Academy of Saint Gabriel Members' Guide

Boilerplate

Back to the main page.

Boilerplate: Bits and pieces we often need to include in letters

• Procedural Problems
  • Stunt Documentation
  • Questions submitted second-hand

• Cultural Terminology
  • There's no such thing as a Celtic name or persona
  • Flemish and Flanders

• General Naming Problems
  • Mixed-Language Names
  • Made-up Names
  • Names from Literature
  • Meaning of names
  • Bad name sources
  • Spelling variation
  • Old Testament Names

• Gaelic Naming Problems
  • Scots vs. Gaelic
  • Languages of medieval Scotland
  • General background on languages in Gaelic-speaking lands
  • Metronymics in Gaelic
  • Avoid ní
  • Clan affiliation bynames came into use in the 10th century
  • Irish names before the late 7th century
  • Modern usage of Gaelic bynames
  • Modern forms of Gaelic names
  • Gaelic spelling
  • The genitive and lenition in Gaelic names
  • What is normalized spelling?
  • Gaelic long e
  • Spellings in the Irish Annals

• Naming Problems in other cultures
  • Runic spellings of Norse names
  • The use of von in German names
  • Basic Japanese name construction
  • Japanese made-up names
  • German Dialects
  • Languages of France
  • Languages of Iberia
  • Languages of Wales

• Armory Problems
  • Heraldry for a Non- or Pre-Heraldic Culture
  • Arms for Gaels
  • Arms for Welshmen
  • Arms for Vikings
  • Sources for period Iberian armory
  • Dragons
  • Purpure
  • National symbols

Procedural Problems

Stunt Documentation

Our clients often ask us to supply documentation so that they can register their names, without any concern for the culture where we may find the documentation.  This is called stunt documentation, since it is simply an attempt to satisfy the College of Arms without any real concern for historical re-creation.  The Academy doesn't do it, and when a client asks for it, we usually begin our reply with a warning like this:

Before I start, I'd like to clarify the service that the Academy offers. We try to help Societyfolk in choosing and using names that fit the historical cultures they are trying to re-create.  Our research can sometimes be used to support submissions to the College of Arms, but that is not our goal and our results are often incompatible with the College's needs.  If your main goal is to register a particular name, then we may not be able to help you.  

A similar problem is that clients ask whether a name is registerable. Here's a reply to that question:

You asked whether this name would pass.  We actually don't try to figure out whether a name will pass, but whether it's appropriate for your specific period.  The SCA has fairly lenient rules for passing names, so it's possible to pass many names which aren't historically accurate.  If having this name is more important to you than having a historical name, then you should consult another group (such as the heralds in your kingdom or the SCA heralds mailing list at SCAHRLDS@lists.aol.com) to find out whether your name will pass.

Questions submitted second-hand

We often get questions from consulting heralds, submitted on behalf of their clients.  We prefer to speak directly to the client, so that we can get the clearest picture of his interests and so that we can send our advice to him directly, without any intermediaries who might garble the information.  We won't reject questions because they come from heralds, but we will occasionally ask them to try to put their clients in direct touch with us.

It appears that you have contacted us on behalf of a client.  If this request has been for your own education, please excuse this assumption.  We prefer to work directly with the client in order to minimize the chances of any mis-interpretation when information is passed through a second party. If this request is for a client who has e-mail or web access, we can provide further help to the client if s/he asks us directly.  If not, thank you for passing the query along.

Cultural Terminology

There's no such thing as a Celtic name or persona

Many people use the word Celtic to describe their names or personae.  The usage is incorrect and, more important, it often reveals a fundamental mis-understanding of the nature of the different Celtic languages and cultures.

The word <Celtic> describes a group of languages or cultures, including the Irish and Scottish Gaels, but also including the Welsh, Cornish, Manx, and Bretons.  All these nations considered themselves quite separate in our period; no one thought of himself as a Celt.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "Celt" first appeared in the English language in 1607, "Celtic" in 1656 [_The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973)].

Another approach:

There was no language or culture called "Celtic" in our period.  In fact, the word "Celtic" didn't exist in English until modern times.  It is used by modern historians and linguists to describe a family of languages and the cultures which spoke them, including Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish, and Breton.  These languages were distinct in our period, and they had very different naming practices which did not mix any more than any other two neighboring languages.  The cultures which spoke them were separate, and had no sense of pan-Celtic identity.

Flemish and Flanders

In modern usage, <Flemish> is used as the name of one of the dialects of Dutch spoken in northern Belgium and as a word to describe the people who speak it; and <Flanders> is often used to describe the region where it is spoken.  These usages are based mostly in modern politics and culture, and aren't appropriate to our period.  In period, <Flemish> referred to the County of Flanders: A <Flemish name> was a name in the Flemish dialect.  Here's an explanation of this issue that you can include in reports:

The term <Flemish> is often used today as a synonym for <Belgian> and to refer to the Germanic language spoken in northern Belgium, a dialect of Dutch.  These uses of <Flemish> are not appropriate for your period.

The medieval County of Flanders is only one of several provinces that were incorporated into modern Belgium.  Brabant, Antwerp, and other medieval states also were incorporated into Belgium, and people from these other states are not Flemish.  In period, only those unfamiliar with the Low Countries would have called people <Flemish> who were not from Flanders itself; doing so is rather like calling Welsh people <English.> But in fact, this error was common: From Italy to Scandinavia, it was common to use a word that meant Flemish as a generic term for a Netherlander.

It is also a mistake to talk about the <Flemish language,> either in period or in the modern era.  Today, Flemish is simply the English name for the dialect of Dutch spoken in Belgium; in our period it was the English name of one of the dialects of Dutch, and sometimes used generically for all of the southern dialects.

General Naming Problems

Mixed-Language Names

Quite a few of our customers want names that mix languages to represent parents of different nationalities.  Here are a couple examples of how we've explained the problems with this approach.  This first one is written for the case where someone's persona has parents from two countries and wants to use a given name from one language and a surname from the other in order to illustrate his ancestry.  With minor changes, it could also be used for a client whose parents come from two cultures that were present in the same country (e.g. Gaelic & Norse in parts of 12th century Scotland, or French and Dutch in late period Flanders).

Although it is very common in the Society to try to indicate mixed parentage in one's name, it simply wasn't done in period.  In the rare cases when two people from different countries married, their children were named according to the naming practices of the country where they lived. If they moved from one country to another, they would either retain their original names or use local equivalents.  That is to say, if a Frenchman named <Jean> settled in an Italian city, he might have been known to the Italians as <Giovanni Francesco> "Giovanni the Frenchman".  If he married and had a son, the boy might be known by two forms of his name: one French, one Italian.  But it would make no sense for anyone to call him something half French and half Italian.

Here's another approach:

The rule of thumb is that a name should, as a whole, be something that could exist in a single culture -- but single cultures may have name elements that originate from more than one source.  The tricky part is knowing what types of elements might have been used together within a culture, and what types would not.  This is why people often over-simplify the rule of thumb to "stick to one culture".  History is complex, but complexity is not anarchy.

And another:

You asked about a name for a man with a German mother and an Italian father. Our research suggests that medieval names did not reflect parentage in the way that many Societyfolk like to think.  Instead, a person was named in the language of the country where he lived.  It may help to think of a name as the way people identify you rather than as a fixed, unchanging label given to you by your parents.  A man from medieval Italy who moved to Germany would be known to the local German population by a German name, perhaps based on his Italian name.  For example, a Florentine named <Giovanni> who moved to Mainz would probably have been called <Johan> by his new neighbors.  Similarly, a child living in Mainz, of whatever parentage, would have been known locally by a German name, not by a mixture of Italian and German name elements.

Made-up Names

Making up a name is never a good idea, since it is automatically not authentic in the strict sense.  Some cultures apparently did coin new names, but only in very narrowly-defined ways.  Creating a name that they would have considered reasonable is difficult at best.  Here's how we've explained that problem on one occasion:

Making up a name which is plausibly authentic is a difficult art.  Obviously any newly-invented name cannot possibly be authentic in the strictest sense, so we always recommend that people choose names that actually were used in period.  It is important to understand that name invention was rare in almost all period European cultures and completely unknown in many.  Modern American culture, in which almost any combination of words or sounds can be accepted as a name, is historically quite unusual.  In most times and places in European history, parents gave their children names which were already in local common use.  A name made up simply on the basis of its sound is never going to be a plausible re-creation of any culture, except perhaps by pure coincidence.

It is possible in some cases to invent a name that is a very plausible extension of a pattern of naming in a particular period culture.  This requires study of the particular culture, as these patterns are not consistent from one culture to the next and often were used only in a narrow range of time and geography.  For example, in medieval Gaelic, a number of color adjectives came to be used as the basis for masculine given names: <Dubha/n> from <dubh> "black", <Ruadha/n> from <rua/dh> "red", <Donna/n> from <donn> "brown" [1].  We might speculate that the word for "gold" could also have been used as the basis for a name; but we couldn't extend it to create names based on words meaning "tall" or "hairy".  

You might use a different example that more closely matches the culture your client wants to re-create.

Names from Literature

Literature is a poor source for selecting a medieval name.  Modern writers are often sloppy, and medieval writers often made-up fanciful names.  As a general rule, we advise clients not to use fiction as a source for names.  Regarding modern literature, we can say:

Because complete historical authenticity is almost never the author's primary concern, fiction cannot be trusted as a source for historical names.  

Meaning of names

An awful lot of people want to choose a given name that has the right meaning.  We need to explain to them that given names didn't have meanings. Here is one way to do that.  You may want to use a much shorter statement in your report.

Given names don't really have meanings.  Most names derive from regular words in some language, but the root word is very often ancient, in a language no longer familiar or recognizable to the people using the name.  Consider the name <Thomas>, for example.  It derives from an Aramaic root that meant "twin", but one would hardly expect a man named <Thomas> today to be a twin: His name is simply a label that identifies him, not a meaningful word.  That was equally true in the medieval world.  There are some exceptions, names that were created late enough that their origins would have been apparent to people in your period; but even these names quickly lost their "meanings" and were just used as names.  It's obvious to us, for example, that the name <Heather> is identical to the word <heather>, but we don't expect a woman named <Heather> to be grey-green and bushy.  The "meaning" of her name is completely irrelevent to its use as a name.

We know the etymological roots of most names, but it's a mistake to think that they would have had any significance to the people who used those names in the Middle Ages.  In our period, when people didn't have stacks of baby-name books to tell them the etymologies of names, nearly all people had no idea of the origin of nearly all names.  They chose names for their children based on the names' associations with family members, saints, royalty, etc.

You may want to add something along these lines:

By contrast, names in many languages in our period included a "byname" as well as a given name.  A byname is any extra word or phrase added to the given name to further identify an individual.  In modern naming, we have fixed, inherited surnames; we call medieval surnames "bynames" to emphasize that they were usually neither fixed nor inherited.  In much of our period, people used various kinds of descriptive bynames, usually using several different bynames in different circumstances.  A man might be identified as his father's son one day, by his profession the next day, and by some physical characteristic a third day.  When travelling abroad, he might be known by the town or region from which he came.

Bad name sources

Many of our clients have found names in name-your-baby books, genealogies, or other sources that are not intended for medieval onamastic research.  Here's an example of how to explain that problem.  It's a bit long-winded, and you'll certainly need to to tailor it to the client's question.

Not all dictionaries of names are good sources for medieval re-creation. In fact, most of them aren't.  A name-your-baby book, for example, is written for the purpose of giving parents long lists of varied, attractive names to consider.  The author is probably not interested in how old the name is or how it was spelled in the 14th century; he's only interested in listing names.  He will copy names from any useful source and might make up names to fill gaps in his lists.  A name selected from a name-your-baby book is probably not a medieval name; even if it is, you need to check a more scholarly source to ensure that it is medieval.

Here are some characteristics of dictionaries of names that are useful for medieval re-creation:

* It gives dated examples of names.
* It gives sources where the author found each name.


Here are some characteristics typical of dictionaries that aren't helpful for medieval re-creation:

* The title includes the word "Baby" or "Celtic"
* It gives a meaning for each name.
* Languages of origin are given with unscholarly terms like "Teutonic" or "Celtic".
* There is no variation in spelling; i.e. every <William> is spelled the same.  

See also the boilerplate on the word Celtic.

Spelling variation

It is widely known that spelling was not fixed in period languages, but many people believe that this means that spelling had no rules at all. This is incorrect.  Here are a couple ways to explain it.

There was a good deal of variation in spelling throughout the medieval period.  There was no notion of a standard, or of one correct way to spell a word or name.  Instead, within each language and culture, there were generally-understood conventions for how to convert sounds to letters.  Individual scribes adapted these conventions to their own preferences and needs, such as reflecting local dialect differences.  When we evaluate a proposed spelling of a name, the first question we ask is whether that spelling was actually used.  If we can't find it, we ask whether it is consistent with the patterns of spelling variation used at the time and place that our client wants to re-create.  We then consider whether the undocumented spelling would have represented the same sound as the recorded spellings.

Alternatively:

Spelling was not standardized in our period, but there were generally accepted correspondences between sounds and letters that we can deduce from surviving documents.  We occasionally find odd departures from these standard patterns, but we don't recommend using them as models for historical re-creation, simply because they are exceptional.  Lack of standardization of spelling means that more spellings are possible, but it also means that it doesn't make sense to select one particular spelling - and especially an unusual one - to use exclusively.  Spelling varied precisely because people didn't designate any particular spelling as the correct one.

Old Testament Names

Most Old Testament names did not come into use until quite late or after our period:

Only a few Old Testament names were used in medieval Europe.  Some were common among Christians -- <Eve>, <Adam>, <David> -- and others among Jews -- <Esther>, <Hannah>, <Sarah> -- but most were not used at all in Europe in our period.  In the late 16th century, many more became fashionable among Protestants in England; but many others did not come into fashion until the 19th century.

Gaelic Naming Problems

Scots vs. Gaelic

In our period, Scotland included more than one language.  Many of our clients do not understand the distinction between them, which is crucial to understanding how period names are constructed.  How we explain this issue depends on the exact period the client is trying to fit; here's an example for the last couple centuries of our period.  We often also direct these clients to Scottish Names 101.

Starting in the late 14th century, there were two main languages spoken in Scotland: Gaelic, spoken in the Highlands and Western Isles; and Scots, spoken in the Lowlands, including the royal court and towns.  Gaelic was the same language spoken in Ireland at this time; Scots was closely related to contemporary English.  Names were formed quite differently in the two languages, and the two styles of naming did not mix.  Therefore, the culture you choose for your persona will determine how your name should be constructed.

Also read Effrick's advice for letters about Irish and Scottish names.

Languages of medieval Scotland

The preceding boilerplate is fine for late 14th century Scotland or later; Here's a version that spans a broader period; use the bits that you need.

The linguistic history of the area that became modern Scotland is very complex.   In the 8th century, the area that is now Scotland had several different cultures speaking different languages:
• Cumbric (a Brythonic language closely related to Welsh) in the southwest;
• Old English in the southeast;
• Pictish in the north; and
• Gaelic in the west.

The Norse settled in the north in the 9th century, changing the lingustic map:

• Cumbric (a Brythonic language closely related to Welsh) in the southwest;
• Old English in the southeast;
• Pictish in the northeast;
• Norse in the north; and
• Gaelic in the west.

By the 12th century, Pictish and Cumbric had virtually disappeared, but Norse, Gaelic, and English were still being spoken, joined by Norman French, distributed roughly as follows:

• Norse, spoken in the far north and the Western Isles;
• English, spoken mainly in the southeast;
• Gaelic, spoken through much of the country; and
• Norman French, spoken by Anglo-Norman settlers and their Scoto-Norman descendents, mostly in the south.

Starting around the 14th century, the two main languages spoken in Scotland were Gaelic, spoken in the Highlands and Western Isles, and Scots, spoken in the Lowlands, including the royal court and towns.  Gaelic was the same language spoken in Ireland at this time; Scots was closely related to contemporary English.  Norn (a form of Norse) as well as Scots was spoken in the Northern Isles through the 16th century.

The languages were very different and had different naming customs.  There was some mixing of names from the different cultures, but most names were not adopted into all of the cultures.   Therefore, the culture you choose for your persona will determine how your name should be constructed.

General Background on Languages in Gaelic-speaking Lands

Some clients want Gaelic or Anglicized Gaelic names, and don't care whether the result is Scottish or Irish.  We have used this paragraph for background for the last few centuries of our period.

To start, we need to give you a little background information on languages and naming in Scotland and Ireland.  Both countries were home to more than one culture and language in your period.  Ireland was inhabited by people who spoke Gaelic or English, Scotland primarily by people who spoke Gaelic or Scots.  The Gaelic of Ireland and of Scotland was the same language, though there were some differences in dialect, pronunciation, and naming customs.  Scots was a close relative of contemporary English; it was spoken in the Lowlands of Scotland, including the towns and the royal court.  In late-period Scotland, Gaelic was spoken in the Highlands and Western Isles. English and Scots naming customs were similar, though not identical. Gaelic naming customs were quite different, though, and the two styles of naming were not mixed together.  Your choice of culture, therefore, will determine the type of name that is appropriate for your recreation.

Another approach:

Ireland in your period was home to a mixture of Gaelic and English cultures.  Both languages were used in writing and speech, often by the same people.  However, the naming customs of the two cultures were quite different; and when a woman's name was "translated" from one language to the other, it was often adapted, to some degree, to fit the naming customs of the second language.  Thus, a 16th century Irish name could appear in several different forms depending on who was writing or speaking it, what language she was using at the time, how familiar she was with the language & customs of the other culture, and other factors.

Metronymics in Gaelic

Metronymics are vanishingly rare in all dialects of Gaelic.

It is almost unheard of in Gaelic for a person to derive a byname from his or her mother's name.  We have only two examples of this, in both cases involving royalty in unusual circumstances.  We strongly recommend against this type of name in Gaelic.

Avoid ní

The word ní did not exist in period Gaelic, and it is usually misused in any case.  

The word <ni/> (spelled with an accent on the <i>) did not exist in Gaelic until after our period.  It evolved from the phrase <inghean ui/>, used in Irish Gaelic to identify a woman as a member of a clan.  That is to say, the daughter <Muirghein> of a man named <Conall O/ Domhnaill> would have been called <Muirghein inghean ui/ Dhomhnaill>.  This name literally means "Muirghein daughter of O/ Dhomhnaill", and was used to mean "Muirghein of the O/ Domhnall clan". The additional <h> in <Dhomhnaill> is required by Gaelic grammar, and it represents a change in pronunciation.  In the 16th century, this name would have been pronounced \MEER-yeen~ nee GHON-il\. The modern <ni/> arose to represent the late-period contracted pronunciation of <inghean ui/> that we've suggested here, and it is used in modern Irish in the same way: as a feminine form of <O/>. If you intend your name to mean "daughter of Domhnall", then the correct construction for late period is <Muirghein inghean Dhomhnaill>, pronounced \MEER-yeen~ IN-yen GHON-il\.

Clan affiliation bynames came into use in the 10th century

Bynames that indicated clan membership were just coming into use in 10th century Ireland, and became popular in the 11th.  Reference Royal Irish Academy, _Dictionary of the Irish Language: based mainly on Old and Middle Irish materials_ (Dublin : Royal Irish Academy, 1983), s.v. ua.

Irish names before the late 7th century

Constructing Oghamic Irish names, 4th to mid-7th century, is difficult and speculative.  The result is usually something that looks very little like what our clients think of as an Irish name.  If a client asks for a name in a wide range of time including anything before 700 or so, we usually focus on the later part of his period and offer to address the earlier part if he is interested.

The earliest surviving written form of Irish dates from around the 4th century.  It was written on stone in the alphabet called "Ogham".  When this writing tradition developed, the Irish language was very different from the medieval form -- about as different as Latin is from French.  This stage of the language is variously called "Primitive Irish", "Ogam Irish", or "Oghamic Irish".

This writing system continued in active use into the 7th century, and while it was in active use, its users tended to write a conservative form of the language corresponding to what was spoken when the system was developed. The spoken language, however, was undergoing considerable change.  When a new writing system using Roman letters was developed in the 6th century, its users broke with tradition and wrote a language much closer to what was actually being spoken.  This stage of the language, as recorded from the late 7th century to the mid-10th century, is called Old Irish.

The problem with reconstructing names used before the Old Irish period is that the only written forms that we know are the Oghamic forms in the Primitive Irish language, and yet we also know that by the 6th century this written Primitive Irish must have been quite different from the way the language was actually spoken.  It takes a good deal of specialized knowledge to put the pieces together and come up with a likely reconstruction of both the written name and its pronunciation.  We can try to reconstruct precursors to the names you chose which might have been used at the beginning of the 7th century, but it is a difficult and speculative task, and we might not be able to do it at all; so we'll hold off on it in case you're happy with a later-period name.  If you'd like us to take a shot at it, please let us know.

One female client asked for a name appropriate c.100 AD.  We replaced the last paragraph above with:

The upshot is that it is essentially impossible to make any reasonable guess at Irish names around 100 AD.  There is simply not enough evidence. Some evidence exists for names in the 4th to 7th centuries, the Ogham period, but the examples are almost all masculine names, not feminine.   If you like, we can offer you a list of Old Irish (late 7th to 10th century) names; and if you pick a few that appeal you, we can attempt to re-construct their Ogham precursors.  However, we must stress that our results will be very speculative and we may not be able to make any reasonable guess at all.

Modern usage of Gaelic bynames

Modern usage of Gaelic style surnames differs from period usage.  Here's how we've addressed that confusion.  Note that parts of this paragraph are specific to Scottish Gaelic naming.

<MacNeill> is an English or Scots spelling of the Gaelic patronymic byname <mac Ne/ill> "son of Niall".  <Mac> surnames like this one were used literally in Gaelic before modern times: A man was called <mac Neill> only if his father's given name was <Niall>; for example, Do/mhnall who was the son of Niall mac Aoidh would be <Do/mhnall mac Neill>, not <Do/mhnall mac Aoidh>.  The modern practice of using <Mac> surnames to indicate clan membership did not develop until well after our period.  The byname <Mac Ne/ill> was not uncommon in late-period Scottish Gaelic.  We find it recorded in Scots documents as <Makneyll> 1526, <MacNeill> 1633, <McNaill> 1541, <McNeyll> 1518 [*].  It was pronounced \mahk NEE-@l\.

Modern forms of Gaelic names

Many period Gaelic names have survived in modern use in spellings that wouldn't have existed in period or in anglicized forms.  We often have to explain this problem and give the correct Gaelic spelling.  

<Ruari> is a modern Gaelic spelling (alternatively <<Rory> is an English spelling>) of a Gaelic given name that was reasonably common in Scotland in your period [*].  In 16th century Gaelic, it would have been spelled <Ruaidhri/> [**].

Gaelic spelling

Gaelic spelling conventions changed significantly around 1200. Earlier spelling was simpler but less precise; later spelling matched the spoken language more closely and indicated lenition, palatalized consonants, etc.  Here's how we might explain the change to a client whose period spans 1200:

Gaelic spelling conventions underwent some changes during your period. The spelling <ingen> changed to <inghean> around 1200.  The written representation of lenition of some sounds changed at about the same time.  For example, before 1200 a woman named <Sadb> whose father's name was <Domnall mac Cormaic> would have been recorded as <Sadb ingen Domnaill>.  <Domnaill> is the genitive form of <Domnall>; in this case the lenition is indicated only in the pronunciation and not in the spelling.  After 1200, her name would more likely have been recorded as <Sadhbh inghean Dhomnaill>.

Note that this change was not uniform.  Some later sources use the earlier, conservative spellings.  However, we usually recommend the standard spelling for the client's period as the most typical.

The genitive and lenition in Gaelic names

These issues crop up in almost every letter we write about Gaelic names, especially feminine names.  There are full discussions of some of these issues on Effrick's website, especially her step-by-step article on lenition and Quick and Easy.  Here are samples of how we deal with these issues in a letter.  For a woman who asked about a period that spanned the spelling change c.1200:

Gaelic women were usually identified as their fathers' daughters. Their names were most often constructed in the form <given name> <ingen> <father's given name>, with the father's name in the genitive case and lenited [a].  The word <ingen> means "daughter"; it was spelled <inghean> after about 1200.  The genitive case shows possession: Just as the English <John> becomes <John's> in the phrase <John's daughter>, so a Gaelic name will change in ways determined by Gaelic grammar. Lenition is a softening of the initial sounds of words that is required by Gaelic grammar in some circumstances.  When it is indicated in writing it is represented by placing a dot over the letter or an <h> following the letter [b].

The discussion of <ingen> and the lenited spelling would need to be adjusted for clients who were entirely pre-1200 or post-1200.

For a man:

Gaelic men were usually identified as their fathers' sons.  Their names were most often constructed in the form <given name> <mac> <father's given name, in the genitive case and sometimes lenited> [a].  The word <mac> means "son." The genitive case shows possession (e.g. "John's son" rather than "John son"-- just as the English <John> becomes <John's> to show possession -- so a Gaelic name will change in ways determined by Gaelic grammar). Lenition is a softening of the initial sounds of words that is required by Gaelic grammar in some circumstances.  When it is indicated in writing it is represented by placing a dot over the letter or an <h> following the letter [b].

Drop the last two sentences if the name does not require lenition.  The footnotes are:

[a] Krossa, Sharon L. (Effric neyn Kenyeoch vc Ralte), "Quick and Easy Gaelic Names (Draft 3rd Edition)", (WWW: Privately published, 27 Aug 2000). http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotnames/quickgaelicbynames/

[b] Krossa, Sharon L. (Effric neyn Kenyeoch vc Ralte), "Lenition in Gaelic Orthography", (WWW: Privately published, 27 Aug 2000). http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotlang/lenition.shtml

What is normalized spelling?

When we don't have an example of a Gaelic spelling for the client's period, we often offer the normalized spelling.  The italicized clause is optional, to be used when appropriate.

Gaelic orthography had fairly fixed rules, especially by the 16th century; accordingly, we can construct a spelling which we have not actually found in period records.  This is called a normalized spelling, which can be thought of as the theoretically correct spelling according to the rules for the period under consideration rather than the most common spellings actually found.  

One might wonder why we would prefer a theoretical spelling to a documented one.  Our documented spellings mostly come from the Annals, which may be unrepresentative.  In particular, we have reason to believe that they tend to use archaic spellings.

Gaelic long e

<e_> represents a "long e" character in Gaelic, which looks like a lowercase <f> without the crossbar.  Depending upon context, this is rendered either as <ea> or as <e> when using English characters to represent Gaelic words.

Spellings in the Irish Annals

What we know as a set of Irish Annals are manuscripts that were each compiled during a particular time period, usually using older material as sources. For example, when the Annals of the Four Masters were written from 1632 to 1636, they covered events that occurred centuries and millenia before (including legendary history). So, when an entry in this set of annals refers to a person who lived in the year 738, the spelling used for that person's name is very likely not using the spelling that would have been used in 738.

Naming Problems in other cultures

Runic spellings of Norse names

Old Norse used the runic alphabet.  We sometimes invite clients with Norse names to contact us if they are interested in runic spellings.  Other times, we explain runic spelling in some detail.  Here's one explanation that we've used before.

You can write this name in several ways.  In your period, the Norse wrote in runes.  You can find several versions of the futhark, or runic alphabet, on the web:
http://www.arild-hauge.com/eindex.htm

The futhark labeled Norwegian-Danish Runes from the 800's is a good choice. Notice that these tables identify each rune with a Roman letter; we will use that labeling in this letter to give you the runic spelling of your name.  We should stress that this is a modern scholarly convention, not a notation that would have been used in our period.  

You'll also notice that there are no runes corresponding to some of the letters in the name, like the <o> and the {dh}.  Just as our letter <s> represents different sounds in the words <base> and <bays>, the Norse used one rune to represent more than one sound. The name <O/{dh}indi/sa Egilsdo/ttir> would actually have been written with the runes corresponding to the spellings <o{th}intisa ekils tutir> or <o{th}intisa ekilstutir>.  (Here {th} stands for the third rune, the thorn.) Note that this spelling is valid only when you write the name in runes; it should not be used with Latin letters.

You may want to write the name as <O/{dh}indi/sa Egils do/ttir> if you have to explain it to someone who doesn't read runes, since this is the standard scholarly form.  When special characters are inconvenient you might write <Othindisa Egilsdottir> or <Odindisa Egilsdottir>, both of which are quite standard Anglicizations of the name.  

The use of von in German names

Many people believe that German surnames in von imply nobility.  That was indeed true after the 17th century, but not in our period.  This discussion is rather long; you may need to trim it.  An example of how to do that follows the detailed discussion.

The use of the preposition <von> 'of' with a place-name was by no means limited to royalty during the SCA period, or even to the nobility.  It is also found in the recorded names of a great many commoners.  For instance, the byname <von Falkenstein> (in various spellings) was borne in the Middle Ages by members of every social class, from the nobility on down through knights and townsmen to peasants.  And although the majority of the nobility did have bynames with <von>, at least through the 13th century a great many did not [1].

This type of byname was originally just one of several possible ways of identifying a person.  A commoner who had grown up with his neighbors might be known as his father's son, while one who had come from somewhere else might be known by his place of origin.  Thus, the man whose name appears in the records of Frankfurt am Main as <Heincz von Buczpach> 1390, <H. Buczpach> 1389, and <H. Buczbecher> 1388 was presumably from the nearby town of Butzbach. [2] Incidentally, this example shows clearly that at that date <von Buczpach> 'of Butzbach', the plain place-name, and <Buczbecher> 'man from Butzbach' were still just interchangeable descriptions.

As time went by, commoners tended to drop the preposition.  This process took place at different rates in different parts of Germany, but overall it was very slow.  In many places the preposition remained in common use at least until about 1400, and in some remote areas it didn't really start to disappear until the middle of the 17th century [2].

The nobility, on the other hand, were more conservative and retained the preposition.  They had always been the class most likely to use bynames with <von>, probably because in their case such names had two possible sources: not only could they indicate origin, they could (and probably more often did) refer to land held in fief.  Thus, as the use of <von> by commoners slowly but steadily declined, the preposition became in practice more and more a sign of noble status.   Nevertheless, it wasn't until the 17th century that the two became effectively synonymous. [3]

[1] Socin, Adolf.  Mittelhochdeutsches Namenbuch nach Oberrheinischen Quellen des Zwoelften und Dreizehnten Jahrhunderts (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966), Ch. XV, XVI, especially pp. 303, 310.

[2] Schwarz, Ernst.  Deutsche Namenforschung I: Ruf- und Familiennamen (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949); pp. 101ff.

[3] Schwarz, p. 164.

If you want to be more brief, you might try an approach like this:

Locative bynames in German were formed mainly in three ways: the name of the town without modification, <Michel Freiburg>; a phrase with <von>, e.g. <Michel von Freiburg>; and the adjective form of the place name, <Michel Freiburger>.  The form using <von X> would be a bit unusual in the 16th c. except among the nobility [1].  The adjectival form was more common in southern Germany, especially later in period.  The unmodified place name was the most common form in the north [2].

[1] We discussed the use of the preposition <von> in some detail in a report for a previous client.  To find out more, see Academy of Saint Gabriel report 2041.
http://www.s-gabriel.org/2041

[2] Brechenmacher, Josef Karlmann, _Etymologisches Woerterbuch der deutschen Familiennamen_ (Limburg a. d. Lahn, C. A. Starke-Verlag, 1957-1960).  s.nn. Salzburg(er), Wolfauer, Wolfinger, Wolfrath, Wolfsberg, Wolfurt(er)

Basic Japanese name construction

We've used this text several times:

Members of the noble class in period Japan used three part names:
<family name> <yobina> <nanori>

The nanori was the name which appeared on official documents, and was the name that a warrior proclaimed before combat with a worthy adversary; the use of a nanori was a privilege confined to the male members of the courtier and military classes.  The yobina was essentially a second given name, used socially; the yobina was not a nickname, but rather a less formal name used in conversation.  

This applies from the late Heian period (12th century) onward.

Japanese Made-up Names

A significant number of clients come to us with names made up by combining kanji.  Many get their ideas from A Japanese Miscellany.

Japanese names elements are created by combining Kanji characters, but the characters cannot be combined randomly; the characters that make up a name element only combine in groups that make conceptual sense to the medieval Japanese mind.  It is therefore possible to create new Japanese names that would have seemed reasonable to the medieval Japanese, but it requires deep knowledge of medieval Japanese naming practices and culture.  We do not have the expertise to advise you on this sort of invention, so our best advice is that you choose a name which is known to have been in use in Japan in your period.  We have a fairly large collection of Japanese given names in our library:
http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/solveig/nanori/

Perhaps you will find one that appeals to you.

German Dialects

This short explanation usually suffices:

In our period, there wasn't a uniform German language, but rather a collection of dialects that varied from one region to the next.  These dialects fall into two major groups: Low German in the north and High German in the south, including Switzerland and Austria.  Some names were used only in one region (and therefore only in one dialect) or another; other names were used in all dialects but spelled or pronounced differently in each dialect.  Therefore, your choice of name may depend on exactly what part of Germany you want to re-create.

There is a map of German dialects at http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/dialkart.jpg, and a simpler one at http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa051898.htm, along with a concise discussion of the major dialects, which will usually be good enough.

If you'd like to give a more detailed explanation, you can use this:

Nowadays we think of German as a single language, one spoken in Germany, Austria, and parts of Switzerland. In fact the written language is very nearly uniform across this region, and there is a single spoken standard used in dictionaries and taught to foreigners. But there is also considerable regional variation, and in our period that variation was much greater. The primary division was (and is) between Low German dialects, spoken in roughly the northern third of what is now Germany, and High German dialects, spoken in the centre and south. High German is further divided into Upper German, spoken in the mountainous south, and Middle German, spoken in an east-west strip running between the Low German and Upper German dialect areas.

Languages of France

In France in our period, there were two major languages. Here's a blurb on that subject (which also appear on the French page of the Medieval Names Archive).

France today is a unified country with a common language. That was not true in our period: Pre-modern France was home to several languages, each of which was used in a range of dialects, some quite similar, some quite different. The most significant division was between the langue d'oil, or French, spoken in the north, and the langue d'oc, also called Occitan or Provencal, spoken in the south.  These were different languages, not just dialects of the same language, and names in them were often quite different.

There are maps of the Occitan dialect region at http://membres.lycos.fr/simorre/oc/geodom.htm and http://www.orbilat.com/Maps/Occitan/Occitan.gif.

Languages of Iberia

We have a good article on the languages of period Iberia, but in letters we sometimes need something more concise.  The following blurb is appropriate for the 14th-16th centuries.

In your period, there were several languages spoken in Iberia.  The major ones were Portuguese in the west and northwest, Castilian in the north and center, Catalan in the east, Basque in some part of the northeast, and Mozarabic in the south.  Arabic was a language of culture and government in Muslim-ruled regions.  Names often took different forms in each language.

Maps of the linguistic regions are available for c.900, c.1150, and c.1300.

Languages of Welsh

An explanation of the spelling systems used in medieval Wales. This is good any time after the arrival of the Anglo-Normans.

Wales in your period was home to both Welsh and English speakers. The two languages used different spelling systems, so the same name was often spelled in very different ways depending on the native language of the scribe, the language of the document, and many other factors.  The fact that many documents were written in Latin, which had its own spelling conventions and standard forms of names, adds to the complexity.  We will therefore suggest more than one spelling for each element of your name, depending on the linguistic context in which you are using it.  The Welsh form doubles as the normal spoken form of your name.

The last couple sentences will not be appropriate for all reports.

Armory Problems

Heraldry for a Non- or Pre-Heraldic Culture

Lots of our clients choose personas in times and places when heraldry didn't exist.  We warn them of the conflict.  For a pre-heraldic persona, we might start:

Heraldic arms began appearing in several parts of Western Europe in the early to mid-12th century; by the last quarter of the century they were widely used, especially in England, NW France, and the Low Countries. Since your persona is earlier than that, you obviously would not have used armory.  

For a persona after the invention of heraldry, but from a culture that didn't use it, you might say instead:

Heraldic arms began appearing in several parts of Western Europe in the early to mid-12th century; by the last quarter of the century they were widely used, especially in England, NW France, and the Low Countries. The custom of using arms spread through most of Europe by the end of our period, but not all cultures adopted it.  Your culture did not, so you obviously would not have used armory.

For both cases, you could continue:

That doesn't mean you shouldn't use arms in the Society: Many Societyfolk use arms even though their personas would not have done so. Whether you use arms or not depends on how you think about authenticity and your persona.  You can find a few thoughts on this issue in an article we've posted on the web:
What Do I Use for Arms if my Persona Wouldn't Have Used Arms?
    http://www.s-gabriel.org/faq/nonheraldic.html

Arms for Gaels

Heraldic arms are not native to Gaelic cultures; they were introduced by French and English settlers and gradually adopted by the local cultures. Most Gaelic personae would not have used arms.  We have four versions of this boilerplate, customized for different times and places.  To each of them you probably want to append the second part of the boilerplate for non-heraldic personas.  For any Gaelic persona before the 13th century, use the entire boilerplate for pre-heraldic cultures.

• For a 13th century Scottish Gael:

  Heraldic arms were in common use among Scoto-Norman families in your period, but not in Gaelic culture.  If you choose a Gaelic persona, then it is not historically appropriate for you to use arms.  

• For Scottish Gaels in the late 14th century or later:

  Scottish Gaels did not make much use of heraldry in our period.  Heraldry was very popular in Lowland culture, but in the Highlands it appears to have been reserved to chiefs and their immediate families [*].  

  [*] Campbell of Airds, Alastair, Unicorn Pursuivant of Arms, "A Closer Look at West Highland Heraldry", _The Double Tressure_ (#19).

• For a 13th century Irish Gael.  

  A Gael of your period is unlikely to have used heraldic arms: Armory was imported to Ireland by the Anglo-Normans in the 12th century, and wasn't adopted by the native population for some time afterward.  It's not impossible that a late 13th century Gaelic chief might have used English-style heraldry, but the vast majority of Gaels, even among the nobility, would not have used arms.

• For an Irish Gael in the 14th century or later.  

  We have found evidence that the Gaelic Irish chiefs started to use heraldry in the mid-14th century, but most examples of heraldic use by the Gaelic Irish chiefs are from the 16th century or later.  Their neighbors of English origin brought their heraldry with them and continued to use it [*].

  [*] "When did the Irish Chiefs Adopt Heraldry?", John J FitzPatrick Kennedy, Genealogica and Heraldica ed Auguste Vachon, Claire Boudreau, David Cogne/, University of Ottawa Press, 1998, ISBN 0-7766-0472-4.

Arms for Welshmen

Heraldic arms are not native to Welsh culture; they were introduced by French and English settlers and gradually adopted by the local culture.

Heraldic arms were invented in northwestern France in the mid-12th century. While Anglo-Normans in Wales were undoubtedly using arms in your period, we've found few examples of native Welsh heraldry before the 14th century [*].  Thus armory is probably not appropriate for your persona.

[*] Siddons, Michael Powell, _The Development of Welsh Heraldry_, 3 vols. (Aberystwyth: The National Library of Wales, 1991-3), I.2.

Append the second part of the boilerplate for non-heraldic personas.  

Arms for Vikings

A version of the boilerplate for pre-heraldic personas, specialized for this case.

Heraldic arms began appearing in several parts of Western Europe in the early to mid-12th century; by the last quarter of the century they were widely used, especially in England, NW France, and the Low Countries.  The first evidence we know of heraldry used by Scandinavians is the arms of the king of Norway, which first appear shortly after 1200 [1].  Since your persona is earlier than that, you obviously would not have used armory.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't use arms in the Society: Many Societyfolk use arms even though their personas would not have done so.  Whether you use arms or not depends on how you think about authenticity and your persona.  You can find a few thoughts on this issue in an article we've posted on the web:
What Do I Use for Arms if my Persona Wouldn't Have Used Arms?
http://www.s-gabriel.org/faq/nonheraldic.html

If you decide to design arms, there are a couple articles on the web that offer advice in heraldry to Societyfolk with Viking personas:

Personal Display for Viking Age Personae: A Primer for Use in the SCA
http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/display.html

Heraldry for a Non-Heraldic Culture: Vikings and Coats of Arms in the SCA
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vikheraldry.htm

We also have some examples of Norwegian arms from the 13th and 14th centuries.  That's well after the period you've chosen for your name, of course, but we would be happy to help you design arms that fit the early Norwegian style.

[1] Wagner, Anthony Richard, ed.  Aspilogia II: Rolls of Arms: Henry III (London: The Society of Antiquaries, 1967), p.35.  The lion in the modern arms is first known on seals of Haakon IV (1217-63) and Magnus VI (1263-80), but it lacks the axe and the crown.  These items were added by Magnus's son Erik Magnusson (1280-99) sometime before 1283, possibly at his accession in 1280.

Sources for period Iberian armory

We often refer clients to books to see examples of armory from their cultures.  Here's text that did that for a Spanish client:

We recommend that you look at some more examples of Spanish heraldry to assist you in redesigning your arms.  Unfortunately, we know of no good sources written in English that describe period Spanish arms.  However, there are a few books in Spanish that have pictures of arms; you could look at those for some ideas about what Spanish arms looked like.  Two books you could get through Interlibrary Loan are:

Riquier, Marti/n de, _Hera/ldica castellana en tiempos de los reyes cato/licos_, Ediciones dels Quederns Crema, Barcelona, 1986.  (Spanish Heraldry in the time of the Catholic Kings, i.e. the last quarter of the 15th century)

Riquier, Marti/n de, _Heraldica Catalana des de l'any 1150 al 1550_, Ediciones dels Quederns Crema, Barcelona, 1983.  (Catalan Heraldry from the year 1150 to 1550 - Catalonia is northeastern Spain, the area around Barcelona).

Additionally, you will probably find some depictions of Spanish arms in books of Renaissance Spanish portraits.  Portraits of that period often included the person's arms.

There are several sites on the World Wide Web that depict Spanish heraldry; however, we cannot recommend them because they mix period and later heraldry with no indication of the date of individual examples. The best of them (in that at least royal arms are dated) is:

http://members.xoom.com/chema/index.html

Dragons

Dragons weren't used in arms until rather late in period.  Here are the facts, not all of which will necessarily be relevent to your case.

The "wyvern", a two-legged winged dragon, first appears in English rolls of arms in an unattributed coat in Sir William le Neve's Roll temp. Edward I (1272-1307) [1].  However, this coat appears in the middle of a section of arms of foreign kings, so it was probably intended as an exotic, foreign design.  The earliest certain native example is John de Fulbourn Gules, three wyverns argent, which appears in the Galloway Roll, c.1300 [1].  Another example is in the Parliamentary Roll c.1312.  The four-legged winged dragon does not appear until quite late in period [2].  The earliest Scottish examples of dragons that we've found are two wyverns (two-legged dragons, one without wings) in a 16th century roll of arms [3].

[1] Brault, Gerald J., _The Rolls of Arms of Edward I_, Aspilogia III, 2 vols. (London: Boydell Press, 1997).

[2] Dennys, Rodney, _The Heraldic Imagination_ (New York: Clarkson and Potter Inc., 1975), p.191.

[3] Stodart, R. R., _Scottish Arms_, 2 vols (Edinburgh: William Paterson, 1881).

Rodney Dennys notes that dragons or their heads or wings are borne as charges by some 300 Continental families.  For non-English historical information he mentions that Bouly de Lesdain notes five examples of the dragon on French seals before 1300.  The earliest is the mid-12th c. seal of Raimund de Montdragon, a Provençal baron, which shows two 'dragons' combattant.  They are not on a shield, and they are very odd dragons by modern standards.  They are two-legged and have human heads, their tails end in small dragon's heads, and they appear to have feathered wings and bodies.  As Dennys says, they look more like basilisks with human heads than like the conventional dragon.  Each is tugging on its beard with one foot.  The beards, like the hair on the head, seem to be composed of a multitude of small serpents.  (The family of Montdragon later bore a single human-headed gold dragon of this type on a red field.)

In 1229 and 1249 Dragonet de Montauban used a seal with a design apparently identical to that of Raimund's.  (Note that while this may not quite qualify as armory, it *is* a cant on a forename.) Finally, Dennys notes that Rietstap lists the French family of Anthon as bearing 'Or, a dragon with a human face gules'.

Gelre has a fair number of dragon's heads as crests, including (fo.76) 'Argent, a cross anchory and gringoly gules' for Hune or Huyn of Amstenraede; the crest is a dragon's head gules, and the eight snake's heads at the ends of the cross are really dragon's heads.

It also has (fo.58v) H. Jan Haucoert, 'On a chevron three escallops' (unpainted, so no tincures) with a crest 'a dragon's head barry ermine and sable, eared gules, the back crested, breathing flames'; however, the notes identify this person as the famous John Hawkwood and add that the correct tinctures ('Argent, on a chevron sable three escallops argent'). The blazon reads d'hermines, but the photograph clearly shows clearly shows ermine, not counter-ermine.

From fo.53v: Scibor de Sciboryc has as crest a dragon's head sable with gold eyebrows issuing flames gules.

From fo.50: Raoul Sieur de Rayneval has as crest a dragon's head winged argent.  (The tips of the wings are visible as if the dragon were responding enthusiastically to 'Hands up!'.) The same crest (with the dragon langued gules) is borne by Waleran de Luxembourg-Ligny, Count of Saint Pol (fo.46v).

Neubecker (34) reproduces from Gelre the dragon crest of Aragon; it's a gold dragon's head with argent teeth and gules tongue and insides of ears; parts of the feet and the tips of the reptilian wings are visible.  A 1515 version of the same crest is shown on p.157.  On p.190 he mentions that the crest of the arms of Brabant was a dragon in the late 13th and early 14th c.  (It's quite possible that this was true both before and after that date, since he's using this crest only to explain another from that period.) On p.218 he mentions that Emperor Sigismund created the Dragon Order of Hungary, and the dukes of Austria also created a Dragon order.  I don't know just when these were created, but on p.220 there's a picture of the Tirolean minnesinger Oswald von Wolkenstein (1377(?) - 1445) to the sash of the Tankard Order of Aragon he has added the Hungarian Order of the Dragon.

Fox-Davies (Art of Heraldry, p.426, discussing Pl. XCVIII) has the arms of Specker in the 1547 roll of arms of the Geschlechtergesellschaft 'Zur Katze' in Constance as 'Argent, a wyvern sable vomiting fire, the feet, legs, and underpart of the ears gules'.  He says that the same coat appears on a 1382 seal of one Cunrat Speker.  The wyvern has the usual long, pointed ears and an unbarbed tail.  

Note also that there's a wyvern in the c.1340 Zuricher Wappenrolle, Strip II back, page 13, number 303.

Purpure

Purpure was a rare tincture in period armory.  

Until the beginning of the 15th century the tincture called <porpre> in Old French and <purpura> in Latin seems to have been an indistinct color somewhere between grey and brown.   It was only in the 15th century that it began to be painted as what we would call purple, and it remained rare in heraldry right through the 16th century [*].

[*] Pastoureau, Michel.  Traite/ d'He/raldique, 2nd ed. (Paris: grands manuels Picard, 1993); pp. 101-2

National Symbols

Many of our clients wants to incorporate national symbols into their arms to proclaim the nationality of their persona: shamrocks or harps for Irish, fleurs-de-lys for French, double-headed eagles for German, thistles for Scottish.  This sort of symbols wasn't used in period armory.  In fact, the thistle was quite rare in Scottish heraldry! Here's one ways we've addressed this problem recently.

The double-headed eagle is the symbol of the Roman Emperor, used in the arms of the Emperor of Constantinople and of the Holy Roman Empire.  We strongly recommend avoiding it.  Many people in the Society include it in their arms as a way to say "I am German"; but this is not a practice found in medieval heraldry.  In the modern world, it's standard to use a fleur-de-lys to say "I am French" or a shamrock to say "I am Irish".  This sort of nationalist symbolism is not found in medieval heraldry.  An eagle is a fine charge, common in heraldry throughout medieval Europe; but the double-headed eagle is a charge we recommend avoiding.

Here's another:

Fleurs-de-lys were very common charges in France in your period (and in Italy, England, and most places where heraldry was used).  If you are using the fleurs to say "I am French", then you may want to consider another charge: They had no such meaning in period.  In modern insignia, it is routine to use a fleur-de-lys to represent the French or a thistle for the Scottish.  In period, this sort of nationalist symbology didn't really exist.  (The thistle doesn't appear in Scottish arms except as a royal augmentation until the 1700s [5].) In particular, the fleur-de-lys was used in all nations and carried no implication of "Frenchness".

[5] Burnett, C. J., "The Thistle as a Symbol", pps 45-52 of _Emblems of Scotland_ (Heraldry Society of Scotland, 1997).

Maintained by Arval; last updated 19 Apr 2004.