You are hereForums / Genealogy Research / Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700


By gpf13 - Posted on 24 July 2009

I have recently been looking at a lot of the matrimonial information records for Aguascalientes in the 1600s and early 1700, and I have noticed that for many people, especially for indios and mulatos, the couple's names are given as first names only, for example "Juan Diego" and "Maria Magdalena" with no family names for them or their parents. In other records, the data might be something like "Juan Diego hijo legitimo de Marcos Hernandes y Ana Maria"; in this situation can one assume than "Juan Diego" is actually "Juan Diego Hernandes?" However, I've also seen many cases where the information might be something like "Antonio de Silva hijo legitimo de Juan Marcos y Maria de Silva," which would suggest that this assumption may not be correct. A situation like "Juan de Silva hijo legitimo de Antonio de Silva y Maria Ynes," is also common.

There are numerous cases where the name is Juana de la Cruz or Maria de la Cruz. Is "de la Cruz" considered a family name or part of the first name? There also also other names such as de los Reyes, de la Trinidad, and so on.

I realize that Spanish and Mexican naming practices are complex, and the "rules" are often not followed, but can anyone shed some light on the practices in this time period.

George
Pleasanton, CA

George,

When you get back to the early 1600 and 1700's you will find that the criollos or espanoles were marrying the indigenous population who did not have surnames, thus the use of first names only.

By the way, will you be attending the Nueva Galicia Genealogical meeting in Elk Grove tomorrow? if you are, I will see you there.

Alicia,
San Jose, Calif

________________________________
From: "gpf13 [at] aol [dot] com"
To: research [at] lists [dot] nuestrosranchos [dot] com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:02:39 AM
Subject: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

I have recently been looking at a lot of the matrimonial information records for Aguascalientes in the 1600s and early 1700, and I have noticed that for many people, especially for indios and mulatos, the couple's names are given as first names only, for example "Juan Diego" and "Maria Magdalena" with no family names for them or their parents. In other records, the data might be something like "Juan Diego hijo legitimo de Marcos Hernandes y Ana Maria"; in this situation can one assume than "Juan Diego" is actually "Juan Diego Hernandes?" However, I've also seen many cases where the information might be something like "Antonio de Silva hijo legitimo de Juan Marcos y Maria de Silva," which would suggest that this assumption may not be correct. A situation like "Juan de Silva hijo legitimo de Antonio de Silva y Maria Ynes," is also common.

There are numerous cases where the name is Juana de la Cruz or Maria de la Cruz. Is "de la Cruz" considered a family name or part of the first name? There also also other names such as de los Reyes, de la Trinidad, and so on.

I realize that Spanish and Mexican naming practices are complex, and the "rules" are often not followed, but can anyone shed some light on the practices in this time period.

George
Pleasanton, CA

Hi there George ,

My name is Welester G. Alvarado , maybe I can shed a little light here on the de la Cruz part .

A friend of mine Arq. Jose Francisco Garza Carrillo ( author of Matrimonios en la Catedral de Monterrey, Nuevo Leon , Mexico, 1667-1781 ) told me that since the indians didn´t have last names the priest would put the sign of the cross when the child was baptized .

So, their names became Jose or Maria or whatever first name they had and the cross would be translated as ¨de la Cruz ( of the church , of G-D , of the cross ) .

Hope this helps ,

Welester

> There are numerous cases where the name is Juana de la Cruz or Maria de la Cruz. Is "de la Cruz" considered a family name or part of the first name? There also also other names such as de los Reyes, de la Trinidad, and so on.
>
> I realize that Spanish and Mexican naming practices are complex, and the "rules" are often not followed, but can anyone shed some light on the practices in this time period.
> George
> Pleasanton, CA

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports

No nada mas en la información de los registros matrimoniales , sino también en las actas de nacimiento, bautizo de todo México de los años 1600 y 1700,en la pareja de matrimonios como tu dices se le dan el nombre de José Antonio, y María teresa , sin apellidos de sus padres.
En caso que tu marcas de, hijo legítimo de Juan Marcos y María de Silva," significa también quela mujer no es indígena o mulata, pero el maridos si.

en el caso de, Juana de la Cruz o María de la Cruz, en muchas ocasiones se esta tomando como apellido.
En ese periodo de tiempo como lo mencionas, también se les dan los apellidos de los patrones donde trabajan los indios o mulatos que eran esclavos, y las reglas por lo general eran de la iglesia o de los sacerdotes que no eran mexicanos, o que estudiaron en España.
En algunos escritos encontré personas con su apellido totalmente indígena, como ACOATLE, Pedro (de), AHUC, Diego, CUYAMEL, Pedro, CUXO, Pedro,

También esta el caso que los hombres se les da el apellido del padre y a las mujeres el apellido de la madre, en esos tiempos no existían reglas en México para los apellidos, sino hasta que Benito Juárez mas o menos en 1830, inicia los registros civiles de Gobierno.

Not just on information from the marriage records, but also in the birth, baptism throughout Mexico for the years 1600 and 1700, the couple in marriage as you say will give the name of Jose Antonio, and Maria Teresa without their parents' surnames.
If your marks, legitimate son of John and Mary Mark Silva, "also means women no claw is indigenous or mulata, but if the husbands.

in the case of Juana de la Cruz and María de la Cruz, this is often taken as surname.
In that time period as mentioned, also give the names of employers employing Indians or mulattoes who were slaves, and the rules were usually of the church or the priests who were not Mexican, or studied in Spain.
In some writings found people with his last name entirely indigenous, as ACOATLE, Pedro (de), AHUC, Diego, CUYAMEL, Peter CUXO, Peter

It is also the case that men are given the surname of the father and the women the name of the mother in those days there were no rules for names in Mexico, but until about Benito Juárez in 1830, civil registration began Government.

SALVADOR CABRAL VALDES

Hi George, Alicia, Bill et al.

The Castilian naming custom is complexed i even get confused and have done researching for some years now. During the time from medieval age to the 1700s people could name there children any way they wanted. Sorry I have to use "straight up castellano names to prove my point" Take a person named Juan Montero de Castilla he marries María Beltrán de la Cueva. They have a daughter named Juana. The same name as her maternal grandmother. María's mother's name is Juana García de Oviedo. That same Juana daughter of Juan and María will not take the name Juana Montero but Juana García de Oviedo. Now if she wants to use both her father's and mat. grandmother's names she can. This proves the thousands of times in New Spain where people use different alias. I have an ancestor who uses Elena de Jaén, Elena Beltrán de la Cueva, Elena de Cuevas, etc..

This is only one matter which could also apply to males. A boy could take his mothers name because of importance.

Then you see people combining names and creating new ones. -Daniel Camino

_________________________________________________________________
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008

George,

My experience extracting information from early records of Aguascalientes
has been as follows:

With very few exceptions, Spaniards did not marry within the indigenous
population in the 17th century. Indians married indians, blacks married
blacks or mulatos, etc. However, there were a large number of illegitimate
children born to "españoles" with "indias" and "mulatas". Many of these
children were abandoned by their parents and grew up in orfanages or were
adopted by those families who could afford to more children than their own.
Abandoned children given to the church by parents who did not want them or
could not support them were pronounced "hijos de la Iglesia" (God's
children). If the priest could not find a home for them they were put in an
orfanage. There were many orfanages throughout Latin America administered
by religious groups and supported with church members contributions.

The children of indigeneous families, who did not have surnames, were
sometimes given a made up surname by the priest. Most of them had religious
connotations, as you have noticed. Probably the most common were DE LA
CRUZ, DE LA TRINIDAD and DE LOS REYES, to name a few. In very early records
they were only given a first name. No surname. For example, a child could
be "hijo de padre no conocido y de María Chichimeca, india". The same
applies to people of African descent, who did not have surnames either. A
typical case here would be "hijo de padre no conocido y de Juana Angola",
negra esclava." or "hijo natural de María de la O., mulata libre" This
immediately identifies Juana as a slave originally from Angola, West Africa.
The surname Angola can still be found in Aguascalientes.

During the second half of the 17th century there were many marriages of
"indios", "mestizos", "mulatos", and several other "castas" (coyotes,
tresalvos, etc.) Many adopted a Spanish surname, either from their master
(in the case of black slaves) or their employer (freed slaves, indians or
"castas"). Some illegitimate children were given the surname of one of
their parents. A classical example is Francisco Tiscareño, illegitimate
child of Capt. Juan de Tiscareño and an unknown mother. Francisco
Tiscareño, mestizo, hijo natural, was born before 1656. He married twice.
Both of his wifes were mestizas, the first named María de Huerta aka María
González, and the second Margarita Sánchez, aka Margarita Ramírez. He had
children with both of them, and all carried the surname Tiscareño.

Capt. Juan Tiscareño had to legitimate wifes, both "españolas", the first
one named Isabel Romo de Vivar and the second Juana de Orosco y Santa Cruz.

This is how the "mestizaje" started in Mexico. By the early 18th century
there were many mestizos in Aguascalientes, Altos de Jalisco and Zacatecas.
Today, there a very few families without at least one ancestor from the
indigenous population. My indian ancestor is Petronila de Moctezuma.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find information about he early ones.

Bill Figueroa

Hi Bill ,

I like your defintion much better than mine !

Excelent work !

Welester

>
> George,
>
> My experience extracting information from early records of Aguascalientes
> has been as follows:
>
> With very few exceptions, Spaniards did not marry within the indigenous
> population in the 17th century. Indians married indians, blacks married
> blacks or mulatos, etc. However, there were a large number of illegitimate
> children born to "españoles" with "indias" and "mulatas". Many of these
> children were abandoned by their parents and grew up in orfanages or were
> adopted by those families who could afford to more children than their own.
> Abandoned children given to the church by parents who did not want them or
> could not support them were pronounced "hijos de la Iglesia" (God's
> children). If the priest could not find a home for them they were put in an
> orfanage. There were many orfanages throughout Latin America administered
> by religious groups and supported with church members contributions.
>
> The children of indigeneous families, who did not have surnames, were
> sometimes given a made up surname by the priest. Most of them had religious
> connotations, as you have noticed. Probably the most common were DE LA
> CRUZ, DE LA TRINIDAD and DE LOS REYES, to name a few. In very early records
> they were only given a first name. No surname. For example, a child could
> be "hijo de padre no conocido y de María Chichimeca, india". The same
> applies to people of African descent, who did not have surnames either. A
> typical case here would be "hijo de padre no conocido y de Juana Angola",
> negra esclava." or "hijo natural de María de la O., mulata libre" This
> immediately identifies Juana as a slave originally from Angola, West Africa.
> The surname Angola can still be found in Aguascalientes.
>
> During the second half of the 17th century there were many marriages of
> "indios", "mestizos", "mulatos", and several other "castas" (coyotes,
> tresalvos, etc.) Many adopted a Spanish surname, either from their master
> (in the case of black slaves) or their employer (freed slaves, indians or
> "castas"). Some illegitimate children were given the surname of one of
> their parents. A classical example is Francisco Tiscareño, illegitimate
> child of Capt. Juan de Tiscareño and an unknown mother. Francisco
> Tiscareño, mestizo, hijo natural, was born before 1656. He married twice.
> Both of his wifes were mestizas, the first named María de Huerta aka María
> González, and the second Margarita Sánchez, aka Margarita Ramírez. He had
> children with both of them, and all carried the surname Tiscareño.
>
> Capt. Juan Tiscareño had to legitimate wifes, both "españolas", the first
> one named Isabel Romo de Vivar and the second Juana de Orosco y Santa Cruz.
>
> This is how the "mestizaje" started in Mexico. By the early 18th century
> there were many mestizos in Aguascalientes, Altos de Jalisco and Zacatecas.
> Today, there a very few families without at least one ancestor from the
> indigenous population. My indian ancestor is Petronila de Moctezuma.
> Unfortunately, it is difficult to find information about he early ones.
>
> Bill Figueroa
>
>

Alicia,
Can you tell me more about the Nueva Galicia Genealogical meeting you
mentioned. Is this something that is open to the general public ....?

-Angelina-

-----Original Message-----
From: research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
[mailto:research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com] On Behalf Of Alicia
Carrillo
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:29 AM
To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

George,

When you get back to the early 1600 and 1700's you will find that the
criollos or espanoles were marrying the indigenous population who did not
have surnames, thus the use of first names only.

By the way, will you be attending the Nueva Galicia Genealogical meeting in
Elk Grove tomorrow? if you are, I will see you there.

Alicia,
San Jose, Calif

Hi Bill, I too have the Moctezuma connection but I dont rhink Petronila was native America, yes of descent she can have a degree, but (depending which genealogy you follow) Petronila (in the Casta sense ) she would be Castiza or española.

Here is how I have the genealogy, Ive seen all crazy stuff, but just stick to this one

Ill also include what casta they are to show my point.

Moctezuma II (indígena)

Isabel de Moctezuma (indígena) = Hernán Cortés (español)

Leonor de Moctezuma (mestiza) = Diego Arias de Sotelo (español)

Petronila de Moctezuma (castiza) = Martín Navarro de Gabay (español)

Ana-Francisca Navarro de Gabay (española)=Lope Ruiz, Señor de Esparza (español)

Now by the time you get to the Esparza both parents are 'Spaniard' (to some sense)

ana Franca. would have looked like any regular european woman.

I like you dont believe there is such thing as a pure race. Just like whites in United States (according to a study) many have black ancestors especially in the south) whites in Mexico have at least one ancestor who is of different race. I know I have about 3 native American lines which all end sadly, and one line who is black. All in the 1500s-1600s. I thik the moctezuma is a perfect example of reaching the highest caste. Through research, i can say most of Moctezuma's descendants married Spaniards and even went to Spain. Down the line they stay Spanish both in Mexico and spain.

-Daniel Camino

_________________________________________________________________
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008

Angelina,

It is definitely open to all, I am just a participant but Maria Cortez is the President and founder of this organization. Maria is also a member of Nuestros Ranchos. Go onto the website, it's www.nuevagalicia.org. for more details.

We would love to have you at the meeting tomorrow if you can make it. It's at the Raleys Event Center, 4900 Elk Grove Blvd, Elk Grove Calif, inside the Raley's Supermarket. The meeting takes place from 11 AM to 2 PM.

Saludos de San Jose, Calif, hope to see you and any other Nuestros Ranchos members interested in attending.

Alicia

________________________________
From: Angelina Markle
To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:28:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

Alicia,
Can you tell me more about the Nueva Galicia Genealogical meeting you
mentioned. Is this something that is open to the general public ....?

-Angelina-

-----Original Message-----
From: research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
[mailto:research-bounces [at] lists [dot] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com] On Behalf Of Alicia
Carrillo
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:29 AM
To: research [at] NuestrosRanchos [dot] com
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Surnames in the 1600s and early 1700

George,

When you get back to the early 1600 and 1700's you will find that the
criollos or espanoles were marrying the indigenous population who did not
have surnames, thus the use of first names only.

By the way, will you be attending the Nueva Galicia Genealogical meeting in
Elk Grove tomorrow? if you are, I will see you there.

Alicia,
San Jose, Calif

Respecto al uso de los apellidos en los indígenas, primero leyendo el índice del Diccionario biográfico del Occidente Novohispano de Thomas Hillerkuss, encontré apellidos indígenas, por lo cual empecé a leer cada uno, y a la conclusion que llego que en el siglo 17 y 18 , existía la discriminación, por parte de los conquistadores y la iglesia, porque al momento de bautizar a un indígena sea grande o chico , en su acta le ponían por mal llamado, o coyote, y a los únicos indígenas que se les permitió usar apellido son aquellos que apoyaron y formaron las nuevas villas o centros de población , que fue echa por los indios tlascaltecas , porque a ellos se les encomendó formarlos y en la actualidad siguen saliendo familias tlascaltecas a distintas partes de la república mexicana a poblar ciudades

Concerning the use of surnames in the Indians, first read the index of the biographical dictionary of the West Novohispanic Thomas Hillerkuss, found indigenous names, so I began to read each one, and came to the conclusion that in the 17th century and 18 there was discrimination by the conquistadors and the church, because when baptize an Indian large or small, you put on your record for bad call, or coyote, and the only indigenous people were allowed to use surnames are those who supported and formed new towns and population centers, which was missing tlascaltecas by the Indians because they were mandated to train and now still going tlascaltecas families to different parts of the Mexican people to cities

SALVADOR CABRAL VALDES

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 144 guests online.

Online users

  • SaVelez
  • arturoramos
  • arturoramos

Languages