Aztec Surnames

So, I am looking at an idea. The empires of China, Persia, Japan etc survived contact with Europeans and developed in their own way. So, what if the Conquistadores had not been the conquerors they were, but had established colonial bases, trading posts etc.

In a surviving Aztec Empire, reformed over time, what surnames would have developed? Were there clan-names, or maybe nicknames like "Jaguar Breath" or "Bollocks"? Or were there already nominatives about place, "so-so lives by base-of-pyramid" which could in time have developed into a surname from that?

Thanks
 
I imagine, as in most cultures, surnames would first develop as a way of denoting profession. Things like 'Tanner' or 'Smith' or 'Fisher'. What did the Aztecs call their leaders? You could see titles become dynastic names, too, but otherwise I would think you were correct in thinking place-names would come into play, too. It's hard to say of course, because while some European names, for example, denoted professions or places of birth, some were also seemingly random, such as my own surname (Lowe) which supposedly has roots in an old Germanic word meaning 'Lion'.
 
Or as in some cultures (parts of Africa, the Maori, other Pacific peoples), when surnames were adopted, they'd just take the name of an ancestor and that would be the surname at that point.
 
such as my own surname (Lowe) which supposedly has roots in an old Germanic word meaning 'Lion'.
Lowe is just the German word for "lion" but without umlaut (and generally pronounced quite differently in English).

In any case, Aztec names had two parts, but neither was a patronym, matronym, or family name. At birth they'd be named after the day they were born according to the 260-day ritual calender. For example, if an Aztec were born today they'd be called 11 Flint, or Mahtlactli-once Tecpatl in Nahuatl. When they were older, around 7 or 10, they'd be given a more distinctive adult name like Cuauhtemoc or Itzcoatl or something. If a surviving Aztec Empire started westernizing to such an extent as to adopt surnames, the birth names would make no sense to use and would be overly common since there are only 20 day-names on the tonalpohualli to pick from and only 13 numbers to combine them with. At best it'd make sense for someone to pick the adult name of a distinguished ancestor or even just their father from when the practice starts (like some northern Native-Americans did IIRC) to be used from then on as a surname.
 
the Aztecs could develop Patronymics like Russian, something like Cuitlahuac Cuahtemoch Tulas (No real linguistical meaning but with the correct POD might mean Cuitlahuac son of Cuauhtemoc from Tula) to make their names more foreign to us.
 
In donnacona's dream, I had the kanatians adopt Christian names upon conversion, which really amounted to corruptions of saints' names into their native language. the pre-baptismal name of the first convert in a family then became the family name of his descendants.

interestingly for the kanatians, their clan system means that Christian kanatians have three names that they use your identify themselves: their first/Christian name, their patrilineal family name, and their matrilineal clan name.

I have no idea how this would apply to the Azteca as I don'the know their naming practices at all, but I thought it might be helpful/interesting.
 
Lowe is just the German word for "lion" but without umlaut (and generally pronounced quite differently in English).

In any case, Aztec names had two parts, but neither was a patronym, matronym, or family name. At birth they'd be named after the day they were born according to the 260-day ritual calender. For example, if an Aztec were born today they'd be called 11 Flint, or Mahtlactli-once Tecpatl in Nahuatl. When they were older, around 7 or 10, they'd be given a more distinctive adult name like Cuauhtemoc or Itzcoatl or something. If a surviving Aztec Empire started westernizing to such an extent as to adopt surnames, the birth names would make no sense to use and would be overly common since there are only 20 day-names on the tonalpohualli to pick from and only 13 numbers to combine them with. At best it'd make sense for someone to pick the adult name of a distinguished ancestor or even just their father from when the practice starts (like some northern Native-Americans did IIRC) to be used from then on as a surname.

I don't think that commonality of surnames really makes a difference. I mean, Korean culture has notoriously few surnames (Park, Shin, Kim, Jung, Kyung, Rhee and a handful others).
 
I don't think that commonality of surnames really makes a difference. I mean, Korean culture has notoriously few surnames (Park, Shin, Kim, Jung, Kyung, Rhee and a handful others).
Though the problem is that birth names would be relatively unwieldy to use, as by design they're transmitted based on date of birth, which obviously doesn't run in families. Of course, one possibility is to use the birth name of some ancestor, say the name of the first ancestor recorded for census or tax purposes, and have that transmitted through the family. Which would give you about 600 potential surnames.

Of course, transmission of surnames IIRC tends historically to be in large part for legal central government purposes, such as land registration - you as the central government obviously want to know which Cuauhtemoc owns that particular plot of land or house, and more importantly, who gets the property when Cuauhtemoc dies.

Of course, this isn't universal - some countries today have no surnames, not even patronymics - for example, most Burmese only have a personal name (albeit with honorifics which are not necessarily heritable). It is possible if unlikely that in a surviving Aztec polity that may be the case. such as Itzlacotl the Brave or something. The Burmese seem to handle seriality of names by repeating the names of parents or relatives (kinda like the Romans, incidentally).

More likely, IMO, if surnames become necessary for record-keeping purposes in a centralized administrative state, is that the birth-names become unmoored from the actual date of birth, becoming true surnames. So Cuauhtemoc born 11 Flint has a kid, Itzcoatl, who then goes by the name Itzcoatl 11 Flint, even if he's born on 1 Flint, and so on.

Or you could also have a system where the Government publishes a list of potential surnames, and demands people pick one (or imposes it on them), and it sticks. A lot of Filipino surnames were acquired this way (though a lot also had surnames before the Spanish required them - in fact the surname legislation came so that people couldn't pick certain surnames associated with the nobility, though many such surnames were grandfathered-in.)
 
Thanks for the replies so far

I just read something interesting, from SM Stirling on http://io9.gizmodo.com/5884879/10-w..._medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=io9_facebook

...
says Stirling, whose books include the Draka trilogy and the Emberverse books. But you can, and should, pay attention to things that almost happened in real history — because they might well have happened, if things were different.

For example, say that Columbus never sailed to the New World, says Stirling. Sure, someone else would have, pretty soon afterwards. But that change might have meant that someone else, instead of Cortés, conquered Mexico. The Spanish were always terrified that some conquistador would set himself up as a local king, something Cortés apparently had no interest in. But if someone else had replaced Cortés, could that person have become Emperor of Mexico? Thus, one change — Columbus not sailing — has a strong likelihood of an obvious ripple effect, down the line.


I'm not real sure how that would have worked - would a Conquistadore setting himself up as king have tried to convert the Aztecs to Christianity? Or would they accept an overlord with a different religion, sort of like how Hindus lived under Muslim rulers?
 
I'm not real sure how that would have worked - would a Conquistadore setting himself up as king have tried to convert the Aztecs to Christianity? Or would they accept an overlord with a different religion, sort of like how Hindus lived under Muslim rulers?

On the one hand, there is a reason it's three Gs and not two. On the other, church and state are bound quite close, so converting them may not be the highest priority for a man rebelling against Spain itself. :p
 
Thanks for the replies so far

I just read something interesting, from SM Stirling on http://io9.gizmodo.com/5884879/10-w..._medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=io9_facebook

...
says Stirling, whose books include the Draka trilogy and the Emberverse books. But you can, and should, pay attention to things that almost happened in real history — because they might well have happened, if things were different.

For example, say that Columbus never sailed to the New World, says Stirling. Sure, someone else would have, pretty soon afterwards. But that change might have meant that someone else, instead of Cortés, conquered Mexico. The Spanish were always terrified that some conquistador would set himself up as a local king, something Cortés apparently had no interest in. But if someone else had replaced Cortés, could that person have become Emperor of Mexico? Thus, one change — Columbus not sailing — has a strong likelihood of an obvious ripple effect, down the line.


I'm not real sure how that would have worked - would a Conquistadore setting himself up as king have tried to convert the Aztecs to Christianity? Or would they accept an overlord with a different religion, sort of like how Hindus lived under Muslim rulers?

Based on what Cortez himself wrote, he would have converted the natives. In his own narrative, his main purpose in doing what he did was to bring the word of Christ to the natives. He even writes that the priest who was with him repeatedly told him that it was not the right tine to speak to the natives about God, to tell them that performing sacrifices was wrong, or to tell them they should destroy their "idols", because the Spanish were few and it would endangered the expedition; but he did it anyway, so motivated he was by the purpose of his mission.

Of course, this is how Cortez wanted to present himself, in orther to please the King and not be considered a rebel against the governor of Cuba. If he gets to the point where he has proclaimed himself king, we do not know what he will do. Still, I thing he will try to supress at least the more important native religious ceremonies, and baptize a large part of the population, in order to present himself, in Europe, as a legitimate Christian King. Native religion might survive underground, even more than IOTL.
 
It depends a lot on HOW the surnames form. If it's a bureaucratic thing (done for ease of bookkeeping), then it'll be whatever the bureaucrats like. Which, to some extent, depends on the tax structure. What's being taxed? Families? land? rent?
If it's organic, then it'll depend on how people think of themselves.

Basic formation of surnames
They develop from epithets, of whatever sort are locally used.

Ancestry (son of X, grandson of Y, of clan Z) is common. Look at all the patronymics in English and other Germanic languages, and, of course, Russian.
Land holding. Much of Europe had the nobility named for their estates. Hence all the 'de' names in French, and '-ski' names in Polish.
Occupation. Baker/Smith/etc. Smith is really, really common in most European cultures. Smith/Kovacs/Faber/Kuznetz/Zelasny
Description. Reed (=Red), Black/White/Brown (colours usually being hair), Little, Armstrong,
Location. Ford (lived by the ford),
Origin. this would be the town you came FROM (obviously if people live in York, calling all the Johns in the city "John York" doesn't help distinguish them from each other, which was the purpose of such names)
 
It depends a lot on HOW the surnames form. If it's a bureaucratic thing (done for ease of bookkeeping), then it'll be whatever the bureaucrats like. Which, to some extent, depends on the tax structure. What's being taxed? Families? land? rent?
If it's organic, then it'll depend on how people think of themselves.

Basic formation of surnames
They develop from epithets, of whatever sort are locally used.

Ancestry (son of X, grandson of Y, of clan Z) is common. Look at all the patronymics in English and other Germanic languages, and, of course, Russian.
Land holding. Much of Europe had the nobility named for their estates. Hence all the 'de' names in French, and '-ski' names in Polish.
Occupation. Baker/Smith/etc. Smith is really, really common in most European cultures. Smith/Kovacs/Faber/Kuznetz/Zelasny
Description. Reed (=Red), Black/White/Brown (colours usually being hair), Little, Armstrong,
Location. Ford (lived by the ford),
Origin. this would be the town you came FROM (obviously if people live in York, calling all the Johns in the city "John York" doesn't help distinguish them from each other, which was the purpose of such names)
What about the existing date-of-birth naming system? Make those heritable, and you have a system of surnames. Sure, it's limited to the number of days in a year, but Koreans seem to do fine with fewer common surnames, and AFAIK if they need to distinguish between two Kim families, for example, they informally use the town of origin.

Also, IIRC, the much of the Aztecs' revenue came from sales taxes from merchants and in-kind taxes collectively from communities in the form of a share of the harvest.
 
Last edited:
Do Korean surnames derive from an arbitrary selection process for what they'd decide last names would be? Because if not it hardly seems comparable when the Aztecs could easily choose not to have a handful of easily confused surnames. Even the Guatemalan Maya who continued using the Tzolk'in calendar (Maya equivalent to the Tonalpohualli Aztec birth names come from) didn't use Tzolk'in names as family names.
 
Top