" name was Åmund Torsson. 2) The authors of the Bygdebøker I work in used the farm names as names. "Anders P. Hystad, som han screiv seg for..." "Han var først gift med Marid Ottesdtr. Ådland...." 3) Farm names were used before patronymics in the earliest parish records. (See for example: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWW1-PQM the father has no patronymic, just his farm name.)
The fact that names changed during life for men as well as women is just something Norwegian researchers need to quickly realized and accept. No one would claim that a woman's married name is a hindrance in research. Just the opposite. It gives you more information about her.
The other aspect I mentioned above was the aspect of preventing incorrect merges. Giving as much identifying information as possible and appropriate in as obvious manner as possible can only help in preventing those.
One great thing about Family Tree is that it does look at all the names for a person in both searching and in acquiring hints. That means we can put in a person's birth name, including farm name, in the Vitals section, the strictly patronymic and often somewhat artificial version of the name, the name used at marriage, names used at the times children were born, and name used at death all as alternate names. Then anyone finding a record with any of those names can search using that name and find the correct Family Tree record.
Here is an example of my approach:
0 -
I agree, I do love the fact that the alternate names is used in helping with the searches. I understand your point that there will be people who insist that farmstead is not part of the name. I was of that belief as well. Now that I've seen many instances of children who took on the farmstead name as their surname when surnames became the norm, I understand that it was part of their identity as much as their father's last name.
Gordon, what do you do when somebody disagrees about the way you entered a name in FamilySearch? Does it just fall to the "he who edits last and endures the longest wins?"
0 -
I've only had this come up twice.
Once was a gentleman who was taking out all the farm names. I put them back with an explanation of why they were important. He took them out. I put them back and expanded the reason statement. He took them out. I messaged him through FamilySearch. He did not answer and took them out. After a few rounds of messaging, I found an e-mail for him through google, put the names back in and e-mailed him saying I wanted to discuss this. He never answered a couple of e-mails. Eventually, although he is still actively adding sources, he has been leaving the names along.
The other time was with a woman who would take out the fame names and put the patronymic of her direct line ancestors in all caps. We went back and forth a few times, again with no response to messages or any direct conversations, and I decided to try a compromise. I let her keep the all cap surnames and she now seems to be leaving the farm names in place.
I have no idea why neither of them were willing to engage in any direct discussion about the topic.
I do tend to see more people including the farm names than not for my wife's family lines that we are working with.
0 -
I'm not being very organized here, but here are a couple of additional thoughts.
1) Go to My Heritage where there is a huge number of Norwegian users and find a Norwegian who has entered a large pedigree and see what Norwegians do. I see farm names entered as real surnames all over the place. That really should count for something.
2) I realized that I do have something of an official statement, if by "official" that means printed in a reference manual. I should have pulled it off my bookshelf earlier.
In Våre Rotter: Håndbok i slektsgransking for nybegynnere og viderekomne by Nils Johan Stoa and Per-Øivind Sandberg (J.W. Capellens Forlag, 1992) on page 32 it states:
"Navneskikken I Eldre Tid
"På landsbygda var tre slags navn i bruk. Døpenavnet (fornavnet) var viktigst. Folk flest ble omtalt bare med døpenavn...
"I tilleg til døpenavnet ble folk identifisert med sitt farsnavn, patronymikon. Farens navn ble tillagt -søn/son/sen eller datter/dotter... Patronymika "stivnet" og ble benyttet some faste slektsnavn fra midten av forrige århundred.
"Det tredje navnet fortalte hvor personen bodde, and dette endret seg når han flytttet. F. eks. ville Ole Hansen Berg bli kalt Ole Hansen Åsen dersom han flyttet fra gården Berg to eiendommen Åsen. Dette er it forhold vi må være speisielt oppmerksomme på når vi følger våre aner gjennom kildene. I byene var en slik navnebruk mindre aktuell, og her ble det tredje namnet stort sett sløyfet. Noen tok imidlertid et fast familienavn etter den eiendommen hvor de sist hadde bodd før de flyttet til byen.
"For adel og embetsmenn var det skikk allerede på 1600-tallet å ta et fast familienavn."
(My translation)
"Customary Use of Names in Older Times
"In rural communities three types of names were used. The baptismal name (given name) was the most important. Most people were called by just their baptismal name...
"In addition to the baptismal name, people were identified by their father's name or patronymic. Their father's name would have -søn/son/sen or datter/dotter added to it.... Patronymics "stiffened" and were used as a permanent family name starting in the middle of the past century.
"The third name [emphasis added] told where a person lived, and this changed when he moved. For example, Ole Hansen Berg would be called Ole Hansen Åsen if he moved from the farm Berg to the propery Åsen. This is a relationship we must be particularly aware of as we follow our ancestors through the sources. In cities such a use of names was less pertinent and for the most part this third name was dropped. At times, some people would take a permanent family name based on the property where they last lived prior to moving to the city.
"For noblemen and tradesmen it was the custom as early as the 1600s to adopt a permanent family name...."
0 -
Thank you for that reference. Coming from the opposite side, and being Norwegian, I appreciate that the "third name ", is the place of residence and considered such. Since I also have a Welsh mother, I am aware that they also named their residences, as maybe many other countries did as well. I agree that the place of residence is a great help in determining the person's identity and should, as the authors you quoted pointed out, be considered in our research. That advice applies to most any research. In the Scandinavian countries, where the name pool is so limited, it is critical.
Why Norway should be so unique that we make it their last name, when found in the earlier records, is puzzling. I believe that the names of those ancestors were very important and especially meaningful to them, showing by their names, both first and last, how they honored their heritage and ancestry. They tended to name their children after their parents, grandparents etc to honor them. The last name was the same and honored their fathers. I believe they viewed their naming practice as a way to have the memory of their ancestors live on. To put it aside and make a farm name be their name is just not the same.
For example, my ancestor named her two boys, born a year apart and both growing to manhood, Ole with Olsen as last name. Their first names were after their grandfathers, each was named Ole, and their patronymic was from their father, who died soon after their births. Neither ever adopted the farm name instead, when that became an option.
It is an interesting point that the nobility did not follow the same pattern of patronymics. It later became somewhat of a status symbol to have a unique last name. I believe that became popular about the same time as the older naming traditions for first names also changed. Some Norwegians who emigrated to America, switched out their patronymic with a farm or place name after arriving, even using a well known farm from their neighborhood, to which they had had no connection. The idea here was to not have such a common last name, as if the severance with the old country included more than moving. This also makes it somewhat difficult to know their paternity.
It has been wonderful to see the appreciation for one's roots take such hold of people in this country, as well as elsewhere. That said, I would not like it if my temple work was done for Karen Hansen 455 Upper Main Street, however.
I believe that farm or residence names, from any country, have a place and may be added as additional information in other places. That incorrect merging is less likely if farm name is used, is possible. If we are making our ancestors names as unique as possible to avoid those bothersome merges, many countries could come up with interesting options. I have found that differences in names, birth dates, places and family connections have not been a deterrent for incorrect merges.
It is very true that many sources, including bygdebøker, may use the farm name as an identifier. What makes it interesting is when the person moved or when the identifier is applied to someone who was a "husmann" or servant and never shows up in the farm records at all. I have seen persons added to families under the belief that the farm name makes them relatives.
To conclude, many things identify our ancestors. The name by which they have their temple work done, should maybe reflect and honor the person , rather than the farm.
0 -
Thanks for the reasoned and well presented response. Just curious, are you born in Norway? Not that being born there or having been born elsewhere of Norwegian descent has anything to do with the matter.
I do realize that there may be varying viewpoints among Norwegians, but all I can really go on is that my wife, who was born at Bremnes in Bømlo, and her father who was born at Digernes, Stord, where his ancestors lived for several generations (prior to that they were at other farms on Stord), all her cousins and aunts and uncles that I've met who live on various farms on Stord including Digernes, would be appalled at someone saying their ancestors names did not include the farm name. They do consider the farm name to be a vital part of their ancestor's identity, mainly due to the social status of being a landowner. Removing that farm name would be dishonoring them.
As far as the problem of two men with the last name of Høyland living on the same farm and not being related and the chance that is going to confuse people, that is no different than a researcher in the US being confused and thinking that two men name Smith living next door to each other in the 1920 census are related. The researcher in either case needs more education.
Why should Norway be unique in this regard? Why not? There is no reason to demand they named their children like other countries just because other countries followed a different pattern.
0 -
I really appreciate both viewpoints being offered here.
It got me thinking about other name standards. In my country, women often take on the surname of their husbands. Yet, we record their names as their maiden name when it is known. It's a guideline, published not only on the FamilySearch wiki, but nearly everywhere. The stated purpose in many of the places is "to make it easier to find her parents".
I think that's makes a good possible start for a guideline:
Use the farmstead as part of the last name when it would make it easier to locate the parents.
I think Gordon makes a compelling case that the farmstead was considered by some to be part of their identity and judging whether or not that was part of their identity would need to be determined on a case by case basis. In the case of an ancestor where the majority of the information recorded about them includes the farmstead, it should be included in the name to facilitate research. But if an ancestor often moved, or lived in the city and/or did not associate with the farmstead, leave it off.
That's just a starting point. Suggestions?
0 -
Sounds good to me. This does mean that one has to really get acquainted with the specific area ones ancestors are from, the customs, the records, and what people at the time did and try to determine what the people themselves would have considered as their name on that case by case basis you mentioned.
Depending on the area and the author, the Bydgebøker can be a good resource. For example, I am completely biased in favor of using farm names by the author of the Stord Bygebok, Ole Høyland, who is my wife's great-uncle. He freely uses farm names as surnames. And he was not an outsider writing a community history. He really was writing about his family. He also wrote a smaller pamphlet about all the descendants of his grandfather (my wife's great-great-grandfather) and used farm names for all of them. Here is the a page talking about that grand-father, Ole Olsson Høyland, den eldre, born 1836. Note that women are also listed with their farm names of birth as a maiden name, preceded by an "f." meaning "born," equivalent to our using the construction Mary née Smith to designate a maiden name. I've underlined the names to make them easy to see. What better evidence of how these names were viewed by the people that carried them can there be than this, at least for this family?
0 -
So sorry. I did not intend to continue a debate by stating my belief in name usage. You are also correct in stating that my being a Norwegian does not make me (or my brothers still in Norway) an authority on the subject.
I have nothing against farm names. What bothers me is the way they are used.
To clarify: There are two name fields, given name and surname. The given name is just that, a name given a child at birth by the parents. The surname is not given but inherited, patronymic or otherwise. For nearly 500 years, these were a constant. The given name stayed the same, although nicknames may have dominated the records of our ancestor. Nicknames should not be in the given name field, but should be noted as an alternate name. The surname as well was not arbitrary. You could not be a Knudsdatter if your father was named Olav.
So far, so good. Enter farm names. Until about 1875, patronymics were used. Farm names were also used. I take my stand from the records that were used at the time of usage, not by later generations looking back. As in the census records taken at earlier dates. Are our ancestors listed by their patronymic names in 1801, for example? How about 1701? That might be a good indicator of usage.
I do not feel that we have the right to change their legal name. If they did not use their patronymic name, it would not show up in the census records.
Furthermore, the patronymic name never was a first or middle name at any time. To relegate it to a middle name because of a desire to include a farm name, does not appeal to me. If a farm name must be included in the full name, rather than noted in the alternate name, add it to the patronymic name instead. That is where they both belong. The patronymic name as inherited and/or the farm name as adopted. Use a hyphen if it seems cumbersome to you, but let the last name by which they were born stay as their last name, not as something else. The patronymic name is the surname, the name of their sire.
Another point is the not so constant farm name. For example; Your wife's last name was not Bremnes and her father's last name Digernes or a name from another of the farms on which he lived. Her father had probably received the last name of a previous farm used by his ancestors and kept that from then on. If they stayed on the same farm for generations, it is easy to see why the farm name was important to them. Not always the case with others though. Many moved around from farm to farm and need all those probable appellations as alternate names or just noted as places of residence. None of the farms need to be added as a last name in that case.
I agree that it could be handled on a case by case basis. If our ancestors show up in the census records with only the farm name, please use it as the last name and forget about the patronymic or put the patronymic in the alternate name section, if it was used.
As far as bygdebøker are concerned, they only began in 1905 with Lorens Berg and you are right in that some authors use the farm name freely in identifying the inhabitants of the community.
It has not been my experience that searching the online sources by farm name brings up all the records. The patronymic name, however, will match the indexing done and give better results.
As a side note I have noticed that taking the line back beyond 1400, we still find patronymics used now as identifying last names, even when only first names were used in the original records.
0 -
Thank you for your well reasoned response. If your lines and my wife's lines ever cross in Family Tree, we'll have to see what compromise we can arrive at. Maybe based on who has the closest relationship? Or who has the most convincing reasoning for those particular people at that particular time and place? Until then, I wish you well in your work in Family Tree.
I think we have given Jason a clear answer to his question as to whether there is, should be, or ever will be a standard for entering Norwegian names.
Someone commented a few years ago on a different bulletin board that he was aware of some Bygdebok projects that got cancelled because the method the author used for recording individuals' names created a huge controversy in the community that could never get resolved.
0