Best way to record farm names in my database application
I'm wondering if there is some kind of standard for recording farm names in my personal database software or online in FamilySearch or Ancestry. I use Reunion (Mac only) as my main database. The options there are: 1. Last name field has both patronymic and farm name. 2. Same as 1. but put farm name in [brackets]. 3. Put the farm name in a field called "Suffix Title". Not sure that's a standard field that would get exported with GEDCOM. 4. Just enter farm name(s) info in a notes field with explanation.
I guess the question really comes down to this: are farm names really names? Or it more like an address/residence and therefore more like a fact or event? Or are the circumstances so individual (changes to farm names over a lifetime) that they should just be recorded in a note field?
Any thoughts from the experts (or anyone else) on what the standard is or should be?
Thanks!
個答案
-
sometimes they change it when they move and somethings they keep one their whole lives. it depends. I like to put it in the suffix box there is no standard but some people get really mad if you put it in the last name field
0 -
Well, I don't want to make anybody mad, let alone really mad! Perhaps suffix is the right answer for my personal use in Reunion. I see there is such a field on both FamilySearch and Ancestry, so maybe it is more standard than I thought. I'm thinking others may chime in yet, but that seems like as solid an answer as the farm name situation can provide.
0 -
This is FamilySearch Help article about it:
In Finland sometimes when a farm name really became family's real family name at some point, then I will add it into Other Information section as Additional name and use it in the Last Name field.
0 -
Kurt, This is one of the oldest discussions in Genealogy. Genealogy software was developed in countries and in a time when inherited surnames are the only option. So there is no "correct" way to enter the older Scandinavian "names". Just make your personal choice and be consistent. I believe Jens Gundersen Lia's name is Jens. Period. Gundersen and Lia are not names they are descriptions to help differentiate between all the other Jenses. But that's not helpful when I start to enter my database. I have to decide whether to pound the square peg or the triangular peg into the round hole. Is an orange more like an apple or a peach? There is no "correct" answer to your question. In our computer/database age this creates problems with searches. Do I find the above Jens under the G's or the L's? But everyone has the same problem. It would be cool if every genealogist on earth agreed on a method of entry that would work with every database and gedcom but don't hold your breath. The farm name in a suffix title field will make that individual completely unsearchable by farm name wouldn't it?
0 -
This is not a rule but only my thoughts:
If only the first name and the farm name are given in the record, use the farm name as the last name for the person.
- If the patronymic name is given, use it as the last name and use the farm name as an alternate name on the person page in Family Search. This permits the FS software to look for record hints without becoming confused by the farm name. The farm name rarely appears in indexed records.
- As Nordic countries shifted away from patronymics, the farm name may or may not have been part of the persons name. This is sometimes made clearer if the person moved and the farm name followed them, or not. Before the late 1800's, the farm name was more of an address so as to clarify which person was being referenced in the record.
- I use a genealogical software package on my computer where I use the farm name as the surname to help me keep the geography straight. There are at least 3 software packages that permit you to link to Family Search. The link is independent of what is in the name field, so I don't have to have the same information in the name fields in both programs. (If this last part is confusing, don't worry about it. It's just my way of keeping persons and arms connected in a pedigree chart.)
0 -
Prior to the adoption of permanent surnames, whether derived from a patronymic or farm name, the farm names were simply address locators. Your farm name changed upon moving to a new location. However, my protocol for pre-20th century Norwegians is to use farm names as proxy surnames in the surname field in my family tree software. I put the first name and patronymic in the first name field. I like this method because the one thing often linking families through generations is their farm location. But, when I search on Norway Digital Archives, I have to use the patronymic in the surname search field. Other experts also recommend this approach. As stated by Clifford, it truly is a question of whether to put the round peg in square hole or visa versa.
0 -
Part 1
What is the purpose of a name? To identify an individual.
What is the purpose of FamilySearch Family Tree? To find our ancestors.
I can’t comment in regards to Denmark since I’ve done little research there. In working in Swedish records I’ve found that while some people had fixed surnames, the practice of farm names didn’t seem to exist. So I will limit myself to Norway and first state that the first mistake the Help Center articles makes is in lumping the three countries together. The second error it makes is in lumping all areas of Norway together and lumping all people together. Because the Help Center article is misguided, I feel free to ignore it.
From working for years through the parish records in the 1700s and 1800s for western Norway, mainly Hordaland, and having read quite a few articles about those areas and records and having worked in various genealogical computer databases from PAF for Mac to Family Tree I have come to the following, probably also oversimplified, conclusions and practice.
There are three types of last names used throughout the parish records in Hordaland. These are:
1) Fixed surnames such as Hagerup, Rustung, Mowat. These were passed unchanged from father to children, to grandchildren.
2) Patronymics, such as Nilsen, Jakobsson, Xristopherzen, which would change each generation.
3) Farm names, such as Høyland, Vikanes, Medhammer, which would change each time a family moved from one farm to another.
What type of last name one had depended a lot on social class. The upper levels of society such as land owners, government officials, priests, tended to have fixed surnames. Also, as cities grew the merchant classes tended to adopt fixed surnames based on a former patronymic. I have run across multiple families in Bergen in the 1800 to 1815 range where the children of Hans Nilsen, for example, are all clearly listed with the last name of Nilsen.
The lowest level of society, such as landless workers and tenant farmers only had patronymics.
The middle level of society, farmers who owned their land, used the farm names. In fact, in the parish records prior to 1800, that is often all they used. In parish records for Stord in the 1750 to 1770 range, the majority of father are listed with just first name and have their farm name for their surname. (Mothers are not listed.)
(To be continued)
0 -
Part 2
What evidence is there that these farm names should be used as surnames?
First I feel very comfortable in following the example of individuals far more experienced in this area than I every will be, the authors of the local community histories or Bygdebok who freely use farm names, for those that had them, as actual surnames.
Then there are the instructions for a major work at compiling Norwegian genealogy on the Geni website at https://www.geni.com/projects/Introduksjon-til-Geni-norsk/3288 whose instructions specifically state to enter patronymics as middle names and farm names as last names.
Finally, I see no problem in following the example of the vast majority of Norwegians working on their genealogy and posting it on My Heritage who use the farm names, if a person had one, as last names.
Accordingly, to properly identify individuals and in order to do all I can to prevent confusion, duplication, and incorrect merges in Family Tree, if a person had a fixed surname or a farm name, I always enter their name as First names: first name and patronymic, Last Name: farm name or other fixed surname.”
Since farm names would change when a farmer moved, I use their farm name at birth as their main name under Vital and enter names used later in life under Other Information as alternate names.
I also always include a person’s strictly patronymic form of his or her name as an alternate name. As a personal hint as to what type a name is, I enter true patronymics as, for example, Jon Hansson and Eli Hansdatter and fixed patronymics as Jon Hansen and Eli Hansen. (The female form of a patronymic was never used as a fixed surname.)
(To Be Continued)
0 -
Part 3
In entering the name for a farmer who had both a patronymic and farm name, why do I not enter both as the last name?
Several years ago, I tested out the search engine for Family Tree with various configurations for these names and I consistenly found that having just the farm name for the main last name under Vitals and having just the patronymic as the last name under Other Information most reliably brought the person to the top of the results list whether searching for the person using patronymic or farm name. Using both patronymic and farm name as the last name would push the person farther down the results list, sometimes much farther.
If a farmer and his wife moved from one farm to another during their child bearing years, I make a bit of a judgement call based on how many children were born at each farm to choose what farm name to use for the children. I have found that this does not come up all that often in the areas my wife has family. Farmers tended to stay at one farm. The families that had ten children on ten different farms were almost uniformly tenant farmers who rented their land and so did not have farm names.
I think a lot of the controversy about how to handle farm names arose when databases allowed just one name and search engines were pretty primitive. In Family Tree which has the ability to put as many names on people as we need and whose search engine accounts for all of those names, we are not limited by those older restrictions. The search engine does not care whether a patronymic is entered as -son, -sen, -sson, -ssen, -zen, or -szen, all of which can be found in Norwegian parish records. The search engine will bring them all up. Likewise, if a person is entered in Family Tree as:
Vitals:
Name - Ole Johannesson Vikanes
Other Information:
Alternate Names - Ole Johannesson, Ole Johannesson Mehammer, Ole Johannesson Eldøy
the search engine will find this person no matter which of those five names are entered as search criteria. In addition, hints will be generated based on all five of these name variants.
(to be continued)
0 -
Part 4
A final advantage of entering the farm name as a person’s surname, is that it allows one to search by farm.
For large areas of Norway, only the municipality name is available in the Standardized Place Names database. That means that if you enter a persons birth place as “Farm, Municipality, County, Norway,’ the best standard you can get is “Municipality, County, Norway.” The search engine only searches on the standard. You cannot even enter the farm in the search form. This is gradually changing, but for now, if you want to search by farm for Ola Olsson, you need to hope that he has been entered with his farm name.
In summary, Family Tree has the flexibility of both data entry and search functions to allow us to enter the best form of a person’s name to allow for complete identification, avoidance of duplication, and prevention of incorrect merges and this is best accomplished by viewing farm names as true surnames as did the people who proudly used them as a mark of their position in society.
To paraphrase Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, “"An unhappy alternative is before you, Elizabeth. From this day you must be a stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do [use farm names as surnames], and I will never see you again if you DO [NOT].”
0 -
Thank you to everyone for the excellent feedback! I'm still not sure exactly how I'm going to handle things, but this have given me a lot to ponder. I appreciate it very much!
0
