Whose family is the oldest??

kateabbott · Post by **kateabbott** » 27 Feb 2007 14:57

Hi all,

Does anyone know which family names are supposed to be the oldest or the original surnames, or is there no way of knowing?

Also, how far back has everyone managed to trace their families? Is there anywhere to find out who has traced the furthest back?

Are there any myths (or facts) of people tracing back to the B.C's (because some software has a B.C option for dates, which I cannot believe!!)

Please let me know, I can hardly wait for answers!
Thanks,
Kate

ID:2211

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 27 Feb 2007 16:36

I've traced my own personal branch back to 1709. This is via a combination of other people's research which included parish registers and my own (internet only for now) researches.

I've researched my family name back to some references in 1435 but it gets a bit vague as to the accuracy of the data.

I've researched the name Axtell and it goes back to Viking times but that is only the name, not actual tracing back of the family name so I don't have any BC data. The name is derived from Ashkettle meaning 'God's Kettle' or the rather the person who looks after the cooking pot [smile] and who probably also handled other cermonies to do with the pot.

tonyt · Post by **tonyt** » 27 Feb 2007 16:53

Have traced back one leg of my tree to about 1538, but most of the tree goes back no where near that far... Yet!

Post by **steveabye** » 27 Feb 2007 20:57

Haven't traced completely yet, still short on a document or two but I believe my oldest family members are Adam and Eve. [smile]

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 28 Feb 2007 14:00

The only way you'll get back before parish registers is if someone has kept family records... there are a few well known examples. The O'Neill family of Ireland are documented to B.C. but my guess is most of it is a mixture of ledgend and wishful thinking. There wasn't much documentation (if any surviving) between the Romans and the Normans in this country, so there's an inevitable gap of about 600 years. And most people didn't use surnames until relatively recently.

ChrisBowyer · Post by **ChrisBowyer** » 28 Feb 2007 14:10

Another thought... if you go back far enough, anyone you like is probably your ancestor or related to them somehow... the number of ancestors goes 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128... and you don't have to go all that many centuries before the theoretical number of ancestors is greater than the population. How many people know all 1024 of their G8's? We have all of the 32, but only 53 of the 64, and see that as the challenge, rather than taking individual lines as far back as possible.

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 28 Feb 2007 15:16

I work on my tree in a similar way to Chris, aiming to get all of each generation. I have a full set of 32 3xgreat grandparents, but some lines go back a couple more generations which takes you back to the start of the 18th Century.

To me the challenge is to find out as much as possible about each generation and the places they lived.

Surnames have so many possible roots it's probably impossible to provide a date to any of them. For instance Smith, as in Black or White Smith means simply that once upon a time an ancestor was probably a metal worker. Jones is thought to stem from John's son, so again can have many original roots.

Taubman is thought to be a variation on Tubman, a person who makes barrels, but has a different root when it's an Anglicised version of an eastern european name, such as many, but not all of the US Taubmans are.

You may find this site helpful
http://surnames.behindthename.com/

tonyt · Post by **tonyt** » 28 Feb 2007 15:56

Looking at it that way, i have a fair way to go yet...

I have 15 of my 16, having problems with an adopted gt grandmothers mother

And only have the full name (i.e. including womans maiden name) of 16 of my 32. Though the problem at 16 accounts for 4 of my missing 32's

Back to the search [wink]

David_Lewis · Post by **David_Lewis** » 01 Mar 2007 18:46

Our tree starts with our two children and we have 31 of their 32 GGG grandparents. The 32nd is proving very difficult to find (Irish wife not mentioned on Daughters marriage certificate)

My wifes family can be traced back to the mid sixteenth century on several lines.

getting back further is really a matter of luck and easier if you have some nobility

MartinPage · Post by **MartinPage** » 02 Mar 2007 08:58

My wife's family, (Hazledine) haved been traced back to 1580. This was done a few years ago by other family members.

AnneEast · Post by **AnneEast** » 05 Mar 2007 22:05

Mmmmm! And have you checked it all out, Martin, to your complete satisfaction [wink]

I have found some people's research is ...erm ... questionable to say the least [tongue]

Anne

davepacey · Post by **davepacey** » 06 Mar 2007 22:37

I also adopt the generation at a time method, and since I started when I was 15 years old, I have been at it for 37 years, I now have all 32 3* and 40 of the 64 4*, it is now getting difficult to say the least !!

I have a few families that go back further than my 4*, but my oldest confirmed entry was born in 1693. I, like most people, do have a few possibles that go back slightly further, but so far they remain unconfirmed, and I see no real way of confirming them, not till my tardis arrives anyway

Family Historian User Group